1. a. Man must merit for himself eternal life, to which he has been destined by the supreme goodness of God, by works worthy of so great an end. The sacraments are so many means and helps divinely instituted for attaining this end. Moreover, sacraments are means and helps of eternal life in two ways: both because they infuse sanctifying grace, and because they confer actual graces, by which we can observe the precepts of God and of the Church as is required for the supernatural end: for through the sacraments all true justice either begins, or, once begun, is increased, or, once lost, is repaired.¹ In moral theology the sacraments are to be considered as means and helps of eternal life granted to us by God.

b. From the institution of the sacraments a new order of precepts arises, of which some pertain to ministers, while others pertain to those who are about to receive the sacraments. Now it belongs to moral and pastoral theology to explain the precepts which are referred to the sacraments being rightly administered and received. Therefore, after the treatment of the sacraments in general has been premised, the individual sacraments must be treated in particular in such a way that the precepts are proposed which, from their institution, are enjoined upon the faithful and upon the ministers of the sacraments.

c. All the sacraments are aptly divided into two genera: for some are referred to the utility of the community, order and matrimony; others regard the utility of individual men, baptism, confirmation, the eucharist, penance, and extreme unction. The former indeed produce their effect also in the individual persons receiving them, but that effect is not so much necessary to the receiver himself as to the community, that is, to the Church and to civil society.

The sacraments of the latter genus are again divided into two classes: for some, abstraction being made from one's own sins, were instituted for generating, preserving, or increasing supernatural life, baptism, confirmation, the eucharist; others were instituted for destroying one's own sins, penance and extreme unction. Therefore the treatment of the sacraments in particular can be divided into three parts, of which the first treats the sacraments which confer or increase supernatural life, baptism, confirmation, the eucharist; the second treats the sacraments which destroy one's own sins, penance, extreme unction; finally the third treats the sacraments which are referred not to individuals, but to the community, order and matrimony.

¹ Council of Trent, sess. 7, De sacramentis, Proemium.

2. Definition. A sacrament of the new law can be defined: a visible sign divinely instituted for signifying and effecting the sanctification of men.

A visible sign, that is, sensible, which can be perceived by some external sense. Divinely instituted, because the author of the sacraments is Christ Jesus: for God alone can institute a sacrament, because God alone can give to material things the power of producing sanctifying grace. For signifying and effecting sanctification: for the sacraments are not only signs of grace, but also causes of the same. Besides this, by these words the end of the sacraments is shown, all of which tend to this, that they sanctify man through grace. Moreover, the grace which all the sacraments signify and confer is principally sanctifying grace: for they either first confer this grace or increase it once already conferred.

¹ St. Thomas III, q. 60-65. St. Alphonsus, bk. 6, n. 1-89. Fr. Suarez, De sacramentis in genere, disp. 1-18. Io. de Lugo, De sacramentis in genere, disp. 1-9. Sporer-Bierbaum, Theologia moralis decalogalis et sacramentalis, tom. III, pars 1, De sacramentis in genere, n. 1-196. Aeg. Coninck, De sacramentis, quaest. 60-64. Chr. Pesch, Praelectiones dogmaticae^3, tom. VI, VII. A. Lehmkuhl, Theologia moralis^10, II, n. 1-54 (n. 1-74). The numbers added within parentheses refer to the twelfth edition. Ballerini-Palmieri, Opus theologicum morale^3, IV, n. 642-710. Nik. Gihr, Die hl. Sakramente der kath. Kirche^2 (Freiburg: Herder, 1903). I. B. Pruner, Lehrbuch der Pastoraltheologie (Paderborn: Schoningh, 1900), I. Bd. Dom. Prummer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis (Freiburg: Herder, 1915), t. III. The new Code of Ecclesiastical Law, for the sake of brevity, is cited in this manner, e.g. cn 371, or cn 859, 3.

3. Effect of the sacraments in general is threefold: one is common to all the sacraments: sanctifying grace, supernatural virtues, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit; another is peculiar to the individual sacraments: sacramental grace, by which name is understood both the right of obtaining all helps necessary for pursuing the end proper to each sacrament, and these helps themselves actually conferred in their own time; finally, the third is proper to three sacraments, baptism, confirmation, and order, namely character.

Character is an indelible sign impressed upon the soul, by which the soul is conformed to Christ and is specially deputed and consecrated to His service in a diverse state and grade: for through the character of baptism a man is constituted a sheep and member of Christ, and is conformed to Christ the head and supreme shepherd; through the character of confirmation he is constituted a soldier of Christ and is conformed to Christ the supreme leader of our warfare; through the character of order he is constituted a minister of Christ and is conformed to Christ the supreme prince of shepherds, the bishop of our souls, the high priest.¹

Concerning the grace which the diverse sacraments confer, these things can be established from the more common doctrine of theologians.

a. If sacraments diverse in species, baptism, confirmation, etc., are compared with one another, they do not all produce the same grace, but one sacrament produces a grace greater and more perfect than another: for one is in itself more worthy and perfect than another, and therefore it also produces a greater and more perfect effect; and since the most holy sacrament of the eucharist is the most worthy of all, it confers an effect more perfect than all the others. And indeed the end of diverse sacraments is more perfect in one case than in another; therefore it also demands that one sacrament produce a more perfect effect than another. Since, for example, the end of order is more perfect than the end of confirmation, order confers a more perfect grace upon those receiving it.

b. If sacraments diverse only in number are considered, for example, several baptisms, it must be said that in subjects of the same disposition they of themselves, as to grade, always produce the same effect: for any sacrament whatever, from divine institution, is ordered of itself to producing a certain and determinate effect. But in subjects of diverse disposition, all teach that a diverse effect, as to grade, is produced, namely a greater effect in a better-disposed subject and a lesser effect in a less-disposed subject. Yet some say that the effect of the individual sacraments is limited according to a certain grade and measure from divine institution, so that a certain measure is not exceeded even in him who is disposed to receive a greater one. Others, on the contrary, think that the effect of individual sacraments is determined to a certain grade not from divine institution, but only from the disposition of the receiver, so that those unequally disposed obtain unequal grace according to the perfection of their disposition, which is limited only by the disposition, finite by its own nature.²

¹ Cf. Sporer-Bierbaum III, pr. 1, n. 57.

² Cf. Laymann, bk. 5, tr. 1, c. 6, n. 6; Sporer-Bierbaum III, pr. 1, n. 49 ss.

4. Division of sacramental effects. Of the effects which are conferred by the individual sacraments, some are called effects per se, others effects per accidens. An effect per se is that for producing which the sacrament has been instituted, and which therefore is always and in every case produced; thus the remission of original sin is the effect per se of baptism. An effect per accidens is that for obtaining which the sacrament has not been instituted, and which therefore is produced by the sacrament only in some extraordinary case; thus the remission of mortal sin is an effect per accidens of the eucharist. An effect per se is distinguished into primary, which God principally intends in the institution of the sacrament, and which therefore is the adequate reason for instituting the sacrament; and into secondary, which God intends only remotely, and which therefore is not the reason for instituting the sacrament. Thus the remission of mortal and venial sin is produced per se and by force of institution by the sacrament of penance, but the former primarily, the latter only secondarily.

5. Mode of effecting. The sacraments produce their effect ex opere operato, that is, by force of the sacramental action itself, which has this from the will and institution of Christ, that of itself it can confer grace and sufficiently sanctify; not ex opere operantis, that is, not from the dignity and merit of him who administers the sacrament, nor of him who receives the sacrament. For the dispositions of the receiver which are required constitute a necessary condition, but not an efficient cause of grace; and the dispositions of the minister are required so that the sacrament may be administered worthily, not so that it may be administered validly. Therefore, once the sacramental action has been placed, the sacraments infallibly produce their effect and confer it on the receiver, provided no obstacle is present which impedes it.

Sacraments are said to produce their effects ex opere operato negatively indeed, so that they do not have their force from the merit of the minister conferring or of the subject receiving; positively, however, it signifies that the sacramental action itself has the force of causing grace.

6. Number of the sacraments. There are seven sacraments of the new law, neither more nor fewer: baptism, confirmation, eucharist, penance, extreme unction, order, and matrimony. This is certain by faith from the definition of the Church: "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the new law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, or that there are more or fewer than seven, let him be anathema."¹

a. The number seven of the sacraments can be gathered not from the nature of the thing, but only from the will and good pleasure of God. Yet it was most fittingly done that seven sacraments were instituted: for the end of the sacraments is supernatural life, which has a likeness with this natural life. Now for natural life, both private and public, seven things are necessary: that a man be generated, strengthened, nourished, freed from infirmity and its remnants; because he lives in society, superiors must be constituted who rule society; because he is mortal, the legitimate conjunction of male and female is necessary for propagating the human race, lest society fail. In like manner, for supernatural life seven things are necessary: generation through baptism, increase and strengthening through confirmation, nourishment through the eucharist, remedy against sin through penance, remedy against the remnants of sins through extreme unction, power of ruling the Church through order, and propagation of the human race destined for the worship of God through matrimony.²

b. The individual sacraments differ especially by the end for which they have been instituted. Therefore, although all the sacraments confer sanctifying grace, nevertheless they confer it as diverse according to the diverse end. Namely, the sanctifying grace which is conferred in the individual sacraments is the principle and foundation of the helps which afterward conduct to obtaining the peculiar end of the sacrament. In baptism, therefore, there is conferred sanctifying grace insofar as it contains a right to divine helps by which man can worship God and observe His precepts; in confirmation there is conferred sanctifying grace insofar as it contains a right to divine helps by which man is strengthened for preserving and defending the faith; in the eucharist there is conferred sanctifying grace insofar as it contains a right to divine helps by which man can possess Christ through greater charity in union with Christ; in penance there is conferred sanctifying grace insofar as it contains a right to divine helps by which a man who has relapsed into sin may arise again; in extreme unction there is conferred sanctifying grace insofar as it contains a right to divine helps by which man is aided to bearing with a calm soul the annoyances of sickness and of the last struggle; in order there is conferred sanctifying grace insofar as it contains a right to divine helps by which one ordained may be able worthily and fruitfully to exercise the offices of his order; in matrimony there is conferred sanctifying grace insofar as it contains a right to divine helps by which married persons may fulfill the duties of the common life rightly and worthily. Hence it follows that a man who by mortal sin loses sanctifying grace at the same time loses the right to the helps which is contained in it.

¹ Council of Trent, sess. 7, can. 1.

² Cf. St. Thomas III, q. 65, a. 1.

7. Division of the sacraments. The seven sacraments of the new law are:

a. Repeatable, which can be received often because they do not imprint upon the soul an indelible character: eucharist, penance, extreme unction, matrimony; and non-repeatable, which can be validly received only once, because they imprint an indelible character upon the soul: baptism, confirmation, order.

b. Sacraments of the dead, which per se and primarily have been instituted for conferring first grace, and therefore for infusing spiritual or supernatural life into a man spiritually dead: baptism and penance; and sacraments of the living, which per se and primarily have been instituted for conferring second grace, and therefore for increasing supernatural life of grace in him who already lives by grace: confirmation, eucharist, extreme unction, order, and matrimony.

alpha. It happens per accidens that even sacraments of the dead confer second grace, namely if the one who receives them, through perfect contrition, is already in the state of grace. Likewise it can per accidens happen that sacraments of the living confer first grace, namely if he who receives them is in the state of mortal sin but in good faith thinks himself to be in the state of grace, provided he has attrition; this indeed is certain concerning extreme unction, but concerning the others it is not equally certain.

beta. Those who affirm that the sacraments of the living confer first grace per accidens use this argument: sacraments confer grace ex opere operato on those who do not place an obstacle; but he who in good faith and with attrition receives a sacrament does not place an obstacle; otherwise the sacraments of the dead would not produce an effect. But those who deny this answer that this very thing is in question, whether in sacraments of the living only the culpable obstacle or also an inculpable obstacle is constituted by the lack of the state of grace.¹ Since the whole matter depends upon the will of Christ instituting the sacraments, but the will of Christ in this matter has not been manifested, beyond extreme unction nothing certain can be defined concerning it.²

c. Necessary and non-necessary: alpha. baptism and penance are necessary for all men who after baptism have lapsed into grave sin, by necessity of means; beta. the eucharist is necessary by necessity of precept; gamma. the remaining four sacraments per se are not necessary to individuals, either by necessity of means or by necessity of precept.

d. Invalid, in which the sacrament itself is null and only its external rite is performed; and fruitless, in which the sacrament itself is validly conferred, but nevertheless lacks the effect of grace.

alpha. Invalid sacraments produce no effect in the soul of the receiver; fruitless sacraments produce some effect: some imprint a character, and all confer a right to the grace suited to the sacrament received.

beta. It happens that he who administers or receives an invalid sacrament sins more gravely than he who receives or administers a fruitless sacrament.

e. Formed, which produce their effect, sanctifying grace or the form of the soul, when they are received; and unformed, which indeed are validly received, but on account of an obstacle existing in the receiver do not produce their effect.

alpha. Obstacle or fiction is called the defect of the necessary disposition which in the receiver impedes the sacrament from being able to produce the effect of grace. It consists in mortal sin, or rather in adhesion to and affection for the will of mortal sin. Yet an obstacle does not impede the imprinting of character.

beta. Sacraments can be unformed through fault or without fault, because the obstacle can be found in the soul culpably or in good faith. Moreover, all sacraments can be unformed; concerning penance alone several doubt whether this is possible, as will be said below.

¹ Cf. St. Thomas III, q. 79, a. 3.

² Benedict XIV, De synodo, bk. 7, c. 11, n. 1.

8. On the reviviscence of the sacraments. For sacraments to revive signifies that they afterward, once the obstacle has been removed, confer the same grace which they would have conferred if the obstacle had not been present in the soul. To remove the obstacle signifies to acquire for oneself the necessary dispositions which, when the sacrament was conferred, should have been present, but were not present either culpably or without fault.

1. All indeed readily concede that there is no repugnance in the reviviscence of the sacraments, since reviviscence is explained in this way: every validly conferred sacrament produces its proper effect, that is, it confers upon the receiver either the grace itself or a right to grace to be produced through the sacrament. Since this grace cannot be applied to the soul on account of an obstacle existing in it, it remains meanwhile suspended until the obstacle is removed; but once the obstacle has afterward been removed, that grace is applied to the soul itself. Now it can easily be understood that by the reception of a sacrament there is acquired a right to grace to be conferred by force of the sacrament, which is actually conferred as soon as the obstacle is removed. The only question is whether, and which, sacraments in fact revive from the institution of Christ. For some teach that baptism alone revives; others, on the contrary, affirm that all sacraments revive once the obstacle is removed; others finally attribute reviviscence to some sacraments, namely those which imprint a character, but deny it to the others.¹

2. It is certain that baptism revives once the obstacle has been removed: for a character impressed demands the complement of the sacramental effect. Besides, since baptism cannot be repeated, if it did not revive, many would have to lack graces very necessary to salvation and ordinary to it.

It is very probable that confirmation and order also revive once the obstacle has been removed: for since these sacraments on the one hand produce an effect altogether proper to them, and on the other hand cannot be repeated, if they did not revive, there would be men who would have to lack graces ordinary and necessary to the state constituted for them; besides, character seems to demand reviviscence.

It is also probable that extreme unction and matrimony revive once the obstacle has been removed, because these sacraments have certain effects proper to them which endure during the same sickness or the same marriage and cannot be repeated.²

But because in favor of the eucharist, which can be received daily, a similar reason does not hold, it is not very probable that this sacrament also revives once the obstacle has been removed.

The reviviscence of penance depends on whether it can be unformed or not; but whether the sacrament of penance can be unformed will be stated below.

3. As to the disposition which is required that unformed sacraments afterward revive, one must distinguish among the sacraments of the living, the sacraments of the dead, and extreme unction. In the sacraments of the living, except extreme unction, contrition or attrition with absolution is required; in the sacraments of the dead and in extreme unction, attrition suffices, unless sacrilege or grave sin committed in the reception was present: for in this case contrition, or attrition with absolution, is required.

¹ Coninck, q. 62, n. 64 ss.

² Several teach that extreme unction certainly revives.

9. Essential parts of a sacrament. Things and words, or, as we are now accustomed to speak, matter and form, intrinsically constitute a sacrament, a sensible sign, as essential parts; and these indeed must be performed by the minister with the intention of doing what the Church does: for by this intention the sacramental action is truly constituted as sacramental, or as signifying and causing sanctifying grace.

Therefore sacraments intrinsically consist of matter and form as of a material and formal cause; but they are perfected by this, that to these there accedes, as an efficient cause (ministerial), the intention of the minister performing the sacramental action. Therefore three things are essentially required for confecting a sacrament: matter, form, and the intention of the minister. For this reason the Council of Florence has these words in the decree for the Armenians: "All sacraments are perfected by three things, namely by things as matter, by words as form, and by the person of the minister conferring the sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does; if any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not perfected."¹

¹ Cf. Denzinger, Enchiridion symbolorum et definitionum, n. 590.

10. On valid, licit, worthy, and fruitful reception. a. Sacraments are said to be conferred and received validly, when none of those things is lacking which are essentially required for confecting a sacrament: for if these are present, the sacramental action is of itself apt to produce its effect. Therefore, if a sacrament is conferred or received invalidly, no sacrament is really had; and he who knowingly confers or receives a sacrament invalidly commits sacrilege.

b. Sacraments are said to be conferred or received licitly, if all those things are observed by the one conferring or receiving which, from the will of Christ and of the Church, must be observed besides the essentials of the sacrament. Therefore he who confers or receives a sacrament illicitly indeed confers or receives a true sacrament, but in its conferral or reception he commits grave or light sin, according as he neglects a precept of greater or lesser moment.

c. Sacraments are said to be conferred and received worthily, when in the minister and the receiver there are present the dispositions of soul which, from the will of God, are required for the sacrament to be administered or received rightly. Therefore he who knowingly receives or administers a sacrament unworthily commits sacrilege.

d. Sacraments are said to be received fruitfully, if they are received in such a way that their effect is actually obtained. He who receives a sacrament worthily, on his own part also receives it fruitfully.

11. Notions. Sacraments consist of matter and form, which, since they are essential parts of a sacrament, if either one is lacking, no sacrament exists: for a sacrament cannot be confected without that which constitutes the essence of the sacrament.

a. The matter of a sacrament is a sensible thing to be determined to the notion of a sacrament by the form. A twofold matter is distinguished: remote matter is the sensible thing itself which is employed in confecting the sacrament, as water in baptism, bread in the eucharist; proximate matter is the application or use of the remote matter in the sacramental action, e.g., washing, anointing.

b. The form is that part of the sacrament which determines the matter to the sacrament; the form ordinarily consists in words uttered by the minister.

In order that sacraments be rightly conferred, several conditions are required as to matter and form, of which some regard matter and form together, others only the form.

12. Conditions required on the part of matter and form: matter and form must be a. certain; b. united together; c. applied by the same minister; d. applied without change.

1. Certain, that is, certainly valid outside a case of necessity; for the reverence due to the sacraments demands that they not be exposed to the danger of invalidity; but a sacrament is exposed to the danger of nullity if either the matter or the form is not certain but doubtful, or only probably valid: for probability does not remove the danger of invalidity. Hence outside a case of necessity to use doubtful matter is sacrilege. Outside a case of necessity: for since the sacraments are for men, it is permitted to expose them to the danger of nullity whenever necessity or the great utility of men demands it.

Therefore it is not permitted to use doubtful matter where certain matter can be had; but where certain matter cannot be had, doubtful matter must be used if the necessity of administering the sacrament is present, if, for example, baptism must be conferred upon an infant placed in danger of death; and doubtful matter can be used if a great utility of the receiver is present; thus the sacrament of extreme unction can be conferred upon a dying man with the oil of catechumens.

13. 2. United together by a unity or simultaneity not indeed physical (except in the eucharist), but at least moral, namely in such a way that according to the moral estimation of men, the nature of each sacrament being considered, the words are judged to affect the matter and to constitute one sign with it: for since matter and form constitute one essence of the sacrament, they must be applied together; but since this essence is a moral composite, it suffices that the component parts be morally united, so that, for example, the minister who pronounces the form is judged, in the judgment of prudent men, to wash, to anoint, etc.

Hence even if the form somewhat precedes or follows the matter, yet in such a way that they coincide in part, the sacrament is certainly valid; if, after the washing or anointing has been done, after some minutes at last the words are uttered, the sacrament is certainly invalid; but if matter and form are applied in such a way that the matter has already been entirely placed when the form is begun, or on the contrary that the form has already been entirely uttered when the matter begins to be applied, according to the mind of certain ancient authors the sacrament is indeed doubtful; nevertheless there is no reason for doubting the validity of the sacrament, if the matter or the form precedes and immediately after it the other part is placed.¹ This opinion seems morally certain to St. Alphonsus (n. 9), who notes from other authors that the delay of one Our Father interposed between the matter and form of baptism renders the sacrament invalid. In practice (excepting penance and matrimony) care must be taken that matter and form are at least so united that one is begun before the other is finished.

¹ Cf. Suarez, disp. 2, sect. 2, n. 6.

14. 3. Applied by the same minister: for the administration of a sacrament is one sacramental action to be placed in the name of Christ, which is composed of two parts, from the application of the matter and from the utterance of the form; but it would not be one action if it were divided between two ministers. Moreover, if one applied the matter and another pronounced the form, the words of the form, e.g., I baptize you, would not be true, since the same one would not be placing the whole sacramental action.

a. Whether a sacrament is absolutely invalid if the sacramental action is placed by two persons is not entirely certain; therefore there are some who permit this in a case of necessity, so that, for example, in conferring baptism one pours the water, another pronounces the form: for each acts not in his own name, but in the name of Christ, in whom both parts have unity. Moreover, the words are uttered in the person of Christ; and words so uttered have a true sense.¹

b. If several ministers confect a sacrament, so that several place the entire matter and form, for example, several baptize the same child at the same time, consecrate the same matter, the sacrament is indeed valid, but, excepting the consecration in the ordination of priests, gravely illicit. And if the sacrament consists of several parts, as the eucharist, extreme unction, order, and several persons so confect the sacrament that one places one part and another another part, the sacrament likewise is valid, but outside a case of necessity gravely illicit.

¹ Cf. Suarez, De baptismo, disp. 23, sect. 3, n. 14.

15. 4. Without change. One change is substantial, another accidental.

As to matter, a change is called substantial if the thing is no longer, either in fact or in name, that which Christ determined, as if wine were taken in baptism instead of water; but a change is called accidental if, while the essence of the thing instituted by Christ is preserved, only its qualities are changed, as if a little wine were mixed with water, or a little water with wine.

As to form, a change is called substantial if the sense of the words is changed into another sense, as if in consecration it were said: This is my work; and accidental, if the words, although varied, nevertheless retain the same sense, as if in baptism it were said: I wash you, or if the words were transposed: You I baptize.

a. A substantial change of matter or form renders the sacrament invalid, and if it is voluntary, constitutes grave sin. The reason for the first is that the sacrament instituted by Christ is no longer had where this change occurs, whether it is voluntary or involuntary. But the reason for the second is that the reverence due to the author of the sacraments is most gravely injured.

b. An accidental change of matter or form does not render the sacrament invalid, but only illicit; and if it is voluntary, it constitutes grave or light sin according as the change is notable or not notable. Therefore he who notably corrupts the form or utters it inarticulately certainly sins gravely.

In order that it may be judged whether changed forms are valid or invalid, these things must be attended to:

alpha. A private error of the minister, which is added in a distinct proposition, if in other respects the essentials are present, does not render the sacrament invalid, as if someone baptized with this form: I baptize you in the name of the Father, whom I think greater, and of the Son, whom I think lesser, and of the Holy Spirit, whom I think equal, because the sacrament is conferred in the name of Christ and from the intention of the Church. But an error which vitiates the form itself renders the sacrament invalid, e.g., I baptize you in the name of the Father greater and of the Son lesser and of the Holy Spirit equal, or in the name of the uncreated Father and of the created Son and of the created Holy Spirit, because the sense intended by Christ is essentially changed.

beta. If the sense of the form is ambiguous, its value depends upon the intention of the minister, and therefore the form is invalid if the minister explicitly intends to confer the sacrament with an erroneous form: e.g., this form: I baptize you in the name of F. and S. and H. Sp. and of the blessed Virgin Mary is valid, if the last words are added only from a certain devotion, but is invalid if one intends also to baptize in the name of the blessed Virgin, because the form is essentially changed. For the sense of the form must be judged not only from what the words signify of themselves, but also from what the minister intends to signify, because the utterance of the form must be a truly human act.

gamma. It is not necessary that the words have of themselves the signification intended by Christ, but it suffices that from the manner in which they are uttered here and now they convey that sense to the hearers. Hence if the words of the form are corrupted by a natural defect of the tongue, by hesitation or haste, or by the minister's lack of skill, the sacrament is valid, provided the sense of the form is not wholly vitiated; because the words, although corrupted for this reason, are nevertheless rightly understood by the hearers. Therefore this form is valid: hoc est corpus meus; indeed this form is held valid: baptizo te in nomine Patris et Filia et Spiritu Sancta, if the corruption comes from ignorance, and likewise if it has not been made deliberately; but this other one is not valid: ego te baptizo in nomine Matris et Filii et Sp. S.

16. Conditions required on the part of the form. The pronunciation of the form must be vocal, uttered without interruption and without repetition.

1. Vocal, that is, the form of the sacraments must be pronounced by the organs destined for speaking in such a way that the minister can hear himself: for that pronunciation is not sensible which cannot in any way be perceived by hearing; but the sacrament would be exposed to the danger of nullity if the pronunciation of the form were not sensible.

2. Without interruption. There can occur an interruption of the words or of the syllables of the form. Now if the interruption is so great that the words no longer produce one integral sense for the hearers, the sacrament is invalid; but if the interruption is so slight that the following words morally cohere with the preceding and produce one sense for the hearers, the sacrament will be valid.

a. If one baptizing, after saying I baptize you, should interject, turn the page, or should sneeze slightly, or cough, or spit, he could proceed to the following words without needing to repeat the earlier ones. If a confessor, after saying I absolve you, noticing that the penitent has gone away from the sacred tribunal, should call him back and, with these words interposed, What is this? Why did you not wait? Return and kneel until I shall have absolved you, should add from your sins, he absolves validly, because any prudent person assisting at such an administration would have understood the sense of the form.¹ But if someone, after saying this is the body, begins to be shaken by coughing for several minutes and afterward adds my, this no longer morally coheres with the preceding words.

b. But the interruption of syllables much more easily destroys the sense, so that even a slight interruption renders the sacrament doubtful; therefore it is advisable to repeat the word begun, unless the interruption is very slight. Thus he invalidly confects the sacrament who, after saying hoc est cor, coughs two or three times and then adds pus meum; likewise he who, after saying ego te bap-, interposes the water is too cold and afterward adds tizo in nomine, etc.

3. Without repetition. It can happen that over the same matter the entire form is repeated, or several of its words; but each is per se a grave sin. The reason for the first is that the sacramental form is uttered in vain, and thus a grave irreverence is committed against the sacrament and its author; the reason for the second is that the sacramental form is changed and Christ is exhibited as speaking in a ridiculous manner.

a. Therefore he who repeats the form from an irrational doubt, from an empty suspicion (even conditionally), certainly sins against the sacrament. Scrupulous persons, however, who sometimes repeat the form under a condition, are excused from sin, either by reason of perplexity, which impedes prudent deliberation, or by reason of the end, namely that of rendering their own conscience tranquil. But those who frequently and almost from custom repeat the form certainly cannot be excused from light fault, and, if sufficient advertence is present, even from mortal fault, especially where, because of the inept repetition, the sacrament is exposed to the danger of nullity.²

b. Without a reasonable cause to repeat one word or one syllable does not exceed venial sin.³ But he who should utter the form in this manner: hoc, hoc, hoc, est, est, enim, corpus, corpus, corpus, meum, meum, would indeed consecrate validly, but would per se commit grave sin.

¹ Cf. Elbel-Bierbaum, Theologia moralis^2 (Paderborn: Typogr. bonif., 1894), III, pr. 1, n. 13.

² Sporer-Bierbaum III, pr. 1, n. 96 ss.

³ Gobat, Experientia theologica, tr. 1, n. 42.

17. Notions. 1. The minister of the sacraments is said to be he who performs, in Christ's name, the sacred rite instituted by Christ. The principal minister of the sacraments, namely he in whose name the sacraments are confected and administered, is Christ Himself. The secondary minister of the sacraments is he who dispenses the sacraments in the name of Christ. Therefore man acts as the minister of Christ and as an instrumental cause in administering the sacraments.

a. Concerning the secondary minister, this must be recalled from dogmatic theology: only man as a wayfarer is a minister of the sacraments; yet not every man can administer all sacraments, but only he can administer sacraments validly to whom there belongs a power divinely conferred, because God alone can bring it about that the action of the minister confers grace.

b. Because the minister of the sacraments is an instrumental cause, and that a human and rational one, his deliberate will must flow into the sacramental action; for only by the fact that deliberate will flows into the sacrament can he in a human manner be its cause.

2. The secondary minister is twofold, ordinary and extraordinary. He is called ordinary who, by the power which he has, can dispense the sacrament on any occasion, and does not need some special commission; he is called extraordinary who can administer the sacrament only in a case of necessity and by special delegation.

3. A consecrated minister is distinguished, who in a special way has been deputed by the Church for confecting the sacraments, and a non-consecrated minister, who has not been specially deputed by the Church for confecting the sacraments.

Five sacraments require a consecrated minister: confirmation, eucharist, penance, extreme unction, and order; baptism, because of its supreme necessity, can be validly administered by any man; but for confecting matrimony it was not necessary to depute a minister specially, because it is administered by the contracting parties themselves.

4. A public and private minister is distinguished; public is he who administers a sacrament by special deputation of the Church with the prescribed solemnity; private is he who, in a case of necessity, without solemnity, administers a sacrament by the general permission and concession of the Church.

Not only any layman administers a sacrament privately, but also a priest who, in a case of necessity, baptizes without solemnity: for in this case he acts not as a public minister of the Church, but as a private person.

Article Second. On the Requisites for Valid Administration

Since it is one thing to administer a sacrament validly and another to administer a sacrament licitly, some conditions are required for valid administration and others for licit administration of a sacrament. Now what conditions must be present in the minister, whether for valid or for licit administration, must be explained in the following sections.

¹ Cf. Pesch VI, n. 228 ss.

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.

40. Who he is. The subject of the sacraments is called he who, capable of the grace of the sacrament, receives the sacrament. From the will of Christ, the institutor of the sacraments, only man in the state of the way is a subject capable of the effect of the sacraments. The reason for this divine will is that the sacraments were instituted for first conferring or increasing grace; but in the present order of providence, only man as a wayfarer is capable of first grace or of its increase: for the damned are not capable of the first grace, nor are the blessed in heaven and the souls in purgatory capable of the second grace.

All sacraments except the eucharist are confected in the subject to whom they are administered; in the eucharist alone the confection of the sacrament must be distinguished from its administration.

Note. What is required both for valid and for licit reception of the sacraments (especially of those which have been instituted for all) must now be explained briefly. Yet the things which are said here generally must be understood "with the exceptions to be excepted," concerning which it will be said below, where the individual sacraments will have to be treated.

41. Required conditions. 1. For validly receiving the sacraments (except penance), neither uprightness nor faith is required in the receiver; wherefore the Church has always held as valid baptism and orders conferred on heretics or impious persons.

a. Although faith is not required for validly receiving the sacraments, nevertheless for receiving them licitly and fruitfully faith is absolutely necessary, because without faith an adult is not capable of the grace of justification.¹

b. Penance is excepted, because for validly receiving the sacrament of penance certain acts of the penitent, either as matter or as a necessary condition, are prerequired; but the prerequired acts cannot be elicited without faith.

2. For validly receiving the sacraments no attention is required. And indeed, in an adult receiver nothing else is required except that the reception be habitually voluntary; but for this attention is not required, not even external attention.

Therefore distractions, even voluntary ones, in the very act of reception do not harm the validity of the sacraments. Hence Gury rightly notes (n. 229) that penitents are sometimes troubled by scruples in vain from the fact that they suffered distractions while they were being absolved, or that they were absolved without adverting to it. Nevertheless voluntary distractions in the reception of the sacraments must be carefully excluded because of the reverence due to them. For although voluntary distractions in receiving the sacraments do not impede their validity and can be excused from mortal sin, nevertheless they are by no means excused from venial sin: for holy things must be treated holily.

3. In infants and the perpetually mad no intention is required for receiving the sacraments of which they are capable; the intention of Christ and of the Church supplies the intention which they cannot have.

But they are capable of four sacraments: baptism, which they can and must receive; confirmation, which they indeed can receive, but need not; the eucharist, which now by the will of the Church they cannot receive; order, which they could never licitly receive. These things are evident from tradition, which manifests to us the will of Christ instituting the sacraments.

4. In adults, that is, in those who have attained the use of reason, for validly receiving the sacraments there is required at least a habitual implicit intention of receiving such a sacrament.² Wherefore it is not enough that they do not positively refuse the sacrament, but a positive will of receiving the sacrament is altogether required, and one that is true and serious: since from the will of Christ reception in adults must be voluntary, because He did not will them to be sanctified without their will and consent. But a habitual intention suffices, because for receiving a gift and benefit no intention is required besides free acceptance; and free acceptance is also contained in a habitual will. Indeed, in certain sacraments (confirmation, viaticum, extreme unction) a habitual implicit intention suffices, namely one which is contained in the will either of embracing the Christian religion, or of doing all things which are necessary unto salvation, or of living and dying in the Catholic manner: for in this will is contained the intention of receiving the sacraments which are necessary unto salvation, or at least the sacraments which the Church is accustomed to confer on the faithful placed in danger of death.

a. Almost all concede that in the will of embracing the Christian religion the intention of receiving baptism is implicitly contained, even if someone has not known baptism or has not thought about it; nevertheless they do not agree whether in the will of doing all things which are necessary unto salvation, such as is contained in every contrition, the intention of receiving baptism is included. Now although some authors affirm this,³ others nevertheless, not without reason, entirely deny it where the question concerns a man who has never heard anything about the Church of Christ and baptism.⁴ For in contrition, whether imperfect or perfect, there is indeed contained a will of baptism; but this will is not absolute, but only conditional, nor is it an immediate will of baptism itself, not even implicitly, but only a will of observing the precepts. And indeed the obligation which lies upon him who has heard nothing either about the Church or about baptism is not that of receiving baptism, but immediately is the obligation of examining the Christian religion when it has been proposed to him, and of embracing it through baptism if, after an examination has been made, he has recognized its truth and necessity. But this will (vow) of baptism indeed suffices for obtaining justification through perfect contrition, but does not suffice for validly receiving baptism: for for this an absolute intention is required, and indeed of baptism itself, at least implicit. The reason for this matter is this. He who receives baptism at the same time contracts the obligation of observing the precepts of the Christian religion; but an adult must will this very thing at least implicitly, because no one is bound except voluntarily; wherefore he must also know the same at least implicitly.⁵

b. Therefore the sacraments are validly conferred on those sleeping, drunk, and those who after attaining the use of reason have fallen into madness. Yet the sacraments cannot be validly administered to them unless beforehand they have had a will, at least implicit, of receiving them. Therefore if there are those who affirm that even an interpretative intention suffices for validly receiving the sacraments, this must be conceded if by this name a habitual intention is understood, namely in such a way that an actual, at least implicit, intention preceded and was never retracted and would now be present if thought of the sacrament occurred; but if by interpretative intention there is understood that which would now be present if thought of the sacrament occurred, although before this no thought and will of this sacrament had been had, this intention certainly has no value.

c. To the sick deprived of the senses, as regards intention, the sacraments (confirmation, absolution, viaticum, extreme unction) can be validly conferred, unless it is evident that they remained impenitent up to unconsciousness, because they are rightly supposed to have a habitual implicit intention of receiving those sacraments. For there will scarcely be a faithful man living piously and Christianly who has never had the will both of receiving the means which are granted to the faithful for conducting a religious life, and of dying piously and Christianly; but in that former will there is implicitly contained the intention of confirmation, and in this latter will there is implicitly contained the will of receiving the sacraments which are granted to the faithful in death. Moreover, the faithful are rightly supposed to be penitent, unless they have given manifest signs of impenitence; but in any act of contrition or attrition there is implicitly contained the will of doing the things which are necessary unto salvation.

d. Hence he who only feignedly or in jest permits a sacrament to be conferred upon himself, or who behaves himself merely negatively while a sacrament is conferred upon him, without a serious will, at least implicit, of receiving it, receives nothing. Likewise, if someone, ignorant of what a sacrament is, merely materially permits something to be conferred upon himself, he does not receive it. On the other hand, he who, even from grave and unjustly inflicted fear, receives a sacrament, validly receives it, provided an intention at least implicit is present (matrimony is excepted). In practice, however, those who have received baptism only from fear and afterward spontaneously desire it are to be baptized again under condition, because it can be discerned only with difficulty whether internal consent to baptism was present or internal repugnance against baptism. A delirious person who resists in every way one wishing to confer extreme unction validly receives it from the at least implicit intention which he had before the illness.

e. If the receiver from error has two contrary intentions, one by which he actually refuses, another by which he habitually desires the sacrament, it can be conferred upon him where the intention of receiving it prevails. Which intention prevails must be gathered from the disposition of the soul: namely that one prevails which he would retain if he knew the truth. Imagine, for example, a parish priest treating with a gravely ill man, who had just devoutly received holy communion, about receiving extreme unction, which the sick man now refuses to receive because he is not yet in danger of death. The sick man meanwhile, deprived of his senses, the parish priest begins to anoint with sacred oil and continues in the anointing, although the sick man in the meantime, having returned to himself, shows his displeasure by agitation of the head. The sacrament is valid, because the habitual intention is the predominant intention.⁶

5. For validly receiving the other sacraments, baptism validly received is prerequired: since the other sacraments were instituted for the members of the Church alone; but by baptism alone a man becomes a member of the Church.

Therefore a sacrament which is conferred on one not baptized is null, because one not baptized is not a subject capable of the other sacraments.

¹ Cf. De praeceptis^12, n. 7 s.

² As to how far the sacraments of penance and matrimony are to be excepted from this rule, it will be said in their own places.

³ Coninck, De sacramentis in genere, q. 64, n. 103; Reuter, Theologia moralis, pr. 4, n. 63, 5; Lacroix, l. 6, pr. 1, n. 168.

⁴ Suarez, De sacramentis in genere, disp. 14, sect. 2, n. 4; Lugo, De sacramentis in genere, disp. 9, n. 130.

⁵ Therefore, in order that a missionary can licitly baptize a dying pagan or Jew deprived of the senses, it is not enough that he prudently presume that he had at least attrition, but it is required that from positive indications he can prudently judge that he had the desire of baptism or the resolution of entering the Church. Holy Office, 18 Sept. 1850; 30 Mar. 1898.

⁶ Cf. Elbel-Bierbaum III, pr. 8, n. 69.

42. Required conditions. 1. For receiving the sacraments licitly and fruitfully, at least that disposition is required without which the sacraments cannot produce their principal effect, namely sanctifying grace, either first or second; therefore generally it must be said:

a. For receiving the sacraments of the dead licitly and fruitfully, attrition concerning committed sins is required: for no remission is granted by God without conversion and sorrow for sin.

b. For receiving the sacraments of the living licitly and fruitfully, the state of grace is required, as is evident from the nature of the thing.

There exists a twofold way by which the state of grace can be recovered: perfect contrition or sacramental absolution; although this latter is not always necessary, nevertheless it is always to be recommended as more certain and more secure.

2. He who knowingly receives a sacrament without due disposition commits the most grave sacrilege of irreverence, and one graver than that which is committed by him who confects a sacrament in the state of mortal sin, because he not only treats a sacrament unworthily in some way, but also frustrates it of its effect.

St. Alphonsus (n. 86) brings forward two indeed rare cases in which it is permitted to receive the sacrament of the holy eucharist in the state of mortal sin: a. If a priest at the altar or a layman reclining at the table of communicants should remember a mortal sin committed by him and could not elicit an act of contrition except by interrupting the sacrifice of the Mass or by withdrawing from the table of communicants with danger of defamation, he would licitly receive the most holy sacrament. b. If a consecrated host were exposed to danger of profanation on the part of impious persons and there were no time for eliciting contrition, the host could be received without sin, but it would also be received without fruit.

43. Whether it is permitted to seek or accept sacraments from an unworthy minister.

An unworthy minister is called one who is known certainly not to be about to administer a sacrament without mortal sin. It is said certainly: for if he is not known certainly to be unworthy, he must be presumed worthy. Now a minister can be unworthy either because of mortal sin or because of a censure by which, being bound, he is prohibited from administering the sacraments (cn. 2261).

1. Per se it is not permitted to seek or accept sacraments from an unworthy minister. And indeed it is not permitted to seek the sacraments, because the law of nature forbids that we incite anyone to that which he either cannot do without sin or is not going to do without sin; but it is not permitted to receive, because it is not permitted to cooperate in the sin which one administering a sacrament in mortal sin commits.

Besides this reason of cooperation, which is the principal one, a twofold other reason sometimes accedes, namely scandal and danger of perversion, to which an unworthy minister, especially if he is a heretic, can tempt. Therefore without cause it is certainly not permitted to receive sacraments from an unworthy priest, even if he is ready to minister them and, indeed, offers himself of his own accord.

2. Nevertheless, from a just cause it is licit to seek and accept sacraments from an unworthy minister who can administer them without sin. For from a proportionately grave cause it is licit to seek an action which another can furnish without sin, although it is foreseen that he will commit sin; moreover, from a just cause it is licit to cooperate materially in the sin of another. Yet if, because of a particular censure or prohibition, he could not confer sacraments without sin, it would not be permitted to seek sacraments from him, because it is never permitted to induce another to sin.

But the just and proportionately grave causes on account of which even an unworthy priest could be called or approached are these: for administering the sacraments to the sick; for making paschal confession and communion; for baptizing an infant; for receiving absolution, lest the receiver have to remain longer in the state of sin; for gaining an indulgence; for preventing imminent danger of a fall because of vehement temptation or an occasion of sin.¹

3. As to excommunicated persons. The faithful can, from any just cause, seek sacraments from an excommunicated person, especially if other ministers are lacking. But from excommunicated persons to be avoided, and also from those excommunicated persons against whom a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has been issued, the faithful can seek, in danger of death alone, both absolution and also, if other ministers are lacking, the other sacraments.

a. Therefore one who would be about to die without a sacrament unless he sought it from an excommunicated person to be avoided (or from a heretic or schismatic) could seek from these persons not only baptism or absolution, but also extreme unction and viaticum.

b. Public heretics and schismatics indeed are not to be avoided in the juridical sense; nevertheless it is not permitted to seek sacraments from them except in proximate danger of death. Indeed, ordinarily they are not to be called even then, because of danger of perversion: for scarcely will a heretical minister minister the sacraments to a dying man unless he has admitted the faith of that minister's sect. Wherefore it is better, after eliciting an act of perfect contrition, to commit oneself to the divine mercy than to expose oneself to so great a danger.

¹ St. Alphonsus, n. 89.

44. Definition. Etymologically, a sacramental signifies everything which pertains to a sacrament, but especially the sacramental ceremony which is observed in the administration of the sacraments.

But sacramentals properly and specifically, as they are understood in this question, can be defined: sacred signs (things or actions) instituted by the Church in some imitation of the sacraments, which she is accustomed to use for obtaining, by her impetration, effects especially spiritual.² Therefore three things belong to the notion of sacramentals: a. that they be sacred signs instituted by the Church; wherefore she herself, and she alone, exercises full power over sacramentals: she can constitute them, interpret them authentically, abolish or change some of them;³ b. that they produce supernatural effects, both spiritual and bodily; c. that they produce these effects by force of impetration.

a. Sacramentals, which theologians call lesser sacraments, must be defined in such a way that from one side they differ from the sacraments, and from the other side they exhibit the greatest likeness with the sacraments that can be admitted.

b. Sacred signs: sacramentals, however many there are, are either sacred things or sacred actions; but all agree in the common notion of a sacred sign, by which external worship is shown to God and which the Church uses for conferring supernatural effects. Sacramentals are practical signs, which not only signify effects, but also produce them; yet they do not signify them in the same apt and determinate way as the sacraments, nor do they produce them in the same way.

c. Instituted by the Church: sacramentals, according to the mode and form in which they are actually had and performed, have been instituted by the Church. By this it is only denied that sacramentals were instituted by Christ in the same way, in species and individually, as the sacraments were instituted by Him; but it is not denied that sacramentals also were instituted by Christ in a twofold sense: alpha. mediately, because the Church received from Christ the power of instituting and performing sacramentals; beta. in general, because Christ Himself instituted at least some sacramentals in general and committed only the specific form to be determined by the Church. And indeed Christ Himself instituted blessings and exorcisms in general; but the particular blessings and exorcisms which are employed for the utility of the faithful received their determinate form and mode from the Church. Therefore sacramentals depend on the power of the Church in an entirely different way than the sacraments, whose specific matter and form are independent of the power of the Church.

d. From the stated definition of sacramentals it follows that the following are not to be referred to the number of sacramentals: alpha. the Lord's Prayer, the prayers of the faithful, the sign of the cross, almsgiving, and blessing which parents invoke upon their children, both because they were not instituted by the Church and because they do not have their force from the impetration of the Church; beta. nor the prayers of the Church, the ceremonies of the eucharistic sacrifice, genuflections, beatings of the breast, etc., because they do not produce their effects from the prayer of the Church, although they have been instituted by the Church. For a work which produces a particular supernatural effect either by its nature, as the Lord's Prayer, which by reason of its author pleases God exceedingly, or from a special divine promise, as almsgiving does, does not pertain to sacramentals, which produce their effects by force of the prayer of the Church.

e. Sacramentals differ from sacraments: alpha. by reason of origin, because the sacraments were instituted by Christ, sacramentals by the Church; beta. by reason of effect, for the sacraments immediately produce grace and remit sins and the punishment of sins, while sacramentals cannot immediately confer grace or remit sins; gamma. by reason of the mode of operating, for the sacraments produce their effects ex opere operato, but sacramentals ex opere operantis (of the Church).

¹ Suarez, De sacramentis, disp. 15; J. B. Pighi, Liturgia sacramentalium; G. Arendt, S.J., De Sacramentalibus; Fr. Schmid, Die Sakramentalien der kath. Kirche; Probst, Sakramente und Sakramentalien; Kutschker, Die hl. Gebrauche; Amberger, Pastoraltheologie, Bd. 3, Abt. 2, S. 191 ff.; Kirchenlexikon^2, "Sakramentalien."

² Cn. 1144.

³ Cn. 1145.

45. Division. Sacramentals are of great multitude and variety, so that they are not contained under a determinate number. Several which were in use in antiquity have now gone into disuse, and when the circumstances of time require it the Church can repeatedly institute new ones; thus she has instituted some even in recent times, as is seen in the Roman Ritual, in whose appendix several most recent blessings are contained. Yet all sacramentals can be reduced to certain genera. They are divided:

1. By reason of the object, into actions and things, according as the effect is produced immediately by some action, e.g., by blessing, or mediately, namely through the blessed thing.

Actions are called transient sacramentals and are compared with the sacraments which are confected by a passing action; blessed things are called permanent sacramentals and are compared with the most holy sacrament of the altar, which remains in being and produces its effect by use.

2. By reason of the end, transient sacramentals are divided into blessings and exorcisms, according as they are employed for conferring a supernatural effect or for weakening or breaking the power of the devil. Further divisions are below (n. 52).

3. By reason of the minister, into reserved, which can be confected only by a determinate minister, and non-reserved, which can be performed indiscriminately by all ministers.

a. Some reserved sacramentals are reserved to the pope, as the blessing of the pallium, the Agnus Dei, the golden rose, etc.; others are reserved to bishops, which are of two kinds: alpha. real blessings, which are so proper to bishops that they cannot be delegated to a priest without apostolic indult; beta. verbal blessings, which are found in the Missal or Ritual under the title: Blessings reserved to bishops or to others having the faculty, to be made, which bishops can commit to priests either by ordinary or by delegated right.

The series of blessings which are reserved to certain religious orders and are found in the Ritual under the title Blessings proper to certain regular orders must be remembered.

b. Among the non-reserved sacramentals, which by force of order can be performed by any priest without delegation, those must be noted which are of parochial right, and therefore cannot be performed by another priest without the permission of the parish priest: the nuptial blessing, the blessing of the baptismal font, the blessing of a woman after childbirth, the blessing of houses on Holy Saturday, the blessing of fields and crops if it is done solemnly; generally, blessings are not to be made publicly and solemnly in a place which is subject to the jurisdiction of another.

Nothing prevents a simple priest, whether secular or regular, from being able by a private rite to bless fields, animals, and similar things, since these blessings are not of parochial right.¹ A private rite, insofar as it is opposed to public and solemn, does not exclude surplice and stole, but does exclude the gathering of the people summoned by the sign of the bell.

¹ S. C. R., 13 June 1893, n. 3801.

46. Minister. Subject. The legitimate minister of sacramentals in general is a cleric to whom power has been conferred for this and who has not been prohibited by ecclesiastical authority.¹ But according to the diverse dignity of sacramentals, diverse ministers are assigned:

a. For consecrations the episcopal character is required, unless law or an apostolic indult grants the power also to a priest.

b. Any priest can give blessings, unless they are reserved; but even reserved blessings, if they are given by a priest without permission, are illicit, not invalid, unless something else is expressed.

c. Deacons and lectors can give validly and licitly only those blessings which are expressly permitted to them by law.²

d. The ministers of exorcisms which occur in baptism and in consecrations or blessings are the same as those who are the legitimate ministers of the same sacred rites.³

Therefore lay persons cannot confer sacramentals; nevertheless the use of certain permanent sacramentals is permitted immediately to lay persons themselves, as holy water, the Agnus Dei, a blessed medal, etc.; but other permanent sacramentals, as blessed ashes, etc., must be applied to the faithful through the ministry of priests.

Subject. a. Blessings, which are especially to be imparted to Catholics, can also be given to catechumens, indeed, unless the prohibition of the Church stands in the way, even to non-Catholics for obtaining the light of faith or, together with it, bodily health.⁴

Sacramentals which can be given even to catechumens must also be understood to include public sacramentals, and therefore catechumens can be admitted to the imposition of ashes and the distribution of candles and palms.⁵

b. Exorcisms can be performed not only over the faithful and catechumens, but also over non-Catholics or excommunicated persons.⁶

¹ Cn. 1146.

² Cn. 1147.

³ Cn. 1153.

⁴ Cn. 1149.

⁵ S. R. C., 8 Mar. 1919.

⁶ Cn. 1152.

47. Efficacy of sacramentals. That there is in sacramentals a special force and efficacy of producing certain supernatural effects, whether spiritual or bodily, is evident both from the persuasion of the Church and from the power conferred upon her. Concerning these effects it must be explained: a. what they are; b. what is the power conferred on the Church; c. in what way they are produced.

a. The efficacy of sacramentals is called special so that it may be distinguished both from the force and efficacy of impetrating which belongs to the prayers of the faithful, and from the meritorious force which is in the good works of the just.

b. The special efficacy of sacramentals does not consist in this, that by their own nature, insofar as they are sacred signs, they excite pious movements, by which afterward supernatural help is obtained ex opere operantis, but in this, that by the very action or by the blessed thing itself, by force of the blessing conferred, supernatural effect is obtained.

48. What effects they produce. The effects which are produced by sacramentals can be reduced especially to four:

1. The conferral of actual grace, which must be called the primary and principal effect of sacramentals; thus the blessing of an abbot, the coronation of a king, minor orders insofar as they are sacramentals, the nuptial blessing, etc., confer actual graces for rightly carrying out the offices received. Moreover, actual graces are judged to be not only sufficient but also efficacious for the effects of sacramentals.

2. The remission of venial sin, which all theologians attribute to sacramentals, although they dispute concerning the mode by which venial sins are destroyed by them. Thus holy water, ashes blessed at the beginning of Lent, the Confiteor with the prayers joined to it, chiefly have the force of destroying venial sins.

Whether sacramentals have the force of remitting temporal punishment is not evident; "nor do I see," says Suarez, "on what sufficient foundation this could be affirmed."¹

3. The restraining of the devil. The dominion of the devil over men arising from sin exerts itself by divine permission especially in a threefold way: a. in that he inflicts physical evils on men or on their goods; b. in that interiorly he urges them to sin by evil temptations; c. in that he possesses the very bodies of men. Now for restraining, weakening, or repelling these malignant influences of the devil, several sacramentals, and especially the manifold exorcisms, are employed.

a. Sacramentals produce this effect in various ways according to the variety of diabolical influence: for they either move the good angels to repel the malignant infestations of the devil with greater force and virtue, or confer helps of grace for overcoming temptations more easily, or prevent evil spirits from harming men or their goods, or finally expel the devil entirely from possessed bodies, or at least weaken his influence.

b. From ordinary exorcism, which is numbered among the sacramentals, there must be distinguished an extraordinary charism by which God sometimes confers upon holy men the power of miraculously expelling devils from possessed bodies. For the force and efficacy of ordinary exorcisms, although it is always valid for weakening the power of the devil, is not always valid for fully expelling the devil himself.

4. The producing of a temporal good, as of bodily health or of other benefits. Sacramentals produce this effect in diverse ways: by the fact that, through the special providence of God, man and his goods are preserved from future evils; or by the fact that present evils are removed and health is restored to bodies; or by the fact that temporal prosperity is conferred. Thus the blessing of the sick and most blessings which are conferred upon irrational creatures chiefly intend these effects.

Note 1. Yet individual sacramentals do not produce all these effects: for both from their institution and from the mode by which they are performed, they are diverse and destined for diverse ends, and therefore they also produce diverse effects. But what fruits each one confers must be gathered both from their institution and from the prayers by which the Church administers them.²

Note 2. Blessings and consecrations by which things or persons are consecrated by the Church and deputed to divine worship, as the consecration of a church, the consecration of a chalice, the blessing of an abbot or abbess, first tonsure, minor orders, etc., are sacramentals insofar as the consecration itself or the use of the consecrated thing has the force of conferring supernatural effects, but not insofar as they have the force of constituting a thing or person truly sacred and deputed to divine worship. For the Church consecrates things and persons and permanently destines them to divine worship not by that power by which she institutes and confects sacramentals, but by the power with which she is furnished for ruling and ordering the external worship of God in the religious society instituted by Christ. Indeed, sacramentals also are ordered to divine worship, since by their own nature they are acts of divine worship; but the power of ruling external worship does not suffice for instituting and confecting sacramentals, unless there accedes the special power of blessing and the power of restraining devils.

¹ De sacramentis, disp. 15, sect. 4, n. 9.

² Cf. Amberger III, 2, p. 197 ff.

49. On the power of the Church. For instituting and confecting sacramentals the Church is furnished with a twofold power: the power of blessing and the power of restraining devils.

1. On the power of blessing. a. That this power was handed down by Christ to the apostles, and in them to the ministers of the Church, is evident from these words of Scripture: "Into whatever house you enter, first say: Peace to this house; and if there be there a son of peace, your peace shall rest upon him."¹ For the words Peace to this house do not exhibit a commonly used greeting, but a blessing by which supernatural goods are asked, as is evident from the following words.²

b. Christ taught the apostles by His example how they ought to exercise the power of blessing for the utility of men: for He Himself, imposing hands on little children, blessed them;³ He blessed the loaves and fishes afterward to be multiplied;⁴ He blessed the bread to be changed into His body;⁵ and finally, before His ascension into heaven, with hands lifted up He blessed the apostles and disciples.⁶

2. On the power over devils. That this power was handed down to the apostles and disciples, and in them to the ministers of the Church, is demonstrated by these words of Scripture: "And having called together the twelve apostles, He gave them power and authority over all devils."⁷

Note. That the Church exercises the power handed down to her by Christ especially through her priests is already evident from the very office of priests, and is expressly signified by the words which she uses in the ordination of a priest: "Deign, O Lord, to consecrate these hands ... so that whatever they bless may be blessed, and whatever they consecrate may be consecrated and sanctified." And although she confers on clerics in the ordination of exorcists the power of imposing hands over the possessed and by imposition of hands restraining unclean spirits, nevertheless it is not permitted to use this power except for priests.⁸

¹ Luke 10, 5, 6.

² Cf. Knabenbauer, Commentarius in quatuor evangelia, I, p. 387.

³ Mark 10, 16; Matt. 19, 15.

⁴ Mark 6, 41; Matt. 14, 19.

⁵ Matt. 26, 26.

⁶ Luke 24, 50.

⁷ Luke 9, 1; cf. Matt. 10, 1; Luke 10, 17.

⁸ Pontificale Romanum, De ordinatione presbyteri, De ordinatione exorcistarum.

50. In what way they produce effects. Sacramentals produce effects from the impetratory force of the Church, which, while she confects sacramentals through her ministers, herself begs God for those to whom sacramentals are administered or who afterward use them. To the question whether sacramentals produce their effect ex opere operato or ex opere operantis, it seems one must answer thus:

a. Not ex opere operantis: for by this term it is signified that the effect depends on the sanctity of the minister or on the disposition of the subject; but sacramentals have their force and efficacy not from the sanctity and devotion of the minister nor from the disposition of the subject, but from the impetratory force of the Church.

alpha. If we sometimes read that sacramentals produced richer and almost wonderful effects where they were performed by holy men, this must be attributed not to the ordinary efficacy of sacramentals, but to a singular charism conferred by God upon a determinate person in view of sanctity. Yet by these things it is not denied that the ordinary effect of sacramentals, even apart from a special charism, can be increased, and actually is increased, from the merit of the minister who exceedingly pleases God, just as the fruits of the Mass are sometimes increased in view of the sanctity of the minister offering.

beta. For perceiving the effects of sacramentals, the due disposition of the subject is required, just as the due disposition is necessary for perceiving the fruits of the sacraments. Hence it must be conceded that the effect of sacramentals is richer in proportion as the disposition, or sanctity, faith, and devotion of the subject, is more perfect; but the force of producing these effects belongs to the impetration of the Church.

b. Nor ex opere operato: for by this term it is signified that the effect is produced by force of divine institution, so that the sign itself, by force of this institution, is efficacious for producing the effects; but sacramentals are efficacious not by force of institution, but by force of the Church praying and impetrating.

c. But ex opere operantis ecclesiae. The mode by which sacramentals operate agrees with the mode of operation of the sacraments in this, that their efficacy does not depend on the merit of the minister nor on the sanctity of the subject; but it differs from the mode of operation of the sacraments in this, that efficacy belongs to them not by force of institution, but by force of the impetration of the Church performing the sacramentals. Therefore although it can truly be affirmed that sacramentals act ex opere operato, if only the negative force of this term is considered, nevertheless sacramentals are more aptly said to produce their effects ex opere operantis ecclesiae, so that for the singular mode by which the sacraments operate, the singular term ex opere operato may also be reserved.

51. The effect of sacramentals must be called infallible: for the effect is produced by the prayer of the Church; but the prayers of the Church are always heard. Yet if the effect which is intended does not always actually come from the administration or use of sacramentals, this must especially be explained from the twofold condition on which the infallible efficacy of all prayers depends. For if temporal goods are sought, such as health of body, abundance of crops, etc., it can happen that the granting of them does not conduce to the salvation of the soul; and if supernatural goods are sought, it can happen that the granting of them is not conformed to the order of divine providence and predestination.

a. Although the proximate and immediate subject of sacramentals is most diverse, namely a creature both rational and irrational, nevertheless the remote and ultimate subject is always man as wayfarer, to whose spiritual utility every effect produced through sacramentals yields.

b. From these things it is concluded that those sacramentals (as sacramentals) are worth nothing for which the impetration of the Church does not assist; but this does not assist those which are not performed with that matter and form which she herself prescribes. Therefore sacramentals in whose confection or use the conditions designated by the Church are not observed have no effect; and in this matter neither inculpable ignorance nor good faith can supply anything: for the whole force of ecclesiastical blessings, says Gardellini, is placed in the prayer and invocation of the Church, which is made through her ministers, who must use no other words or formulas than those which have been constituted for them by the Church.¹ And cn. 1148, 2 has these words: Consecrations and blessings, whether constitutive or invocative, are invalid if the formula prescribed by the Church was not used.

Article Third. On Blessings and Exorcisms

Since blessings and exorcisms are the two great genera to which all transient sacramentals are reduced, it is useful to add a few things about them specifically.

¹ Decreta authentica S. C. R. (ed. Gardellini, Rome, 1857), note to n. 4782.

55. Definition. 1. Baptism is a sacrament by which, through the washing of the body in water under the prescribed form of words, the grace of regeneration is conferred.

In this definition the first words, baptism is a sacrament, exhibit the generic note, in which all the sacraments agree; but the words which follow exhibit the note or specific difference by which this sacrament is distinguished from the others. Now two things constitute the specific difference: the matter and form of this sacrament, through the washing of the body in water under the prescribed form of words, and its peculiar effect, the grace of regeneration.

2. From baptism of water there is distinguished baptism of desire and baptism of blood.

a. Baptism of desire (or of the Holy Spirit) is charity or perfect contrition, in which there is contained the desire of receiving the sacrament of baptism in reality; but charity and perfect contrition have the force of conferring sanctifying grace. Nevertheless baptism of desire does not imprint a character, and in like manner it does not always destroy every guilt of venial fault and of temporal punishment, but according to the intensity of the act of love it remits now more, now less, and sometimes even all.

b. Baptism of blood is martyrdom endured for the sake of the faith. The holy Fathers everywhere affirm that martyrdom has the force of remitting every fault and every punishment, both in adults and in infants, appealing to the privilege which Christ conceded to martyrdom, namely that of producing the same effect of justification which baptism produces.² Martyrdom does not imprint the baptismal character, but it does bring about that every fault and punishment is destroyed.

3. Solemn baptism is distinguished, which is conferred with all the prescribed rites and ceremonies, while it does not matter whether it is administered in a church or in a private house; and private or non-solemn baptism, which is administered without rites and ceremonies. Cn. 737, 2.

Thus if one upon whom solemn baptism has been conferred is rebaptized under condition because of doubt concerning its validity, it is a private baptism. The most frequent case in which baptism is conferred privately without rites and ceremonies is the case of necessity in danger of death; therefore private baptism is ordinarily called baptism of necessity (Nottaufe).

¹ St. Thomas III, q. 66-71; St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 94-160; Sporer-Kazenberger, Supplementum theologiae moralis sacramentalis, c. 1, sect. 1-4; Gobat, Theologia experimentalis de sacramentis, tract. 2, De baptismo; Tamburini, Explicatio moralis de sacramentis, c. 2, De baptismo; Ballerini-Palmieri IV, n. 717-784; Lehmkuhl, Theologia moralis, II, n. 55-88 (n. 75-119); Genicot, Theologiae moralis institutiones, II, n. 127-158; Gassner, Pastoral (Salzburg: Mittermuller, 1881), cap. 13.

² Cf. De principiis^13, n. 282.

56. Effects. The effect of this sacrament is fourfold: a. remission of every sin, both original and personal, committed before baptism; b. remission of every punishment, not only eternal but also temporal; c. infusion of sanctifying grace, of gifts, and of sacramental grace, which is the right to all those actual graces by which the baptized person can lead a Christian life; d. impression of character, by which a baptized man becomes a member of the Church, of the mystical body of Christ, and capable of the other sacraments.¹ But the disposition necessary in an adult who has committed personal sins, for obtaining these effects, besides faith, is attrition concerning the sins committed.

Wherefore it can happen that in an adult not every fault nor every punishment is immediately remitted: for since punishment cannot be remitted where fault has not yet been remitted, and since fault is not remitted without attrition, if an adult approaches baptism without attrition for some venial sin with which he is burdened, this is not remitted in baptism; but after sorrow has afterward been elicited, by force of the baptism received the sin is destroyed both as to fault and as to punishment.

¹ Cf. Council of Trent, sess. 5, can. 5.

57. Necessity. 1. Baptism (of water), received in reality or at least in desire, is necessary by a (hypothetical) necessity of means for salvation: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."¹

That is said to be necessary for salvation by necessity of means which is a means of obtaining eternal salvation so necessary that, if it is omitted even without fault, salvation is not obtained. This necessity is called absolute if the necessary means cannot be supplied by any other means; and it is called hypothetical if in certain conditions it can be supplied by another means. Therefore the necessity of baptism is hypothetical, because in circumstances in which baptism cannot be received in reality, it can be supplied by another means.²

2. In infants the sacrament of baptism can be supplied by nothing except martyrdom; therefore, except in the case of martyrdom, for them the sacrament received in reality is necessary. But in adults, besides martyrdom, the sacrament of baptism can also be supplied by baptism of desire; therefore for an adult who cannot receive baptism in reality, excepting the case of martyrdom, the sacrament received at least in desire is necessary.

The desire of baptism is called the act of perfect charity or perfect contrition, because in this act the desire of baptism is contained: for he who elicits an act of this kind has the will of doing all things which God has commanded; but God commands all to receive baptism; therefore he has the will of receiving baptism. Therefore he who elicits an act of charity or contrition has at least implicitly the desire of baptism. Yet cf. n. 41, 4.

¹ John 3, 5.

² Cf. De praeceptis^12, n. 7.

64. The minister of baptism is one thing if ordinary, another if extraordinary; and the extraordinary minister is one thing for solemn baptism, another for private baptism.

1. The extraordinary minister of private baptism is any human being having the use of reason, whether man or woman, whether Catholic or heretic, whether believer or unbeliever, who indeed always baptizes validly, but licitly only in a case of necessity and when the ordinary minister is lacking, as is clear from the doctrine and practice of the Church.

a. Nevertheless it is not licit for the father or mother to baptize their own child, except in danger of death, when no one else is present who may baptize. Cn. 742, 3.

b. A case of necessity is considered to be present if a man not yet baptized is in danger of death; but not if, because of distance, bad weather, or illness, a priest cannot be had except after a long time. Therefore in these circumstances the office of baptizing cannot be committed to a layman, always excepting danger of death.

c. Yet in mission places there is approved the custom by force of which, when a priest is absent, baptism is permitted to be administered immediately by catechists or other approved laymen to recently born infants, even those enjoying good health (although the priest is absent only for a short time), because the life of infants is exposed to continual dangers.¹

d. If in a case of necessity baptism is conferred privately, there are to be used, if it can be done, two witnesses or at least one, by whom the conferral of baptism can be proved. Cn. 742, 1.

2. The extraordinary minister of solemn baptism is the deacon, who nevertheless can licitly baptize solemnly only by delegation of the Ordinary or of the pastor, which is to be granted from a just cause. A sufficient cause on account of which the office of baptizing can be committed to a deacon is judged to be this: if the pastor is absent or sick, or if he is occupied with holding a sermon or hearing confessions, etc. If necessity presses, the permission is legitimately presumed.

a. Whether a deacon baptizes licitly in a case of lighter necessity, but without the commission of the pastor, is disputed. Suarez holds the affirmative opinion, because when necessity exists a reasonably presumed commission suffices.² The reason of St. Alphonsus, who holds the negative opinion (n. 116), is this: because a deacon can solemnly baptize only in place of the priest.

b. It is not licit for a deacon, even if he baptizes solemnly, to bless salt or water.³

c. A cleric lower than a deacon who solemnly baptizes incurs irregularity, because he exercises an order which he does not have. But a deacon who solemnly baptizes without commission indeed sins, because he injures the right of the pastor; yet he does not seem to incur irregularity, because he does not exercise an order which he does not have, since by force of ordination he can solemnly baptize.

3. The ordinary minister of solemn baptism is every and only priest, who nevertheless, except in a case of necessity, cannot licitly use his power unless he possesses the ordinary or delegated faculty for this.

a. Therefore a bishop can licitly baptize only those who have domicile or quasi-domicile in his diocese; and a pastor can licitly baptize only those who have domicile or quasi-domicile within the limits of his parish. But he cannot licitly baptize outsiders who do not have quasi-domicile in his parish without the permission of their own pastor, unless they are travelers or vagrants. Outside his parish he cannot licitly baptize his own parishioners without the permission of the pastor of the place.

b. Travelers ought to be baptized by their own pastor in his parish, if this can be done easily and without delay; otherwise they can be baptized by any pastor in his own territory. Therefore an infant whom a woman bears while staying outside her homeland, or whom a woman happens to bear in a place not her own, must be brought to his own pastor, unless he is far distant, or the infant is exposed to danger of life, or baptism for that reason would have to be deferred too long. Cn. 738, 1. Vagrants can be baptized by any pastor whom they themselves have chosen, if they are adults, or whom their parents have chosen, if they are infants.

c. Priests who without just cause baptize infants offered to them from another parish sin gravely, because they injure the right of the infant's own pastor. But when a just cause exists, an outside infant can licitly be baptized with the reasonably presumed permission of the infant's pastor. In the same way parents sin who outside a case of necessity or without the permission of the pastor bring their child to be baptized by other priests, because they violate the right of their own shepherd.

d. The baptism of adults, from the Roman Ritual and from the Code of Canon Law, is to be referred to the bishop, if this can conveniently be done.⁴ But in most dioceses it is laid down that no adult is to be baptized outside a case of necessity, not even under condition, without the permission of the Ordinary.

¹ S. C. de Prop. Fide, 11 Feb. 1804.

² Suarez, disp. 23, sect. 2, n. 10.

³ S. C. R., 10 Feb. 1888, n. 3684.

⁴ Roman Ritual, tit. 2, c. 3, n. 3. Cn. 744.

65. The order to be observed among diverse ministers in private baptism is thus described in the Roman Ritual: "If a priest is present, he is to be preferred to a deacon, a deacon to a subdeacon, a cleric to a layman, and a man to a woman, unless for the sake of modesty it is fitting that a woman rather than a man baptize an infant not wholly born, or unless the woman should know better the form and manner of baptizing."¹

"Nevertheless," says Lehmkuhl (n. 67 [93]), "this rule is understood in such a way that a. any believer existing in union with the Church, whether man or woman, provided he sufficiently knows the manner of baptizing, is altogether to be preferred to any heretic, even a priest; b. an outside woman is to be preferred to the father of the infant, since parents ought not to baptize their own infant except when another is lacking."

A layman who, contrary to this order, baptizes in the presence of a priest sins gravely, since to the priest alone does this faculty belong as proper by force of ordination; nor can a priest yield his own right, which belongs to him from divine institution, except by reason of decency, e.g., for baptizing a fetus in the mother's womb. But in other cases, to invert this order is free from grave fault, to such an extent that a layman baptizing in the presence of a deacon, according to a probable opinion, does not sin gravely.²

Question Fourth. On the Subject of Baptism

The subject capable of baptism is every and only wayfaring man not yet baptized. Every: because all need regeneration, as being infected with original sin. Only: because the sacraments were instituted for wayfaring men alone, and to them alone access into the Church lies open. Not yet baptized: for this sacrament can neither licitly nor validly be repeated. - We must treat: a. of infants to be baptized; b. of fetuses to be baptized; c. of adults to be baptized; d. of those to be baptized under condition.

¹ Roman Ritual, tit. 2, c. 1, n. 13. Cn. 742, 2.

² Cf. Suarez, disp. 31, sect. 4, n. 7 ff.

73. Assertions. 1. An adult who has known the obligation of baptism is bound to receive it as soon as he conveniently can; for each one is bound by divine law to enter the Church, and baptism is the door of the Church. But one is not to be baptized unless knowing and willing and well instructed.

What delay of baptism, not excused by a just cause, is to be held grave cannot be determined. There are some who think that delay of baptism even until danger of death is not of itself a grave sin, unless it is done out of contempt.¹ But it seems incredible that a man could neglect through the whole course of his life the principal obligation of human life, namely that of serving God and tending toward the last end. Moreover, it is the will of Christ that baptism not be deferred through one's whole life without a cause of necessity; for Christ wills the faithful in this life to be gathered into the visible Church, which they must enter through baptism. Therefore the holy Fathers of the Church gravely reprehend the custom of deferring baptism until a more mature, advanced age or until death, and most theologians affirm the grave obligation of receiving baptism without delay, unless moral impossibility excuses. Therefore as soon as a man morally can, he is bound to fulfill this obligation. But it must be conceded that the Church has never determined nor can determine the time for receiving baptism for unbelievers, since they are not subject to the Church.²

2. In danger of death, all those who are presumed to have the intention of baptism are to be baptized at least under condition, after instruction has been given, as far as possible, concerning the mysteries which must necessarily be believed by necessity of means.

a. Concerning the existence of the dispositions which are necessary for receiving baptism validly and fruitfully (intention, faith, knowledge, contrition), certainty is not required, but probability suffices, even only slight probability; for since the sacraments are for men, they can be administered to one who is placed in danger of life even with a slight probability concerning their value.

b. Whether a missionary can licitly baptize one whom he finds dying, an unbeliever already deprived of the senses. - Since it is not licit to frustrate a sacrament, and an unbeliever who has no desire of baptism is incapable of it, it is asked how the missionary must be certain concerning the existence of the intention which is required for validly receiving baptism (n. 41, 3): namely, whether a positive sign of intention is required for licitly baptizing an unbeliever, or whether intention can be presumed in the same way in which, in Catholics deprived of the senses, the intention of the sacrament (of absolution, of extreme unction) is presumed. For a sacrament to be licitly administered there is required a probable judgment concerning the intention of the sacrament in the subject. Now in an adult Catholic this judgment is founded on the very religion which he professes; for it is rightly presumed that a Catholic existing in danger of death wishes to be helped by the means instituted by Christ for dying well. Therefore the practice now flourishes in the Church of absolving and anointing with extreme unction all the dying deprived of the senses, unless it is morally clear that they positively reject the sacraments.³ But in unbelievers that probable judgment, even though only slight, cannot be formed otherwise than from the circumstances of place, person, condition, etc. Therefore it is not licit to baptize indiscriminately all pagans deprived of the senses in danger of death, but only those whom the missionary, having considered all the circumstances, prudently judges to have at least the implicit will of receiving baptism.⁴ Hence if the dying man himself is unknown to him, let the missionary, as far as can be done, ask others whether they know anything about his dispositions, whether perhaps he asked for baptism or heard Christian instruction, or at least by living well showed care for his salvation. As to the rest, nothing remains except that he commend them to the divine mercy. Then, if one baptized in this way should return to himself, he would have to be baptized again under condition, unless he testifies that he had a firm purpose of receiving baptism.

c. Dying unbelievers who are not deprived of the senses are indeed to be questioned about their intention; but licitly, even when asking for the sacrament, they cannot be baptized if they lack the necessary dispositions, namely due knowledge and contrition. Therefore they must be instructed concerning those things necessary by necessity of means, and also concerning the obligation of contrition.⁵

d. In order that insane persons who at some time had the use of reason can validly be baptized, it is required that before insanity they conceived the will of receiving baptism; in order that they may in reality be sanctified, it is further required that they elicited an act of faith and supernatural sorrow for sins. If, after the circumstances have been considered, it is not morally clear that this will was lacking, in practice they are always to be baptized under condition, whether in danger of death or even outside it, where no hope of recovering reason shines forth, because they are at least slightly supposed to have had at least an implicit desire of baptism. But if they have lucid intervals, they are to be baptized if they wish, while they are in possession of their mind.

3. Children of unbelievers who have the use of reason and ask for baptism can and of themselves ought to be baptized even against the will of the parents, provided they have been sufficiently instructed and show a firm will of living as Catholics; for he who has attained the use of reason is, in his moral actions, fully his own master, and cannot be hindered by anyone else in procuring eternal salvation.

Since youths who are baptized against the will of their parents ordinarily cannot be separated from their parents, and, being left under their power, are exposed to various and indeed great dangers of relapsing into their former errors, their constancy must be well tested before they are admitted to baptism. And because from the fact that children are baptized against the will of their parents serious inconveniences sometimes arise for the Catholic cause, great prudence is needed in admitting them to baptism. Where, on account of baptism conferred against the will of the parents, either the defection of the baptized person or another grave evil must rightly and deservedly be feared, ordinarily it will be better to defer baptism until a more mature age.

Note. The Code of Canon Law, cn. 753, gives two admonitions: a. both the priest who is about to baptize adults and the adults themselves, if they are healthy, ought to be fasting; b. baptized adults should immediately assist at the sacrifice of the Mass and receive holy communion, unless grave causes prevent.

Article Fourth. On Those to Be Baptized Under Condition

There are chiefly two cases in which there is question of repeating baptism under condition: a. if some are converted from heresy; b. if little children are baptized privately because of danger of death.

¹ Genicot, Theol. mor. inst., II, n. 149.

² Cf. Laymann, l. 5, tr. 2, c. 6, n. 8; Suarez, disp. 31, sect. 2, n. 3.

³ Lehmkuhl, Casus consc., II, n. 45; Genicot, Theol. mor. inst., II, n. 150.

⁴ Holy Office, 30 Mar. 1898.

⁵ Holy Office, 1 Apr. 1898.

74. On converted heretics. Although baptism conferred by heretics is of itself valid, nevertheless, with the unbelief of non-Catholic ministers increasing day by day at the present time, it is greatly to be feared that non-Catholic ministers baptize invalidly because of defect of an essential condition. Nevertheless the Church has always disapproved the custom of rebaptizing under condition indiscriminately those baptized by heretics, and has prescribed that in individual cases inquiry be made into the validity of the baptism, whatever may be the sect from which the non-Catholics have come, unless the inquiry is morally impossible, or from the circumstances it is clear either that the sect confers no baptism, or that no inquiry can supply certainty concerning the value of the baptism.¹ Now:

a. If, after inquiry has been made, the value of the baptism conferred is certainly clear, they are in no way to be rebaptized.

b. But if concerning the value of the baptism there remains a doubt not wholly empty, they are to be rebaptized under condition.

c. But if it is certainly clear that the sacrament was invalid, they are to be rebaptized absolutely.

d. Finally, if either no inquiry can be instituted or nothing can be learned concerning the value of the baptism, today it is rightly presumed to be invalid and therefore to be repeated under condition.²

In what circumstances an adult is to be baptized under condition. If the doubt concerns the dispositions of the subject, baptism is to be conferred absolutely; for in this case baptism validly conferred afterward revives when the baptized person obtains the due disposition for himself. But it could not revive, as being invalid, if it had been conferred under condition. Only if the doubt concerns a condition required for validity (intention) is baptism to be conferred under condition (if thou art capable), because in this case it cannot revive, since it is either valid or invalid.³

¹ Holy Office, 21 Feb. 1883.

² Cf. decree of the Holy Office, 30 Nov. 1878, which at the same time ordered corrected the case proposed by Gury (De baptismo VIII, 2).

³ S. C. de Prop. Fide, 6 June 1860.

75. On infants privately baptized. It is not licit to baptize again without discrimination all infants baptized at home by midwives or other laypersons, since this is opposed to Catholic dogmas. Therefore in individual cases, even with witnesses heard if any were present,¹ it must be diligently investigated whether the baptism conferred at home was valid. But if a doubt not wholly empty concerning its value remains, it is to be repeated under condition; but if it has been established that it was validly conferred, only the ceremonies must be supplied.² And indeed, where a midwife or another person who is of good reputation, worthy of faith, circumspect, and instructed in the rite of baptizing asserts that the infant was rightly baptized by her, there is no reason why the value of the baptism should be doubted. But to repeat baptism where no doubt concerning its value exists is certainly gravely illicit.³

In order that a judgment concerning the value of the baptism can be formed, it must be asked: a. who baptized and in what circumstances; for if the baptism was conferred by a person who is accustomed to be anxious, disturbed, and perplexed, or if baptism was conferred by a prudent person indeed, but in difficult circumstances, in which because of a sudden event there was confusion or because of danger to the mother and infant all things had to be done hastily and in a disturbed way, there is more easily room for doubting; b. what form he pronounced; c. what and how much water he poured, and where he poured it; d. whether he pronounced the form and washed at the same time; e. what intention he had.

¹ Therefore cn. 742, 1 prescribes that in private baptism two witnesses or at least one be used.

² Roman Ritual, tit. 2, c. 1, n. 53; S. C. C., 27 Mar. 1883.

³ From the prescription of the Roman Ritual (c. 1, n. 13), the pastor must take care that midwives know and observe well the correct rite of baptizing. Hence the pastor is bound diligently to instruct and examine them in those things which are necessary concerning the matter, form, intention, and manner of conferring baptism, especially also on abortive and not-yet-born fetuses. For this end the booklets can be of use: Unterricht uber die Nottaufe (Munich, self-published by the archiepiscopal chancery of the Ordinariate); Unterricht uber die Spendung der Nottaufe (Freiburg: Herder); Unterweisung der kath. Hebamme (Klagenfurt: Vereins-Buchdruckerei); likewise Berardi, Examen obstetricum circa baptismum (Faenza: Novelli, 1895).

76. Notes. 1. It is not licit before ordination to baptize under condition those who doubt concerning baptism conferred on themselves solely because they have been able to have no positive document or testimony of it, or because they were baptized by catechists or other less instructed Christians. For those who were born from Christian parents and educated by them in Christian fashion are altogether to be presumed to have been baptized. The same must be presumed also in the other case, as long as only negative doubts are brought forward, since it is clear that catechists are carefully chosen and diligently instructed for this office.¹

2. Nor is it licit for a Catholic priest, in a case of mixed marriage before the marriage, to baptize under condition the non-Catholic party because of doubt concerning the value of the baptism, if that party declares that he wills to remain in heresy.² For in order to contract marriage, certainty concerning the value of the baptism received is not required.

3. Exposed and found infants are not to be baptized even under condition if they have been found with a note which testifies concerning baptism conferred on them, and the note was written by a known and trustworthy man. But they are to be baptized under condition if they do not have a note testifying concerning baptism conferred, or if they have a note written by an unknown man or one not very worthy of faith. Cn. 749.

¹ S. C. de Prop. Fid., 30 Sept. 1848.

² Holy Office, 13 Apr. 1878.

The actions which are done out of fear are simply voluntary, but they are usually also involuntary under a certain respect.

There is no question here of actions which are done in fear or with fear, as when I walk with fear and trembling along a lonely road by night. We are concerned with the effect which fear has on human actions done in consequence of fear; and unless it deprives the agent of the use of reason, which in rare cases may happen, the action remains voluntary, because it is done freely and deliberately to avoid the threatened danger. In such circumstances, as we saw above, the action is said to be simply voluntary; but it is also involuntary under a certain respect, for, unless the danger threatened, the action would not be done. An exception must be made with regard to attrition elicited from fear of hell, which, if it is to be efficacious, must be simply voluntary and in no respect involuntary,¹ for otherwise it would not help to justify the sinner in the sacrament of Penance.² We can easily see how this is possible with regard to sin. For other actions done through fear have some evil or loss annexed to them, on which account they are involuntary under some respect; while aversion from sin is wholly good and reasonable, and so there is no reason why repentance for sin from fear of hell should not be simply voluntary and in no respect involuntary.”

¹ St.Alphonsus, 6, n. 442.

² Trent, sess. 14, c. 4.

As the Council of Trent teaches, there is a divine law which prescribes that all who fall into grievous sin after receiving Baptism should confess such sin to a priest and receive absolution for it from him. This divine precept is contained in the institution of the sacrament of Penance, and will best be explained when we come to treat of that sacrament. Here we have to do with a positive ecclesiastical law which supposes the divine law, but further determines it according to time and the person to whom the confession is to be made. The divine law does not determine any precise time for making the confession nor does it limit the choice of confessor. This was done by the Fourth Lateran Council, c. 21: “‘ Let all the faithful of both sexes after they have come to years of discretion faithfully confess all their sins in private at least once a year to their own priest, and do their best to perform the penance which he shall enjoin them.”

MERELY external religion, without devotion of mind and heart to the service of God, is hypocrisy, but though we should serve God in spirit and in truth, external rites and ceremonies are not excluded from religion. On the contrary, they form an essential part of it. Man is composed of body and soul; both come from God, and both should share in the worship due to their Creator. Besides, internal religion will be faint and likely to evaporate altogether, unless it sometimes finds expression in outward acts. God has provided for these wants of human nature by instituting the sacred rites, which we call sacraments, as essential parts of true religion. They serve also as signs by which the faithful are known to and united among themselves and distinguished from those outside the fold. They serve, too, as an external profession of faith, and as a means of practising the very salutary virtue of humility, inasmuch as we are compelled to seek in external rites the spiritual help of which we stand in need, whereby intellectual pride is humbled.

There were sacraments under the Old Law as there are under the New, although the latter are far more efficacious than the former. As expressing what is common to the sacraments of Judaism and Christianity, a sacrament may be defined to be an outward sign of inward grace. A sacrament, then, is some outward rite or ceremony instituted by God, to show forth and make known the grace which he thereby bestows on the soul of the recipient. Thus circumcision signified separation from the idolatrous world, incorporation among the people of God, and the infusion of grace into the soul for the remission of original sin. The sacraments of the Old Law produced their effects by exciting the faith of the ministers and recipients of them and by the profession of faith in the coming Redeemer which their use contained.

The sacraments of the New Law were instituted by Christ our Lord, and they confer the grace which they signify, not on account of the meritorious dispositions with which they are ministered or received, but on account of their dignity and intrinsic excellence. They were instituted by Christ, they are administered in his name and by his authority, and thus they are in a true sense the actions of Christ our Lord executed by his ministers. Divines express this by saying that the sacraments of the Christian Church confer grace ex opere operato, while those of the Old Law produced it ex opere operantis. A sacrament, then, of the New Law may be defined to be an outward sign of invisible grace instituted by Christ to confer the grace which it signifies.

There are certain rites and ceremonies in use in the Church which are called sacramentals. Of these we may mention the consecration of abbots, the first tonsure of clerics, the sacring of kings, the blessing of chalices and bells, holy water, Agnus Dei, scapulars, and many more. They are called sacramentals because they are sacred rites which, if properly used according to the mind of the Church, confer spiritual graces on the soul of him who uses them. They do this through the approbation and blessing of the Church, the Spouse of Christ, whose prayers and desires Christ always listens to, and through the good dispositions of those who use them. They thus differ from sacraments, as also in the grace which they produce. They confer actual graces, special helps to do good and avoid evil, given by God in answer to the prayers of the Church and the pious desires of those who use them properly (Can. 1144).

The Council of Trent defined as of faith that there are seven sacraments instituted by Christ our Lord: Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Orders, and Matrimony; that these sacraments contain the grace which they signify, and that they always confer grace on all those who receive them and put no obstacle to their effect. The sacraments, then, require certain dispositions on the part of the recipient in order that they may produce their effect. They will be validly received if nothing that is essential be wanting to them, but in order to produce their effect when they are received the recipient must have the required dispositions. I may apply a match to a faggot of wood, but this will not take fire if it is sodden with water. Similarly, if an adult asks for Baptism and is rightly baptized the sacrament will be validly received, but if the recipient has no faith or no sorrow for his sins the Baptism will indeed imprint a character, but it will not infuse sanctifying grace in the soul. In such a case as this the sacrament is validly but not licitly received; it is said by divines to be unformed, not formed.

The Council of Trent also defined it to be of faith that the three sacraments, Baptism, Confirmation, and Orders, whenever they are validly received, imprint on the soul a certain spiritual mark which is called a character. This character serves to distinguish in the eyes of God and of his saints those who have received the sacrament in question; it is indelible, and prevents the sacrament from being received a second time. It is, however, compatible with the presence of mortal sin in the soul, so that, as was said above, a valid sacrament imprints its proper character even when on account of some obstacle in the recipient it is unformed and does not convey sanctifying grace to the soul.

The question here occurs whether a valid but unformed sacrament will afterward produce grace in the soul, if and when the obstacle be removed. The common opinion of Doctors and divines is that it will do so in the case of the three sacraments which impress a character on the soul. This opinion is founded on the tradition of the Church and on what is to be expected from the goodness of God and the nature of the sacraments. A cause which is in existence, but which was hitherto prevented from producing its full effect on account of some obstacle in the way, will produce that effect when the obstacle is removed. Many divines hold the same doctrine of reviviscence concerning the sacraments of Matrimony and Extreme Unction, which may not be repeated at the will of the recipient. Whether it is also applicable to Penance is a much disputed point, while it is commonly denied that the sacrament of the holy Eucharist can afterward produce its effect if it was unformed when received.

The sacramental grace which is conferred by the sacraments is habitual or sanctifying grace as directed toward the particular end for which the sacrament from which it flows has been instituted. Together, then, with the grace which justifies the sinner, or which increases the sanctifying grace of the soul in friendship with God, a sacrament gives a title to receive from God special help or actual graces when they are required by the recipient of the sacrament. Thus, the sacrament of Penance, if worthily received, infuses sanctifying grace into the soul by which the sins confessed are blotted out, and, moreover, it gives the sinner a title to receive actual graces in time of temptation, so as to enable him not to yield. In the same way the holy Eucharist increases sanctifying grace within the soul, making it more holy and more pleasing in the sight of God, and fresh help is given to enable it to remain steadfast in the friendship of God. The sacraments of Baptism and Penance, which remit sin and give sanctifying grace to souls that were deprived of it, are called sacraments which give the first grace, or sacraments of the dead, inasmuch as they give spiritual life to those who were spiritually dead; while the sacraments which should only be received by such as are already in the state of grace are said to confer the second grace, and are called sacraments of the living. If the soul is already justified and in the state of grace, sacraments of the dead confer second grace; while Extreme Unction may, as we shall see, confer the first grace, although it is primarily a sacrament of the living; and it is a probable opinion that the other sacraments may per accidens confer the first grace when received in good faith by the sinner. Inasmuch as a sacrament confers grace in virtue of the worth and dignity of the sacred rite itself, the quantity of grace given will per se be the same for all who receive it. However, per accidens, since a cause acts with greater or less efficacy in proportion to the dispositions of the subject on which it works, so a sacrament will give more grace to such as receive it in better dispositions. It may, then, very well be that more grace will be obtained from Holy Communion received two or three times a week with better dispositions than from daily Communion made without fervour.

The Council of Trent anathematizes anyone who shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, though it also teaches that not all the sacraments are necessary for every individual. Under each sacrament it will be explained how far it is necessary and in what sense.

THE decree of Eugenius IV, for the instruction of the Armenians, lays down that all the sacraments consist essentially of three things: the matter, the form, and the minister who makes the sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does. And, it adds, if any one of these elements be wanting the sacrament is not made. The sacraments, then, are not simple, but composite signs, which consist of two distinct elements. One of these in technical language is called the matter, because it is that portion of the sacramental sign which is the most indeterminate with respect to conveying the meaning which the sacrament signifies. This matter is called remote when considered by itself; it is called proximate when it is taken and applied by the minister to the making of the sacrament. The second element consists of words, and this part is called the form of the sacrament, because the words determine the matter to the more complete signification expressed by the whole sacramental sign. Thus in Baptism the water, considered by itself, is the remote matter of the sacrament and does not necessarily signify washing; water may be used to slake the thirst, and for many other purposes. The application of the water to the person to be baptized is the proximate matter, and when this is done with the form of words, “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” the whole composite rite assumes a religious aspect, and signifies, according to the intention of the minister, the washing away of sin from the soul.

The minister of a sacrament must necessarily use the matter and form which were instituted by Christ, for he alone as God-Man has the power to cause grace to be conveyed to the soul by means of sacred rites.

There must be no change made in the matter and form of the sacraments; not even the Church’s authority suffices for that. If a substantial change be made either in the matter or in the form, the sacrament is destroyed. The matter will be substantially changed if in the estimation of ordinary men it is no longer the same, but something else. Thus, if the wine has become vinegar, it cannot be used as the matter of the Eucharist. The form will be substantially changed if the sense is no longer the same, but different. Thus, ‘“ I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ” is the divinely instituted form for Baptism, and if the minister baptize with the words, “I baptize thee in the name of the Trinity ” it is no sacrament, because of the substantial change. It is not lawful to make any change in the matter and form of the sacraments, but if an accidental and not a substantial change be made, so that the matter and the sense of the form remain the same, the sacrament will not be rendered invalid, as a general rule. However, a change which in itself is slight and accidental may be made substantial by the perverse intention of the minister. For the sense may then be quite different, and that different sense is expressed in the form. Thus Pope Zacharias wrote to St Boniface that Baptism administered with the form, Baptizo te in nomine Patria, et Filia, et Spiritus Sancta, is valid when the mistakes are made through ignorance of Latin, and not through heresy or a perverse intention. If, then, such changes were introduced to give expression to heresy, the sense would be substantially changed and the form would be invalidated. Similarly, if Baptism were given with the form “* T baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and of the Blessed Virgin Mary,” the sacrament would be invalid if the minister intended to baptize in the name of the Blessed Virgin as of one of the Persons in the Godhead; if the addition was made through mistaken devotion to the Mother of God the sacrament would not be invalid. On the principles just stated Leo XIII decided that Anglican ordinations are invalid.

Except in case of necessity it is not lawful in the administration of the sacraments to use only probable matter or a probably valid form. An opinion contrary to this doctrine was condemned by Innocent XI, March 2, 1679. Justice and charity, which demand that the minister confer a sacrament validly, and do nothing to imperil its validity, require that he should use only certain matter and the certainly valid form as far as possible. Reverence also for the sacrament and for Christ, who instituted it, makes it necessary to take all due care that when a sacrament is administered it should be properly and validly administered. If, however, in a particular case only doubtful matter is at hand, and unless the sacrament is at once administered, the subject may be altogether deprived of it, then such doubtful matter may be used, since the reasons to the contrary then cease to be valid, because the sacraments were made for the benefit of man, not man for the sacraments.

As the matter and the form of a sacrament constitute together one composite sign of grace, there must not be such an interval between them as to destroy their unity. In the holy Eucharist the form requires that the matter should be physically present at the time when the words of consecration are uttered. In the other sacraments it is not necessary that the matter and form should be put at the same time in order that the sacrament may be valid; it is sufficient for the validity if there be a moral union between them so that according to a moral estimate they form one whole. Thus in Baptism, although the rubrics prescribe that the words should be said while the water is poured on the head, yet if a brief interval, say the space of a Pater or of an Ave, separate the matter and the form, the sacrament will still be valid.

The matter and the form should be applied by one and the same minister. Baptism would not be valid if one poured the water while another pronounced the words. In the Eucharist, however, and in Extreme Unction there are more than one form, each with its separate matter, and the sacrament would be valid if one minister consecrated one species or anointed one sense and another finished the rite. This, however, is only lawful in case of necessity, nor is it lawful for many ministers to make one sacrament at the same time, except when newly ordained priests celebrate Mass with the Bishop who has ordained them.

The sacraments should ordinarily be administered absolutely according to the manner in which they were instituted by Christ. If, however, in any particular case it is doubtful whether a sacrament was validly administered and there will be danger of grave spiritual loss to the subject unless it is repeated, it may and should be repeated conditionally. The condition should be expressed when the rubrics require it, as in the case of Baptism and Extreme Unction. Otherwise the condition may be implicit, and it will be sufficient if the minister intend to do his duty according to the institution of Christ and the laws of Holy Mother Church.

The Ritual expressly warns the minister that the conditional form for administering Baptism is not to be used at random or lightly, but with prudence, when after diligent inquiry there is a probable doubt whether the sacrament was validly conferred before. The same principle is to be applied to the conditional administration of the other sacraments.”

Except in the case of Matrimony, which is a contract and follows in this the rules affecting other contracts, a sacrament cannot be validly administered under a condition which regards a future and uncertain event. The reason is because such a condition would of its nature suspend the effect of the sacrament, and when the condition is verified the matter and form no longer exist and cannot now produce their effect. Thus Baptism conferred on a child under the condition, “If you attain the age of reason,” would be null and void. On the other hand, a sacrament conferred under a past or present condition will be valid if the condition be verified; it will be invalid if the condition be not verified. We have already seen when it is lawful to administer a sacrament conditionally. There will bean obligation to do so whenever justice and charity due to our neighbour require it in order to prevent his spiritual loss, or when reverence for the sacraments and for Christ, who instituted them, makes it necessary in order to avoid their invalid administration (Can. 732, sec. 2). ¹: St Thomas, 2-2, q. 186, a. 5; can. 499, sec. 1.

¹ St Thomas, 2-2, q. 186, a. 5; can. 499, sec. 1.

THE sacraments were instituted by Christ as so many channels or conduits by which he might convey to the souls of men the fruits of his passion and death. They are administered in his name and by his authority, and so Christ himself is the principal minister of the sacraments. However, he deigns to make use of men as his instruments for administering them, and it is of these secondary ministers who make the sacraments in the name of Christ that we have here to treat. In Matrimony, as we shall see, the parties to the contract themselves are the ministers to each other of the sacrament, and anyone who has the use of reason may confer Baptism validly. The minister of the other sacraments, at least for their lawful administration, must have the twofold spiritual power of order and jurisdiction which was given by Christ to his Church. We shall see, when treating of the several sacraments, how far order and jurisdiction are also required for their valid ministration. In the following sections we will lay down the conditions and dispositions which a minister of the sacraments should have to perform his office worthily.

While administering a sacrament the minister should attend to what he is doing and remember that he is engaged in a religious function. If he voluntarily allows his mind to wander on other and profane matters, he is guilty of irreverence toward God for whose worship the sacraments were instituted and should be administered. This irreverence, however, is not grave in itself, probably not even if a priest is voluntarily distracted during the consecration in Mass, so that voluntary distractions while administering the sacraments are only venial sins. Attention, then, or advertence of the mind to what is being done, is not necessary for the validity of a sacrament; only three things are necessary for its validity, as we saw above —the matter, the form, and the intention of the minister to do what the Church does.

Intention is an act of the will directing an action to a certain end. Divines distinguish between an actual, a virtual, an habitual, and an interpretative intention, wishes here and now to administer When a minister a sacrament, he has an actual intention to perform the rite. If he had such a wish and in consequence set about his task, but became distracted while administering the sacrament, he has a virtual intention. An habitual intention is a wish to do something, which wish has not been retracted but which does not issue in action. An interpretative intention is a wish which would be conceived if one thought of it, but for want of thinking of it is not elicited.

An intention of some sort in the minister is necessary for the validity of a sacrament; the Council of Trent anathematized anyone who should say that there is not required in ministers while they make and confer the sacraments at least an intention to do what the Church does.¹ Now the Church by her ministers and through the sacraments baptizes, confirms, absolves from sin, and so forth; so that the minister while making a sacrament must intend to baptize, confirm, absolve. However, it is not necessary to have an actual intention of doing this; distractions cannot always be avoided, and always to have an actual intention while engaged in conferring the sacraments would be an impossible requirement. Nor would an habitual intention suffice, for it does not exist while the action is put, nor has it any effect upon the action. Much less would an interpretative intention be sufficient. It remains, then, that a virtual intention is necessary and sufficient in the minister while he makes a sacrament.

¹ Sess. vii, c. 11.

Ambrosius Catharinus, Salmeron, Contenson, and other theologians thought that an intention to perform the external rite of a sacrament, even if the minister internally expressly withheld his intention to do what the Church does, would be sufficient for the validity of a sacrament. Such an intention to perform the merely external rite while internally withholding the intention to baptize, absolve, and so forth, is called an external intention, ‘The common opinion is that such a merely external intention is not sufficient, but that an internal intention or a positive wish to baptize, absolve, and so forth, is necessary for the validity of the sacrament. On December 7, 1690, Alexander VIII condemned the proposition that Baptism is valid when it is conferred by a minister who observes all the external rite and form of Baptism but inwardly in his heart makes this resolution, ‘‘ I do not intend to do what the Church does.” This decree would seem to settle the matter, for it seems to have been directed against Fr. Farvacques, O.S.A., who, in a little book published ten years earlier, had defended the opinion of Catharinus and Salmeron. A few theologians even subsequently to the decree of Alexander VIII have defended the same view, on the ground that the decree was aimed at the Lutheran error which asserted the validity of the sacraments even when administered in joke. No Catholic, however, defended the Lutheran doctrine at the time, and it had already been condemned by the Council of Trent. We must, then, at least say with Benedict XIV that the condemnation of the above proposition inflicted a serious blow on the opinion of Catharinus, and no theologian of note now defends it. The Church does not merely apply the matter and form when ministering the sacraments, but by means of those external rites she intends to do what Christ instituted the sacraments to effect—that is, to baptize, to absolve, and so forth. An intention, then, to do this—to baptize, to absolve, or an internal intention—is necessary for the validity of a sacrament.

It is not sufficient for the minister while making a sacrament to have a vague intention of conferring it on somebody or other, or of taking and applying some matter in general for the making of the sacrament. The intention must be definite in its scope and object, otherwise there is no reason why this matter should be taken rather than that, or why one person should be benefited rather than another. An intention, therefore, to absolve anyone in a crowd who may need it, or to consecrate five hosts out of a larger number on the altar would not be effective.

Neither ignorance nor mistake on the part of the minister about the nature or effect of a sacrament makes it invalid. Baptism conferred by one who knows nothing of its nature, or by one who denies baptismal regeneration, is valid, provided that the three essential elements of the sacrament are not wanting.

Difficulties may arise from the fact that a minister while making a sacrament had mutually contradictory intentions. Thus an heretical priest while saying Mass may have the intention to do what Christ instituted but not to offer sacrifice, as he denies that Mass is a sacrifice. In this and in similar cases divines give the following rules for discovering whether the sacrament is effected or not. When the contradictory intentions are present in the mind at the time of making the sacrament, that will prevail which is the stronger, and that is the stronger which would be chosen by the minister if he realized the contradiction. So that, in the example given, the heretical minister will actually say Mass if the intention to do what Christ instituted be the prevailing and stronger one; he will not say Mass if his intention not to offer sacrifice is the stronger. When the contradictory intentions follow one another, the last will ordinarily prevail, unless the former revoked all subsequent intentions.

Except in case of necessity the minister of a sacrament may not use probable opinions with reference to what belongs to the validity of the sacrament. As we saw when treating of the matter and form, it would be against the reverence due to the sacraments, against justice, and against charity, if the minister exposed the sacraments to the danger of nullity through following a merely probable opinion. He is bound to follow the safer opinion when he can do so in what relates to the validity of the sacraments. In questions, however, which only touch the lawfulness or the integrity of the sacraments, and when the Church supplies what is wanting in order that the sacrament may be valid, which she sometimes does, as we shall see later, there is no reason why the minister should not use probable opinions. The same doctrine applies also to the recipient of the sacraments.

Neither faith nor the state of holiness and friendship with God is necessary in the minister for the validity of the sacraments which he confers. This is of faith, and it was defined by the Council of Trent. The sacraments do not depend for their effect on the good or bad dispositions of the minister, as they derive their efficacy from the institution and the merits of Christ. They produce their effect ex opere operato, not ex opere operantis. However, one who has been consecrated and deputed to be a dispenser of the mysteries of God is bound to fulfil his office in a worthy manner. Holy things must be treated holily. The minister acts in the name of Christ; he becomes the instrument of Christ for the sanctification of the souls of others by means of the sacraments; he would be greatly wanting in reverence and decency if, while engaged in so holy a task, his own conscience were stained with grievous sin. An enemy of God himself, he is guilty of great presumption in undertaking such holy functions. A consecrated minister who solemnly administers a sacrament while conscious of being in a state of mortal sin certainly sins grievously. The question whether a lay person who in case of necessity baptizes another or contracts marriage in the state of sin himself sins grievously, as being an unworthy minister of the sacrament, is much disputed among divines. Many weighty authorities excuse such a minister from grave sin because he is not under so strict an obligation to put himself in the state of grace before administering a sacrament as is one who has been set aside and consecrated to that office. All citizens are bound to defend their country when threatened, but there is a special obligation to do so incumbent on those who, like soldiers, have undertaken that duty. Similarly, all should indeed treat the sacraments with proper respect, but consecrated ministers are specially bound to do so while fulfilling their office. So that it.is a probable opinion that a lay person who baptizes in sin in a case of necessity, or one who marries and so ministers the sacrament in sin to the other party, does not thereby sin grievously. For the same reasons it is also probable that even a consecrated minister who while in sin administers Baptism privately in case of necessity does not sin mortally, for he then acts as a private person, not as a consecrated minister.

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.

All who have the cure of souls are bound in justice and in charity to administer the sacraments to the members of their flock when these need them or ask for them reasonably. The obligation is principally one of justice, and it arises from the implicit contract which those who have the cure of souls enter into on assumption of office. The obligation is a grave one if the subject is in extreme or grave necessity, and even when there is no grave necessity one who has the cure of souls would commit serious sin if he frequently refused the sacraments to those who ask for them reasonably. An occasional refusal in such cases would not be a grievous sin, as although the spiritual good of which they are unjustly deprived is considerable, yet the loss can without much inconvenience be made good at another time.

The obligation of justice is so strict that those who have the cure of souls are bound even at the risk of life to administer the sacraments to their flock in extreme or in grave necessity. This obligation, however, only extends to those sacraments which are necessary for salvation, such as Baptism and Penance; it does not extend to those which are not necessary, not even to the holy Eucharist, according to a very probable opinion. Mortal sin will be committed not only by frequent refusal of the sacraments to those who ask for them in a reasonable manner, but also by making one’s self difficult to approach and by an ungracious manner of yielding to reasonable requests, inasmuch as such methods deter the faithful from exercising their just rights.

Ministers of the sacraments who have not the cure of souls are bound in charity to administer the sacraments to such as are in extreme or grave spiritual necessity. This obligation is less strict than that which lies on those who have the cure of souls, so that those who have no such cure will only be bound at the risk of life to administer the sacraments which are necessary for salvation to those who are in extreme necessity. But in order that this grave obligation of charity may exist there must be moral certainty that the person in question is in extreme spiritual necessity, or in other words, that he is in proximate danger of damnation unless the sacraments be administered. There must also be a reasonable certainty that the attempt to administer the sacraments will be successful; it would be hard if a minister of the sacraments were bound to imperil his life for a mere probability of being able to help another in spiritual distress. Furthermore, before so grave an obligation can be imposed on anyone it must be morally certain that he who is in spiritual necessity is unable to help himself by making an act of contrition for his sins or of perfect love of God, and that there is no one else who is able and willing to succour him in his necessity. As all these conditions are seldom verified in any concrete case, it is apparent that those who have not the cure of souls will seldom be under a grave obligation of administering the sacraments to those who are in extreme necessity at the risk of life.

“ 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.

THE sacraments were instituted to sanctify the souls of men and thus to prepare them for heaven. Only living men, then, can validly receive the sacraments; dead men or other beings cannot receive them validly. Death takes place when the soul is separated from the body, but we do not know the precise moment when that separation takes place. Except putrefaction, there are no absolutely certain signs of death, and it is quite probable that the soul remains united to the body for some time after all apparent signs of life have disappeared. Under these circumstances recent medical men and divines hold that it is lawful to administer the last sacraments to one who has to all appearances been dead for an hour or two. This is especially the case when death is the result of some sudden accident. Men only, not women, are capable of receiving the sacrament of Orders, and only those who have committed actual sins after Baptism can validly receive the sacrament of Penance. As the sacraments were instituted for the Church of Christ, of which men become members by Baptism, this sacrament is a necessary condition for the valid reception of the others.

No special disposition or intention is required on the part of infants, who have not come to the use of reason, and of imbeciles for the validity of the sacraments which they are capable of receiving. As they have not the use of reason they are incapable of disposing themselves for the reception of the sacraments, and yet the Church has been accustomed to give them the sacraments. The practice of the Church in such matters has the very greatest authority, as the Angelic Doctor says: ““ The custom of the Church has the greatest authority, and it should always be followed in all things, because even the teaching of Catholic Doctors receives its authority from the Church. So that we must rather stand by the authority of the Church than by the authority of Augustine or Jerome, or of any Doctor soever.”¹+ With reference to infant Baptism the Council of Trent passed the following decree: “ If anyone saith that little children, for that they have not actual faith, are not, after having received Baptism, to be reckoned amongst the faithful; and that for this cause they are to be rebaptized when they have attained to years of discretion; or that it is better that the Baptism of such be omitted than that while not believing by their own act they should be baptized in the faith alone of the Church; let him be anathema.”²

¹ Summa, 2-2, q. 10, a. 12.

² Sess. vii, c. 13, de Bapt.

On the other hand, God does not sanctify adults who have the use of reason without some co-operation on their side; justification, says the Council of Trent,¹ is the sanctification and renewal of the interior man by the voluntary reception of grace and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Some wish, desire, or intention to receive a sacrament is, then, necessary on the part of adults for its validity. A positive refusal to receive a sacrament, or a neutral state of mind neither willing nor refusing it, would make the reception of a sacrament null and void. The kind of intention which is necessary and sufficient for the validity of a sacrament varies according to its nature. In Penance and Matrimony a virtual intention is required in the subject, as it is required in the minister. For in Penance the acts of the penitent enter into the substance of the sacrament, and so they must be directed by him to its confection. Matrimony is constituted by the mutual consent of the parties, and for this at least a virtual intention is necessary. An habitual intention is required in order to be baptized validly; in other words, the person baptized must have at some time intended to receive the sacrament and not revoked his intention afterward. It is a disputed point among divines whether an habitual and express intention is necessary or whether an implicit intention contained in a desire to do all that God has ordained, or in an act of perfect charity or contrition, is sufficient. The latter opinion is probable, and it may be used in case of necessity when one is in danger of death, and then only. For the sacraments, which confer benefits without imposing any great burden, a general or implicit intention, such as is contained in a desire to die like a Catholic with all the rites of the Church, is sufficient for their validity. For Orders at least an habitual intention is required.

Those, therefore, who are asleep, or are unconscious, can receive the sacraments validly, for they may have all the dispositions which are necessary. The only difficulty is about Penance, but, as we shall see, it is at least a probable opinion that absolution is valid when given to one who is unconscious, but otherwise disposed for the sacrament. However, it is not lawful to administer the sacraments to those who are asleep, unconscious, or out of their mind, except when in danger of death. For the subject should be in a fit state to dispose himself for the reception of the sacraments so that he may receive them with due reverence and fruit.

¹ Sess. vi, c. 7.

Except in Penance, neither faith nor good dispositions are required for the validity of the sacraments, as is clear from the practice of the Church, which is not accustomed to repeat sacraments received in heresy or in bad dispositions. However, the state of grace is necessary for the lawful reception of the sacraments of the living, as we have seen; and for those of the dead, faith, hope, and sorrow for sin are necessary, as the Council of Trent teaches that they are for the justification of the sinner.¹ Furthermore, for the lawful reception of the sacraments the subject must be free from all censures which deprive him of the right to receive them.

It follows from this that heretics and schismatics even when baptized may not lawfully receive the sacraments at the hands of Catholic ministers, as a general rule.²2 The sacraments are intended for those who are visibly members of the Catholic Church, and they alone have the right to receive them. If anyone else wishes to receive them, let him enter the visible Church of God. However, it is a disputed point whether the sacraments may be lawfully administered to a schismatic or heretic who is in good faith, and who is in danger of death. Although St Alphonsus and others deny that it is lawful to absolve such a person, yet the opposite opinion has its supporters, and it is in keeping with several decrees of the Roman congregations—as, for example, that of the Holy Office, July 20, 1898.³ The faithful are not prohibited from asking for the sacraments from ministers who they know lead bad lives, if they have good reason for so doing. Sin, indeed, is committed by the minister if he administers a sacrament while in sin, but if he does so his malice must be imputed to himself, not to those who for good reason exercise their right to receive the sacraments. Moreover, the malice of the minister cannot affect the sacraments.

Although in extreme necessity a Catholic may receive the sacraments from schismatical ministers, yet scandal to be avoided rarely permits of its being done, as Benedict XIV teaches.⁴

The faithful may confess to any Catholic priest of any rite who has faculties for confession (Can. 905); and the faithful may receive Holy Communion consecrated according to any rite. But they are to be counselled to receive their Easter Communion according to their own rite. Holy Viaticum should also be received according to the rite of each one, except in case of necessity when it may be received according to any rite (Can. 866).

¹ Sess. vi, c. 6.

² Can. 731.

³ Analecta Ecclesiastica, 1898, p. 387.

⁴ De Syn. vi, c. 5, n. 2.

THE first of the sacraments, the door by which men enter into the Church of God, by which they are made her children and the sons of God, is Baptism. The Catechism of the Council of Trent defines Baptism as the sacrament of regeneration by water in the word. This is but expressing in other words what our Lord said to Nicodemus, “‘ Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”¹ The new birth which takes place in Baptism is the new life of grace which is given to the soul by the sacrament, and by this vivifying grace the soul which was dead to God lives to him with a supernatural life.

Baptism, then, is a total washing of the soul from the stains of sin, both original and actual, if any have been committed, and a complete cancelling of all the debt of punishment which may be due to sin. This is brought about by the infusion of sanctifying grace into the soul, together with the habits of the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity. Moreover, by Baptism a character is imprinted on the soul by which it is known to God and his angels as that of a baptized Christian; and the person baptized becomes a member of the Church, a child of God, and heir to the kingdom of heaven.

¹ John iii 5.

By the positive will of Jesus Christ Baptism is necessary for salvation, as may be gathered from the words quoted above. This truth was defined by the Council of Trent,¹ “ If anyone saith that Baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation—let him be anathema.” Without Baptism, then, it is impossible to be saved, not merely because Christ commanded all to receive this sacrament, but because it infuses sanctifying grace into the soul, that nuptial garment without which no one can be admitted to the beatific vision. If, however, for one cause or another it is not possible to receive the Baptism of water, its place may be supplied by an act of perfect contrition or of the pure love of God, and by martyrdom. On this account Baptism is said by theologians to be threefold: the Baptism of water, the Baptism of desire, and the Baptism of blood. Perfect conversion to God by contrition for sin or by Se certainly infuses sanctifying grace into the soul and forgive: sin, as Holy Scripture frequently declares, and as the Council of Trent teaches² In this, therefore, its effect is similar to the primary effect of Baptism, and it is rightly called the Baptism of desire. Still, after the promulgation of the New Law the Baptism of desire only produces its effect because explicitly or implicitly it contains a desire and a purpose to receive the Baptism of water, should occasion offer. Although the Baptism of desire reconciles the sinner to God, yet it does not imprint any character on the soul, nor does it necessarily remit all the temporal punishment due to sin. The extent to which it does this will depend on the intensity of the act.

Martyrdom, also, or death patiently endured for the sake of Christ or for some Christian virtue, has the same effect as the Baptism of desire. “‘ Greater love than this,” said our blessed Lord, “no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends.’’³ Still martyrdom does not produce its effect simply as an act of love, but in a manner ex opere operato, by a special privilege, as being an imitation of the passion and death of Christ. Thus the Church honours as saints in heaven the Holy Innocents and other children who have been put to death for the sake of Christ. In the case of adults who have committed sin there must at least be attrition for sin in order that martyrdom may produce its effect as a kind of Baptism.

¹ Sess. vii, c. 5, de Bapt.

² Sess. xiv, c. 4.

³ John xv 13.

THE remote and valid matter of Baptism is natural water in a suitable state for washing one’s self. It is quite immaterial whether the water be spring water, rain water, sea water, or water from a river or pond; but frozen water is doubtful matter until it is melted, because it is not suitable for washing one’s self; while mud is invalid matter (Can. 737).

For solemn Baptism the Church prescribes the use of water specially consecrated for the purpose, and the same may be used for private Baptism, as also may holy water and common water. For the private Baptism of adults who have been converted from heresy and require to be baptized conditionally, the First Synod of Westminster prescribes the use of holy water.

The proximate matter of the sacrament is its use or application in the act of baptizing. This may validly be done either by infusion, or immersion, or sprinkling, provided that the water touches the head of the person to be baptized and flows so as to express the action of washing. In the Western Church, however, a triple pouring of water on the head of the person to be baptized, or a triple immersion, if such be the custom, is prescribed by the rubrics of the Ritual. Care should be taken that the water touch the skin, as the Baptism would be of doubtful validity if it merely touched the hair. Merely to lay the wet hand or finger on the skin would not be valid Baptism, and even if the wet finger were moved over the skin the validity would still be doubtful (Can. 758).

The form of Baptism is: “‘ I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Any change in this form which altered the sense would also invalidate the Baptism, as if one should say, “ I baptize thee in the name of Christ,” or “ of the Blessed Trinity.”” The form should be pronounced by the minister while he pours the water, and it is clear that if one pronounced the words while another poured the water, or if one baptized one’s self, the Baptism would be invalid.

THE ordinary minister of solemn Baptism is a priest, but as it is a parochial sacrament, its lawful administration belongs exclusively to the parish priest or to the priest who has the cure of souls in the district in which the parents of the child have their domicile or quasi-domicile. Such priest may, of course, delegate authority to any other priest to baptize in his name; if there is reasonable cause, as in case of illness or constant occupation in hearing confessions, he may commission a deacon to give solemn Baptism. The children of strangers may be baptized by the parish priest of the place, unless they can easily and without delay be baptized by their own parish priest (Can. 738, sec. 2).

In case of necessity, when there is danger of someone dying without Baptism, anyone who has the use of reason may baptize without the ceremonies. In such cases of necessity the Ritual prescribes that a priest should be preferred to a deacon, a deacon to a subdeacon, a cleric to a lay person, a man to a woman, unless the latter be preferred for the sake of decency or because she is better acquainted with the method of valid Baptism. Those who have the cure of souls should take care that the faithful, especially midwives, are instructed in the right method of administering Baptism. The Ritual also prescribes that a father or mother should not baptize their own child except when it is in danger of death and no one else can do so (Can. 742).

The ceremonies prescribed for solemn Baptism are of grave obligation, so that it would be a mortal sin to omit without necessity a notable part of them, as, for example, the anointings or the. use of consecrated water. The child is anointed with the oil of catechumens before the actual baptizing, and afterward with the chrism, The holy oils should be kept carefully separated, and they should be renewed every year when the oils are consecrated Thursday. The baptismal by the Bishop on Maundy font, too, should be blessed on Holy Saturday with the oils consecrated on the previous Thursday. If they have not arrived in time the font should be blessed without them, and they should be added afterward, unless, in the meantime, someone has to be baptized, and then the old oils may be used in blessing the font. threaten to be exhausted, fresh, unblessed If the oils olive oil may be added, always in smaller quantity. The same rule may be followed with regard to the consecrated water in the font. The Ritual admonishes the parish priest to take care that as far as possible names of saints should be given in Baptism, so that, by their example, the baptized person may be moved to live holily, and that he may hope to enjoy their patronage. In solemn Baptism the Latin language should be used, but certain portions may also be rendered in the vernacular, according to the Ritual approved for use in the country.

According to the Code of Canon Law, the proper place for solemn Baptism is the baptistery in a church or public oratory. Every parish church should have a baptismal font. If, on account of distance or for other reasons, a person to be baptized cannot be brought to the parish church, the parish priest may and ought to administer solemn Baptism in the nearest church or public oratory. Solemn Baptism should not be administered in private houses unless those to be baptized are the children or grandchildren of those who hold the chief authority in the country, or have the right to succeed to the throne, and they make the request, or if the local Ordinary for good reason in some extraordinary case thinks that it should be allowed. In these cases Baptism should be given with consecrated water, and in the chapel or in some suitable room of the house (Can. 773-776).

Adults should be baptized according to the longer form in the Ritual unless the local Ordinary for a grave reason allow the form for the Baptism of infants to be used (Can. 755, sec. 2).

Those who have attained the use of reason are their own masters in the things of God, and are considered adults with reference to Baptism (Can. 745, sec. 2, 11).

Adults who have been converted from heresy and require conditional Baptism are to be baptized privately with holy water and without the ceremonies, according to the First Synod of Westminster (Can. 759, sec. 2).

In questions concerning Baptism, infants are those who have not attained the use of reason, had the use of reason sec, 2). and those who are reckoned never have as infants (Can. 745, Baptism; if they were used in the first E ‘they may be used or omitted in the second at the option of minister. This does not apply to conditional Baptism ministered to adult converts,

SPONSORS, according to ecclesiastical law, are used in solemn Baptism to answer for the child baptized, to hold him during Baptism, or to receive him immediately after Baptism from the hands of the minister, and to act as his instructors in the Faith which he received and professed in Baptism.

With regard to those who have Catholic parents, the sponsors may ordinarily presume that the Catholic education of the child will be sufficiently provided for by them; but otherwise the sponsors will be bound, as far as possible, to provide for it.

Sponsors should be employed in private Baptism if at least one can easily be had; if this was not done, they should be employed afterwards when the ceremonies are supplied in the Church (Can. 762, sec. 2).

The Council of Trent ordained, “that in accordance with the appointments of the sacred canons, one person only, whether male or female, or at most one male and one female, shall receive in Baptism the individual baptized; between whom and the baptized, and the father and mother thereof, as also between the person baptizing and the baptized, and the father and mother of the baptized, and these only, shall spiritual relationship be contracted. The parish priest, before he proceeds to confer Baptism, shall carefully inquire of those whom it may concern what person or persons they have chosen to receive from the sacred font the individual baptized; and he shall allow him or them only to receive the baptized; he shall register their names in the book, and teach them what relationship they have contracted, that they may have no excuse on the score of ignorance. And if any others besides those designated should touch the baptized, they shall not in any way contract a spiritual relationship, any constitutions that tend to the contrary notwithstanding.¹

Spiritual relationship between the sponsors and the parents of the baptized person and between the minister of Baptism and the parents was abolished by Canon 768.

In order to be sponsor validly a person must be: (1) Baptized, have the use of reason, and have the intention of being sponsor. (2) He must not belong to any heretical or schismatical body, nor be excommunicated by a condemnatory or declaratory sentence, nor infamous with the infamy of law, nor excluded from acts of law, nor a deposed or degraded cleric.

(3) He must not be the father, mother, or spouse of the person baptized. (4) He must be designated by the person to be baptized, or by his parents or guardians, or failing these by the minister of Baptism.

(5) He must physically hold or touch the baptized person in the act of Baptism, by himself or by his proctor, or immediately raise or receive him from the sacred font or from the hands of the person baptizing (Can. 765).

¹ Sess. xxiv, c, 2, de Ref.

To be admitted as sponsor lawfully a person— (1) Must have reached the fourteenth year of his age, unless the minister judge otherwise for a good reason.

(2) He must not be excommunicated for a notorious crime, or excluded from acts of law, or infamous with the infamy of law, but without sentence having been passed, or under interae or otherwise publicly criminal, or infamous by infamy of fact.

(3) He must know the rudiments of the Faith.

(4) He must not be a novice or professed in any religious institute, unless there is necessity and the express leave be had of at least the local superior.

(5) He must not be in sacred orders unless he have the express leave of his own Ordinary (Can. 766).

Others are sometimes prohibited by provincial law, as the following in England: those who have not been confirmed or who have not made their Easter duties, and ecclesiastics.

One may be sponsor by proxy, and then the principal, not the proxy, contracts spiritual relationship with the person baptized.

Sponsors are not necessary when Baptism is reiterated conditionally, unless the same person can be had in the second Baptism as acted as sponsor in the first (Can. 763).

We shall speak first of the sacraments in general, then of the sacraments in species.

The further moral precepts which were added after the giving of the Decalogue can all be reduced to one or the other of the Ten Commandments. Examples: The prohibition against fortune-telling belongs to the First; the prohibition against perjury and false teaching, to the Second; the commandment to honor the aged, to the Fourth; the prohibition against detraction, to the Eighth.

Denial of Sacraments in Cases of Scandal.—Is it lawful to administer the Sacraments to one who has not made satisfaction for public scandal?

(a) If the obligation of reparation is not grave, it is lawful to administer the Sacraments, since the person who gave the scandal is not subject to grave sin and unworthy of the Sacraments, and his admission to them will not be a new scandal.

(b) If the obligation of reparation is grave, it is lawful to admit the party in question to the Sacrament of Penance; for every person rightly disposed has a right to absolution, and the fact that a person who gave scandal goes to confession is edifying. But absolution should be given on condition that reparation for the scandal is seriously promised.

(c) If the obligation of reparation is grave, it is not lawful as a rule to admit to the other Sacraments, until the reparation has been actually performed. Thus, if it is notorious in a parish that a certain individual has been living in a serious occasion of sin or has been circulating impious doctrines, the occasion of sin should be removed or the doctrines should be retracted, before the individual is admitted to Communion, etc.; otherwise, a new scandal would be given the faithful from the apparent approval given the scandalizer by the minister of the Sacrament received.

(Summa Theologica, III, qq. 60-65.)

Nature of a Sacrament.—In the New Law a Sacrament is an outward sign instituted permanently by Christ to signify and convey grace.

(a) The internal cause or essence of a Sacrament is the outward sign, which has two parts. The indeterminate part or matter is a visible object (e.g., the water of Baptism, the chrism of Confirmation, the bread and wine of the Eucharist, the oil of Extreme Unction, the imposition of hands in Orders) or a perceptible act that looks to another act for its perfectionment (e.g., the confession, etc., of the penitent in penance; the giving of oneself as spouse in Matrimony). The determining part, or form, is either the sacred formula spoken over the material element (e.g., in Baptism the words “I baptize thee, etc.”) or an act that completes another act (e.g., the acceptance of another as spouse in Matrimony). As the matter must be visible or otherwise sense-perceptible, so the form must be audible or at least (in Matrimony) equivalently audible; for a Sacrament is a sensible sign. The words are audible when they are heard or are capable of being heard at least by the minister.

(b) The external efficient cause or instituter of the Sacraments is Christ, the founder of the New Testament religion and the productive and meritorious author of grace as our God and Saviour.

(c) The external final cause or purpose of the Sacraments is to symbolize outwardly by their rite and to work inwardly by their instrumental virtue the application of Christ’s redemption in the soul of properly disposed recipients. It is the nature of Baptism and Penance (Sacraments of the Dead) to produce first grace or forgiveness, of the others to produce second grace or increase of holiness (Sacraments of the Living). Furthermore, three of the Sacraments (Baptism, Confirmation, Orders) have a second effect, since they sign the soul with the indelible character of member or soldier or minister of Christ, and hence these Sacraments cannot be repeated.

Rules on the Invalid Use of the Matter and Form of the Sacraments.—(a) Since the matter and form are essential constituents without which the Sacraments are not had, it is sacrilegious to invalidate a Sacrament by substantial changes in either of these parts. The matter is changed substantially when it is so modified as currently to be considered and called something different from the element appointed by Christ. Thus, wine is unfit for the Eucharist if corrupted into vinegar, or made unsuitable as a drink (e.g., probably as long as it remains frozen), or notably adulterated (e.g., when it is mixed half and half with water). The form is changed substantially when it is so modified that to a listener it no longer conveys the sense intended by Christ. This happens when the changed form does not express the chief ideas of the correct form, as when it does not determine who is the minister of Penance (e.g., “You are absolved”), or who is the subject of Baptism (e.g., “Ego baptizo in nomine, etc.”), or what is the effect of the Eucharist (e.g., “Hoc non est corpus meum,” “Hoc est corpus,” “Hic meum est corpus”), or the action of the minister of Penance (e.g., “Ego abluo te a peccatis”), or the profession in Baptism of faith in the Trinity (e.g., “Ego te baptizo, Amen”).

(b) Since the matter and form are parts of a single composite sign, it is sacrilegious to invalidate a Sacrament by substantial separations, which destroy the continuity or unity of signification. There is a substantial separation within the form when such long intervals occur between the pronunciation of its syllables or words that it is not in common estimation a united sentence or proposition; for example, if the celebrant says, “Hoc est cor-,” then sneezes two or three times, and (instead of repeating the words) concludes “-pus meum,” or says “Hoc est corpus” and after an interruption of several minutes (instead of repeating) finishes with: “meum.” There is substantial separation between the matter and form, if the former is applied by one minister and the latter is spoken by another, although the form declares that the matter is applied by the speaker of the form: for example, if Titus pours the water while Claudius says: “I baptize thee, etc.” Even when the same minister applies both matter and form, there is a substantial separation between these parts when the form is not spoken at the same time or for the same time that the matter is posited, and thereby, from the special character of the Sacrament, leaves the signification of the sacramental matter unsettled. This happens when the form is spoken too long before or too long after the presence or application of the matter, or when the form is limited by a future condition which will not be verified during the continuance of the matter (see 2668).

Simultaneity of Matter and Form.—The simultaneity of matter and form which validity requires must be either moral or physical according to the character of the Sacrament.

(a) There is physical simultaneity when matter and form are present in the same instants of time. This kind of union is demanded in the Eucharist, for it has the character of a transubstantiation of bread and Wine present at the moments the words of consecration are said over them. There would be no Sacrament if the bread were absent even during a part of the consecration.

(b) There is a moral simultaneity like to the physical contemporaneousness when the matter and form are partly present in the same instants of time, and perhaps also (as some hold) when one follows the other with such close succession that not more than a Pater or Ave could be said between them. This kind of union is the maximum in Penance and Matrimony, for absolution must follow after confession, and conjugal acceptance must follow after conjugal offer. It suffices in Baptism, Confirmation, Extreme Unction, and Orders; for these four Sacraments do not consecrate the matter (and hence some little separation is allowed), but they do signify in the present tense the bestowal of grace through the application of the matter (and hence any separation must be of the slightest).

(c) There is a purely moral simultaneity when the form follows the matter after a somewhat considerable interval of time has elapsed, but with a connection between the two based on human usage which carries the matter on in human estimation over to the time the form is employed. This suffices in Penance and Matrimony. Penance has the character of a judicial process, whose unity is not destroyed by some little delay between the discussion and the sentence; and hence it seems that absolution could be given validly an hour after confession. Matrimony has the character of a contract, whose unity is preserved even in spite of a long interval between the date of consent of the first party and the date of consent of the second party.

Accidental Changes or Separations as to Matter and Form.—(a) These administrations are not invalid, for they preserve the essence of the elements or the sense of the words appointed by Christ. Examples of accidental change of matter are baptismal water to which a relatively very small quantity of wine has been added, or wine for the Eucharist to which a relatively trifling amount of water has been added. The form is accidentally modified if translated into the vernacular or rendered by synonymous words (e.g., “Ego abluo te, etc.”), or if an unimportant word (e.g., “enim”) is added or subtracted, or if the words are transposed or partially repeated or unintentionally mispronounced without detriment to sense (e.g., “Hoc est meum corpus,” “Hoc, hoc, est, est, etc.,” “Hoc est copus meum”). There is accidental separation when slight pauses are made between words, or when an interval not destructive of the sense falls between the use of the matter and the use of the form (see 2655, 2656).

(b) These administrations are unlawful and from their nature mortally sinful, since they are transgressions of a precept of the Church meant to safeguard respect for the Sacraments of Christ, and they are therefore opposed to the virtue of religion (2147). But the sin may be venial by reason of lightness of matter (e.g., omission of the word “enim”), or of imperfection of the act. Scandal, danger of invalidity, contempt, and bad intention would make even a small change a serious sin. In practice the rule to follow is to observe exactly the prescribed matter and form and entire rite, to pronounce the words clearly and slowly, to repeat the form when any involuntary interruption happens between its essential parts, and to unite the matter and form as closely as possible.

Substantial Changes or Separations.—Substantial changes or separations a fortiori are grave sins. They offend against religion (since they make a mockery of the sacred signs appointed by Christ), against obedience (since they disregard a most serious precept of the Church), against charity (since they deprive the recipient of sacramental grace), and against justice (at least when the minister is bound ex officio to confer the Sacrament, since there is then a quasi-contract with the recipient to administer the Sacrament correctly).

Doubtful Matter.—It is sometimes probable but not certain that an element suffices for the matter of a Sacrament (e.g., coffee or tea for Baptism, chrism for Extreme Unction). Hence the question: “Is it lawful to use probable matter in the administration of a Sacrament?”

(a) If certain matter cannot be had and the Sacrament is urgently necessary or very useful, probable matter may be used. For the Sacraments were instituted by Christ to benefit man (“The Sacraments are for men”), and hence it is not irreverent to give to one in need a probably valid Sacrament when a certainly valid Sacrament is impossible. Thus, a dying infant may and should be baptized with coffee, if no pure water can be procured in time; the last anointing may be conferred with chrism, if the oil of the sick cannot be had before a dying man will have expired.

(b) If certain matter can be had, or if the Sacrament is not urgently necessary or useful, probable matter may not be used without grave sin; for there is then no reason of necessity to justify the risk to which the Sacrament and perhaps also the recipient are exposed, Thus, it is not lawful to baptize with coffee when pure water can be secured, or to confirm with chrism not blessed by a bishop a dying man who had just received the last Sacraments, even though other chrism is unobtainable (see 661, 678, 711, and Denziger, n. 1151).

What Sacraments Have a Necessity of Means (see 360, 786, 2156)?—(a) Those Sacraments have a necessity of means without which sanctifying grace and salvation cannot be had. Hence the necessity for individuals of Baptism (without which there is no regeneration), of Penance (without which there is no reconciliation), of the Eucharist’s effect (without which there is no incorporation with Christ), and for the Church the necessity of Orders (without which there are no ministers and dispensers of grace, Prov., xi, 14).

(b) Those Sacraments have no necessity of means without which sanctifying grace and salvation can be had; but they have a necessity of convenience, inasmuch as they perfect grace already had and make salvation more easy. In this sense, then, Confirmation and Extreme Unction may be called necessary for the individual, since the former perfects the grace of Baptism and the latter the grace of Penance; and Matrimony may be called necessary for the Church, since it perfects with a sacramental grace the propagation of the children of the Church.

Reception of Sacraments in re or in voto.—The Sacraments that have a necessity of means must be received either in themselves (in re) or in desire (in voto).

(a) Thus, Baptism in re is necessary for all infants (John, iii. 5), Baptism in re or in voto for all adults (John, xiv. 21-23). Baptism of desire consists in an act of perfect charity or contrition made by an unbaptized person, which includes the will to do all that God has commanded, and consequently at least an implicit or virtual desire of Baptism of water. As is proved in Dogmatic Theology, Baptism may be supplied for, as regards grace, by martyrdom in an infant and by martyrdom joined with attrition in an adult.

(b) Penance in re or in voto is necessary for all who have committed grave sin after Baptism. The desire of the Sacrament is an act of perfect charity or contrition, which includes at least implicitly the wish to receive absolution. Martyrdom joined with attrition also suffices.

(c) The Sacrament of the Eucharist is not a necessary means for anyone, either in re or in voto; for the essential grace of justification can be obtained through Baptism and Penance. But the proper result (res) of the Eucharist, which consists in incorporation with Christ, perseverance, and life eternal, is a necessary means in voto, tacitly or interpretatively; for Baptism, as was said, is absolutely necessary for salvation, and Baptism itself is a tacit or interpretative desire of the result of the Eucharist, inasmuch as Baptism is but a means to that result and the beginning of its accomplishment.

What Sacraments Have a Necessity of Precept?—An act is said to fall under precept per se, when it is directly commanded in a law that mentions it specifically; it is said to fall under precept per accidens, when it becomes obligatory in virtue of a law that does not command it directly or specifically (cfr. 935, 1099, 1602).

(a) There is a divine precept obliging per se and sub gravi in reference to Baptism (“Preach the Gospel to all nations, baptizing them, etc.,” Matt., xxviii. 19), Penance (“Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, etc.”, John, xx. 23), and the Eucharist (“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, you shall not have life in you,” John, vi. 54). According to some authorities there is also a divine precept obliging at least sub levi to receive Confirmation (“He commanded them to await the promise of the Father,” Acts, i. 4) and Extreme Unction (“Is there any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the Church,” James, v. 14).

(b) There is a divine precept obliging per accidens and sub gravi in reference to Confirmation and Extreme Unction, when they cannot be omitted without peril to salvation, scandal to neighbors, or other such inconvenience which one is seriously bound to prevent. Similarly, there might be a per accidens obligation of receiving Matrimony or Orders (see 2627).

(c) There are ecclesiastical precepts determining the circumstances of the reception of Penance and the Eucharist (see 2590-2593) and prescribing Confirmation for candidates to Orders (Canon 974). Moreover, the Code reminds us that no one may lawfully neglect Confirmation when he has an opportunity to receive it (Canon 787), and likewise that it is not lawful to neglect Extreme Unction (Canon 944).

Twofold Ministry of the Sacraments.—(a) The ministry of production (confectio) is the application of form to matter that makes the Sacrament (e.g., the consecration of bread and wine); (b) the ministry of bestowal (administratio) is the application of the Sacrament to the human recipient (e.g., the Communion). The Eucharist is a permanent object, whereas Baptism and the rest are transitory actions. Hence it is that in the Eucharist, but not in the other Sacraments, the two ministries are separated, and hence it is also that the Eucharist may be validly given or validly received by those who cannot validly consecrate.

Requirements in the Minister for Valid Performance of a Sacrament.—(a) The Person of the Minister.—As the minister represents Christ, only those may perform a Sacrament to whom Christ has given authority. Hence, ordinarily only mortals and human beings—not the Angels or departed Saints—can administer a Sacrament. Further, as the ministry of a Sacrament may include an act of power and authority, there are various ranks of ministers. Thus, the ministry of Matrimony supposes no power or orders or spiritual authority, and the ministers are the parties themselves; that of Solemn Baptism, Eucharist, Penance, and Extreme Unction supposes orders and lower authority, and the minister is the priest; that of Confirmation and Orders supposes higher authority, and the minister is the bishop.

(b) The Acts of the Minister.—As the minister acts as Christ’s responsible agent to whose wise discretion the dispensation of the Sacraments is committed, he must have at least the external attention of mind sufficient to perform all that the rite demands and the internal intention of will sufficient to make his ministry an act that is human, sacred, and definitely symbolical of the sacramental effects.

The Necessary Intention.—The intention or purpose of the minister therefore must have the following qualities:

(a) objectively, there must be an intention of doing what the Church does (i.e., of performing a sacred rite instituted by Christ, for the minister acts in the name and authority of Christ). Hence a mock sacrament—or even, more probably, a purely external performance with no purpose to enact a sacred rite—does not suffice. But, on the other hand, an unbeliever can administer validly if he really intends to do what Christians do or what Christ commanded to be done. The intention not to do what the Church does was the chief cause of the nullity of Anglican Orders;

(b) subjectively, the intention must be at least virtual, so as to ensure a deliberate act. An actual intention is not necessary, because it is often impossible on account of its difficulty; while an habitual intention is not sufficient, because it does not influence the act so as to make it human (see 2165). The interpretative intention (i.e., a purpose that never existed, but that would presumably have existed, had attention been given the matter) is with greater reason insufficient;

(c) modally, the intention must be such as to make precise the character of the action as a special sacred rite; for just as the matter awaits the form or word to receive the imprint of a sacred significance, so do the ceremonial words themselves look to the internal purpose of the minister for their fixed meaning. Hence, the Sacrament is invalid if the minister’s purpose is indeterminate (e.g., if a priest wills to consecrate ten undesignated hosts out of the hundred contained in a ciborium, or to absolve one undesignated person of a multitude); or if the purpose is self-exclusive (e.g., if a bridegroom has two mutually incompatible intentions, namely, to marry the bride and also to marry her only for a time); or if the purpose is left in suspense (e.g., if a priest makes his absolution depend on future restitution or any other non-existent condition, and most probably also if the minister makes the Sacrament depend on the recipient’s predestination or other such condition known only to God).

Rules on Plurality of Intentions.—(a) When opposite intentions are simultaneous, if one of them is predominant in the minister’s will and not insociable with the Sacrament, that one prevails and the Sacrament is valid; otherwise the Sacrament is null. (b) When opposite intentions are successive, the later prevails over the earlier, unless the earlier was stronger and meant to endure in spite of other intentions, and it has not been recalled expressly by the will.

Requisites for Use of Conditional Intention.—(a) The use must be valid or non-suspensive (2666 e), and hence (Matrimony excepted on account of its special character as a contract) the minister may not confer a Sacrament under a condition de futuro. But conditions de praesenti (e.g., “I absolve you, if you are repentant”) or de praeterito (e.g., “I baptize you, if you have not received Baptism”) are valid.

(b) The use of a conditional intention must be lawful, or justified by a sufficient reason. Normally the minister should intend absolutely to give a Sacrament, as the forms of the Sacraments are unconditional. But if the absolute intention would be disrespectful, because there is doubt whether all the requisites for the Sacrament are present, while on the other hand denial of the Sacrament would be harmful because the subject needs it, both disrespect to the Sacrament and harm to the subject are avoided by conditional administration. The doubt spoken of may refer to the recipient (e.g., whether he is living or otherwise capable, whether he is contrite or otherwise disposed) or to the Sacrament (e.g., whether it has been received or received validly, whether the form has been rightly spoken, whether the present matter is valid).

(c) The use of the conditional intention must be legal according to the rules prescribed by the Church. Thus, according to the Ritual the conditional intention in Baptism and Extreme Unction (“Si non es baptizatus,” “Si vivis”) must be expressed vocally. Moreover, conditional marriages are not permitted as a rule except there be a grave reason and the bishop consents.

Lawful Administration of Sacraments.—Lawful administration of a Sacrament demands, in addition to the conditions for validity (2665-2668), that the minister and his ministry be worthy, for even in the Old Law it was strictly commanded that holy things be treated in a holy manner (Isa., lii. 11; Lev., xxi. xxii). Hence, a person who fulfilled the conditions for validity but who lacked one or other of the qualities mentioned below would perform and confer a true Sacrament, but he would sin more or less seriously on account of the unworthy administration, unless good faith excused him.

(a) The Minister’s Worthiness before God.—The state of grace is required in consecrated ministers when they minister solemnly and ex officio in performing a Sacrament; for they act then as representatives of Christ, who is holy, and exercise most sacred functions which He appointed as means of holiness and which they were ordained to perform holily. The sin of unworthiness is a grave sacrilege. It seems there is per se no grave sin, if the minister is not consecrated (e.g., in lay Baptism), or if the ministry is not ex officio (e.g., in a Baptism of necessity given by a priest but without the solemn ceremonies), or if a Sacrament is not made or performed (e.g., when confession is heard but absolution not given, when Communion is administered, when the Blessed Sacrament is carried). It is generally admitted that there is no grave sin even in a solemn and official performance of a Sacrament, if the Sacrament is urgently necessary and the state of grace cannot be recovered in time; also in the exercise of a function which is not itself a Sacrament (e.g., to be official witness at a marriage or deacon at Mass, to preach, bless, give Minor Orders, chant or say the Office). When the state of grace is necessary for his ministry, one who is in sin must to the best of his ability recover that state by going to confession or at least by making an act of contrition.

(b) The Minister’s Worthiness Before the Church.—Since the Church is the custodian of the Sacraments, these cannot be lawfully performed or administered by those who are under her censure or who have not received her license. The excommunicated and the irregular sin gravely if they administer Sacraments, unless the faithful lawfully request administration from them (see 2683). Only priests are licensed to act as ministers of Baptism, Penance, Extreme Unction and the Eucharist, and the pastor of a place is the authorized minister for that territory; but in case of need even the laity may administer Baptism, a priest other than the pastor may give the Last Sacraments, and the sick may confess to any confessor with due faculties.

(c) Worthiness of the Ministration.—Internally the ministry should be devout and attentive; for, if private worship should be religiously made, much more the worship contained in the Sacraments (see 2150, 2244). Voluntary distractions, however, do not seem to be gravely sinful, unless the validity of the rite is imperilled by them. Externally the ministry should be dignified and rubrical. Canon 733 requires that each one observe the accidental ceremonies of his own Rite and liturgical books. Since ceremonies were instituted by the Church from the earliest ages and are prescribed in virtue of religion (Catechism of the Council of Trent, page 152), it is sinful to neglect them unless a rubric is merely directive or optional, such as the rules before and after Mass. The preceptive rubrics oblige sub gravi as to notable matter (e.g., the anointing in Baptism), sub levi as to inconsiderable matter (e.g., words, bows, crosses, etc. of minor importance); but one may be excused from guilt, or grave guilt, on account of imperfection of act (e.g., inadvertence caused by external distractions) or impossibility (e.g., ceremonies curtailed because of approaching death, scandal or wonder of the people). The Roman Ritual (Title I, n. 10) advises the explanation of the ceremonies for the benefit of those who assist at the administration of the Sacraments, and recommends the Catechism of the Council of Trent for this purpose.

Multiplication of Sins of Unworthy Administration.—How many sins are committed by the minister when Sacraments are unworthily administered to many recipients at one time, as when several children are baptized together, or a large gathering of penitents are heard one after the other, etc.?

(a) According to the strict view, there are as many distinct sins as there are distinct administrations, for each Sacrament is separate from the other. But in case of Communion, since the separate Communions are parts of the one Eucharistic banquet, there is but one sin, mortal or venial, according to the view taken of an administration that is not also performance of a Sacrament.

(b) According to the mild view, there is but one sin, since sins are not multiplied numerically when they form morally but one act on account of the unity given them by the purpose of the agent and the circumstances.

Requirements for a Valid Sacrament in Reference to the Recipient.—(a) The Person of the Recipient.—Since the Sacraments were instituted as means of salvation, they can be given only to those who are still wayfarers in the present mortal existence, and hence a Sacrament administered to a brute animal or a corpse would be invalid, or, in the case of Communion, would not be received sacramentally. As Baptism is the preparation for the other Sacraments, but need not presuppose personal sinfulness, its subject is any and every unbaptized person, infant or adult, male or female. The other six Sacraments presuppose Baptism, and only those who have been initiated into the Church by Baptism can receive them validly. As to these six Sacraments only males are capable of Orders, which is for the rulers of the Church; only adults are capable of Penance, Extreme Unction and Matrimony, which suppose personal sin or personal contract. Further, the impotent and impeded are incapable of Matrimony, and those who are not in danger of death from sickness are incapable of Extreme Unction. Finally, those who have been baptized, confirmed, or ordained, cannot be rebaptized, reconfirmed, or reordained, since these three Sacraments can be given but once; he who is married cannot marry again while his wife lives and the bond endures; he who has been anointed cannot be reanointed during the same danger.

(b) The Acts of the Recipient.—If the recipient is an infant, no disposition on his part is necessary, since he does not understand. If the recipient is an adult, it is necessary in the performance of every Sacrament (on the Eucharist see 2664) that he have some intention or willingness to receive the Sacrament, since Christ does not wish to confer benefits or impose certain grave burdens on those who are unwilling. A forced Sacrament to which the subject yielded no internal consent would be a null Sacrament. Further, since an essential part (namely, the matter, or according to others a conditio sine qua non) of Penance is the faith and repentance of the recipient, these dispositions are necessary in that Sacrament.

Qualities of the Recipient’s Intention.—(a) Objectively, the recipient should intend to receive what the Church confers, and hence intentions that are not serious, or are mistaken or external (e.g., Baptism received for the sake of rehearsal, or in the belief that it is a profane ablution, or accepted as a pure formality), do not seem sufficient (see 2666).

(b) Subjectively.—The recipient must positively will the Sacrament, for it seems that the so-called neutral intention—in which the subject neither consents nor dissents internally, but is passive and indifferent, and acquiesces externally only to please another—is not a true desire. But the strength or influence of the recipient’s intention need not be so great as the minister’s, since the role of the minister is to perform the rite, that of the subject only to receive the rite (see 2665).

When a Virtual Intention Is Necessary.—It is generally agreed, therefore, that while the interpretative intention does not suffice, the actual intention and even, for the most part, the virtual intention are not necessary. But about the virtual intention the following should be noted; (a) a virtual and explicit intention is necessary in Matrimony if a party be considered, not precisely as recipient, but as minister of the Sacrament (see 2666) and as maker of the contract (see 1883); (b) a virtual and at least implicit intention is necessary in Penance, if a penitent is considered precisely as positing the requisite matter or condition of the Sacrament, since this consists in repentance, and repentance includes either an express or an implied desire of sacramental absolution.

When an Habitual Intention Suffices.—The habitual intention is found in those who are not conscious (see 2165), but it suffices for the reception of a Sacrament, since the recipient does not affect the Sacrament, and it is enough that he had the good will to accept it and has not retracted that will.

(a) An habitual and explicit intention suffices for the three Sacraments that impose special obligations, namely, Baptism, Orders, and Matrimony. Hence, he who has asked for Baptism is validly baptized after he becomes delirious; he who has asked for Orders is validly ordained even when unconscious; he who has sent his consent to a marriage by proxy receives the Sacrament during his sleep, if the other party’s consent closing the contract is given at that time.

(b) An habitual and implicit intention included in a particular will to do a good act on which the Sacrament follows in natural course, suffices for the other three Sacraments which do not impose special obligations. Hence, a person who purposed to live as a Catholic is validly confirmed while unconscious; a person who intended to die as a Catholic is validly absolved and anointed, as far as intention is concerned, at the moment of death, even though he be out of his mind. Further, if an unbaptized person has resolved to become a Catholic but has no knowledge of Baptism itself, he is validly baptized in virtue of his implicit desire, even though he be unconscious.

(c) An habitual and implicit intention included in a general will to do all that is necessary for salvation or a good life is taught by some authors, and is by them considered sufficient for Baptism, since it is the most necessary Sacrament, and the Sacraments are for men. An unbaptized person of good will who has supernatural contrition or charity is justified through Baptism of desire, but if he has only supernatural attrition the Sacrament itself is necessary for him. Hence, in case of urgent need conditional Baptism should be given a dying and unconscious infidel who was well disposed; but, as the intention is not certain, the Baptism should be repeated in case of recovery. The same principle is extended by some moralists to the administration of Penance and Extreme Unction to schismatics and heretics who are in danger of death.

Requirements for Lawful or Fruitful Reception of a Sacrament by an Adult.—(a) Worthiness of the Recipient from Divine Law.—The two Sacraments of the Dead, Baptism and Penance, were intended by Christ to be means of forgiveness to the repentant, and hence they require at least that the recipient believe himself attrite. The five Sacraments of the Living were meant by Christ to strengthen grace and life already had, and consequently he who approaches them must have no serious fault on his conscience. Conscious unworthiness is a sacrilege, and only extreme necessity can excuse reception in such a state (e.g., when a sinner takes Communion to save the Host from profanation).

(b) Worthiness from Church Law.—The recipient must be free from church censures (Canon 2260) or impediments, and must possess the preparation or qualification which the church law prescribes (e.g., a certain age is required for Confirmation; the Eucharist must be received fasting; the candidate for Orders must be approved, etc.).

(c) Worthiness of Reception.—The Sacraments should be received devoutly, with proper preparation, attention, and thanksgiving. In the case of the Eucharist, though intention is not necessary for validity, it is required for a sacramental or fruitful Communion; an habitual and implicit intention suffices for the Viaticum (and Easter Communion), an habitual explicit intention for Communion of devotion.

When Is the Minister of the Sacraments Bound to Give Them?—(a) A pastor is obliged to give a Sacrament to one of his own subjects who reasonably requests it, and to do so willingly, freely (Canon 736), and, if he has no substitute, in person; for a spiritual shepherd has a grave duty of justice and charity to feed his flock. A request is not reasonable, however, if compliance will put the pastor to an inconvenience greater than that which the parishioner will suffer from a refusal, for example, when Baptisms, Confessions, or Communions are needlessly asked for outside the appointed hours, or when sick calls that can be attended during the day are sent in at night. The Sacraments necessary for salvation (Baptism and Penance) should be given even at the risk of life, if the subject is in grave need and there is assured hope of success (see 1167), and doubtless this should be applied also to Extreme Unction or even the Viaticum.

(b) One who is not a pastor is obliged from charity to give the Sacraments to those who reasonably ask. He would be obliged even to risk his life to save a soul, if there were no one else to administer a necessary Sacrament to a person in extreme spiritual peril who could be saved by his ministry.

When Is the Minister of the Sacraments Bound to Deny Them?—(a) He must always deny them to those who are incapable, for otherwise he insults the Sacrament. Under no circumstances, then, may a priest baptize one who is already baptized, or absolve one who is unrepentant; and he may not assist at the attempted marriage of a divorcee. Likewise, as is manifest, he must always deny the Sacraments to those who ask for them out of hatred or contempt for religion, for to grant them in such circumstances would be an act intrinsically evil.

(b) He must deny them, as a rule, to those who to his knowledge are certainly unworthy (e.g., on account of lack of requisite instruction or moral disposition); otherwise, he casts pearls before swine, cooperates in the sacrilege of others, and scandalizes the people. Hence, a public sinner—that is, one whose unworthiness is notorious (see 2053)—should not be given the Sacraments publicly, until he has repaired the scandal he gave; and no unworthy person, even though he be a hidden sinner whose guilt is known only to the minister, should be given a Sacrament in private until he has shown signs of repentance. Generally the minister is bound to assure himself beforehand of the good disposition of the one who asks for a Sacrament, though in case of Communion this is often impossible, and it suffices to presume that all who approach the altar becomingly are in the state of grace.

Administration to Unworthy Persons.—Since material cooperation with sin is lawful for a sufficient reason (see 1515 sqq.), one may administer a Sacrament to an unworthy person when refusal would cause a greater evil than ministration. This happens in the following cases:

(a) when refusal will necessitate a more wicked sacrilege (viz., injury to a Sacrament by the minister himself). This case occurs when the minister knows the subject’s unworthiness only from the latter’s sacramental confession, and hence cannot exclude him without violation of the seal;

(b) when the refusal will bring on more widespread evils (viz., discouragement of the use of the Sacraments). This happens when the subject who asks the Sacrament is not publicly known as a sinner, but his request is public, so that a refusal will amount to a defamation of him by the minister. If priests had the right to inflict public disgrace on those who approached the Sacraments, it is easily seen what grave scandals and disorders would follow, and that a ready excuse would present itself for personal spite and neglect of religion. Our Lord administered Communion to Judas rather than betray his secret guilt to the other Apostles.

Simulation and Dissimulation of a Sacrament?—Is it lawful in case of difficulty to give a Sacrament only in appearance? (a) If this means simulation of a Sacrament, or the use of its externals in such a way as to make it null (i.e., by withholding internal intention or using invalid matter or form), the answer is in the negative; for simulation is always an acted lie (see 2403, 2404), and when applied to Sacraments it produces a sacrilegious mutilation and also, in the case of the Eucharist (e.g., when an unconsecrated host is given to a communicant), an occasion of idolatry. (b) If this means dissimulation of a Sacrament, or the use of some nonsacramental act to conceal the denial of a Sacrament, the answer is in the affirmative, for it is lawful to keep from others knowledge to which they have no right. Thus, a priest who wishes to conceal from onlookers that he has refused absolution to a penitent, can lawfully say a prayer and make a sign of the cross over this person.

Administration of Penance and Extreme Unction to Heretics and Schismatics.—(a) Regularly this is unlawful, even though these persons are in good faith and ask for the Sacraments. They must first renounce their errors and become reconciled with the Church (Canon 731).

(b) Exceptionally, according to some moralists, this is lawful when there is extreme need. Hence, according to this view a priest may secretly give conditional absolution to an unconscious heretic or schismatic in danger of death who has given signs of repentance; he may absolve and anoint a dying heretic or schismatic, even though conscious, if this person appears to be in good faith and repentant and willing to do all that God requires of him. But the priest should first try to convert the dying person, if this is possible and the latter’s good faith will not be disturbed; and he must also avoid giving scandal.

Repetition of a Sacrament on Account of Invalid Administration.—(a) This is unlawful when the fear of invalidity is groundless and foolish; for it is seriously disrespectful to a Sacrament and disedifying to others to repeat the rite without reason. But scrupulous persons are sometimes free of grave sin, since they mean well in repeating and are not accountable for their fears.

(b) This is lawful but not obligatory when there is a prudent misgiving about a useful Sacrament (Confirmation, Matrimony, anointing of one who is conscious); also when there is a slight reason of law or fact for fear about a necessary or more important Sacrament (Baptism, Orders, absolution of a dying person, anointing of an unconscious person, consecration of the Eucharist). For the Sacraments are for men. But if only a small loss or an unlikely loss will be caused by their non-repetition, the duty of repeating them cannot be insisted on.

(c) This is gravely obligatory when there is a prudent fear about a necessary or more important Sacrament; it is gravely or lightly obligatory (to be determined in each case) when there is a well-founded fear about a useful Sacrament, if charity, justice or religion calls for repetition and the inconvenience will not be too great. In Matrimony the alternate methods of convalidation or sanation may be used as the case demands. Again, the Sacraments are for men, and hence, if man will likely be subjected to a notable loss by the minister’s neglect of repetition, the duty of repetition is clear.

Reception of a Sacrament from an Unworthy Minister.—May a Sacrament be received from a minister who, to one’s certain knowledge, cannot give it without sin on account of unworthiness (such as a state of sin or censure)?

(a) Per se, this is unlawful, for it is cooperation with sacrilege and is often attended by scandal and danger of perversion to self.

(b) Per accidens, this is lawful, for material cooperation is justified when a proportionately grave reason exists (1515 sqq.). Moreover, often the minister can put himself in the state of grace before he gives the Sacrament, or can be excused from sacrilege on account of the necessity. The less the irreverence or danger of scandal, the less need be the reason for asking or taking a Sacrament from an unworthy person. If the minister is a sinner or is under ordinary suspension or other censure, a serious reason of spiritual advantage suffices (e.g., the opportunity to make the Easter duty); if the minister is under sentence (Canon 2261 n. 3), only danger of death suffices; if the minister is a heretic or schismatic, only extreme need suffices, and the danger of scandal and perversion must be avoided.

Forgiveness of Sin through the Use of the Sacraments.—(a) Mortal sins are forgiven by the Sacraments in virtue of the rite itself (ex opere operato) and immediately; that is, the Sacraments either per se or per accidens (according as they are Sacraments of the Dead or Sacraments of the Living) produce in the soul first grace or justification, which is the opposite of mortal sin.

(b) Venial sins are forgiven by the Sacraments in virtue of the rite itself but not immediately; that is, the Sacraments produce directly either first or second grace, and indirectly through this grace they may awaken fervor, which is the opposite of venial sin. The sacramentals, on the contrary, remit venial sins, not in virtue of the rite itself but in virtue of the intercession of the Church attached to the rite (ex opere operantis Ecclesiae); for the prayers of the Church are acceptable to God and can obtain from Him a grace of repentance that will remove venial sin.

In doubt one must stand for that for which presumption stands. For presumption, taken from things ordinarily happening, or from other circumstances of the person and the thing, produces moral certainty, or at least probability. "In obscure matters one is accustomed to look at what is more likely, or what usually happens." L. 114 de R. I.; R. I. 14 in 6. It is a certain anticipated proof of a thing from indications, before direct proofs. Therefore presumption exhibits a thing as true and stands for that side which is not bound by itself to prove the contrary fact, but transfers that burden of proving to the other side. For whenever something is known to preexist which by its nature perseveres until it is taken away by some contrary fact, that thing is thought to persevere as long as that contrary fact is not established, which consequently must be proved by the adverse side.

Hence, if you are accustomed at such a time diligently to recite the breviary, and you doubt whether you have recited some part, presumption favors you and exempts you from the obligation of reciting or repeating. If an insane person, but one who has lucid intervals, makes a vow and afterward doubts whether he made the vow while master of himself, he is not obligated so long as it does not appear that he was master of himself. L. 1. n. 26. Nevertheless in the forum of penance, in which, as S. Thomas says 4.

D. 17. a. 3. q. 3, one must stand by the word of the penitent for himself and against himself, presumption yields to the truth affirmed by the penitent. - Cf. 204; Lugo De Poenit. d. 20. n. 17. 19; L. 1. 3. n. 270, l. 6. n. 600 par. Limitant. Likewise in the case of doubt, the baptism of spouses is not presumed in relation to a marriage, if the non-Catholic party or parties had parents belonging to a sect which rejects baptism; on the contrary it is presumed if they had parents belonging to a sect which admits baptism, and they were zealous in that sect. S. O. Aug. 1, 1883; Collect. S. C. de P. F. n. 662; E. M. n. 1016.

In doubt a fact is not presumed, but must be demonstrated. L. 10 C. de Non numer. pec. - For no reason must be given for non-being, but for being; because non-being does not have its cause, but being does. But understand this of the principal fact, if it is doubtful: because, if the principal fact is certainly established and there is doubt about an accessory fact, then other principles have force: In doubt every fact is presumed rightly done; In doubt the fact which by law had to be done is presumed; In doubt one must stand for the value of the act; always excluding unjust damage to oneself or another or the community. For every being naturally tends toward its perfection and good. Therefore if nothing is established as obstructing, nature continues to pursue its course. The fact of a completed Confession is established; you doubt concerning the right, whether you confessed rightly with sorrow, with purpose; you can acquiesce. These three latter principles have force both for liberty and against liberty.

For liberty, if a contrary and certain presumption or the common good does not obstruct; for no obligation is to be imposed unless it is certainly established. Against liberty, namely if a contrary and certain presumption or the public good obstructs; for the common good prevails over private good. L. 1. 1. n. 26. 27. 137. 182. 251, l. 3. n. 201, l. 6. n. 505; L. Quoties 12 de Reb. dub. ff.

You will resolve: In doubt whether you took some food or drink, and likewise in doubt whether you took food or drink after midnight, you can receive the Eucharist. For unless the fact is proved in each case, liberty possesses. L. 1. 1. n. 38. 39; Elbel 166. 167; Amort. Theol. t. 2. d. 5. 9. 4, who observes these things at the end: "Yet I say that he would sin at least venially who, for the pleasure of mere drinking, should thus traffic around the laws of the Church, exposing himself to the danger of at least material transgression; and if he does this from custom or from a resolve always to operate in this way, no other reasonable cause concurring, for example, thirst, infirmity, he will sin mortally, because such a resolve argues interpretative contempt and a defect of charity toward God and the Church, whose honor he stains."

Busemb. apud La Croix, l. 1. n. 470. VI. Indeed, although it is licit to use a probable opinion against a law, it is nevertheless not licit to act in fraud of the law, voluntarily procuring a state of doubt against the law, lest someone be bound to observe the law. Doubtful baptism, in order to a marriage already entered or to be entered, is held as valid; and therefore a marriage is pronounced valid or invalid according to various circumstances.

The marriage of one doubtfully baptized with one not baptized must be held invalid. On the contrary, the marriage of two doubtfully baptized persons, and of one doubtfully baptized with one baptized, must be held valid. S. O. Nov. 17, 1830; Sept. 9, 1868; Sept. 18, 1872; July 7, 1880; Sept. 18, 1890; Apr. 12, 1899; Collect. S. C. P. F. n. 1872; E. M. n. 1016. But a doubtful marriage, because of the common good, is commonly held as valid. But because of the most excellent good of religion, the doubtful marriage of polygamous infidels who are converted to the faith is declared invalid. Collect. S. C. de P. F. n. 1301. 1304. 1332. 2184.

Resolves: He sins who on a fast day undertakes labor, although honorable, in order to be excused from the fast; although he, after he is gravely wearied, even with that evil end, is no longer held to the fast. L. 1. 3. n. 1022. But he does not at all sin who on the day before a fast spends the day hunting, foreseeing that through weariness it will not be licit for him to fast. He sins who, without a just cause, on the same feast day or one or another hour before it, begins a journey, foreseeing that he will not be able to hear Mass. But he does not sin if he does this on the preceding day. Gur. Ball. 111; Del Vecchio 161. But St. Alphonsus does not admit this, l. 3, n. 301, denying "that someone can set out on Saturday to hunt in a distant wood, although on Sunday he cannot hear Mass there."

"An excommunicated or interdicted person does not sin by omitting Mass, and likewise an imprisoned person, even if they neglect absolution or liberty, because these persons are not obliged to remove remote impediments," or extrinsic ones. L. 1. 3. n. 825; l. 1, n. 152; l. 7, n. 161. "Otherwise, however, they speak with respect to annual Confession and Communion, since this is one of the divine precepts, with regard to which we are held to remove impediments." L. 161; l. 6, n. 299. Excommunication and interdict, with relation to Confession and Communion, are not extrinsic impediments, but intrinsic, and therefore care must be taken that they be removed. "Tamb. and Viva, however, think that those detained in prison are not held to seek liberty in order that they may communicate." L. 1. 6. n. 299; Ithur., Cas. 3, n. 7.

As regards Mass. - "A Bishop can dispense for celebrating on another altar, or in a church not designated by the founder, when another just cause is present." L. 60; l. 6, n. 329. - "He can dispense for just causes both with himself and with others for celebrating after midday." L. 61; l. 6, n. 344. - They can celebrate not only in their own episcopal house, but also in lay houses, in which on occasion of visitation or a journey they are received with hospitality, and when, in cases permitted by law, or by special license of the Apostolic See, being absent from the house of their own habitation, they therefore make a stay in another's house after the manner of a similar habitation.

But not only can they themselves, wherever they dwell, celebrate even on a portable altar, but they can also permit another Mass for their own convenience; and the faithful hearing either one satisfy the precept. S. R. C., 22 Aug. 1818; 8 June 1896; L. 63; l. 6, n. 358; Bened. XIV, de Sacr. miss., l. 3, c. 6, n. 6. - They can grant the faculty of celebrating outside a church in a non-sacred place, if grave and proportionate causes are present; and in private houses, from just and reasonable causes, but by way of an act and in a decent place. S. C. de Sacram., 20 Dec. 1912; L. 64; l. 6, n. 344, 359; Lucidi, de Visit. Sacror. Limin., vol. 1, p. 97, n. 108. - When Bishops have died, Masses can be celebrated through the whole morning in the larger hall of their own residence, where the body lies exposed. S. R. C., 3 Apr. 1894; Ferraris, Supplementum, v. Missa de Requie, n. 7; E. M.

As regards baptism, Confession, Communion. They can permit that, besides when danger of death is imminent or necessity urgent, baptism be administered to infants at home from a just and reasonable cause. S. C. de Sacram., 20 Dec. 1912. - They can choose for themselves a confessor outside the diocese, provided he is their subject, and they can take him with them to different places; but if he is not a subject he must be approved by his own Ordinary. - They can permit that the Holy Eucharist be carried privately to the sick from the church to the home, or without the prescriptions of the Ritual being observed. S. C. de Sacram., 20 Dec. 1912. - L. 65; l. 6, n. 565.

As regards the Eucharist. - Besides public churches, Regulars also have private oratories. Now they can admit others in both, both for celebrating and for hearing the prescribed Mass. In public churches they retain the Most Holy Sacrament. But the license of the Ordinary is necessary for regulars, even exempt ones, so that they can publicly expose the Most Holy Sacrament uncovered; yet this is by no means required either for exposing the sacred Eucharist veiled, with the people present, or for exposing it uncovered, seculars being excluded. From the Constitutions of Julius II, Paul III, and St. Pius V, regulars can distribute the Most Holy Eucharist daily and to individual faithful, not even excepting Easter day. Regulars cannot in any way be prohibited by the Bishop from distributing the Most Holy Eucharist in their churches from Palm Sunday to Low Sunday.

Thus S. C. C., 9 July 1644; S. C. C., 27 Nov. 1912. Cf. Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 9, c. 15, 16; l. 11, c. 14. Pius VI, 14 Jan. 1783, granted to the Congregation of Purity the faculty of celebrating two hours after midday and before dawn; and all who have communication in the privileges of regulars enjoy this privilege. "Regulars can celebrate one hour before dawn; wherefore they can celebrate Mass three hours before sunrise. Indeed, when some just cause is present, they can celebrate immediately after two hours after midnight. And this holds only for their own churches; in which, however, secular priests can also use a privilege of this sort. Moreover Eugene IV granted to regulars license of celebrating three hours after midday, yet from a just cause."

L. 122; Salmant., tr. 15, c. 7, p. 4, n. 94, 45; Pellizzar., Manuale Regul., tr. 8, c. 2, n. 97. But the same Holy Doctor hands down the opposite, l. 6, n. 342. Moreover in this latter place, n. 344, the Holy Doctor affirms that the faculty is present to all superiors of dispensing, in some particular case, from a reasonable cause, concerning the hour of Mass, "privilege set aside, toward their own religious, since they are their Ordinaries." Mendicants, at least superiors or prelates, have the privilege of blessing sacred vestments. L. 62, 121, 123; l. 6, n. 239, 240, 300, 357, 360, 363, 376, 378, 381; H. A. tr. 12, n. 41; Lugo, de Euchar., d. 18, n. 49-50; Diana, tom. 2, tr. 2 de Praec. div. et eccles. sacrae commun., r. 22, 23; Compend. Privil. Soc. Iesu, n. 409; E. M.

As regards Confession. - Regulars cannot confess licitly and validly except to Confessors deputed by their own Superiors. "With seculars, when the faculty of choosing a confessor for oneself is granted, it is always supposed that he is approved by the Bishop; but regulars, from express or tacit license of their own superior, can confess to any simple priest... Wherefore all regular superiors can choose for themselves as confessor any priest." L. 110.

As regards cases reserved in the order to be absolved, the faculty can and ought justly to be denied by the superior if there is question of harming others, i.e., when scandal or any harm whatever would perhaps be imminent either to religion, or to the house, or to another, or to the penitent himself; nor could it be met otherwise except by furnishing knowledge of the matter to the superior. But, "if the superior denies to the confessor of regulars, deputed for this, the faculty of absolving, but the confessor judges that it ought to be granted, he can absolve on that occasion," i.e., as often as that case occurs. This is established from the Decree of Clement VIII. Cf. Constitution of Urban VIII, Sanctissimus, 21 Sept. 1624; Ferraris, v. Praelatus regularis, n. 58; Pellizzar., de Monial., c. 9, n. 29.

Exempt Regulars are not subject to episcopal reservation, since they are exempt from the jurisdiction of the Bishop. Indeed neither novices nor familiars of regulars are subject to the reservation of Bishops. Thus from the Bull Superna of Clement X. But if a novice has fallen into a reserved case before entrance into religion, he can be absolved by the confessor of the religion by privilege. - L. 102, 103, 111, 112; l. 6, n. 583, 586, 602. Religious of Institutes of simple vows are altogether subject to episcopal jurisdiction as regards censures and reservation of cases, as also as regards dispensation of non-reserved vows and dispensations which local Ordinaries impart to their faithful.

C. cited Conditae a Christo. The Supreme Pontiff Pius X decreed that all Confessors approved in the City can hear the Confessions of all Regulars, of whatever Order, Congregation, Institute they may be, without any permission of Regular Superiors; and therefore they can also absolve them from all reserved cases in the same religious Orders, Congregations, Institutes, even with censure. S. C. de Relig., 8 Feb. 1903; Pagella Confessarior. in Urbe. The same Supreme Pontiff afterward extended this faculty to all Confessors of the whole world approved by local Ordinaries. S. C. de Relig., 5 Aug. 1913.

As regards indulgences. - "All professed regulars enjoy the indulgences granted to any religious order," L. l. 4, n. 64, namely according to the Brief of Leo X, Dudum per Nos accepto, 10 Dec. 1519, and the Brief of Paul V, Romanus Pontifex, 23 May 1606, indulgences exclusively proper to each order being excluded from this communication, S. C. Indulg., 25 Apr. 1735; Theod. a Spiritu S., p. 2, p. 88 ff., p. 114. "It must be noted that the privilege of a privileged altar is not communicable by general communication of privileges, from the Decree of S. C. Indulg., dated 5 Feb. 1748, and approved by Benedict XIV on 2 Mar. of the same year." L. l. 6, n. 339. More recent nuns of simple vows, in France, of ancient religious orders, from a special indult, "can gain all indulgences which were granted to the religion or Institute of other nuns emitting solemn vows, according to the respective Institute or rule." S. C. Indulg., 10 July 1843; S. Poenit., 12 July 1847.

But Institutes of Tertiaries dwelling in Community and emitting simple vows participate in all Indulgences directly granted to the First and Second Orders, provided they are legitimately aggregated to the Orders. S. C. Indulg., 28 Aug. 1903; E. M., de Stat. part., n. 248.

It must further be noted that personal privileges and indulgences in churches of regulars vanish when the religious have been driven out, although some religious remains in the church as chaplain or custodian. But real privileges, such as the right of burying, when a religious is left there under the name of chaplain or custodian, must be exercised by him. S. C. C., 29 May 1841; 29 Aug. 1864; 16 Sept. 1871; S. C. Indulg., 24 May 1819; A. S. S., vol. 1, p. 287; vol. 4, p. 228; vol. 7, p. 34. - E. M.

281 bis. Secular Tertiaries of St. Francis, by force of the Apostolic Letters of 5 May 1909 and the Rescript of 17 May 1909, enjoy communication of all Indulgences and spiritual fruits with the First and Second Order of St. Francis, the extension then having been made to General Absolutions. S. O., 12 June 1913, A. A. S., vol. 5, p. 306 ff. Secular Franciscan Tertiaries reciting in place of the canonical hours twelve Our Fathers, Hail Marys, and Glory Bes cannot by this recitation alone satisfy all other obligations, as regards prayers, which they have contracted from enrollment in other pious sodalities. S. O., 11 June 1913. Third Orders proceeding collegially, in their own habit and under a cross, always and everywhere have precedence over any Sodalities whatsoever. S. R. C., 18 Feb. 1899; E. M.

Resolves: Private persons among themselves are rarely bound to correction, at least under grave sin, unless they are familiarly joined to one another, because rarely are all the required conditions found; still more rarely toward superiors because of unsuitability. Prudence generally persuades that correction be omitted toward those whose character is wholly unknown, lest, receiving the correction with an unjust mind, they become worse. Scrupulous persons are ordinarily excused from making fraternal correction, because either they are too greatly wearied, or are unfit; for, disturbed by scruples and anxieties, they lack the necessary discretion for correcting, and are not able to attend to excusing causes.

Resolves: Therefore it is not licit to ask, for example, from a notary something opposed to his office. But it is licit to ask the sacraments from an unworthy minister, or an oath from one who is going to commit perjury, provided a just cause is present, namely for the first case, if there is necessity or notable spiritual utility; for the second, if a judge asks for an oath by reason of office, or it matters greatly to you, as by perjury for manifesting the frauds of another, so that you may obtain your right. A girl sins by accepting gifts from a lover if they proceed from shameful love, for they foster that shameful love; but otherwise, as is clear, if they proceed only from honorable benevolence and friendship, or if they are offered before others and cannot be refused without the scandal of others and her own infamy. In no way is it licit for an innkeeper, in order to allure more guests, ordinarily to admit gravely shameful dances in his house, or to propose to them for reading public papers which are evidently and ordinarily adverse to religion or good morals. In cities in which it is permitted for the sake of avoiding a greater evil, it is licit to rent a house to a usurer and to a prostitute, especially if other tenants are lacking, or it is easy for them to rent another house, unless nevertheless the prostitute would gravely harm honorable neighbors, or because of the location would give greater occasion to sins. It is not licit to call a non-Catholic minister so that he may furnish his helps of false religion to the sick or dying person. S. O. 15 Mar. 1848.

L. 47, 60, 61, 70, 76, 77, 79; l. 3, nn. 434, 734; S. Th. 2. 2. q. 10, a. 11; q. 98, a. 4; Ithur., Cas. 26.

It is licit to sell indifferent things, or things which can easily have a good use, if the seller knows nothing about the evil intention of the buyer, because evil is not to be presumed. Hence it is licit to sell dice, swords, cosmetics, wine, etc., although very many abuse these things, because these are not ordered per se to sin, indeed often they serve good use. - But it is not licit to sell these same indifferent things when it is certainly known that the buyer will use them badly, unless they could not be denied without grave inconvenience, or also unless they would equally be bought from others; for in this last case, if the seller sinned, this would be only because he does not impede the sin of neighbor. But although he did not sell, he would not thereby impede the sin; for there would be another who would sell. Hence it is not licit to sell honorable ornaments to a girl, if it were established to the seller concerning future abuse, unless he would suffer notable damage, or unless she would equally buy them from others. Thus La-Croix, l. 2, n. 263, and others. But St. Alphonsus, 71, does not admit this last case. Cf. here 442. It is not licit to sell wine without grave and proportionate cause to those who resell it mixed with water. Likewise it is not licit for an innkeeper to sell wine to those who are foreseen to be about to become drunk, or to offer flesh-meat to those who are going to eat it on a forbidden day, unless a grave reason excuses, for instance if otherwise he would be notably harmed from diminution of buyers. Hence it is also commonly licit for an innkeeper to give flesh-meat when it is asked, unless the request is made in contempt of religion, because it would be a most grave inconvenience to inquire about the reasons of each one asking. L. 68, 69, 78. Indeed it is generally licit for an innkeeper, at whose place public coaches stop, to set a table with licit or illicit foods, because since it is established that several are going to ask for flesh-meat, it does not seem necessary to ask from individuals what they wish. A fortiori it is licit to sell flesh-meat on days of abstinence and in the time of Lent, because the seller cannot judge concerning the reasons of those buying, nor does it pertain to him to inquire about them. L. l. 3, n. 1030.

But it is not licit to sell things which by their institution or use are destined for evil, unless in a particular case it is established that the danger of abuse is absent, or unless a grave and proportionate reason excuses. Hence it is not licit to sell poison, unless it is morally established that the buyer will use it well, e.g., for the making of colors, medicine, etc. Nor is it licit indiscriminately to sell depraved books, namely to any buyer. Nevertheless sometimes they can be sold to prudent and learned men who can read books of this sort usefully, e.g., for refuting them, etc. Except, however, books altogether obscene, which must be extirpated from the root. Tambur., in Decal., l. 1, § 4, n. 37; L. 66, 72, 76.

It is licit for workers to build and adorn theaters, if the ornaments are honorable in themselves, although another grave reason is lacking, because it is licit for Princes to permit spectacles. It is lawful, with the legitimate magistrate permitting, to restore and build synagogues of Jews and temples of heretics, yet scandal and any contempt of religion being excluded, especially if it would equally be done without them. It is also licit to make statues of idols if these are not to be used for false worship, but for the adornment of streets, buildings, etc. On the contrary, it is not licit to build temples of idols, or to cooperate in their building; likewise it is not licit, so that danger of death or exile may be avoided, to build altars or idols, or to cooperate in their building, when this is had as a deed protestative of false religion. It is licit for Christian captives, from grave fear, to row in the galleys of infidels against Catholics. For they do nothing intrinsically evil, nor proximately pernicious to Christians. Besides, there is a most grave and proportionate cause for doing this. It is not licit to compose or represent gravely shameful comedies, whatever the profit may be. This also holds concerning shameful representations in Cinematographs. "Likewise those sin gravely who paint or publicly expose obscene images, namely with the shameful parts uncovered or covered with a thin veil; otherwise if, other parts being uncovered, the shameful parts are covered." L. 56. Yet except if something of this sort must be painted, e.g., for teaching or learning anatomical or obstetrical science. L. 73; l. 3, nn. 427-429; Collectan. S. C. de P. F., nn. 1733, 1748, 1845; E. M. 365, 366, 367, 368.

In how many ways is simony of ecclesiastical law committed? - In the following ways. 1. By exchanging benefices, making transactions about them, making pacts, resigning them in favor of another, reserving pensions in them, without license of the superior. C. Quaesitum 5, de Rer. perm.; C. Constituimus 4; C. Super eo 7, de Trans.; C. Nobis 27, de Sim.; C. Ex multis 9, q. 3, caus. 1. The reason of the law is the danger lest this be done in view of a temporal thing, since these include some advantage. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 1 ad 5, a. 4 ad 3.

Add: to sell benefices, even according to that which is temporal in them, namely according to the right of receiving fruits. "Yet more probably," says St. Alphonsus, n. 70, "they say that it is simony by divine law from S. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 100, a. 4 ad 2... as is gathered from C. Si quis 15, caus. 1, q. 3, and from C. Ex diligenti 17, de Simon." Cf. also L. 76. Add also: to sell the right of patronage of presenting to a benefice. C. De iure 16; C. Praeterea 23, de Iure patr. Yet Lessius, Palaus, Laymann, etc., affirm that this sale is forbidden also by divine law. L. 71; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 4 ad 3. Transactions concerning the right of patronage and concerning another spiritual thing annexed, an oratory, a temple, etc., are likewise prohibited, if namely on one side something spiritual is given and on the other something temporal, C. Praeterea 9, 10, de Trans. But they are licit if on both sides something spiritual or annexed to the spiritual is given. C. Ad quaestiones 6, de Rer. perm. "The right of patronage cannot be sold per se, nor given in fief; but it passes with the village which is sold or ceded." S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 4 ad 3. "Trent, sess. 24, c. 14, de R., commands Bishops not to permit any payment or promise for admission to possession of a benefice, as having the stain of simony or suspicion of avarice, any custom to the contrary being rejected. The Council permits only that, if there is a custom, something be given to be converted to pious uses." L. 99; C. Cum in Ecclesiae 9; C. In tantum 36, de Simonia.

2. By giving or accepting anything, even spontaneously offered, before or after, on occasion of an examination for parochial care, for example, when there is a question of choosing a pastor in a competition, from Trent, sess. 24, c. 18, de R. On occasion of the examination; for to give or receive for the examination itself would be simony of divine law. From the Decree of S. C. Cons., 15 Feb. 1612, synodal examiners and parochial consultors, on occasion of their office, neither before nor after, can receive anything, by the oath taken, even offered under the appearance of a gift. Likewise any gift whatsoever is prohibited to be received by ministers of whatever order in the Roman curia. Ord. serv. in Rom. Cur., Norm. comm., c. 3.

3. By accepting anything, even spontaneously offered, on occasion of the conferral of an order, or of letters for the order itself, or even of first tonsure, from the same Trent, sess. 21, c. 1, de R. Yet there is excepted there the tenth part of a gold coin for the notary, if no salary has been established for him and custom permits him to receive it. But the Sacred Congregation, 8 Oct. 1678, permitted Bishops to receive a candle, and also a cloth from those to be ordained priests; indeed the same Congregation, deputed by Innocent XI, also fixed the emoluments which are required for dimissorial and testimonial letters, etc. "It is granted to Bishops in dispensations (of marriages) to accept something to be distributed in alms, provided that nothing comes to themselves or their own, by way of penalty or commutation, but not by way of sustenance. For this is forbidden to them from... Trent, sess. 25, c. 18, de R." L. 96.

It is not permitted to a Bishop in the visitation of a diocese to receive gifts besides victuals. Council of Trent, sess. 24, c. 3, de R.; Collectan. S. C. de P. F., n. 1502 seqq. Innocentian Tax: Innocent XI, Decree of 8 Oct. 1678, established what emoluments could be required for various acts and writings of non-contentious ecclesiastical jurisdiction. But with the conditions of times having changed, S. C. C., 10 June 1896, issued a new Decree concerning this matter. According to the norms of this Decree, a description or schedule of these taxes is to be made in individual dioceses and transmitted for approval to the same S. C. C. In France, a determined tax for sacred worship to be imposed on the faithful from obligation is not approved. Secretariat of State, 8 Oct. 1907.

4. By selling or buying temporal ecclesiastical offices ordered to sacred things, of procurator, sacristan, steward, defender of the Church; this indeed has been done in view of religion. C. Si quis 3; C. Salvator 8, c. 1, q. 3; Suarez, c. 29. But to sell spiritual ecclesiastical offices, for example of vicar general, coadjutor of a pastor, chaplain, is simoniacal by its nature.

5. By selling a part of a cemetery; indeed it will be simony of divine law if it is sold as a sacred place, or if the right of burial is sold. Yet the right of a tomb can be bought, so that someone may be buried in such a place, because then burial would not be sold even by reason of the earth, but the price would be required by reason of the burden which is assumed, of not burying others there; this indeed is something temporal, and law does not prohibit it; indeed usage approves it. The same must be said if more is required for carrying a silver cross instead of an iron one; for one is not of greater blessing than the other, but this is a worldly honor, which certainly can be sold. C. Abolendae 13, de Sepult.; L. 71; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 3 ad 2.

6. By selling blessed oil or sacred chrism, even according to its physical species; yet the usage has prevailed in cathedral churches that something is accepted from particular churches for compensating the expenses which have been made in procuring the matter. C. Placuit 102, c. 1, q. 1; C. Ea quae 16, de Simonia. Nor indeed is it permitted to accept anything for administration of the sacraments beyond that which has been established by custom and ordination of the superior. Cf. 505, 512. Likewise every shameful profit, trade, and species of business with stipends of Masses is prohibited. S. C. C., 11 May 1904.

7. By requiring money for admission into religion, not for the state itself, which would be simony of divine law, but by reason of sustenance, unless either law, or custom, or the poverty of the monastery excuses. Cf. 518.

8. By accepting something for the erection, institution, communication, or aggregation of Confraternities, against the Constitution Quaecumque of Clement VIII. And reception into a Confraternity will be invalid if anything is received contrary to the laws of the Church, even under the title of alms.

9. By publishing Indulgences and other spiritual graces, some wage having been accepted, Trent, sess. 21, c. 9, de R., and by making gain from the concession or publication of Indulgences and other spiritual graces. St. Pius V, Const. Quum plenum, 2 Jan. 1569. By several decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences it was forbidden that blessed rosaries, crosses, or medals be exposed for sale. And if otherwise is done, the indulgences are lost. Decret., tit. de Simonia, l. 5, tit. 3; Struggl 23; L. 68, 69, 72, 74, 77; E. M.

You will resolve: It is wicked to throw oneself into a river, with certain danger of death, in order to baptize a child. For this would be directly to take life from oneself; namely because first one posits a means which directly and immediately tends to the killing of oneself, so that afterward, once that is posited, he may be able to administer baptism. Likewise it is wicked to do or omit something with the design that death be accelerated. But it is lawful to serve those infected with plague, to go to dangerous places of missions, and to undertake a dangerous journey from a grave and proportionate cause, as Christopher Columbus and others did. L. 366.

When are children judged to have attained the years of discretion, so that they are bound by the precept of Confession? - When they are capable of mortal sin; that is around the seventh year, which is to be judged not from age alone, but chiefly from the degree of understanding or discretion of good and evil. But the spirit of discretion is judged to be present in those who now apprehend that lying or disobedience is evil, or who are ashamed of certain impure actions, etc. Hence pastors of souls are held gradually to prepare these little children for Confession, and to absolve those in whom they observe mortal sin, even doubtful, at least within the year, by force of the Lateran Council. In doubt concerning discretion, let them be absolved conditionally. Therefore Confessors who never wish to absolve children committed to them gravely err and cannot be excused. But from the same age of discretion, that is around the seventh year, the obligation also of Communion begins. S. C. de Sacram. 8 Aug. 1910.; L. 1. 3, n. 370.; l. 6, n. 432-666.

Can a judge render sentence when the law itself is certainly unjust and inequitable? - If it concerns a civil law contrary only to ecclesiastical laws in which the Supreme Pontiff can dispense, as, for example, is the law of ecclesiastical immunity, the judge can and must, if judgment must be rendered, speaking in itself, seek the due faculty from the Holy See, or from the Bishop of the place, according to the various laws and various cases that occur. But he will easily obtain this faculty, since it is especially expedient for the good of society that there be honest judges in it. The reason for seeking the faculty is the usurpation of the rights of the Church which otherwise would be had, and the public scandal to be guarded against.

If it concerns a civil law contrary to divine and natural laws, then either the judge must command something directly against this right, or he must only apply some penalty. The first is evidently not lawful, and thus he ought rather to relinquish his office than to oblige by military force a concubine to remain at home with her lover. Thus also it is not lawful to render a sentence of divorce according to the law, namely, by which the bond of marriage is dissolved, power being granted to the spouses to enter new nuptials. For this is openly against natural, divine, and ecclesiastical right. For as it is inequitable to execute an inequitable matter, so it is inequitable to command its execution. S. Th. 2. 2. q. 60. a. 5.

The other seems to some also altogether illicit, because it is intrinsically evil to condemn an innocent person, namely when the law itself is evidently unjust, whose transgression is punished. But to others it seems that it can be excused. For to decree some temporal penalty is not always evil in itself; and there is present a most grave reason on the part of the judge, lest he be compelled to renounce his office, and on the part of consenting society, for which it is better that judges be good rather than bad, scandal always having been removed, either from approved custom and the practice of the fearful, or from due faculty previously sought. And thus he can decree a fine because of the omitted formality of civil marriage, which the Church tolerates in this sense, scandal always having been removed, as was said.

But although there is question only of decreeing a penalty, one must distinguish between penalty and penalty. For if it concerns the penalty of death, for example, mutilation, etc., since neither the person himself can yield his right, nor can society by its authority sanction such a penalty, it is altogether inequitable to impose it. "For positive right has place where, as regards natural right, it makes no difference whether it is done thus or otherwise." S. Th. l. c.

But if it concerns some monetary penalty, or another similar one, since anyone in this matter can yield his right, and society can consent, the judge surely can impose some slight penalty of this kind, lest he be compelled to renounce his office with grave damage to himself and to society itself. Consent is then reasonably presumed. Yet this also seems to be limited to the case in which it does not concern a law directly against nature, although it is rather harsh and not sufficiently just. For since the sentence of a judge is not any declaration whatever, but an authoritative one, authoritatively to confirm a law against nature, even by determining a monetary and slight penalty, is against nature. It is against nature to condemn to death a Christian who refuses to adore idols; it is against nature to condemn him to a penalty and fine, even of only five small coins, because he did not wish to genuflect before an idol. Certainly of such a judgment it cannot be said that it is a "definition or determination of the just or of right," nor can it be said of the judge that he is "interpreter of justice" or "animated justice." S. Th. 2. 2. q. 66. a. 1; a. 5 ad 1; q. 67. a. 3; E. M.

Do clerics or religious sin mortally who, by being present, watch those playing dice? - "This indeed is prohibited by C. Clerici 15 de Vita, etc., where they are commanded not to be present at games of this kind. Commonly, however, doctors deny that they sin mortally in this, unless they were the cause of a mortal game, or negligently corrected the players, or unless they took complacency in such a game insofar as it is mortal; otherwise if they were present only for the sake of delighting themselves in the skill or fortune of those playing.... Bishops, however, who are present at these games deliberately and frequently can with difficulty be excused even from the sin of grave scandal." L. l. 3, n. 903; Sanchez, Cons. Mor. l. 1, c. 8, d. 29.

What things are required for religious profession? - For the value of profession there is required: 1. That the person be fit for entering religion. - 2. That the one professing has completed the sixteenth year, computing this time mathematically from moment to moment. For thus Trent decreed, s. 25, c. 15 de Reg., according to the S. C. and all the doctors. Laymen or conversi cannot be admitted to profession before they have arrived at the age of twenty-one completed years, from Clement VIII, C. Regularis disciplinae, March 19, 1603. But now from the Decree of the S. C. of Religious, January 1, 1911, they are admitted to solemn vows only when the thirtieth year of age has been completed, after a six-year period of simple vows, a year of Novitiate, and two years of Postulancy. Cf. 267 bis. - 3. That a whole year of probation has preceded. Trent ibid. - 4. That it be done with the intention of making profession; for it is a certain spiritual marriage with religion, which, just as carnal marriage, is itself lacking when consent is lacking.

5. That profession not be emitted because of fraud or deceit; otherwise true consent would be lacking. - 6. That it not be done from force or grave fear, unjustly inflicted from without to extort profession. C. 1 de His quae de vi metusve, etc.; C. ult. Qui clerici vel voventes; Trent s. 25, c. 18, 19 de Reg. - 7. That the three substantial vows be emitted; otherwise the essence of the religious state will not be present. - 8. That profession be made in some approved religion. - 9. That profession be accepted by one having power for this. Cf. Ferraris v. Moniales a. 1, n. 101 ff.; C. Ad Apostolicam de Regular. - 10. That the one professing attach no condition repugnant to the substance of religion. - 11. That express profession be made; for tacit profession as regards men has been abrogated by Pius IX, Decree of the S. C. Regular Discipline, June 12, 1858. Cf. Ferraris l. c. n. 109. By custom it has also been abrogated as regards nuns, and as regards more recent Institutes of simple vows. - 12. That both men and women first emit simple vows and remain in them for three whole years before solemn profession is to be emitted. From just and reasonable causes these vows can be extended up to the completed twenty-fifth year of age. Pius IX, Brief In universalis Ecclesiae, February 7, 1862; S. C. Bishops and Regulars, May 3, 1902. Meanwhile they must remain in houses of the professed and of studies, and observe perfect common life, and they are held to the observance of the rule of the order as solemnly professed men and women are; and they enjoy the privileges and indulgences of the order or monastery as these do. The active and passive voice is computed from the day of emission of simple vows. Yet they do not have a suffrage in admission to solemn profession, and can be elected only to lesser offices, not also to offices of superiority. S. C. Regular Discipline, August 6, 1858; S. C. Bishops and Regulars, May 3, 1902; February 20, 1905. By this profession of simple vows, which precede solemn vows, residential benefices do not become vacant. S. C. Bishops and Regulars, March 30, 1908. - 13. If one vow, e.g., of poverty, is not solemn, neither are the other two solemn. S. Penitentiary 1820 to the Bishop of Limoges. - 14. As regards nuns, solemn profession is not had without papal enclosure, C. Periculoso un. de Stat. reg.; St. Pius V, C. Cura pastoralis, May 29, 1566. - Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 4, d. 14, 18, 21, 43; l. 3, d. 16.

Concerning Religious bound to military service. - "... The S. C. of Religious ... decreed the following:

I. In Regular Orders in which solemn vows are emitted, young men who are not certainly established to be exempt from active military service, namely from that service which they, when first called to the military, must perform for one or more years, cannot be admitted to Sacred Orders or to solemn profession until they have completed military service and, this having been completed, have remained at least for a year, according to what is to be said below, in simple vows, with the decree Sacrosancta Dei Ecclesia, edited on this same day, observed as regards Laymen.

II. In Institutes of simple vows, the young men concerning whom in the preceding article will be able to be admitted only to temporary vows up to the time of military service; nor is it lawful for them, while they give service to the military, to renew profession. When they have been dismissed from military service, they will again emit profession, at least for a year, before they bind themselves by the bond of perpetual profession.

III. But let young men serving in the military take care lest they lose the gift of holy vocation, and let them always converse with that modesty and caution which befits religious men. Wherefore let them shrink from suspect places and little gatherings; let them abstain from theaters, dances, and other public spectacles; let them avoid the commerce of the bad, slippery conversations, things discordant with religion, men professing suspect doctrines, readings contrary to morals or faith according to the dictates of the Holy See, and other dangers of sinning; let them not omit, as much as is lawful for them, to frequent churches and the sacraments; let them approach Catholic circles or meetings for recreation and instruction of soul.

IV. Wherever their station is placed, if there is there a house of their Religion or Institute, let them frequent it and be under the immediate vigilance of the Superior. But if the aforesaid house is not present, or they cannot conveniently frequent it, let them approach a priest designated by the Bishop, and use his counsels and company, so that when it is necessary to leave the same station, they may be able to receive from him written testimony concerning the observance of all those things which are prescribed in the preceding article. But if a priest designated by the Bishop is not had, let them choose for themselves a prudent priest, to be indicated at once to their Superiors, who will procure for themselves from the Ordinary information about his morals, doctrine, and prudence. Furthermore, let them establish correspondence by letters and, as far as can be done, diligently pursue it with their respective Superior or another religious or member of their Institute designated for this, whom they are to make more certain concerning the manner and condition of their life, concerning each change of their station, and especially let them notify him of the name and domicile of that priest whose company and direction they use, as was prescribed above.

V. Superiors General or Provincial, even local according to the custom of each Institute, by themselves or by a delegated member, who in clerical Institutes is to be marked with the priestly order, are altogether held to inquire concerning the life, morals, and conduct of the pupils while military service lasts, especially by the work of the priest or priests concerning whom above, through secret letters if there is need, so that they may be made more certain whether these have preserved the right way of faith and morals, observed the cautions prescribed above, and shown themselves faithful to the divine vocation, their conscience being gravely burdened.

VI. When they have been definitively dismissed from active military service, let each one be held to return by a straight path to his own religious houses, and there, if it is certainly established concerning their good conduct, as was said in the preceding article, some days of holy recollection having been premised, those who are assigned to Institutes of simple vows are to be admitted to renewing temporary profession; but in Regular Orders, let them be placed among the younger clerics or professed, or at least in a house where perfect regular observance flourishes, under the special vigilance and direction of a religious commended for piety and prudence, who in clerical Institutes must be a priest. In that state they must complete the whole time, which, according to what has been said in articles I and II, will not be able to be less than a year, to be premised to solemn or perpetual vows according to the path of the Apostolic Prescriptions and of the Constitutions of their own Religious Family, yet in such a way that the time spent in simple or temporary vows from the first emission of vows up to departure from the religious house because of military service is indeed computed, but not that which was given to military service.

VII. At that time, let them give attention to studies and regular observance; but let the immediate Superiors and the members placed over the direction of the younger men consider them most diligently, investigate their morals, fervor of life, opinions, doctrines, and zeal for persevering, so that concerning them before the last profession they may be able to render an account under faith of oath to the higher Superiors.

VIII. If any, during military service or after it has ended, before they are admitted to solemn or perpetual profession, have given doubtful signs of perseverance, or have not obeyed the cautions prescribed during the time of military service, or have turned aside from purity of morals or faith, let them be dismissed by the Superior General with the consent of his Counselors or Definitors, and let their vows be held as dissolved by the very act of dismissal.

But if the young men themselves desire or spontaneously ask to be relaxed from the bond of vows, the faculty is given to the aforesaid Superiors, as delegates of the Apostolic See, of dissolving the vows, if it is a question of clerical Institutes; but if the matter concerns Institutes of laymen, let the vows be judged dissolved by letters of the Superiors, by which license is given to them to return to the world.

IX. Ecclesiastical Societies also are held by these prescriptions, which, although they do not use vows, neither solemn nor simple, nevertheless have simple promises by which their pupils are bound to those Societies.

X. If anything new, not foreseen in this Decree, or if anything doubtful in understanding it should occur, recourse is to be made in individual cases to this S. Congregation.... Anything contrary whatsoever notwithstanding." S. C. Religious, Decree Inter reliquas, January 1, 1911.

Declarations concerning the Decree Inter reliquas on the military service of religious. - "I. Whether perpetual vows emitted before the promulgation of the Decree Inter reliquas cease ipso facto when active military service is assumed?

II. Whether temporary vows likewise cease ipso facto when the same service is assumed?

III. Whether solemn profession in Orders, and perpetual profession in Institutes of simple vows, emitted in good faith by one who falsely thought himself exempt from military service, is valid?

IV. Whether solemn profession in Orders, and perpetual profession in Institutes of simple vows, emitted before a year has been completed from the day active military service was completed, is valid?

V. Whether a whole year must flow before he who was assigned to active military service for only three months is admitted to solemn or perpetual profession?

VI. Whether those Religious can be admitted to solemn or perpetual profession who, subject to active military service, nevertheless have and manifest the firm intention of giving themselves to foreign Missions, and of remaining in them up to the time established by civil law for obtaining perpetual exemption from military service, as, for example, in Italy it is the thirty-second year of age?

R. To I. In the negative. - To II. In the negative of itself, or, the vows do not cease ipso facto at the beginning of military service; nevertheless Religious can ask for dispensation from vows from the first day of military service, according to Art. VIII of the Decree Inter reliquas, if they do not intend to persevere; if they intend to persevere, in no case can they emit a new profession of vows unless military service has been completed, even if the time of profession has expired during military service. - To III. In the negative. - To IV. In the negative. - To V. In the negative; but it is necessary and sufficient in the case that there be three months, or a space of time shorter than a year, corresponding to the time spent in military service. - To VI. In the negative of itself. Yet the Sacred Congregation concedes that in the last year of the course of studies it is lawful to admit to solemn profession, or respectively to perpetual profession, and to promote to sacred Orders, young men about to set out for sacred Missions within a year, after an oath has first been emitted on the part of the candidate concerning service to be rendered to the Missions up to the time predefined by civil law for obtaining exemption, and with the conscience of Superiors burdened concerning its execution.

Concerning religious Profession in the article of death. - "... In any Order, or any Congregation or religious Society, or monastery whether of men or women, or even in Institutes in which, although vows are not emitted, nevertheless common life is lived after the manner of Religious, it is lawful thereafter to admit Novices or Probands, who by the judgment of the physician are gravely sick, so that they are judged to be constituted in the article of death, to profession or consecration or promise according to their own Rules or Constitutions, although they have not yet completed the time of novitiate or probation.

Yet, in order that novices or probands may be admitted to the above-said profession or consecration or promise, it is necessary:

1. That they have canonically begun the novitiate or probation.

2. That the Superior who admits the Novice or Proband to profession or consecration or promise be the one who actually governs the monastery or house of novitiate or probandate.

3. That the formula of profession or consecration or promise be the same which is in use in the Institute outside the case of sickness; and vows, if they are pronounced, are to be pronounced without determination of time or perpetuity.

4. That he who has emitted profession, consecration, or promise of this kind will be a participant in absolutely all the indulgences, suffrages, and graces which Religious truly professed dying in the same Institute obtain; and to the same there is mercifully conceded in the Lord plenary indulgence and remission of his sins in the form of a Jubilee.

5. This profession or consecration or promise, besides the graces declared in the preceding article, produces altogether no other effect. Therefore:

A) if the Novice or Proband after profession or consecration or promise of this kind dies intestate, the Institute will be able to claim for itself no goods or rights pertaining to him;

B) if he recovers before the time of novitiate or probandate expires, he is to be in altogether the same condition as if he had emitted no profession; and therefore: a) freely, if he wishes, he will be able to return to the world; and b) Superiors are able to dismiss him; c) he must complete the whole time of novitiate or probandate defined in individual Institutes, even if beyond a year; d) this time having been completed, if he perseveres, a new profession or consecration or promise will have to be emitted.

Anything contrary whatsoever notwithstanding." S. C. of Religious, September 10, 1912.

277 bis. What form of admission is to be observed? - When Novices are to be admitted to profession, "the Conventual Chapter ... is to declare by secret votes whether the Novice can be admitted to profession.... Then the Provincial and the Examiners (Provincial, at least three) are to define by secret votes whether the Novice ... can safely be admitted to profession. If the Novice has been approved, the Provincial is to render the Superior General instructed concerning everything, who ... is to revoke or confirm the approval ... yet so that he can never permit the profession of a Novice who has been rejected by the Provincial Examiners.... If the Constitutions and rules of some Order and Institute further require anything in admitting Novices to profession, that also will have to be observed only in that part which is by no means contrary to the tenor of this Decree." Decree Regulari disciplinae of the S. C. on the State of Regulars, January 25, 1848.

As regards nuns of solemn vows, those things are to be observed which are established in their proper Constitutions. As regards more recent Institutes of simple vows, the Norms of the Sacred Congregation and their own Constitutions approved by the Holy See are to be observed.

As regards the rite of making profession and renewing vows, the General Decree of the S. R. C., August 14, 1894, n. 3836, and June 5, 1896, n. 3912, is to be observed. - E. M.

What is a sacrament? - As regards the force of the name, sacrament, in Greek mystery, is the same as a sacred, hidden thing. As regards the thing, sacrament, insofar as it comprehends the sacraments of the Old Testament and of the New Testament, is defined: A visible sign of invisible grace. But insofar as it is restricted only to the sacraments of the New Testament, it is defined: A sensible sign which, from the institution of Christ, has the power of signifying and causing grace. Hence the sacraments of the Old Testament differ much from the sacraments of the New Testament. For the former did not cause grace, but only figured that it was to be given through the passion of Christ; but our sacraments both contain grace and confer it upon those worthily receiving them. - Sacraments are distinguished from sacramentals, which are certain sacred things, sacred prayers, or actions instituted by the Church, which do not have the power of causing grace of themselves, but only, from the prayers of the Church, of exciting pious movements in us; and thus consequently they have the power of remitting venial sins and temporal punishment, and also of obtaining for us other spiritual and temporal goods, by way of impetration, by reason of the prayers of the Church. Sacramentals are: the Lord's Prayer, holy water, the use of eulogiae, Agnus Dei, consecrations, blessings, general confession, alms, etc. Sacred anointings, which are not sacraments, instituted by the Church, are counted among sacramentals. - Florence, Decree for the Armenians; Trent s. 7, c. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8; Roman Catechism n. 2, 14; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 60, a. 1-4; q. 87, a. 3; Suppl. q. 29, a. 1; L. 90-94; La Croix 218 ff.; Ferraris v. Peccatum n. 52 ff.; Voit 112-117; E. M.

Agnus Dei are blessed and consecrated by the Roman Pontiff. They have power against demons and against all evils of the elements; they are a protection for women giving birth, and for all in prosperous and adverse cases, and they free from unexpected death.

How many are the sacraments of the New Testament? - There are seven: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, Matrimony. Namely, as in bodily life we are born, grow, are nourished, are healed when sick, are fortified against enemies, are governed, and are multiplied, so also in spiritual life. For through baptism we are spiritually reborn; through confirmation we are increased in grace and strengthened in faith; through the Eucharist we are nourished with divine food; through penance we are spiritually healed from the sickness of sin; through extreme unction we are strengthened in agony against the devil; through order the Church is governed; through matrimony it is multiplied. Florence, Decree for the Armenians; Trent s. 7, c. 1; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 65, a. 1-3.

Were all the sacraments instituted by Christ, and when? - R. To the first: In the affirmative, and this is of faith from Trent s. 7, c. 1. But it is far truer that all were instituted immediately by Christ, by himself, and not some mediately through the Apostles or the Church.

R. To the second: Christ more probably instituted Baptism before his passion, when he was baptized in the Jordan, John c. 3, v. 5; Matthew 3:15-17; penance after the resurrection, when he gave to the Apostles the power of remitting sins, John c. 20, v. 22, 23; Trent s. 14, c. 1, 14; the Eucharist at the Last Supper, Trent s. 12, c. 1; order at the Last Supper, when he conferred on the Apostles the power of consecrating, 1 Corinthians c. 11, v. 24-26; Trent s. 22, c. 1, c. 2, and after the resurrection when he gave to them the power of remitting sins, John l. c.; matrimony at the wedding of Cana, or when he established its indissolubility and perpetuity, Matthew c. 19, v. 5, 6, 9, for the matter is not certain. Nor is it established at what time he instituted confirmation, whether after the institution of the Eucharist at the supper, in that discourse in which he promised to all that he would send the Holy Spirit, John 14, 17, or after the resurrection, when Christ conferred on the Apostles full episcopal power in the Church, saying to the Apostles: As the Father has sent me, I also send you.... Receive the Holy Spirit, John 20:21, 22. Nor likewise is it established at what time he instituted extreme unction. - St. Thomas 3 p., q. 64, a. 2-4; 4 D. 3, q. 1, a. 5, s. 2; Roman Catechism p. 2, on Baptism, n. 19.

Do all the sacraments, and always, confer grace? - All the sacraments of the New Testament contain grace and have the power of conferring it on those not placing an obstacle, and they give it always and to all who rightly receive them. Trent s. 7, c. 6, 7. An obstacle is had if the necessary dispositions are lacking in the one receiving. It is also called fiction, because it prevents the sacrament from effecting that which it signifies. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 60, a. 3; q. 69, a. 9 ad 3. - Hence sacraments are called formed or unformed according as they produce grace while they are received, or, with an obstacle intervening, suspend their effect, namely grace, until the obstacle is removed. Whence it appears that sacraments can be at the same time valid but unformed, and can be received at the same time validly but illicitly. Validly, when nothing is lacking from those things which pertain to the essence of the sacrament; illicitly, when, from fault, something is lacking from the necessary dispositions in the one receiving. - Decree of the Holy Office Lamentabili, July 3, 1907, propositions 39, 40, 41.

Do unformed sacraments, when the obstacle is afterwards removed, revive? - For a sacrament to revive is to furnish the grace which it would have furnished from the beginning if there had not been an obstacle. But the obstacle is removed by supplying those necessary dispositions which were lacking from the beginning, e.g., imperfect contrition, if it is a question of baptism received by an adult without any contrition for his own sins, and meanwhile he has not committed a new grave sin. Otherwise either perfect contrition is required, with the vow of the sacrament of penance, or imperfect contrition with the sacrament itself of penance. And then baptism destroys original sin and at the same time all actual sins committed before baptism. But the sacrament of penance destroys sins committed after baptism, and the sin of fiction, or of depraved disposition, with which the sacrament of baptism was received, at least insofar as this depraved disposition persevered after baptism, since it impeded its operation.

Now baptism revives, because it cannot be repeated. St. Augustine l. 1 Contra Donat. c. 13; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 69, a. 10, and others commonly. The same consequently must be said of confirmation and of order. St. Thomas 4, d. 49, art. 2. The same also must be said by proportionate reason of extreme unction and of matrimony, which during the same infirmity and the same marriage likewise cannot be repeated. - But concerning penance and the Eucharist it is much disputed. The reason for doubting is that if attrition is lacking in penance, the matter of the sacrament is lacking; and consequently the sacrament is neither formed nor unformed, since it is invalid, namely since it is altogether not. But the Eucharist from its institution can frequently be repeated, and therefore it does not seem that there was need to attribute to it this efficacy, so that assistance may be given to human frailty.

But St. Thomas, 4 dist. 17, q. 3, a. 4, qc. 1, speaking of a penitent who has made a valid but unformed confession, says: "although then he does not perceive the fruit of absolution, nevertheless when the fiction recedes he will begin to perceive it; as also happens in the other sacraments." But the general reason for revival is that it is only by accident that they do not produce their proper effects of grace, namely because of the obstacle; and therefore those effects remain suspended while the obstacle remains, but when this has been removed they must be applied to the soul. - Lugo d. 9, n. 50, 55; La Croix 207; L. 6, 87, 444, 707; H. A. Exam. Ord. n. 4.

What grace do the sacraments cause? - Sacramental grace, which the sacraments cause, is not grace entitatively diverse from common or non-sacramental grace, but it is sanctifying, habitual grace, insofar as it is given through such a sacrament, and gives a right to such special and more abundant helps, and comprehends these special helps themselves, actually conferred in their own time, according to the diversity of the end for obtaining which each sacrament was instituted. Florence, Decree for the Armenians. But the sacraments which from their primary institution cause the first sanctifying grace are called sacraments of the dead, as baptism and penance. Those which from their primary institution cause the second sanctifying grace, as the five other sacraments, are called sacraments of the living. But, since all the sacraments of the New Testament contain and confer grace on those not placing an obstacle, Florence, Decree for the Armenians; Trent s. 7, c. 6, 7, the sacraments of the dead by accident confer second grace if someone receives them already in the state of grace, and this is certain.

On the contrary, the sacraments of the living by accident confer first sanctifying grace, if someone simply attrite receives them in the state of grave sin, in good faith falsely thinking himself to be rightly absolved or perfectly contrite; and this again is certain concerning extreme unction, very probable concerning the others. The reason is that all the sacraments cause grace for those not placing an obstacle; but the obstacle to grace is not sin existing in the soul, but affection toward sin. - St. Thomas 3 p., q. 62, a. 1-4; q. 72, a. 7 ad 2; q. 79, a. 3.

Do the sacraments cause equal grace in all? - Sacraments cause grace by force of the sign itself, or ex opere operato, not by the merit of the minister or of the recipient, or ex opere operantis. Hence they of themselves effect grace equally in all; yet this by accident, from the greater merit and better dispositions of the subject, can be greater, as happens in the effects of other causes which act physically and necessarily. For greater merit and better dispositions of this kind, in order to the effect of grace ex opere operato, have themselves as more fully removing every obstacle. Trent s. 6, c. 7; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 69, a. 8.

Do all the sacraments imprint character; what is the nature of character? - Only three sacraments imprint character, which therefore are customarily called characteristic, namely baptism, confirmation, and order, by which we are made subjects, soldiers, and ministers of the Church. Character is a certain spiritual sign, distinctive from the others, impressed on the soul and indelible. Hence they cannot be repeated without grave sin of sacrilege. For they would be repeated in vain, and consequently not without grave irreverence, since it would be to mock Christ himself, who instituted the sacrament. Sacramental character is not incompatible with grave sin; therefore sacraments, even unformed ones, although they do not produce grace, nevertheless imprint character in the soul. The remaining four sacraments do not imprint character and admit repetition. Hence sacraments are divided into unrepeatable and repeatable. Penance and the Eucharist are simply repeatable; extreme unction and matrimony indeed are repeatable, but not in the same infirmity and the same marriage. Therefore they hold a middle place between the unrepeatable and the repeatable, and cannot be repeated without grave sacrilege. - Florence, Decree for the Armenians; Trent s. 7, c. 9; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 63; Lugo, de Poenit. d. 16, n. 558.

Are the sacraments necessary? - Baptism for the non-baptized, and penance for those who after baptism have fallen into grave sin, are necessary by a necessity not only of precept but also of means, in reality or in desire. Florence, Decree for the Armenians; Trent s. 5, Decree on original sin; s. 14, c. 1, 4, 5; can. 1, 2, 6, 7. The Eucharist is necessary by necessity of precept. Trent s. 13, c. 9. The sacraments of order and matrimony are altogether free to individuals. Trent s. 7, c. 4. But whether confirmation and extreme unction are necessary from precept is not certainly established, as will be explained in its own place. - St. Thomas 3 p., q. 61.

By what are the sacraments perfected? - "All Sacraments are perfected by three things, namely by things as matter, by words as form, and by the person of the minister conferring the sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does; and if any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not perfected." Florence, Decree for the Armenians.

Things and words are required so that they may intrinsically constitute the sacrament, or the sensible sign signifying and causing grace, as matter and form. But since the proximate matter and form, which is contained in words, do not exist of themselves, but are contained in human actions, therefore a minister is furthermore required for substantially perfecting the sacrament, and indeed with the intention of doing what the Church does; for by this intention the ultimate signification of that sign is completed. For even with the thing and word, or matter and form, posited, that whole action still does not have perfect sacramental signification; for it can still be a sacramental action or some action, e.g., one mocking the sacrament itself, according to the intention of the one acting. But the sacraments "effect that which they figure" and signify, St. Thomas 3 p., q. 62, a. 1 ad 1, and therefore if they signify nothing, they effect nothing.

What and how many kinds is the matter of the sacraments? - The matter of a sacrament is some thing, or quasi-thing, or some action, determined from the institution of Christ for confecting the sacrament. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 60, a. 5. - This matter is distinguished into remote and proximate. Remote matter is the thing itself to be used in the sacrament, e.g., water in baptism, chrism in confirmation, etc. Proximate matter is the application and use of the thing in the sacramental action, e.g., washing in baptism, anointing in confirmation, bread and wine insofar as they are subjected to the words of consecration in the Eucharist. Therefore proximate matter is matter which, together with the form, constitutes the sensible efficacious sign of grace. A thing or action of this kind has the character of matter in a sacrament, because it is more indifferent and has less perfect signification, and therefore must be determined to signify by something else.

What is the form of the sacraments? - The form of the sacraments is certain words determined from the institution of Christ for perfecting the sacrament by perfecting the signification of the thing or matter. For what things demonstrate more obscurely, words signify more clearly. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 60, a. 6.

Can a sacrament be confected without matter or without form? - Matter and form are altogether necessary for the validity of a sacrament; therefore, if either is lacking, the sacraments cannot be confected. The reason is that a sacrament is and has its power from the institution of Christ. Therefore it cannot be confected except in that mode in which Christ instituted it. This is furthermore established from Florence, Decree for the Armenians, from tradition, and from the practice of the Church. C. Non ut 5 de Bapt.

Must matter and form be certain? - In confecting a sacrament outside the case of necessity, certain matter and form must be used, insofar as they can be had. The reason is that probability of invalidity does not remove the danger, which is both against the reverence owed to the sacrament, and often against charity toward the neighbor, and often also against justice. This is furthermore established from proposition 1 condemned by Innocent XI.

Outside the case of necessity. For since the sacraments exist for men, they can and must be conferred, although certainty concerning the validity of the sacrament is not had, whenever there is present not only extreme necessity, but also grave necessity or utility, especially if it is prudently feared that, the present occasion being passed over, they will no longer be conferred afterwards. The reason is that since irreverence or contempt is situated in some human action which of itself is insulting, all irreverence and contempt of the sacrament indeed ceases if a cause is present which by the common opinion of men removes every appearance of contempt. Insofar as they can be had: for where it is a question, for example, of a disposition necessary for the sacrament of penance, scarcely any judgment can be had about it other than prudent and probable.

Often it is against charity and against justice to use uncertain form or matter; for neither would be the case if the one receiving consented. But although then harm to the neighbor and any malice against charity and justice would be absent, nevertheless irreverence toward the sacrament and sacrilege both of the minister and of the recipient would not be absent; for holy things are to be treated holily. But the harm which can be brought upon the neighbor by uncertain matter or form can be most grave, as in the baptism of an infant; simply grave, as in extreme unction of the dying; light, as in absolution of venial sins; and also none, as in the ordination of a woman.

What has been said about doubtful matter and form is likewise to be said about a subject perhaps incapable. But the matter is explored concerning baptism and penance, and the truer opinion is concerning confirmation and extreme unction. Roman Ritual on the Sacrament of baptism and extreme unction. - L. 28, 162, 432 IV, 449; Lugo, de Poenit. d. 14, n. 110, 111; La Croix 105.

You will resolve: When danger of death is urgent, baptism and penance can and must be conferred even with the lowest degree of probability. Therefore one dying is to be baptized even with rose-water, or on the foot, Roman Ritual on Baptism of children, or on the fingers or hair. But confirmation and extreme unction can and must be conferred if it is truly probable that neither matter nor form is lacking, and scandal is absent; for scandal also must be removed, while the eternal salvation of another is preserved. - From the Roman Ritual, on the Sacrament of extreme unction, a sick person is to be anointed concerning whom it is doubted whether he still lives. From St. Alphonsus 719, likewise a child concerning whose use of reason there is doubt is to be anointed under condition. In that danger it is also lawful to confer extreme unction with oil of catechumens. And if one about to die cannot confess and communicate, it is lawful to confer on him even extreme unction with the lowest degree of probability, e.g., if he has been destitute of senses in the act of sin, in drunkenness, in a fight; since then the sacrament becomes one of necessity. Likewise in the same danger it is lawful to confer confirmation with blessed oil without balsam.

But not by imposition of hands alone, because of the novelty of the thing and the wonder and scandal of bystanders. - L. 82, 103, 107, 111, 162, 702, d. 2, 408, 732, 751.

It is never lawful to confer order, especially the priesthood, with doubt about its value, because no necessity and utility of the recipient is had in it, and on the contrary there is had a most grave danger to the Christian republic. - Cf. 345, 348.

Does a change of matter and form invalidate the sacrament? - There can be a twofold change in the matter and form of the sacraments: substantial and accidental. A substantial change will be in the matter if this is physically corrupted, so that it seems to have lost its former nature; or if it can no longer serve its natural use; or if according to the common estimation of men it cannot be called the same as that which was determined by Christ: e.g., if wine has become vinegar, if ink is made from water, if wine and water are mixed in equal quantity. For it is judged neither wine nor water, but a mixture from water and wine, which can serve neither baptism nor the Eucharist. - But a change will be accidental if the matter, neither physically nor morally speaking, loses its former nature, nor ceases to serve its natural use: e.g., if in a small quantity you mix water with wine or wine with water, the wine does not invalidate the Eucharist, nor the water baptism. - St. Thomas 3 p., q. 66, a. 4; Lugo, de Euchar. d. 4, n. 4; La Croix 261; L. 103, 207, q. 2.

A substantial change will be in the form if the sense of the words intended by Christ is so changed that it no longer signifies either the sacramental action which is perfected by the minister or the sacramental effect, e.g., if someone in baptism says: I absolve you; I wish to baptize you.

The change will be accidental if the form still signifies the same thing, e.g.: This is my body, with a grammatical error. Generally, errors of grammar change the form only accidentally; for the signification is regularly judged the same.

Every substantial change in the matter and form of a sacrament invalidates it, because it is no longer the rite instituted by Christ, but another. But if it is voluntary, it constitutes grave sin; for it brings grave injury upon the author of the rite. But no accidental change in the matter and form invalidates the sacrament, because the same rite still remains; yet it induces grave or light sin according as it is notable or of little moment. - La Croix 40, 46; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 60, a. 8; q. 74, a. 3, 4, 5; q. 77, a. 8; Suppl. q. 29, a. 9 ad 3; 4 d. 2, a. 2, q. 2, 3, 4.

In how many ways can the form be changed? - The form can be changed: By addition; and the form is void if it changes the sense, or contains error against the form itself, e.g., I absolve you from your involuntary sins; I baptize you in the name of the Father greater, and of the Son lesser, and of the Holy Spirit created. If the sense is not changed, nor is error had against the form itself, the form is valid, e.g., I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit with this cold water, although it is hot. La Croix 64. If equivocation is had, the matter depends on the intention of the one pronouncing, e.g., I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and of the Blessed Virgin Mary. If the name of the Blessed Virgin Mary is added from mere devotion, the form is valid; but if it is added so that baptism is conferred also in that name, it is not valid. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 60, a. 8.

By detraction; and the form again is void if words are taken away which signify the sacramental action, e.g., these words, I baptize you, or the subject, e.g., by saying I baptize; but otherwise if the pronoun of the minister is omitted, for it is tacitly present, e.g., I baptize you in the name, etc.

By corruption of words, which also voids the form, unless perhaps it happens either by a natural defect, e.g., in the tongue-tied, or by some natural haste, or by lack of skill, if nevertheless it does not altogether remove the sense; since in these cases corrupted words by common use are received and understood as complete, e.g., I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Daughter and of the Holy Spirit, with wrong endings, which form is valid because it does not remove the sense and is received as correct, since it is understood as corrupted, not diverse; or, I baptize you in the name of the Mother and of the Daughter and of the Holy Spirit, which form is not valid, because it altogether removes the sense and is received as altogether another and diverse one. Thus also it is not valid if it is said, I am baptized you, etc. Ordination is valid if the Bishop, through error, when several are touching the instruments at the same time in priestly ordination, pronounces the form in the singular: Receive, etc. Holy Office, January 16, 1901; Monitor Ecclesiasticus v. 12, p. 482 f. - St. Thomas 3 p., q. 60, a. 7; L. 110; de Cons. Dist. 86.

By transmutation of words; if they are altogether synonymous, the form is valid; if they are not synonymous, the form is not valid; if they are doubtful, the form will also be doubtful. Thus in baptism, I wash or I lave for I baptize, is valid; for it is a synonymous word. But I anoint is not valid, because it is not synonymous. Likewise I regenerate is not valid, or is doubtful; for it is not plainly synonymous, since it signifies the sacramental effect, but does not also signify the sacramental action. In penance, I cleanse you, for I absolve, more truly is not valid, for it is not synonymous. Likewise, Christ baptizes you, etc., absolves you, etc., more truly seems not to be valid, because the action of the minister is not expressed.

By translation of words from one language into another, which does not render the form void; for the signification is altogether the same, even if various idioms are used in one and the same form, e.g., io ti battezzo, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. L. 109; La Croix 30.

By transposition of words, which of itself makes only an accidental change; for the same signification altogether remains, e.g., if you say: You I baptize in the name, etc. L. 110. Yet transposition of words can altogether pervert the sense, or render it ambiguous, and then the form will be invalid or doubtful, as in the consecration of bread: mine is this body; this body is mine; this mine is body; this body, is mine. Yet the form would be valid if it were said: this, body is mine. - St. Thomas 3 p., q. 60, a. 8 ad 3; Lugo d. 2, n. 112.

By interruption of words; if this is notable, it harms the form, St. Thomas 3 p., q. 60, a. 8 ad 3; if small, it does not harm. St. Thomas ibid. Which interruption is long, which brief, must be judged by prudent estimation. Lugo d. 2, n. 112; Sporer n. 91. Commonly a brief interruption is judged to be one Our Father or Hail Mary.

But concerning a brief interruption of the syllables of the same word, some judge that it harms the form, others that it does not harm, others that it harms if the interruption was made by another word interjected; but by no means if it was made by some action interjected, e.g., breathing, coughing, yawning. L. n. 11; La Croix 33.

By substitution of other signs in place of words, e.g., nods, writing, etc., which, excepting matrimony, which consists in a contract, voids the form; for the form is in words. Florence, Decree for the Armenians; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 60, a. 6; La Croix 37.

You will resolve: The form is valid, although it is not lawful, if a small interruption is made, e.g., I baptize you, and there is interposed: this water is too cold; or: sacristan, turn the page; in the name of the Father, etc. L. 11.

What sort of union must there be between matter and form? - In order that a sacrament be valid, there must be between matter and form, e.g., between the pouring of water and the pronunciation of the words, such conjunction that, according to the moral estimation of men, with the nature of each sacrament considered, one is understood to be referred to the other.

The reason is that from matter and form one sign must coalesce. But in a moral composite, such as a sacrament is, moral unity suffices, excepting the Eucharist, which altogether requires them to exist physically together, since the pronoun this, here, cannot be verified unless the matter is present. Nor indeed does it matter which is placed first, excepting penance.

L. 8. - It suffices in baptism, confirmation, extreme unction, and order, if, when one of them has been placed, whether matter or form precedes, the other is placed immediately or soon afterwards, e.g., if someone in the conferral of the order of priesthood touches the chalice and paten after the Bishop has pronounced the words: Receive power, etc. Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 1, d. 33, n. 2. Soon afterwards: for a brief delay interposed does not harm, namely a delay which is shorter than one Our Father. L. 8. Cf. Lugo, de Sacr. d. 2, n. 99. - In matrimony, the consent of one can follow the consent of the other as long as this is judged morally to remain, as in other contracts. Busembaum 10. In penance, absolution can be deferred for a rather long time, just as in judgment a sentence after the examination of the cause. Busembaum ibid. "In penance," says St. Alphonsus 9, "that union suffices which the judicial act requires, since some distance of time is accustomed to intervene between accusation and sentence, although in this sacrament such distance ought not to be as great as occurs in forensic judgment. But Croix l. 6, n. 8, with Tamburini, says that a penitent is validly absolved after an hour from Confession." The reason is that this judgment is far simpler than forensic judgment is accustomed to be, and because the sentence has the character of form with respect to the acts of the penitent, which are as if matter. Therefore with that same long distance which is accustomed to be in forensic judgments between their various acts, there would no longer be a moral union of them in this judgment. Cf. 748. - Roman Ritual on the Form of baptism; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 60, a. 6 ad 2; Suarez d. 2, s. 2.

Note: If a sacrament consists of several parts, as the Eucharist, extreme unction, order, with a notable delay interposed between them, so that the action of the minister can no longer seem one, one must altogether cease in the Eucharist, begin again from the beginning in extreme unction, and in order always cautiously supply what was incautiously omitted. L. 724; St. Thomas Suppl. q. 29, a. 2 ad 3. Cf. 336.

Must matter and form be united and applied by one and the same minister, and with regard to the same subject? - R. In the affirmative. The reason is that if one placed the matter and another the form, or the same minister applied matter and form to one subject and another subject, the words of the form would be false: I baptize you, etc.; for while another poured the water, he himself would not baptize; or while he himself poured the water upon one, he would nevertheless assert that he baptizes another. - L. 114; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 67, a. 6.

What if several ministers confect a sacrament, or the sacrament is conferred on several subjects? - R. To the first: If two ministers, for example, place the whole matter and form, whether of the whole sacrament, as if they baptize or consecrate together, or of a part of the sacrament, if the sacrament consists of several parts, as are the Eucharist, extreme unction, order, the sacrament is valid, because nothing is lacking in the being of the sacrament. But in the former case he confects the sacrament who first completes the sign; and if each completes the sign at the same moment of time, each, as far as in himself lies, confects the sacrament. L. 120; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 67, a. 6; q. 82, a. 2. But this is grave, excepting the ordination of priests. In the latter case also it is grave, excepting grave necessity.

In the East, on one altar several priests sometimes consecrate the same bread and the same wine. Then as many Masses are said as there are priests, and the fruit of the Mass is multiplied as many times. Benedict XIV, de Sacrif. Miss. l. 3, c. 16, n. 10.

R. To the second: A sacrament which one and the same minister confers upon several at the same time is valid beyond doubt, because then the form is virtually multiple. This has place, for example, in baptism and in penance, namely when someone under one form baptizes several, absolves several. It is indeed lawful in the case of extreme necessity, e.g., in fire, shipwreck, etc., Roman Ritual on Baptism of children; but in other cases, whether it is grave or light is disputed; for a notable change does not certainly appear. "Yet all say that he would not be excused at least from venial sin" without necessity. L. 29.

How are the words of the form to be pronounced? - Since sacraments are signs, and by signifying grace they effect and sanctify, the words of the form are of themselves consecratory both of the matter and of the subject. Consequently they are to be pronounced in a consecratory manner, in the present time, whether indicative, as in baptism; or imperative, as in ordination; or deprecative, as in extreme unction. If the words are uttered in another mode, namely merely historically, or promissorily, or interrogatively, or by way of sermon for instructing or exciting, the form is void. And thus this form is not valid: you are absolved from your sins; I will absolve you from your sins; do I absolve you from your sins? Würzburg Theologians 109 ff.; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 78, a. 1.

1. Sidonius, a missionary, once conferred baptism with muddy water, once with water simply blessed. Likewise, he consecrated the Eucharist once in kneaded flour, once in bread made from the tuberous nightshade; once in wine growing sour, once in wine to which carbonate of lime had been mixed. He once administered Extreme Unction with chrism, once with the oil of catechumens.

Question. What is to be said to the Case?

R. Baptism conferred with muddy water is valid, because muddy water is true water and can still serve for its own use of washing. Yet it is illicit outside a case of necessity. For water to be used for baptism must be pure and consecrated. — I. M. 396–398; Enchir. Moral. 396.

Baptism conferred with water simply blessed, and not consecrated, is also valid, because true water is not lacking; but it is gravely illicit outside a case of necessity, because a very grave prescribed ceremony is omitted. I. M. 432. But as regards the liceity of blessed water in place of consecrated water, in a case of necessity, these Decrees are had: “Concerning the doubt set forth by the Capuchin missionary in the diocese of Trebigne ... whether baptism is conferred licitly with the use of blessed water, this Supreme Inquisition has been of the opinion that it is conferred validly, but that, in the absence of the font of water prepared for baptism, natural water must be used.” S. O., 6 April 1741; S. C. de P. F., 17 April 1758. “If there is grave necessity, and if baptismal water cannot be consecrated, and if there is lack of holy oil, baptism can licitly be conferred even with blessed water alone. Nevertheless let missionaries beware lest they do this, unless there exists a true and grave cause to be discerned, as is altogether fitting, by the Ordinary of the place.” S. O., 11 December 1250. “When baptismal water is not had, there must be used, when it can be done, blessed water according to the formula in the new editions and in the appendix of the Roman Ritual; otherwise natural water must be used.” S. O., 22 June 1883. I. M. 432; Enchir. Moral. 432.

The Eucharist consecrated in kneaded flour is invalid. Kneaded flour, or raw bread, is neither bread in common acceptance, namely perfect bread, as bread is commonly understood, nor can it serve for the natural use of bread. Wherefore, although raw and baked bread have physically the same nature, nevertheless the common acceptance is not the same, nor is the use the same.

Likewise, the Eucharist consecrated in bread made from the tuberous nightshade, commonly potatoes, is invalid. For the bread which is the matter of the Eucharist is bread from wheat, namely common bread, as it is commonly accepted for common use.

But the Eucharist is validly consecrated in wine growing sour, if the wine has only some beginning of acridity; but it is lightly illicit. Likewise it is validly consecrated, but the consecration is gravely illicit, if the wine is already judged to have entered the limits of corruption, although it has not yet been substantially changed. But the consecration will be invalid if, for example, by contact with the air, it has already become vinegar, since then the wine is already substantially corrupted. I. M. 507.

Finally, the Eucharist consecrated from wine to which bicarbonate of lime has been mixed is invalidly consecrated if that carbonate has been mixed into the wine in such a quantity that the acids proper to the wine have been wholly destroyed by chemical composition. For then a substantial alteration of the wine is had. But it would have to be said otherwise if it had been mixed in slight quantity, so that acids still remain in the wine, especially tartaric, citric, acetic, and tannic acid.

Extreme Unction conferred with chrism and the oil of catechumens is indeed illicit outside a case of necessity; but it is only probably valid, and therefore, if conferred in a case of necessity, it must be repeated conditionally if this can be done. For in confirmation and extreme unction the matter must first be blessed, so that the sacrament may be valid; but it must be blessed by the proper minister, and each in its own rite. Nevertheless, if the matter has been blessed by the proper minister, but by another rite, to many it is probable that the sacrament is valid. Liguori, book 7, no. 163, doubt 2; no. 709, doubt 2; G. 146; I. M. 864; Enchir. Moral. 864.

It is worthwhile here to add what Benedict XIV has in Notification LXXVII concerning wine for Masses. “1. Once the better wine used to be kept for Masses: ‘With diligent care the best wine must be sought,’ said the great Pontiff Innocent III, book 4, chapter 30, Mysteries of the Mass ... And nowadays choice wines are used at tables and banquets, and the vilest wines are kept for the altar.

“2 ... Wine ‘with the point,’ which means wine which is beginning to turn sour and has not become vinegar, is not unsuitable and insufficient matter ... but it is indecent, and it is not used without sin ... Only that priest remains exempt from sin who is obliged to celebrate, and who has no authority to have the wine changed, as happens among regulars; in which circumstances, provided the wine has not become vinegar, but is simply ‘with the point,’ the sin is charged to the superior or the minister who has the duty of providing the wine for Mass ...

“3. Passing to half-wine, it is known to everyone that a kind of half-wine is made by taking the pure wine from the vat, leaving in it the stalks with some little must, for example about half a corba, and adding to it water in greater quantity, such as a corba and a half, and letting it boil for about twenty-four hours. This liquor, which among us is called half-wine, and in other places small-water wine, and in the Latin language lora or lorea, is insufficient and unsuitable matter ...

“5. Then another kind of half-wine is made, which is also called long wine, when, after the pure wine has been drawn off, and a greater quantity of must has been left in the vat, such as three or four corbe, water is added to it either in equal or in somewhat greater quantity, and sometimes with some old wine put into it ... and this kind of half-wine, or long wine ... the authors commonly conclude in stronger terms, is not decent matter, and that there is no place for using it in Mass, except in a case of hard necessity ...”

But, as is drawn from many authors cited by Benedict XIV in the following numbers 6 and 8, concerning the sufficiency of this wine as regards the validity of the sacrifice, judgment will have to be made from the quantity of water mixed in, from the greater or lesser pressing made of the grapes, and from the greater or lesser substance of wine. Wherefore, since the matter is doubtful, it will be wholly illicit to use such wine in the sacrifice of the Mass. Hence in number 7 Benedict XIV continues thus:

“7. And therefore, consistently with the opinion of all the aforesaid theologians, we ordain and will that in the sacristies, for Masses, the first wine be given, excluding any second or half-wine, even though, according to the style of this our city and diocese, and of many others, in making the first wine a quantity of water is poured in; the first wine not ceasing by this infusion to be true wine and to be usual wine, as Passerini well notes in his Commentaries on the third part of St. Thomas, question 74, article 5, commentary 7, no. 10: If only so much water is used as is commonly accustomed to be used according to the custom of the country for this purpose, that it may be better boiled down or preserved, no sin is incurred from the use of such wine in consecration; and whatever may be the case about the reason alleged by him, for such a quantity is small and is converted into wine, certainly the other reason is good: and besides, such wine is the common and usual wine of the country. Quarti, on the Rubrics of the Missal, part 3, title 4, doubt 3: In some places wine is accustomed to be made with an infusion of water in the must, or in the clusters, before they are pressed out. It is asked whether it can validly and licitly be consecrated? I answer by distinguishing: if little water is poured into the must, it is certain that true wine is made; consequently it can be consecrated validly and licitly. It is proved, because it is usual wine, and in many places, where wine is customarily made in the said manner, scarcely any other is found. And speaking of these wines of ours of Bologna, Rosignoli notes in tome 15, de Euchar., question 4, article 2, no. 6, where, after he had said that the true matter is wine from the vine substantially not corrupted or notably changed, he adds: For if they were altered precisely in some manner, as if they were heated, and even if they were moderately cooked, as is customarily done in Piceno and Umbria, if they were mixed with a moderate amount of water, as is accustomed to be done at Bologna, etc., certainly they would not cease to be matter fit for consecration.”

The following decision of the Sacred Congregation also pertains to the matter: “In some regions of Spain there flourishes a very ancient custom by which many priests prepare for themselves wine for the sacrifice of the holy Mass, either by first evaporating the must by fire, or by drying grapes in the rays of the sun; this custom seems to be honored by the declaration of the Holy Office of 22 July 1706 concerning wine made from raisins. — Whether it is licit, for confecting the sacrifice of the holy Mass, to use wine obtained from must which before vinous fermentation has been condensed by fiery evaporation? — R. It is licit, provided that a boiling down of this kind does not exclude alcoholic fermentation, and that the fermentation itself can be obtained naturally and in fact is obtained.” S. O., 7 August 1896.

2. Sabbas, a priest in Spain, when conferring baptism, sometimes used this form: I have baptized thee in the name, etc.; judging it to be altogether the best in the Case, since, after the words I thee had been uttered, he had already through distraction poured all the water on the head of the infant.

Question. What is to be said to the Case?

R. “Baptism conferred by a verb of the past tense to signify a past action, and not also the action which is exercised by the minister at the time when he baptizes with the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity and with washing, immersion, or sprinkling of natural water, is not true baptism. — If the one baptizing were to use a verb of the past tense to signify the act which is exercised by the minister himself when he baptizes, and the other requisites were present, it would be baptism, if among that nation or clergy there were a usage of taking that word of the past tense to signify a present action. — It is also baptism if, from ignorance of the language, by breaking the words, without the intention of introducing error or heresy, someone utters the word of the past tense for the present, if there is such likeness between the word of the past and of the present that there is an easy slip from one word into the other, and prudent men commonly judge that the one baptizing supposed the word of the past tense to be corruptly uttered for the present, and, when the word has been uttered, conceive that the present action is sufficiently signified.” S. C. de P. F., 27 March 1631, Collect. of the same Sacred Congregation, no. 519. Hence it is clear that the baptism conferred by Sabbas was invalid because of substantial corruption of the form. The action of pouring the water, already completed, when he was uttering the verb I baptize, was still, morally speaking, present, and it had to be signified by the present verb I baptize; otherwise, since according to the Roman Ritual the water is to be poured when the invocation of the three Persons is made, the minister ought not to say, I baptize thee, but I shall baptize thee. That is, the form essentially must signify the present action of baptizing, which is exercised here and now by the minister. I. M. 320, 413.

3. “The form of baptism of the schismatic Armenians having been reported, which is had in their Rituals as below, namely: Now my hand baptizes in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; or: Now my hand baptizes in the name of the Father; now my hand baptizes in the name of the Son; now my hand baptizes in the name of the Holy Spirit; the Sacred Congregation declared the said form of baptism to be true and legitimate.” S. O., 8 September 1633, Collect. S. C. de P. F., no. 520. Certainly the form of baptism is valid when uttered in the present tense in a consecratory manner, whether indicative or imperative. — I. M. 326.

4. “Cornelius, a priest, was absolving a penitent after the confession had been completed. But after he had uttered the first words, I absolve thee, looking back he noticed that the penitent had already departed from the sacred tribunal; wherefore he called him back, saying: What is this? Why did you not wait? Return and kneel until I have absolved you. But when he had returned, the confessor added the remaining words, namely, from thy sins.

“Another time, when he was baptizing an infant, and had already said, I baptize thee, immediately turning to some boys who were talking, he interrupted the form, crying: Be silent, chatterers; be silent, worst boys, absurd boys! And afterward he proceeded: in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spi (here suddenly he sneezes and coughs) rit Holy.

Question. What is to be said to the Case?

R. 1. Cornelius absolved validly, because the interruption of the words and the interposition were not so great that the following words, from thy sins, would not be judged, in the moral estimation of men, to be joined with the preceding words, I absolve thee. Nevertheless, if he had repeated the words of absolution as a precaution under condition, he would not have been condemned. But why under condition? Because according to many doctors the words I absolve thee probably suffice for the form of absolution. Therefore probably the penitent was absolved before the interruption; therefore, if the words had been repeated, this would have had to be done under condition. Elbel, no. 13.

2. Cornelius likewise baptized validly; for the interruption vitiated the form only accidentally, because the sense is not taken away where only a small interruption of words is interposed, since it removes neither the intention of the speaker nor the understanding of the words, as St. Thomas says, part 3, question 60, article 8, ad 3. But the interruption was indeed brief, whether in correcting and rebuking the boys, or even in coughing and sneezing. Therefore it can in no way stand in the way of the validity of baptism. Voit, no. 23.

3. Cornelius acted illicitly in calling back the penitent in this way, with the latter’s annoyance and the scandal of others. It was by no means necessary to call him back, since he was certainly morally present. It would therefore have been enough to complete the form of absolution already begun, and no longer to think about the penitent.

4. He also acted illicitly in the baptism, and indeed of itself gravely, by reason of scandal or of grave injury inflicted upon the sacrament. For there was no such urgency that he should rebuke the boys in that way. Was there danger in delay, so that he could not first have completed the sacramental form? Voit, ibid.” Thus Gury, 154, 155.

“A great interruption of words,” says Lugo, d. 2, no. 111, “impedes the validity of the sacrament, because the sense of the sentence is taken away; but a moderate interruption does not impede it, because morally it is the same sentence, and this even if other words are interposed, as if someone says, I baptize thee, and, asking for water, says, give water, and immediately continues, in the name of the Father, etc. But how great and of what kind the interruption or interposition of words must be in order to take away the sense is a moral matter, and depends on the arbitration and judgment of prudent men.” That is, that is prudently judged a great interruption which is prudently judged to take away the sense of the sentence. And St. Thomas, loc. cit.: “If there is so great an interruption of words that the intention of the one pronouncing is intercepted, the sense of the sacrament is taken away, and consequently its truth; but it is not taken away when the interruption is small, which does not remove the intention of the one uttering and the understanding of the words.”

Now the resolution of Father Gury concerning absolution is not without difficulty. For first, if Cornelius absolved validly, as he simply affirms, because a small interruption was present and the understanding of the words remained entire with the intention of the one uttering them, how then could Cornelius repeat the absolution as a precaution? In order that it be said that Cornelius could have done this as a precaution, it is necessary that it be said that Cornelius probably did not absolve, and that probably the form was interrupted. Besides, if Cornelius ought to have repeated the absolution as a precaution, why is this same thing not asserted with more urgent reason concerning baptism? For the delay interposed between the words of the form of baptism and the words of absolution was almost the same. Therefore either in each case the form ought to have been repeated, or in neither. Finally, granted repetition of the form of absolution, it would then have had to be repeated under condition not only because the words I absolve thee alone probably suffice, but also because, since they probably do not suffice, the form in such an opinion would in the Case probably have been interrupted. Thus indeed it would have to be said consequently. But in truth, in each case, it plainly appears that the intention of the one pronouncing was not intercepted; on the contrary, it was continued by the continuation of the form, nor was the understanding of the words taken away in the Case; for any prudent man assisting at such an administration of the sacrament would well have understood the truth of the form. — I. M. 320, 748.

5. “Sidonius, a priest, while saying Mass, when he had come to the words of consecration of the bread, by a slip of the tongue or by distraction said: This is the Chalice, and immediately, noticing the error, mentally retracted the word Chalice, and uttered the remaining part of the form, namely, my Body. Afterward he doubted whether he ought to have repeated the form, and even now, whether he is bound to celebrate another Mass for the stipend accepted.

Question. Was the consecration valid?

R. The matter can be subjected to controversy. At first sight, that form seems invalid, because these words convey no sense. It was not enough that the priest should correct the error mentally, or by intention remove the word Chalice, which had crept in by a slip of the tongue. For the words of the form must be taken materially, and they are worth only as much as they sound. But in the Case they sound nothing. Therefore they are worth nothing, that is, they signify nothing. Therefore the form had to be repeated.

“Nevertheless the reasons which can be adduced for the opposite opinion are by no means to be despised. For words are worth only as much as human usage bears. Now in human usage, if by a slip of the tongue an undue word flows from the mouth, it is immediately corrected by the change of the word alone, and the beginning of the sentence is not repeated. Therefore, when the undue word Chalice had been uttered, the form could sufficiently be corrected by the celebrant by changing only the undue word. Therefore the consecration was valid, at least probably, just as baptism conferred thus is valid: I baptize thee in honor ... in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. But because of the doubt, the priest ought to have repeated the form under condition. But when the sacred action had been completed, he ought not to have celebrated another for the stipend accepted. Indeed he would not have to celebrate another Mass even if that prior consecration were certainly invalid, because probably the consecration of one species suffices for the essence of the sacrifice. Thus La Croix, book 6, part 2, no. 15. Nevertheless the more common and more probable opinion holds that each consecration is required for the essence of the sacrifice. St. Liguori, 306.” Thus Father Gury, 148, 149, 254.

But it must be noted first that if Sidonius only mentally retracted the word Chalice, so that externally the slip of the tongue and error could not be noted, then it seems absolutely more probable that the consecration was not valid. For when someone errs in some word and then corrects the word erroneously uttered, this appears externally, and the right sense of the proposition is understood by the hearers. But if someone, disguising the error committed, seriously continues the sentence by correcting the mistaken word, then the correction is not understood, and the erroneous or equivocal sentence remains among the hearers. Besides, it is indeed to be feared lest in the Case it be valid to say that the sacrifice probably was valid for excusing Sidonius from celebrating another Mass. For it does not appear clearly enough here that there is question of the right use of probabilism, since there is not question merely of the subjective liceity of an action, but also of the objective truth of the thing, namely, of the certain fruit of the sacrifice. This can be confirmed by the Response of the Holy Office, 27 January 1897. Cf. I. M., vol. 1, no. 116; A. S. S., vol. 32, p. 562.

6. “Henry, a priest, driven by scruples even to madness, seems to himself never to express the words of consecration sufficiently. Wherefore he is accustomed to say them aloud, while those assisting at the sacred action wonder and are stunned, and he repeats the individual words three or four times in the following manner: This, this, this is, is, is Body, Body, Body my, my, my.

Question. What is to be judged concerning Henry?

R. Henry sinned of itself gravely by treating the form of the Eucharist so injuriously; by accident, however, by reason of madness, he will easily be excused from grave sin.” Thus Father Gury, 158, saying nothing about the validity of such a form. But it is valid. “Thus Clericatus, de Sacram. in gen., decision 8, no. 8. The reason is that that repetition of individual words did not take away the substantial sense of the form, as will easily appear to one weighing it well.” Elbel, 14.

7. To Bishop Titius, after the solemn blessing of the baptismal font had been completed on Holy Saturday, an infant was brought to be baptized. But in conferring baptism it happened by chance that the bishop indeed uttered the words, I baptize thee, etc., yet did not at the same time pour the water, because through the forgetfulness of the sacristan it had not yet been put into the vessel. As soon as the master of ceremonies noticed this, he immediately filled the vessel with water taken from the sacred font, which the bishop poured on the head of the infant, the words of the form not having been repeated.

Another time the same Titius, when through the days of Pentecost in the same cathedral church he was administering the sacrament of confirmation to a multitude of boys, was so disturbed by the noise which the fall of a certain little boy caused, while he was in the act of anointing one of them with chrism, that he completed the anointing on his forehead, yet without uttering the words of the form. At the same time, having turned his face, he asked what had happened; and after he had received notice of the matter and had learned that the crowd excited by that noise had quieted down, he uttered the sacramental words, the anointing not having been repeated, then proceeding to confirm the others.

Question. What is to be said to the Case?

“Fifth, for the easier instruction of the Armenians themselves, both present and future, We reduce the truth of the ecclesiastical Sacraments to this very brief formula. There are seven Sacraments of the New Law: namely, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony. These differ greatly from the sacraments of the Old Law. For those did not cause grace, but only prefigured that it was to be given through the Passion of Christ; but these Sacraments of ours both contain grace and confer it upon those worthily receiving them. The first five of these are ordained to the spiritual perfection of each man in himself; the last two, to the governance and multiplication of the whole Church. For through Baptism we are spiritually reborn; through Confirmation we are increased in grace and strengthened in faith; and, having been reborn and strengthened, we are nourished by the divine food of the Eucharist. But if through sin we incur sickness of soul, through Penance we are spiritually healed; spiritually also, and corporally insofar as it is expedient for the soul, through Extreme Unction; but through Order the Church is governed and multiplied spiritually; through Matrimony it is increased corporally. All these Sacraments are completed by three things: namely, things as matter, words as form, and the person of the minister conferring the Sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does. If any of these is lacking, the Sacrament is not completed. Among these Sacraments there are three—Baptism, Confirmation, and Order—which imprint upon the soul an indelible character, that is, a certain spiritual sign distinctive from the others. Hence they are not repeated in the same person. But the remaining four do not imprint a character and admit of repetition.

“Holy Baptism holds the first place among all the Sacraments, because it is the gate of spiritual life; for through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since through the first man death entered into all, unless we are reborn of water and the Spirit, we cannot, as the Truth says, enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. The matter of this Sacrament is true and natural water; nor does it matter whether it is cold or warm. The form is: ‘I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.’ Nevertheless, We do not deny that true Baptism is also completed through these words: ‘Such a servant of Christ is baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’; or, ‘Such a one is baptized by my hands in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.’ For since the principal cause from which Baptism has its power is the Holy Trinity, while the minister who outwardly delivers the Sacrament is the instrumental cause, if the act which is exercised through the minister himself is expressed together with the invocation of the Holy Trinity, the Sacrament is completed. The minister of this Sacrament is the priest, to whom it belongs by office to baptize. But in a case of necessity, not only a priest or deacon, but also a layman or woman, indeed even a pagan and a heretic, can baptize, provided that he observes the form of the Church and intends to do what the Church does. The effect of this Sacrament is the remission of all original and actual fault, and also of every punishment which is due for that fault. Therefore no satisfaction for past sins is to be enjoined upon the baptized; rather, those who die before committing any fault immediately attain the Kingdom of Heaven and the vision of God.

“The second Sacrament is Confirmation, whose matter is chrism composed of oil, which signifies the splendor of conscience, and balsam, which signifies the odor of good reputation, blessed by a Bishop. The form is: ‘I sign you with the sign of the Cross and confirm you with the chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.’ The ordinary minister is the Bishop. And although a simple priest can administer the other anointings, only a Bishop ought to confer this one, because it is read only of the Apostles, whose place Bishops hold, that they gave the Holy Spirit through the imposition of hands, as the reading of the Acts of the Apostles makes manifest: ‘For when,’ it says, ‘the Apostles who were at Jerusalem had heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John. When these had come, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit; for He had not yet come upon any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands upon them, and they received the Holy Spirit.’ In the place of that imposition of hands, Confirmation is given in the Church. It is read, nevertheless, that sometimes, by dispensation of the Apostolic See for a reasonable and very urgent cause, a simple priest administered this Sacrament of Confirmation with chrism consecrated by a Bishop. The effect of this Sacrament is that in it the Holy Spirit is given for strength, as He was given to the Apostles on the day of Pentecost, so that, namely, the Christian may boldly confess the name of Christ. Therefore the one to be confirmed is anointed on the forehead, where the seat of shame is, lest he be ashamed to confess the name of Christ, and especially His Cross, which indeed is a scandal to the Jews but foolishness to the Gentiles, according to the Apostle; for which reason he is signed with the sign of the Cross.

“The third is the Sacrament of the Eucharist, whose matter is wheaten bread and wine from the vine, with which a very little water must be mixed before consecration. Water is mixed for this reason: because, according to the testimonies of the Holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church long ago presented in disputation, it is believed that the Lord Himself instituted this Sacrament in wine mixed with water. Then also because this accords with the representation of the Lord’s Passion. For blessed Pope Alexander, fifth from blessed Peter, says: ‘In the offerings of the Sacraments which are offered to the Lord within the solemnities of Masses, let only bread and wine mixed with water be offered in sacrifice. For neither wine alone nor water alone ought to be offered in the chalice of the Lord, but both mixed, because it is read that both—that is, blood and water—flowed from the side of Christ.’ Then also because it accords with signifying the effect of this Sacrament, which is the union of the Christian people with Christ. For water signifies the people, according to that passage of the Apocalypse: ‘Many waters, many peoples.’ And Pope Julius, second after blessed Sylvester, says: ‘The chalice of the Lord, according to the precept of the canons, ought to be offered mixed with wine and water, because we see that in the water the people are understood, but in the wine the Blood of Christ is shown. Therefore, when wine and water are mixed in the chalice, the people are united to Christ, and the multitude of the faithful is coupled and joined to Him in whom it believes.’ Therefore, since both the Holy Roman Church, instructed by the Most Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and all the other Churches of the Latins and Greeks, in which every luminary of holiness and doctrine has shone, have observed this from the beginning of the nascent Church and observe it now, it seems exceedingly unfitting that any other region should differ from this universal and reasonable observance. We decree, therefore, that the Armenians themselves also conform themselves to the whole Christian world, and that their priests, in the offering of the chalice, mix a little water with the wine, as has been stated. The form of this Sacrament is the words of the Savior by which He effected this Sacrament, for the priest, speaking in the person of Christ, effects this Sacrament. For by the power of the words themselves, the substance of bread is converted into the Body of Christ and the substance of wine into the Blood; yet in such a way that the whole Christ is contained under the species of bread and the whole under the species of wine. Under every part of the consecrated Host and of the consecrated wine, when separation has been made, the whole Christ is also present. The effect of this Sacrament which it works in the soul of one worthily receiving is the union of man with Christ. And because through grace man is incorporated into Christ and united to His members, it follows that through this Sacrament grace is increased in those worthily receiving; and every effect which material food and drink accomplish with respect to bodily life—sustaining, increasing, repairing, and delighting—this Sacrament works with respect to spiritual life; in it, as Pope Urban says, we gratefully commemorate our Savior, are withdrawn from evil, are strengthened in good, and advance toward an increase of virtues and graces.

“The fourth Sacrament is Penance, whose quasi-matter is the acts of the penitent, which are distinguished into three parts. The first of these is contrition of heart, to which it pertains that he grieve for the sin committed, with the purpose of not sinning thereafter. The second is confession of the mouth, to which it pertains that the sinner confess integrally to his priest all the sins of which he has memory. The third is satisfaction for sins according to the judgment of the priest; this is performed chiefly through prayer, fasting, and almsgiving. The form of this Sacrament is the words of absolution which the priest pronounces when he says: ‘I absolve you,’ etc.; and the minister of this Sacrament is a priest having authority to absolve, either ordinary authority or authority from the commission of a Superior. The effect of this Sacrament is absolution from sins.

“The fifth Sacrament is Extreme Unction, whose matter is olive oil blessed by a Bishop. This Sacrament ought not to be given except to a sick person concerning whose death there is fear; he is to be anointed in these places: on the eyes because of sight, on the ears because of hearing, on the nostrils because of smell, on the mouth because of taste or speech, on the hands because of touch, on the feet because of walking, and on the loins because of the pleasure vigorous there. The form of this Sacrament is this: ‘Through this anointing and His most loving mercy, may the Lord forgive you whatever you have committed through sight,’ etc.; and similarly on the other members. The minister of this Sacrament is a priest. Its effect is the healing of the mind, and also of the body insofar as it is expedient. Concerning this Sacrament blessed James the Apostle says: ‘Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, that they may pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he is in sins, they shall be forgiven him.’

“The sixth Sacrament is Order, whose matter is that through the presentation of which the Order is conferred; thus the Presbyterate is conferred through the presentation of the chalice with wine and of the paten with bread; the Diaconate, through the handing over of the Book of the Gospels; and the Subdiaconate, through the presentation of the empty chalice with the empty paten placed upon it; and similarly as regards the others, through the assignment of things pertaining to their ministries. The form of the Priesthood is this: ‘Receive the power of offering sacrifice in the Church for the living and the dead, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.’ And so concerning the forms of the other Orders, as is contained at length in the Roman Pontifical. The ordinary minister of this Sacrament is the Bishop. Its effect is an increase of grace, so that one may be a suitable minister.

“The seventh is the Sacrament of Matrimony, which is a sign of the union of Christ and the Church, according to the Apostle saying: ‘This is a great Sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the Church.’ The efficient cause of Matrimony is regularly mutual consent expressed through words of the present. A threefold good of Matrimony is assigned. The first is offspring to be received and educated for the worship of God. The second is fidelity, which one spouse ought to preserve toward the other. The third is the indivisibility of Matrimony, because it signifies the indivisible union of Christ and the Church. Although separation from the bed is lawful because of fornication, it is nevertheless not lawful to contract another Matrimony, since the bond of a lawfully contracted Matrimony is perpetual.”

“Canon 1. If anyone shall say that the Sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord; or that there are more or fewer than seven, namely, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony; or even that any one of these seven is not truly and properly a Sacrament: let him be anathema.

“Canon 2. If anyone shall say that these same Sacraments of the New Law do not differ from the sacraments of the Old Law except because the ceremonies are different and the external rites are different: let him be anathema.

“Canon 3. If anyone shall say that these seven Sacraments are so equal among themselves that in no respect is one more worthy than another: let him be anathema.

“Canon 4. If anyone shall say that the Sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but superfluous; and that without them or the desire for them men obtain from God the grace of justification through faith alone, although all are not necessary for each individual: let him be anathema.

“Canon 5. If anyone shall say that these Sacraments were instituted only for nourishing faith: let him be anathema.

“Canon 6. If anyone shall say that the Sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify, or do not confer grace itself upon those placing no obstacle, as though they were only external signs of grace or justice received through faith, and certain marks of Christian profession by which the faithful are distinguished among men from unbelievers: let him be anathema.

“Canon 7. If anyone shall say that grace is not given through Sacraments of this kind always and to all, so far as concerns God’s part, even if they receive them rightly, but sometimes and to some: let him be anathema.

“Canon 8. If anyone shall say that grace is not conferred ex opere operato through the Sacraments of the New Law themselves, but that faith alone in the divine promise suffices for obtaining grace: let him be anathema.

“Canon 9. If anyone shall say that in the three Sacraments, namely Baptism, Confirmation, and Order, a character is not imprinted upon the soul, that is, a certain spiritual and indelible sign, whence they cannot be repeated: let him be anathema.

“Canon 10. If anyone shall say that all Christians have power in the word and in administering all the Sacraments: let him be anathema.

“Canon 11. If anyone shall say that in ministers, while they effect and confer the Sacraments, at least the intention of doing what the Church does is not required: let him be anathema.

“Canon 12. If anyone shall say that a minister existing in mortal sin, provided that he has observed all the essentials which pertain to effecting or conferring the Sacrament, does not effect or confer the Sacrament: let him be anathema.

“Canon 13. If anyone shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church customarily employed in the solemn administration of the Sacraments can either be contemned, or omitted without sin by ministers at pleasure, or changed into other new rites by any Pastor of the Churches whatsoever: let him be anathema.”

“56. In sin there are two things, the act and the guilt; but when the act passes away, nothing remains except the guilt or obligation to punishment.—57. Hence in the Sacrament of Baptism or in the absolution of a priest, properly only the guilt of sin is removed, and the ministry of priests frees only from guilt.—58. A penitent sinner is not vivified by the ministry of the absolving priest, but by God alone, who, suggesting and inspiring Penance, vivifies and raises him up; but through the ministry of the priest only the guilt is removed.” Propositions of Michael Baius condemned by Saint Pius V.

“12. If, per impossibile, the one confessing were not contrite, or the priest absolved not seriously but in jest, nevertheless, if he believes himself absolved, he is most truly absolved.” Proposition of Martin Luther condemned by Leo X. D. 752.

“28. Baptism conferred by a minister who observes the whole external rite and form of baptizing is valid, even though inwardly in his heart he resolves within himself: ‘I do not intend what the Church does.’” Proposition condemned by Alexander VIII. D. 1318.

“In certain places some heretics baptize with due matter and form, applied simultaneously, but expressly admonish those to be baptized not to believe that Baptism has any effect upon the soul; for they say that it is a merely external sign of aggregation to their sect. Thus they often turn Catholics to ridicule concerning their faith in the effects of Baptism, which they call superstitious. It is asked: 1. Is Baptism administered by those heretics doubtful because of a defect of the intention of doing what Christ willed, if it was expressly declared by the minister before he baptized that Baptism has no effect upon the soul? 2. Is Baptism conferred in this manner doubtful if the aforesaid declaration was not made expressly immediately before Baptism was conferred, but had often been pronounced by the minister, and that doctrine is openly preached in that sect?—Response. To the first: Negative; because, notwithstanding error concerning the effects of Baptism, the intention of doing what the Church does is not excluded. To the second: Provision was made in the first.” Holy Office, 18 December 1872. Cf. Benedict XIV, De Synodo dioecesana, bk. 7, ch. 6, no. 9; Innocent IV, ch. 2, De baptismo, no. 9; Bellarmine, De Sacramentis in genere, bk. 1, ch. 27, no. 13; C. 659.

“Those concerning whom there is doubt whether they have been baptized are baptized with these words prefixed: ‘If you have been baptized, I do not baptize you; but if you have not yet been baptized, I baptize you,’ etc.” Alexander III, chapter De quibus, 2, De Baptismo et eius effectu.

“If anyone shall come to us from any heresy whatsoever, let nothing be innovated except that which has been handed down, that a hand be imposed upon him unto Penance; since the heretics themselves, properly speaking, do not baptize one another when coming to them, but only admit them to communion. It is not to be asked who he is who baptized, because he who has been baptized could obtain grace, the Trinity of names—the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit—having been invoked. The name of Christ avails greatly, so that whoever and wherever he has been baptized in the name of Christ may immediately obtain the grace of Christ. What we have received from the Apostles, this we follow.” Decree of Stephen I against the Rebaptizers.

“Concerning the Africans, because they use their own law, so that they rebaptize, it has been determined that if anyone shall come from heresy, they shall question him concerning the Creed; and if they shall ascertain that he was baptized in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, only a hand shall be imposed upon him, so that he may receive the Holy Spirit. But if, when questioned, he shall not answer this Trinity, let him be baptized.” First Council of Arles, 314, canon 8, on the Baptism of heretics.

“Concerning those who at times call themselves Cathari, that is, pure, but come to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, it has seemed good to the holy great Synod that, hands having been imposed upon them, they thus remain in the clergy.… Concerning the Paulianists who thereafter fled to the Church, it has been established that they be wholly rebaptized. But if any were in the number of clerics in time past, if indeed they shall appear free from fault and reproach, after being rebaptized let them be ordained by the Bishop of the Catholic Church.” First Synod of Nicaea, year 325, chapters 8 and 19, on the Baptism of heretics.

“On the very first page of your letter you indicated that very many baptized by the Arians were hastening to the Catholic faith, and that certain of our brethren wished to baptize them again; this is not lawful, since both the Apostle forbids this to be done and the canons contradict it, and the general decrees sent to the provinces by my predecessor Liberius of venerable memory after the Council of Rimini was annulled prohibit it. We join them, together with the Novatians and other heretics, to the assembly of Catholics through the invocation alone of the sevenfold Spirit by the imposition of a Bishop’s hand, as was established in the Synod; and the whole East and West also observe this. It is by no means fitting that you too deviate henceforth from this path, if you do not wish to be separated from our college by a synodal sentence.” Decrees of Liberius and Siricius on the Baptism of heretics, in Siricius, Epistle I to Himerius of Tarragona, ch. 1.

“Since the Church in many places, and especially in the Teutonic regions, long labored under heresy and schism, and, if all those who were ordained by those heretics and schismatics had to be annulled, certain Churches would seem to be wholly stripped of their clerics, We, following the decrees of the Holy Fathers concerning those who were ordained under Acacius and Bonosus and the Donatists, have decreed by statute that all Bishops who were ordained under this schism shall remain in their honors, unless they are usurpers or criminals. But with regard to the other Orders, the power shall rest with the Bishops, so that those whose life appears approved may remain in their grade.” Decree of Paschal II at the Lateran Council, year 1116.

“That those coming from the Novatians or Montenses be received through the imposition of hands alone, because, although baptized by heretics, they were nevertheless baptized in the name of Christ.” Innocent I, Epistle 2 to Victricius of Rouen, ch. 11.

From the Nicene canon, Paulianists coming to the Church are to be baptized, but not Novatians; “The manifest reason declares that this was therefore distinguished with respect to these two heresies, because the Paulianists by no means baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; but the Novatians baptize with those same tremendous and venerable names, nor among them has a question ever been raised concerning the unity of divine power, that is, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Innocent I, Epistle 17 to the Bishops of Macedonia, ch. 5.

“…We likewise by no means reject the Sacraments which are celebrated in it, through the cooperation of the inestimable and invisible power of the Holy Spirit, although they are administered by a sinful priest while the Church receives him; nor do We detract from ecclesiastical offices or blessings celebrated by him, but with benevolent spirit embrace them as though from a most just man, because the wickedness of a Bishop or priest harms neither the Baptism of an infant, nor the conferral of the Eucharist, nor the other ecclesiastical offices celebrated for subjects.” Profession of faith of the Waldensians prescribed by Innocent III.

“The fourth blasphemy of impious men of this kind (the Fraticelli), breaking forth from the poisonous fountain of the aforesaid Waldensians, holds that priests who have even been rightly and lawfully ordained according to the form of the Church, but are weighed down by any crimes whatsoever, cannot effect or confer the ecclesiastical Sacraments.” Error condemned by John XXII in a Constitution issued in the year 1318.

“4. If a Bishop or priest exists in mortal sin, he does not ordain, does not consecrate, does not effect, does not baptize.” Articles of John Wycliffe condemned at the Council of Constance.

“22. Likewise, whether he believes that a wicked priest, with due matter and form and with the intention of doing what the Church does, truly effects, truly baptizes, and truly confers the other Sacraments.” Articles concerning which persons suspected of the errors of Wycliffe and Hus are to be questioned.

“How ought Pastors to conduct themselves in celebrating the marriages of those who have notoriously incurred ecclesiastical censures?—Response. Care must be taken with all strength that those bound by ecclesiastical censures be reconciled with the Church in the due manner; but if they refuse to be reconciled, and grave evils seem likely to threaten unless the marriage is celebrated, the Pastor shall consult the Ordinary, who, having taken account of the matters and circumstances and having considered all the things handed down by approved authors, and especially by Saint Alphonsus, book 6, treatise 1, chapter 2, no. 54, shall declare those things which he shall judge more expedient in the Lord, the celebration of Mass, however, always being excluded.” Sacred Penitentiary, 10 December 1860. The same Sacred Penitentiary responded on 15 July 1856, the same care having been employed and the same circumstances standing: “In such a case the Pastor can lawfully assist at the marriage of a public and notorious excommunicate who is tolerated. A Bishop likewise can, when these circumstances concur and suitable precautions have been employed, give a Pastor permission to assist at such a marriage.”—C. 1525 ff.

“Likewise, how ought Bishops to conduct themselves if any of those mentioned above who are bound by a censure should present themselves in order to act as sponsor either in the Sacrament of Confirmation or of Baptism?—Response. As in the preceding.” Sacred Penitentiary, 10 December 1860.

“Can the Most Holy Eucharist be administered to those notoriously bound by a censure before they have, as is fitting, been reconciled with the Church?—Response. Negative.” Sacred Penitentiary, 10 December 1860; A. S. S., vol. 1, p. 563.

"In certain places some (heretics) baptize with due matter and form, applied simultaneously, but expressly warn those to be baptized not to believe that Baptism has any effect on the soul; for they say that it is a merely external sign of the aggregation of those of their Sect. And so they often turn Catholics into mockery concerning their faith about the effects of Baptism, which indeed they call superstitious. It is asked: 1. Whether Baptism administered by those heretics is doubtful because of defect of intention of doing what Christ willed, if it has been expressly declared by the minister, before he baptizes, that Baptism has no effect on the soul? 2. Whether Baptism so conferred is doubtful, if the aforesaid declaration was not expressly made immediately before Baptism was conferred, but it was often pronounced by the minister, and that doctrine is openly preached in that Sect? Resp. To the 1st, negatively; because, notwithstanding the error as regards the effects of Baptism, the intention of doing what the Church does is not excluded. To the 2nd, provision has been made in the first." S. I. C. 18 Dec. 1872. Cf. Benedict XIV, De Syn. Dioec., bk. 7, ch. 6, n. 9; Innocent IV, chap. 2, On Baptism, n. 9; Bellarmine, On the Sacraments in General, bk. 1, ch. 27, n. 13.

"How should Parish Priests conduct themselves in the celebration of the marriages of those who have notoriously fallen into Ecclesiastical censures? Resp. Care is to be taken according to one's strength that those bound by Ecclesiastical censures be reconciled with the Church in due manner; but if they refuse to be reconciled, and, unless the marriage is celebrated, grave evils seem thence to threaten, let the Parish Priest consult the Ordinary, who, having considered the account of things and circumstances, and having weighed all the things which are handed down by approved authors and especially by St. Alphonsus, bk. 6, tr. 1, ch. 2, n. 34, should declare those things which he shall judge in the Lord to be more expedient, the celebration of Mass always nevertheless excluded." S. Poenit. 10 Dec. 1860.

"Likewise, how should Bishops conduct themselves, if any of the above-mentioned persons bound by censure should present themselves, that he may act as Sponsor either in the sacrament of Confirmation or of Baptism? Resp. As in the preceding." S. Poenit. 10 Dec. 1860.

"Whether the Most Holy Eucharist can be ministered to those notoriously bound by censure before they have first, as is fitting, been reconciled with the Church? Resp. Negatively." S. Poenit. 10 Dec. 1860. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 1, p. 563.

"1. Whether one is validly baptized with water which, although it wholly keeps its liquidity, nevertheless gives forth a great and very unpleasant stench? 2. Whether, with the validity of Baptism with such water posited, and another good water enriched with sacred Chrism not being had, it is better to use that putrid water than pure and natural water not enriched with Chrism? Resp. That Baptisms conferred with corrupt water were valid, although illicit outside the case of necessity; and in the case of necessity natural water is to be preferred, but provision is to be made by renewal of the water of the Baptismal Font, according to the Roman ritual." S. O. 17 Apr. 1839.

"A fetus, baptized in the womb upon the crown of the head, after birth is to be rebaptized again under condition." S. C. C. 12 July 1794.

"Whether it is necessary that the mystery of the Eucharist be explained to an adult to be baptized? Resp. Adults, outside the danger of death, speaking per se, are bound, unless such a motive urges to the contrary that delay until after Baptism is judged expedient by a prudent Missionary. As regards one dying, likewise they are bound, unless either time does not suffice, or such disturbance of mind is foreseen in him that it could distract him from the reception of Baptism." S. C. de P. F. 10 May 1703.

"1. It is not lawful to baptize an adult Barbarian, rude and stupid, not explicitly believing in the Lord Jesus Christ; but the Missionary is bound to instruct him concerning all those things which are necessary by necessity of means, according to the capacity of the one to be baptized. 2. It is not lawful to baptize a sick Barbarian, if the Missionary is morally certain that he has not sufficiently, according to the measure of his own capacity, understood the mysteries of the Christian Religion explained to him, or does not sufficiently believe them, and from the sole motive of not contradicting promises that he will observe the commandments of the same Religion. But if the Missionary prudently believes that the sick Barbarian, when he says, I believe and I will do, then really sufficiently believes, and seriously promises that he will observe as above, he must be baptized. But if the Missionary doubts concerning the aforesaid things, and time does not suffice to instruct him better, and the danger of death is imminent, he also must be baptized under condition." S. C. de P. F. 14 May 1703.

"Father Didacus of Varallo, who presided for many years over the Tripolitan missions, reported to this S. C. de P. F. that not without grave detriment to souls very many doubts had arisen among the ministers of the divine word of those regions concerning Baptism: whether and in what manner, according to the diverse circumstances both of persons and of danger, it is lawful for them, or even incumbent on them by duty, to come to the aid, by the saving laver, of the necessity of infidels who cannot consult for themselves.

After a diligent examination had been applied to these doubts, comprised under ten heads, but in addition entangled with many questions, as it were incidental, the S. C. easily recognized that they did not need so much any new sanction or definition as a certain simple explanation of the common doctrine, which, proceeding from the ancient custom of the Church concerning Baptism to be furnished to the children of infidels, has often in like manner been declared and confirmed by decrees of Sacred Congregations and Apostolic Constitutions, the sum of which Benedict XIV has most recently embraced in two Decretals, and, by opportune divisions according to the variety of cases and circumstances, has illustrated as by distinct lights. And from these indeed three documents especially are at hand more closely pertaining to the subject matter, from which, in every doubt of this kind, sacred ministers will have to seek the norm of taking counsel and acting. They are: 1. Outside imminent danger of death, it is not lawful, when parents are unwilling or unaware, to baptize the infant children of those infidels who either live by their own laws, or are subject to the rule or dominion of Christians only civilly. 2. Nor are infant children of this kind to be baptized, even when offered freely and spontaneously by the parents, if after Baptism they are to be left in the power of their infidel parents. 3. Baptism is thus to be imparted to the same infants brought into proximate danger of life, provided that this is done without scandal; all which things will plainly be established from the decrees to be brought forward below. But lest in the application of this general doctrine to peculiar cases any place for ambiguity be left, the Sacred Congregation judged that satisfaction must be made to the individual articles of the questions proposed by as many responses.

I. The first head of the questions comprises these three doubts. 1. Whether children of infidels who are insane from birth, concerning whom there is no hope that thereafter they will possess some interval of reason, can lawfully be baptized. 2. Whether sacred ministers are bound to inquire about insane persons of this kind, and to baptize the same. 3. Whether by themselves or through others.

Resp. As regards the first, the common opinion of the Doctors, with St. Thomas as leader, 3 p., q. 68, art. 12, is that those insane from birth, in whom neither a present use of reason appears nor a future use is hoped, are counted among infants, and as regards the reception of Baptism are in the same case through their whole life as children who are situated in proximate danger of death: for just as those children, who have not yet attained the use of reason, cannot consult for themselves, so neither can those insane persons at any time of life provide for themselves, because, as being perpetually insane, they never attain the use of reason. Therefore, insofar as that impotence of reason is judged truly by a probable and prudent judgment, they can lawfully be baptized. For as regards insane persons of this kind there is no place for that reason which generally stands in the way lest the children of infidels be lawfully baptized when their parents are unwilling, namely that for the sake of preventing perversion they would have to be withdrawn from the care and power of their parents not without offense to the parents: this reason, I say, does not apply as regards the perpetually insane, whom their perpetual insanity withdraws from the danger of perversion, and therefore they can safely be left in the care and power of their parents. Nevertheless sacred ministers will have to conduct themselves cautiously and prudently in either inquiring about or baptizing them, lest the hatred of infidels and cruelty against the faithful be stirred up against the Christian religion.

As regards the second, since it should above all be proposed to sacred ministers that they gain for Christ and the Church as many souls as they can, there is no room for doubt that, for inquiring about and baptizing insane persons of this kind, they are bound to provide all that moral diligence which the nature of their own office requires in matters of gravest moment: that caution always being employed which the laws of Christian prudence prescribe for avoiding scandal.

Third. To this those assigned to missions are bound either by themselves, insofar as they are not legitimately impeded, or through others, whose vicarious work they will employ most laudably especially when they have perceived that the salvation of the insane will be consulted more conveniently and safely through others than through themselves.

II. In the second doubt it is asked how ministers of the missions should conduct themselves toward the insane children of infidels whose insanity is not so stupid that they do not give forth some indications of reason, especially in those things which pertain to the manner of animal life, in which namely a certain weak force and faculty of reason betrays itself, such as appears in children of four or five years, and who therefore are not sufficiently able to grasp the principal mysteries of the faith. It is asked in addition whether ministers sin who, holding insane persons of this kind as if foreknown, cast away all care and solicitude for them.

Resp. Where a difficulty arises in judging, as it were, the degree of insanity, the matter is finally to be recalled to this, that it be explored whether those concerning whom the question is asked possess such a use of reason that they can recognize the distinction of moral good and evil, and therefore in choosing evil can render themselves guilty of fault. Hence a threefold case emerges: for either it is morally established that they possess such a faculty, or it is morally established that they do not possess it, or finally, after sufficient examination, it remains doubtful and uncertain whether they possess it.

1. And so, if by prudent judgment they are considered capable of sin, the rule which St. Thomas prescribes, 3 p., q. 68, art. 12, must be used, in these words: Certain persons exist who, although they are not of an altogether sound mind, nevertheless use reason to such an extent that they can think concerning their salvation, and understand the power of the sacrament: concerning such persons the same judgment is to be made as concerning those who are of sound mind, who are baptized when willing, but not when unwilling. These persons therefore are to be led to Baptism in the manner of adults. In this matter the rules which the Church has prescribed, and which, as being clearly explained in the Roman Catechism, it does not pertain to this place to repeat, must altogether be observed.

2. If by prudent judgment they are not considered capable of fault, like children who have not yet attained sufficient use of reason, a distinction must be used: for either that impotence of reason is judged, also by prudent judgment, to be going to be perpetual, and they are to be baptized, as was said above to the first doubt; or some hope underlies that thereafter the faculty of reason may more manifest itself in them, and then again a distinction must be made: for either they are situated in proximate danger of death, and they are to be baptized, provided that this is done without scandal; or no danger of this kind is present, and more certain indications of reason are to be awaited, so that they may be led to the faith and to Baptism in the manner of adults.

3. But if only doubtful signs are at hand, there will be place for the prudent rule which approved Doctors supply, namely: if necessity does not press, a more suitable and greater knowledge can and must be awaited; but if necessity presses, then in a doubtful case one must incline in favor of religion and of the Christian faith, and of the spiritual salvation of the one to be baptized.

Moreover those who neglect men of this kind as if already damned and desperate strive to cover shameful negligence with a more shameful excuse. To God alone is known the number of the elect to be placed in supreme felicity, and it is of wholly insane rashness to arrogate that judgment to oneself: For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor? Rom. 11. Let religious men rather think this, that God does not will anyone to perish, but all to come to the knowledge of truth, and that they themselves have been called into part of that office which was entrusted by Christ to his disciples, that they go and bring forth fruit, that they perform an embassy for Christ, and that in procuring the salvation of men they serve and collaborate with Christ.

Nowhere therefore is it permitted to neglect those insane persons, but with eyes and minds always intent it must be looked to that, if indeed they are situated in proximate danger of death, the minister baptize them with prudent caution employed; but if not, that he await opportune moments, so that, when they have given forth sufficient indications of reason, he may duly prepare the same in the manner of adults for receiving Baptism.

III. Whether the ministers themselves, before they bring themselves to furnish or deny Baptism to the insane of this second kind, are bound, where it can be done without grave inconvenience, to refer the whole matter to Bishops, Vicars, or Prefects of missions, and to seek from them counsel and a norm of acting?

Resp. Everyone is bound, in performing his office, to guard against the danger of error so far as he can, and to apply to this all the diligence which the gravity of the matter demands. Moreover nothing is so consonant with ecclesiastical discipline and with the hierarchical order instituted by Christ in the Church as that inferiors be directed by superiors in undertaking sacred offices. Therefore where a case occurs in which a Priest assigned to missions hangs uncertain in mind whether, with the circumstances considered, it is lawful or not to minister Baptism, he is not to be considered as guarding sufficiently against the danger of error if, where it can conveniently be done, he neglects to approach his elders and spurns the assistance prepared for him in their judgment, counsel, and authority.

IV. Where Bishops, Vicars, or Prefects are not present, whether one who gives work to missions ought by his own counsel to bring himself to baptize the aforesaid insane persons, after a diligent examination has first been applied and the aid of the Holy Spirit has been implored?

Resp. Religious ministers are indeed bound in that case both to apply diligent examination and earnestly to implore divine aid. But let them remember that their zeal ought chiefly to turn on this: not that they fashion new rules for themselves, but that they not err in applying the rules of the Church. But what those rules are, as pertains to the proposed doubts, can be understood partly from what has already been said, and will become known partly from what must be said.

V. Whether a minister would act lawfully who, after diligent examination, with instruction omitted, secretly baptized those ambiguous insane persons, with this or a similar condition employed: If you are incapable of the hearing of faith, or enveloped in the darkness of irremediable and invincible ignorance; or even more simply: If you are incapable of instruction and of the doctrine necessary for adults before the reception of Baptism, I baptize you, etc.?

Resp. Nothing more apt can be adduced for closing off this doubt than that distinguished sentence of St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 10, art. 12: The custom of the Church has the greatest authority, which is always to be emulated in all things. By the authority of this custom especially the Holy Doctor was induced to deny that it is lawful to baptize the children of infidels when their parents are unwilling, as is had in Const. Postremo mense, n. 6; wherefore it is by no means marvelous that that doctrine of St. Thomas has both been commonly received by others, and has been strengthened and confirmed by the sentences and judgments of other ecclesiastical tribunals as well as also of the supreme Inquisition, as Benedict XIV testifies in the cited Constitution Postremo mense, n. 5, and Constitution Probe, n. 10. Moreover the authority of the same custom applies likewise to excluding that formula of condition which is proposed to be added in ministering Baptism. For almost three causes we find by the custom of the Church that a condition has prevailed in conferring Baptism: when there is prudent doubt concerning Baptism previously conferred, whether it is valid or not; when necessity compels the use of doubtful matter; when it is doubted whether the subject is capable of Baptism, as in monstrous births, or, as in a difficult birth, when it is doubted whether the Sacrament can be effected by washing that part which alone can be washed. In one word: from the custom of the Church a condition is then employed in Baptism when there is place for doubting whether something has been absent or is absent which is required for the validity of the Sacrament. But whenever it is established that no such thing is absent, it has never been heard that it is lawful for the minister, while he executes the rite of Baptism, to add conditions from his own judgment by which the making of the Sacrament is impeded. Therefore what St. Thomas concluded in that first case must also be concluded here: that it is dangerous, contrary to the custom hitherto observed in the Church, to introduce this assertion anew. Wherefore it will be necessary for sacred ministers altogether to abstain from usurping the proposed formula, and to follow that norm which was prescribed for the second doubt.

VI. Whether that is lawful for ministers of the missions which is said to have been proposed by Honoratus Tournely, who, after setting forth the opinion of certain Theologians judging that all infant children of infidels can be baptized when their parents are unaware, adds, as it is reported, that in that case he would have recourse to the Holy See or to nearer prelates for the sake of seeking an oracle; if this assistance were lacking, that he would implore the aid of the Holy Spirit, and would take the counsel of acting from his guidance, and finally that in such a matter each one should be left in his own opinion?

Resp. The opinions of Doctors are to be measured according to the decrees of the Church, not the decrees themselves bent according to the pleasure of those opining.

Therefore, whatever Tournely or other private persons have thought, here a stronger authority is present, placed in the constitutions of the Supreme Pontiffs and in the decrees of the sacred Congregations, which now altogether abrogate all faith in that opinion which seems in some manner to be stirred up by that question, which generally establishes that it is lawful to baptize infant children of infidels when their parents are unwilling or unaware. Indeed Benedict XIV, Const. Postremo mense, n. 7, proposes as fixed and ratified that it is unlawful that infants of the Hebrews be baptized when the judgment of the parents resists, unless however danger of death urges, as he afterwards explains. And lest anyone by calumny should wish that it is one thing to act when parents are unwilling, another when they are unaware, that empty and plainly fictitious distinction is exploded by Constitution Probe, n. 10, where he approves the doctrine of St. Thomas by which he teaches that infants of infidels can by no means be baptized without the consent of the parents. The Pontiff says that doctrine is both commonly received and confirmed by the judgments of ecclesiastical tribunals.

Moreover, for a plainer explanation of this doctrine, it will be worthwhile to append here especially three decrees of the S. Congregation, which indeed were indicated above, but which it was necessary to refer back to this place, so that the series of responses would correspond to the series of doubts. The first, in the year 1705, on 18 Feb., by which, as in Const. Postremo mense, n. 8, responding to the question of the Prelate of happy memory Charles Naigrot, "Whether infant children of infidels can be baptized when their parents are unwilling?" the following response was issued: "The Eminent Fathers, the vote of the Lord Consultors having been heard, said that it is not lawful, except in the article of death." The second, by which, to the request of the Bishop of Quebec concerning infants whom parents freely and spontaneously offer to Baptism, response was made on 4 May 1793: "It is not lawful, if they are children of infidels and to be left in their power, the danger of imminent death nevertheless set aside." To this is consonant another issued on 15 March 1770: "It is not lawful outside danger of death to confer Baptism on those offered by both infidel parents, as often as the same infants after receiving Baptism are to be left under the power and education of the same infidel parents." The third, on 28 January 1657, to the doubt concerning infant children of infidels, constituted in proximate danger of life, response was made: "Baptism can be conferred on infants constituted in the article of death morally certain, if however this is done without scandal." From these decrees those three general precepts are drawn out which had to be touched upon at the beginning, so that reason and way might be prepared for unraveling the doubts themselves, namely: 1. It is not lawful, except in the article or morally certain danger of imminent death, to baptize infant children of infidels when their parents are unwilling or unaware. 2. Nor is it lawful outside the same danger (since in the decrees article and danger are taken promiscuously) to baptize infants even freely offered by infidel parents, if after Baptism they are to be left in the power of their infidel parents. Nor, for breaking or evading the force of this prescription, ought the distinction which is customarily objected between material and formal perversion to have force. That great Pontiff Benedict did not ignore this distinction; nevertheless, it not having been attended to, he pronounces generally in Const. Postremo mense, n. 26, that grave danger of perversion in this matter is a thing of the greatest moment. And the same is established from the decrees brought forward, that it is altogether to be guarded against. 3. In the very article of death also, infant children of infidels are indeed to be baptized, yet in such a way that scandal is avoided, and consequently no greater hatred of infidels against the Christian religion and cruelty against Christians is stirred up. Therefore in every event let sacred ministers indeed implore divine aid, lest forgetfulness of those decrees ever seize them, or they think it lawful for themselves to prefer their private judgment to the same.

VII and VIII. Whether it is lawful to use that opinion explained above at least when, a plague raging, out of a hundred children, as for the most part happens, ninety perish; or when diseases of the people of the worst character consume by far the greatest part of children before they attain the use of reason?

Resp. The sentence of St. Thomas must be repeated here concerning the greatest part of authority which is inherent in the custom of the Church, which is always to be emulated in all things, and against which it is dangerous to introduce new things. In the first centuries of the Church, while Christians were living mixed with infidels, devastations and pestilences were not lacking; nor on that account was it ever placed in custom that the Most Holy Pastors of the Church should baptize the children of infidels with whom they were living, when the parents were unwilling or unaware. Even now in the kindly City Hebrews live among Christians and are permitted to live by their own customs; nor nevertheless have the Supreme Pontiffs ever conceded that, whether openly or secretly, infants, children of Hebrews, be baptized when their parents are unwilling or unaware, for the reason that when a popular plague rages many more of those infants die. From this it is easily understood that a twofold account of danger, as pertains to the present institution, must be distinguished, namely: that common and wandering danger which threatens even healthy men in those places which are afflicted by a popular disease; the other proper and certain danger in which are those whom the infection of the disease infects, or who in whatever way are brought into present danger of life. Moreover the constitutions of the Pontiffs and the decrees of the Congregations, while they forbid the children of infidels to be baptized when parents are unwilling except in danger of death, speak of this present danger, which determinately touches the man to be baptized, and which sometimes is expressed by the name of the article of death as by a synonymous word; but they do not speak of that common and wandering danger, into which neither the word nor the notion of the article of death in any way fits.

Next it must be observed that, although most infants are consumed by force of the disease, nevertheless some always survive, either those whom the disease spares, or those who overcome the disease. But if all infants are baptized indiscriminately, it is consequent that these remain under the care of infidels, to be imbued with their depraved superstitions. And this very thing is what both the constitutions of the Pontiffs and the decrees of the sacred Congregations forbid to be done.

Nevertheless in that devastation which deadly diseases sometimes bring, especially to barbarous regions, there will plainly be something in which religious men may spend laudable work, and bring back an immense fruit of their labors. They will profit much by baptizing those who, constituted morally certainly in the article of death according to the cited decrees, are always to be baptized cautiously and prudently. In this matter they must studiously provide that no one perish by their carelessness and negligence. Next, in those most calamitous times it will sometimes be able to happen that, the parents having died and the inhabitants having been scattered, very many children lie cast away and deserted, destitute of all human aid. In seeking out those miserable infants religious men assigned to missions will give a present and excellent signification of their charity, not that they cast them away again after baptizing them hastily, but that they gather them, and aid and care for them with paternal and pastoral help, so that, whether by their own work, so far as their faculties allow, or by the work of outsiders to whom they will be able duly to commend them, those children, separated from the company of infidels, may be instructed for the duties of Christian life, and at the same time for some honest kind of labor or craft.

IX. Whether with greater right infants, children of heretics or schismatics, who are accustomed to be baptized with their doubtful matter or form, can be baptized again under condition, while namely they are not yet suited to grasp the speculative errors of their parents?

Resp. An involved question and one to be unraveled individually through its parts. For it is asked: 1. concerning Baptism to be ministered to infant children of heretics or schismatics; 2. concerning the cause of repeating Baptism under condition; 3. concerning the use or faculty of reason in the child to be baptized.

As regards 1. It is indeed certain that in the possession of the Church there is a right of baptizing infant children of heretics or schismatics, and of preventing them from being imbued with the errors of their parents; nor can any doubt be raised concerning this right of the Church. Therefore the hinge of the difficulty turns on this: what is to be done when the Church cannot execute that right of hers, nor remove the danger which threatens those infants while they remain under the care and power of heretical or schismatical parents. Here not undeservedly sacred ministers will be able to use the opinion of outstanding Theologians, who judge: "The same thing seems to have to be said in that case concerning a heretic and concerning any other infidel, if the same moral danger exists." From this they conclude that, for a Catholic minister lawfully to furnish Baptism, "it is necessary that he conceive a probable hope that a child of this kind, once baptized, can in his own time be instructed in the true faith. But if in no way he can have a moral hope of this kind, he ought certainly rather to abstain from Baptism, supposing that the little one is not in extreme necessity, in which anyone else can be baptized."

As regards 2. Wherever to the other wickednesses of heretics this also is added, that they apply doubtful matter or form to Baptism, this is indeed enough of a cause why Baptism ought to be repeated under condition. But in this matter not any rumors whatever are plainly to be trusted; but the rite by which the child was baptized is to be diligently and solicitously investigated so far as can be done, and then, if the validity of the prior Baptism remains doubtful, he must be baptized again under condition, if indeed a case occurs in which from the preceding doctrine Baptism is to be ministered.

As regards 3. Some ambiguity lies hidden in that final clause, while the children of heretics or schismatics are not yet suited to grasp the speculative errors of their parents. Here a more advanced age is rather obscurely signified, in which an adolescent, although he has already attained the use of reason, has not yet progressed so far that he can discern the subtle errors of the parents. Concerning such a child or adolescent the question seems to be asked whether a Catholic minister can lawfully baptize him, either absolutely or under condition, with no word having been had concerning those speculative errors, under this pretext, that he is not yet able sufficiently to grasp them. In one word, it is asked whether a child, already possessing the use of reason, educated in heresy or schism and adhering to it, can lawfully be baptized before he is warned concerning the errors of that Sect with which he has already been imbued, and is led to detest and abjure that Sect. The response is to be sought from those things which are prescribed in the Ritual and Roman Catechism concerning the preparation for Baptism to be ministered to adults, and are everywhere explained by Catholic Doctors. An adult to be baptized asks faith from the Church; therefore he must be taught the principal heads of the Christian faith, and must profess that faith which the Holy Catholic Roman Church holds and professes, and promise due obedience to that Church and to its Supreme Head, the Roman Pontiff. Therefore although the child concerning whom the question is asked is not yet able to inspect and penetrate the speculative errors of his parents by his own, as it were, understanding, nevertheless it is not lawful for him to be ignorant that that Sect professes depraved errors condemned by the Church, and he must altogether abjure and detest both that Sect and its errors, and profess himself a Roman Catholic. Religious men who devote work to missions ought to judge this office given to themselves: that they lead to the sheepfold of Christ the sheep who have perished. But who would judge those to pertain to the sheepfold of Christ who adhere to Sects which pursue the sheepfold of Christ and bear a hostile mind like wolves against the Church? The Church is enlarged by the aggregation of those who acknowledge, hear, and honor her as Mother and Mistress; nor does she acknowledge as her own those who impiously refuse to acknowledge and venerate the power given to her by Christ according to the faith and prescription of the Church herself.

Since every part of Christian doctrine requires the Pastor's knowledge and diligence, so especially the discipline of the Sacraments, which both by God's command is necessary and is most abundant in utility, demands a singular faculty and industry of the Parish Priest, so that by an accurate and frequent perception of it the faithful may become such that the most excellent and most holy things may be imparted to them worthily and salutarily, and that Priests may not depart from that rule of the divine prohibition: Do not give what is holy to dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine. Catechism of the Council of Trent, part 2, on the Sacraments, c. 1, n. 1.

189. • Since there is such dignity and utility of the Sacraments for the sanctification of souls, for whom Christ the Lord did not hesitate to pour forth His Blood and to undergo the torment of the cross, it is especially helpful that preachers of the divine word frequently have discourse to the people concerning them, namely by explaining their institution, necessity, pre-eminent dignity, and wonderful efficacy, and by accurately teaching the faithful concerning the dispositions necessary for receiving abundant graces through them. - Hence the Council of Trent, sess. 24, c. 7, on Reform, has these words:

That the faithful people may approach the receiving of the Sacraments with greater reverence and devotion of soul, the holy Synod commands all Bishops that not only, when these are to be administered to the people by themselves, they first explain their force and use according to the capacity of those receiving them, but also that they take care that the same be piously and prudently observed by individual Parish Priests...; and also that during the solemnities of Masses, or the celebration of divine things, on individual feast or solemn days, they explain the sacred utterances and admonitions of salvation, and strive, useless questions having been put aside, to insert the same into the hearts of all, and to instruct them in the law of the Lord.

We must treat 1º of the nature and division; 2º of the matter and form; 3º of the Minister; 4º of the subject of the Sacraments.

190. • I. DEFINITION. A Sacrament is a sensible sign instituted by Christ to signify and confer grace.

Hence three things are necessarily required in every Sacrament, namely: 1º a sensible sign; 2º divine institution; 3º the force of producing the grace promised by Christ.

All Sacraments are perfected by three things: 1º by things as matter; 2º by words as form; 3º by the person of the Minister confecting the Sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does. This is clear from the Council of Florence in the Decree of Union.

The Sacraments, besides sanctifying grace, produce grace which is called sacramental, that is, they confer helps for obtaining the special end for which each Sacrament was instituted, if the due conditions are not lacking. The Sacraments operate ex opere operato, that is by force of the divine institution, independently from the work of the one operating, namely of the Minister and of the subject of the Sacraments.

Hence the Sacraments are distinguished from sacramentals, which are certain sacred things or actions instituted by the Church, such as lustral water, blessings and consecrations, the Agnus Dei, etc.

191. • II. NUMBER. The Sacraments are seven, as is clear from Trent, sess. 7, Can. 1: If anyone shall say that the Sacraments of the new law were not all instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ, or that they are more or fewer than seven, namely Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony, or even that any one of these seven is not truly and properly a Sacrament, let him be anathema.

III. Division. The Sacraments, according to various properties, are distinguished thus:

1º Necessary, or not necessary. Again the necessary are so either by necessity of means, or by necessity of precept. Necessary by necessity of means ¹ are Baptism, which is the gate of the Church and of the kingdom of heaven, and Penance for those who have fallen into mortal sin after baptism; necessary by necessity of precept are all the others, with the last two excepted, which are not necessary for private persons, but only for the community.

¹ ** In the strict sense that alone is necessary by necessity of means which not only has in itself the character of a means to the end which is intended, but furthermore is necessary in the very character of a means, because it cannot otherwise be supplied. You have this in those words of Paul (Heb. XI, 6): For he that comes to God must believe that He is, and is a rewarder to those who seek Him. For approach to God without the movement of a man (an adult) is impossible; and again such movement is impossible without knowledge of this kind. But in this sense baptism will be called necessary by necessity of means if you understand baptism either of water or of desire; otherwise, both about baptism and about Penance, this mode of speaking is used here in a broader sense.

2º Impressing, or not impressing, a character upon the soul. Baptism, Confirmation, and Order impress a character; the others do not impress one. Trent, sess. 7, Can. 9. 3º Formed, or unformed, according as they produce grace when they are received, or, an obstacle intervening, suspend their effect until the obstacle is removed ².

² ** That sacraments can be valid but unformed is certain doctrine. But whether it is to be attributed to all sacraments that, when the obstacle has been removed, they produce their effect, see St. Alphonsus, Lib. 6, n. 87.

4º Sacraments of the living or of the dead, according as they already suppose sanctifying grace, or first grace, and only increase it; or from their primary institution confer the same.

192. Questions. - QUESTION 1º. Can the Sacraments of the dead confer second grace?

Resp. Affirmatively. This can be done in a twofold case: 1º when venial sins alone are subjected to the keys, which frequently happens; 2º when a penitent, guilty of mortal sin, approaches the Sacrament of Penance with perfect contrition; because perfect contrition with the vow of the Sacrament justifies a man even before reception of the same: then therefore the Sacrament confers not first but only second grace ³...

³ ** The same thing can also happen with the sacrament of baptism, to which an adult can approach after already having obtained justification by an act of charity. And indeed it can reasonably be held, according to the doctrine of St. Thomas (1. 2, q. 89, art. 6), that this mode of justification happens not rarely among children among unbelievers: When the use of reason, he says, shall have begun in a child,... the first thing which then occurs to a man to be thought about is to deliberate concerning himself: and if indeed he has ordered himself to the due end, by grace he will obtain remission of original sin. Cajetan exhibits this ordering of oneself to the end thus (in the cited place): If he shall have judged an honorable good, confusedly, as that age is accustomed to do, to be something to be sought by himself, he has deliberated well concerning himself, placing his end in true beatitude, although imperfectly and inchoatively.

QUESTION 2º. Can the Sacraments of the living sometimes confer first grace?

Resp. Affirmatively, more probably, not indeed per se, as is clear from their institution, but per accidens, or by means of Charity infused by force of the Sacrament in a subject not placing an obstacle. For it can happen that someone guilty of mortal sin, ignorant of this in good faith, approaches a Sacrament of the living attrite; but in these circumstances the Sacrament of the living infuses grace into the soul, and therefore destroys sin. For the Sacraments always confer grace upon those not placing an obstacle, as is clear from Trent, sess. 7, Can. 6; but an obstacle is not placed by him who approaches attrite in good faith. Therefore, etc. - Thus commonly. - St. Thomas, part 3, qu. 72, art. 7. - Suarez. - St. Ligorius, n. 6 and 268, discoursing on the Eucharist: Sometimes, he says, per accidens it can confer even first grace, namely if someone, ignorant that he is in mortal sin, or believing that he has contrition, approaches Communion with attrition alone; then from attrite he is made contrite.

193. • QUESTION 3º. Is attrition required or sufficient, so that the Sacraments of the living may confer first grace?

Resp. Affirmatively to both: 1º it is indeed required, because first grace cannot be infused except through the destruction of mortal sin; but the destruction of mortal sin cannot be done without detestation of the same, namely without contrition or at least attrition; 2º it suffices, because from what has been said the Sacraments of the living can sometimes confer first grace: but this could not be done if attrition did not suffice, since the sinner would always approach the sacrament already justified by perfect contrition. - St. Ligorius, n. 6, etc.

QUESTION 4º. In what does the character of a Sacrament consist?

Resp. Although it is of faith that a character is impressed in Baptism, Confirmation, and Order, nevertheless Theologians do not agree in what precisely it consists. For us it will be enough to know, as the Council of Trent teaches, that the Character is a certain spiritual and indelible signet, preventing the Sacrament from being able to be repeated (Sess. 7, can. 9).

194. • QUESTION 5º. Is original sin destroyed in Baptism which is indeed valid, but unformed because of a defect of disposition in the baptized adult?

Resp. Negatively. The reason is that no sin dissolving one from the friendship of God is condoned except through reconciliation with God, that is, through justification. But this cannot be done unless first grace is infused; but this first grace is not infused if the dispositions are lacking. Therefore. But when the obstacle has been removed, either by perfect contrition with the vow of the Sacrament (namely of Penance), or by this Sacrament with attrition, the sacramental grace of Baptism revives, or the suspension ceases, and it destroys original sin and at the same time all actual sins committed before Baptism. But the Sacrament of Penance destroys sins committed after Baptism and the sin of fiction, or of the evil disposition with which the Sacrament of Baptism was received, at least insofar as this evil disposition persevered after Baptism. - See what is to be said, n. 232, Q. 2º.

195. • QUESTION 6º. What are the effects of sacramental grace proper to the individual Sacraments, besides sanctifying grace common to all?

Resp. 1º The effect of Baptismal grace is to remit every fault and punishment of fault, to illuminate the mind, to diminish concupiscence, and to make the soul fruitful for Christian works. But this habitual grace brings to the baptized person the right of obtaining helps by which he may attain these effects.

2º The effect of the grace of Confirmation is strength for constantly professing the Faith where there shall be need, and for defending it when opportunity has been given. And therefore it brings to the soul a right to helps by which it may accomplish this.

3º The effect of the grace of the Eucharist is to nourish the spiritual life, to increase grace, to generate disgust for worldly things, to draw one toward union with God, and therefore to bring a right to graces by which those communicating may be able to attain all these things.

4º The effect of the grace of Penance is to remit sins committed after baptism, and to confer strength for avoiding sins and for persevering in the state of grace, and a right to helps suitable for accomplishing these things. 5º The effect of the grace of Extreme Unction is to remove the remnants of sins, to alleviate the soul of the sick person, to strengthen confidence, to render the inconveniences of illness less troublesome ⁴, to bestow strength for repelling final temptations, and to confer a right to helps proportioned to these things.

⁴ ** Another effect proper to this sacrament can, indeed should, be added, namely restoration to former health.

6º The effect of the grace of Order is to render the Ministers of Christ fit for the sacred ministries, so that they may perform these with due piety, and to confer a right to helps suitable for these things.

7º The effect of the grace of Matrimony is to restrain disordered concupiscence, to bestow strength for sustaining the burdens of the conjugal state, for preserving conjugal fidelity, and for educating offspring in a Christian manner, and therefore to confer a right to helps necessary for fulfilling these things. - Common.

196. • DEFINITIONS. Matter is the sensible thing to be determined to the nature of a sacrament by the form. Hence matter is that which in the Sacrament is more indifferent, and has a less perfect signification; and therefore it must be determined by another thing for signifying.

Matter is twofold: one remote, and the other proximate. The former is the sensible thing itself which is employed in the Sacrament, or the thing about which the sacramental action is exercised. The latter is the very application or use of the remote matter in the sacramental action.

But form is the part of the Sacrament which determines the matter for effecting the sacrament, and which ordinarily consists in words pronounced by the Minister.

197. Principles. - I. Matter and form are altogether necessary for the validity of a Sacrament; therefore, with either one lacking, Sacraments cannot be confected. The reason is that a Sacrament cannot be confected except in that mode in which Christ instituted it, who alone is the author of the Sacraments. It is of faith. This is clear besides from dogmatic definitions, especially from the Council of Florence in the Decree of Union, etc.

II. In confecting a Sacrament outside a case of necessity, matter and form ought morally to be employed, as far as they can be had ¹, certain. The reason is that, unless necessity urges, it is not permitted to use probability which does not remove the danger of invalidity.

¹ ** To this pertains the first of the propositions proscribed by Innocent XI: It is not illicit in conferring sacraments to follow a probable opinion concerning the validity of the sacrament, the safer opinion having been left aside, unless law, agreement, or danger of incurring grave harm forbids it. Hence an opinion merely probable is not to be used in the conferral of baptism, of priestly Order, or of episcopal Order.

But the Author aptly adds, as far as it can be had; for where there is question, for example, of the disposition necessary for the sacrament of penance, scarcely anything else can be had concerning it than a certain prudent and probable judgment.

III. Matter and form must be united or applied by the same Minister and toward the same subject. The reason is that if one were to place the matter, and another the form, the words of the form would not be verified; for the Minister who, for example, would say: I baptize thee, while another poured the water, would pronounce what is false, since he himself would not baptize.

IV. ² In order that a sacrament be valid, there must be between the matter and the form, for example between the pouring of water and the pronouncing of the words, so great a conjunction that according to the moral estimation of men, with the nature of each sacrament considered, one affects the other, that is, that the words are judged to fall upon such a thing and to constitute with it one total sign. St. Alphonsus (Lib. 6, n. 8) with Busembaum.

² ** Those things are supplied which Gury seems to promise in the title of the paragraph, but in reality omitted.

From this: 1º In Baptism, Confirmation, Unction, and Order, such a conjunction is required that while the minister pronounces the words, he is morally judged also to wash, etc. Busembaum, ibid. ³.

³ ** Lugo (De Sacram., Disp. 2, n. 99), when about to explain how in the ordination of a Priest moral conjunction is had between the form and the first imposition of hands, which is done while no form is pronounced, discusses this matter thus: The imposition of hands is not so distant from the utterance of the form which afterwards follows, that they are not judged to have sufficient moral nearness; for there ought not to be physical coexistence, as is clear in Deacons, to whom the form is said to all at once, and afterwards they successively touch the book; wherefore if one hundred Deacons were ordained together, without doubt there would be great physical distance between the utterance of the form and the contact of the book with respect to the last; but nevertheless there is sufficient moral presence, because the same action is morally continued without moral interruption. So also after hands are imposed upon Priests, up to those words Receive power, etc., the same moral action is continued, by anointing them and preparing them so that they may more fittingly receive the grace of the Holy Spirit. But afterwards the matter is more explicated and another part of the same matter is applied together with the form: wherefore that distance, whatever it may be, is not so much between matter and form as between part and part of the matter, which certainly need not physically coexist with one another... Wherefore when it is a question of creating a Priest, that whole action by which insignia, vestments, instruments, and other things are solemnly given to him is judged to be one and the same action, just as the coronation of a Pontiff or of a King is drawn out for a long time, and divided into several actions, and interrupted by various solemnities, yet is reckoned the same action.

2º In Penance absolution can be deferred for a sufficiently long time, as in trials a sentence follows after examination of the cause. Busembaum, ibid. ⁴.

⁴ ** St. Alphonsus adds in this place (Lib. 6, n. 9): In this Sacrament such distance ought not to be so great as happens in a forensic trial. If these words merely indicated that it is not necessary that absolution be deferred as long as the sentences of judges sometimes are wont to be deferred in a forensic cause, they would express the most common and certain doctrine. But then the holy Doctor subjoins: But Croix, Lib. 6, n. 8, says with Tamburini, that a penitent is validly absolved after an hour from confession. From these words you might almost gather that according to the mind of the holy Doctor the due conjunction between matter and form is not preserved if such a delay intervenes as sometimes occurs in a forensic trial. And since here the question concerns that conjunction between those two parts of the sacrament which pertains to validity, the matter is certainly of grave moment. - Therefore the words of the holy Doctor are to be understood discreetly. For otherwise the most common opinion of all Doctors is that which Reiffenstuel expresses thus (Tr. 4, Dist. 1, Q. 2, n. 29): In the Sacrament of Penance a much greater distance can be admitted between the accusation of the penitent and the absolution of the priest: since this sacrament is performed by way of judgment; but in judgment accusation is presupposed to absolution, nor is it required that the sentence of the judge be conjoined in time with the accusation of the accused himself. And although all the Doctors use this reason, namely that this sacrament is performed by way of judgment, nevertheless there is found no trace of that limitation which St. Alphonsus suggests. Indeed the Salmanticenses (Tr. 1, Cap. 4, nn. 20 and 28) concede, and even contend, that the conjunction or moral coexistence is fittingly preserved if one who confessed on one day is absolved on another day. But Coninck (ad Q. 60, art. 6, n. 41) writes: In Confession absolution could be deferred for a sufficiently long time; just as in a trial absolution or condemnation is often wont to follow the examination of the cause after a long time. And Henriquez (Lib. 1, Cap. 9, n. 11): In the Sacrament of Penance, because it is a judgment, the matter, which is a human act, is called sufficiently present, although the confession of sins precedes the form by many days. Wherefore Roncaglia refers the reader to those things which are commonly handed down by the Doctors about deferring absolution for penitents. For thus he says (Tr. 16, C. 3, Q. 2, Resp. 2): But because Penance was instituted by way of judgment, in which it is not necessary that the sentence be altogether simultaneous with the confession of the crime, hence it is that absolution can be deferred after the confession has been heard, as will be said in its place. And in reality, whatever delay of absolution you may finally imagine, the two parts of the Sacrament will always have to be judged sufficiently conjoined, as often as it is morally understood that this one judgment is being performed. Thus well Suarez (In 3 Part, Tom. 3, Disp. 2, Sect. 2): In that sacrament that simultaneity suffices which is morally enough that the same judgment be understood to be performed and confirmed by the sentence.

But that which Croix reports from Tamburini (Lib. 6, P. 1, n. 8) is nothing. For Tamburini (De Sacr., Lib. 4, C. 1, § 1, n. 6) merely wishes to indicate the difference which is had concerning the conjunction of matter and form, if there is question of the Sacrament of Penance and of Extreme Unction. Namely, with two cases proposed, he says that an interval of one hour in no way stands in the way in the Sacrament of Penance, but does stand in the way if there is question of Extreme Unction.

1. Object. The spiritual life which is conferred in Baptism, strengthened through Confirmation, and nourished in sacred Communion, can be lost through mortal sin and sometimes is lost; but it is repaired through the Sacrament of Penance, which for that reason is deservedly called the Sacrament of Reconciliation, the second plank offered to the sinner after shipwreck, and a laborious baptism, which cleanses us from sin only by arduous labors.

Penance is at once an act, a virtue, and a sacrament. Right reason shows that some act of penance is necessary after sin has been committed. For the injury inflicted upon God must be repaired; moreover, after the grave sinful act has passed, man remains turned away from the last end until he is freed from sin by penance. Therefore, even before the Sacrament of Penance had been instituted, some act of penance was required for recovering justification lost through mortal sin.¹

¹ To the point, the Council of Trent says (sess. XIV, chap. 1): "Penance was indeed necessary, at every time, for all men who had defiled themselves with any mortal sin, in order to obtain grace and justice, even for those who had asked to be washed by the Sacrament of Baptism; so that, after perversity had been cast off and amended, they might detest so great an offense against God with hatred of sin and pious sorrow of soul."

For exercising acts of penance, according to the common opinion, there is infused into the justified the virtue of penance, which inclines us to detestation and expiation of sin.

Besides this, Christ instituted a Sacrament by which, once certain acts of penance have been placed, and by means of priestly absolution, sins committed after Baptism are remitted.

2. Division. We shall treat of this Sacrament in this Treatise, with a few preliminary matters, however, concerning the virtue of penance.

There will be two parts: in the former, which is chiefly dogmatic, we shall set forth the divine institution and nature of the Sacrament of Penance; in the latter, which is moral, we shall explain the duties of the penitent and of the confessor; in an Appendix, we shall hand down a few things concerning Indulgences, by which the temporal punishment owed to sin is diminished or taken away.

Dogmatic part:

• Concerning the power of the keys granted to the Church.
• Concerning the acts of the penitent required for the exercise of this power.
• Concerning the Sacrament itself: concerning matter and form; concerning effects.

Moral part:

• Duties of the penitent: contrition; confession; satisfaction.
• Concerning the confessor: concerning his power; concerning his duties.

Appendix: concerning Indulgences.

Before we treat of the Sacrament of Penance, a few things must be noted beforehand concerning the virtue of penance: 1. concerning its notion; 2. concerning its necessity. For, even after the Sacrament has been instituted, it is necessary to exercise acts of penance both within and outside the sacred tribunal.

3. 1. Etymological notion. Penance, according to most ancient authors, is derived from the words poenam tenere, "to hold punishment," and therefore designates the act by which we undergo punishment in order to make satisfaction for sins.

¹ St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 85; Suarez, de Paenitent., disp. I and VII; Morinus, Commentar. in admin. Paenitentiae, bk. I, chs. 1-2; Billuart, diss. II; Billot, De Paenit., thesis 6; L. de San, de Paenit., P. 1, chs. 1-6; Pesch, n. 87 ff.

More truly, however, more recent authors say that penance takes its origin from poena, or penitus, and etymologically designates something inward, which affects the heart itself.¹

¹ Cf. M. Breal and A. Bailly, Dictionnaire etymol. latin, Paris, 1898, p. 240.

Among profane authors, this word especially signifies three things: (a) an interior sense of weariness or displeasure; thus in Cicero, in the book On Old Age, it is said: "If, therefore, he had lived a hundredth year, would he be weary of his old age?" (b) sorrow because of a deed previously admitted, whether good or evil: "We are accustomed to say paenitere then, when the things which we ourselves have done, or which have been done by our will and our counsel, afterwards begin to displease us, and we change our judgment concerning them";² (c) sorrow conceived concerning some crime or delict: "We see King Alexander," says Cicero,³ "who, when he had slain Clytus, his familiar friend, scarcely kept his hands from himself: so great was the force of repenting!"

² Aulus Gellius, Noct. Attic., bk. XVII, ch. 1.

³ Cicero, in IV Tuscul. quaest.

In this last sense the sacred authors very often use the word penance, inasmuch as it signifies sorrow of the soul concerning a sin committed.

4. 2. Theological notion. Penance, whose scope is to repair the injury inflicted upon God through sin, is defined: a supernatural and moral virtue inclining the sinner to detestation of his own sin, insofar as it is an offense against God, and to a firm purpose of amendment and satisfaction.

In this definition four things are chiefly included: the nature, object, acts, and subject of this virtue.

(A) The nature of penance, which is: (a) a supernatural virtue. Speculatively and in itself there could be a natural habit of penance, acquired by repeated acts; but in fact penance in Christians must be supernatural. For they have been raised to a supernatural state, and therefore they can repent as they ought only under the influence of actual grace and from a supernatural motive known by revelation. Indeed, according to the more common opinion, this virtue is supernaturally infused, together with the other virtues, at the very instant at which the soul is justified.

(b) And moral, not theological: for it is not immediately concerned with God, nor is it founded upon one of the divine attributes; but it is concerned with sin insofar as it is amendable, and its motive is the honesty of expiation or satisfaction to be shown to God who has been offended.

(B) The object is twofold: (a) the material object, or that concerning which penance is concerned, is any personal sin whatever, insofar as it violates divine right and therefore must be destroyed and repaired by suitable satisfaction. Hence there is no penance properly so called concerning original sin, nor concerning the sins of others; for that alone can properly be retracted which was committed by one's own will. But penance taken broadly, insofar as it is hatred and detestation of sin, can be concerned with the sins of others, since we are bound to pursue them with hatred. In this sense Christ was penitent, insofar as He hated our sins and made satisfaction for them.

(b) The formal object or motive of this virtue is the honesty which is found in repairing an offense inflicted upon God. This is the special or proper motive, so to speak, of penance. Nevertheless, an act of detestation of sin can arise from other motives: of charity, gratitude, hope, fear of God, etc., because sin is opposed to these various virtues.

(C) The proper acts of penance are detestation and sorrow for sin committed, the purpose of not sinning thereafter, and satisfaction, or at least the will of making satisfaction.¹ In a broader sense, all those acts by which sin is repaired can be called acts of penance, for example prayer, fasting, self-denial, and other acts of the virtues, insofar as they are orderable to making satisfaction for sin.

¹ The genesis of these acts can be understood thus: when first the sinner apprehends the sin committed as evil, the will abominates and detests it, because it is evil; then he notices that this evil is present to himself, in itself or in its effects, and he grieves over it; but he cannot sincerely grieve over sin unless he firmly wills to avoid it in the future; and furthermore, since the past evil must be repaired, there now arises spontaneously the will of making satisfaction, as is explained below.

(D) The remote subject of penance is any man guilty of sin or capable of sin; for the act of penance properly so called indeed presupposes an act of sin, but the habit by which a man is rendered prompt for grieving over his own sin can be found in all who are capable of sin, since they ought to be prompt for grieving over sin, if perhaps it has been committed.

The proximate subject is the will, because hatred of sin is an act by which the will is turned away from sin; but this act of the will presupposes previous cognition by the intellect, by which sin is apprehended as evil; furthermore it often flows into the sensitive appetite, causing there sensible sorrow or sadness; but the will remains the proper seat of penance.

5. 3. Controversy concerning the nature of this virtue. (A) All theologians concede that penance is a virtue, but some have denied that it is a special virtue. A few, such as William of Auxerre and F. Mayronius, taught that sins are detested not through a special virtue, but through the virtue to which they are opposed; for example, intemperance is detested through the virtue of temperance. Others, such as Durandus, said that penance is nothing other than charity, insofar as it grieves over sin as an offense against God. Some, after Cajetan, maintained that penance is a complex of three virtues: charity, which hates sin; religion, which by confessing sins acknowledges the dominion of God; and vindicative justice, which furnishes satisfaction.

(B) Nevertheless, theologians commonly teach, after St. Thomas, that penance is a special virtue. For there is a special virtue where there occurs a praiseworthy act elicited because of a special motive or formal object; but the act of repenting is certainly a praiseworthy act, since it tends toward the destruction of past sin, and it is elicited because of a special motive, namely because sin is an offense against God. For this motive extends itself to all sins and differs from the motive of other virtues, and therefore it is a special motive. Therefore penance is a special virtue.

This virtue, moreover, is referred to commutative justice, not indeed as a subjective part, but as a potential part;¹ for through it the sinner in some way repairs the injustice committed against God, not indeed according to perfect equality, but in the best way possible. St. Thomas explains this thus (3, q. 85, a. 3): "Justice simply so called is between equals, because justice is a certain equality... But justice in a certain respect is said to be that which exists between those of whom one is under the power of the other, as a servant under a master, a son under a father, a wife under a husband. And such justice is considered in penance. Hence the penitent has recourse to God with the purpose of amendment, as a servant to a master, according to that:¹ 'As the eyes of servants are on the hands of their masters, so are our eyes unto the Lord our God, until he have mercy on us'; and as a son to a father, according to that:² 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and before thee'; as a wife to a husband, according to that:³ 'Thou hast committed fornication with many lovers; nevertheless return to me, saith the Lord.'"

¹ The subjective parts of some virtue are, as it were, the species into which it is divided, or the parts which fully participate in the nature of that virtue; potential or annexed parts are those which are ordered to certain secondary acts and do not have the whole nature of this virtue, but only something of its perfection. But although penance is a certain species of justice, it participates in something of the other virtues, as is excellently declared by St. Thomas (q. 85, a. 3, ad 4): "Penance is with faith in the Passion of Christ, through which we are justified from sins, and with hope of pardon, and with hatred of vices, which pertains to charity. But insofar as it is a moral virtue, it participates in something of prudence, which is directive of all virtues; but from the very notion of justice, it has not only that which belongs to justice, but also those things which belong to temperance and fortitude, insofar as, namely, it abstains from those things which cause delight, which pertains to temperance, and bears hard things, which pertains to fortitude."

¹ Psalm 122:2.

² Luke 15:21.

³ Jeremiah 3:1.

6. 4. False notion of the Protestants. (A) It is set forth. This flows from the way in which they conceive sin and justification. Since man, according to Luther, sins necessarily, penance properly does not consist in a change of will, which remains evil, but in a change of feeling (sentiment) in relation to God; namely, the feeling of terror, struck into him once sin has been recognized, is changed into faith or confidence by which one believes that sins are forgiven to him on account of Christ, and thus he is justified.

Calvin, however, corrected this notion, asserting that penance is the beginning of a new life arising from confidence, or "a true conversion of our life to God, proceeding from a sincere and serious fear of God, which consists in the mortification of our flesh and of the old man and in the vivification of the spirit."⁴

⁴ Calvin, Institutes, bk. III, ch. 3, n. 4.

Both contend that no satisfaction must be paid to God, since Christ has abundantly made satisfaction for us.

Modern Protestants, however, coming nearer to the Catholic truth, admit that the beginning of a new life is a prior condition for justification, and that true penance embraces humble confession of the delict before God, horror of the sin committed, and amendment of life.¹

¹ Cf. Bovon, Morale chretienne, Lausanne, 1897, vol. I, pp. 224-237.

7. (B) The Lutherans are refuted. Genuine and salutary penance is not only the purpose of a new life, but also the detestation of sins committed. This is certain.

(a) For whatever may be said concerning the etymological meaning of the words paenitentia or metanoia,² it is certain from biblical usage that words of this kind signify not only a simple change of counsel, but also detestation of the past life. Thus, for example, pious Job said: "I have spoken unwisely... therefore I reprehend myself, and do penance in dust and ashes";³ again the Psalmist says: "A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit; a contrite and humbled heart, O God, thou wilt not despise";⁴ nor do the Prophets speak otherwise: "Be converted, and do penance for all your iniquities... and make for yourselves a new heart and a new spirit."⁵ Now in these and similar texts, besides a change of life, there is found detestation of sin; for what is it to reprehend oneself, to have a contrite heart, to do penance for sins, etc., if not to detest the past life? Moreover, St. Paul, addressing the penitent Corinthians, explicitly commemorates sadness as an element of true penance:⁶ "Now I rejoice, not because you were made sorrowful, but because you were made sorrowful unto penance... For the sorrow that is according to God works penance unto steadfast salvation."

² The word metanoia (meta, beyond or after; nous, mind) etymologically has the same sound as "trans-mentation," or change of mind; but from usage among both sacred and profane authors, it also signifies sadness and sorrow concerning the past, as is clear from lexicons even edited by Protestants, Schleusner, Robinson, Thayer, etc. Cf. Morinus, op. cit., bk. I, ch. 2. The same can be said of the word paenitentia; for from what was said above, this word sometimes signifies displeasure; this is confirmed from these verses of Ovid (bk. I de Ponto, Elegy I): "I repent: oh! if any trust is given to the wretched; I repent, and I myself am tormented by my deed."

³ Job 42:3-6.

⁴ Ps. 50:19.

⁵ Ezek. 18:30 ff.

⁶ 2 Cor. 7:9-10.

(b) Reason itself agrees: for he who comes to his senses, and changes his life for the better recalls his counsel for this reason: because he understands that the former life is evil; for why would he lead a new life unless he saw that the former one was contrary to equity? But just as we are bound to love the good, so also to hate evil, especially if it has been committed by us. Therefore penance imports detestation of sin. Moreover, reconciliation with an offended person requires more than cessation of the injury; for one who asks pardon from men must first manifest detestation and sorrow for the injury previously inflicted, so that, moved by this sorrow, the offended person may be willing to pardon the injury. In the same way, therefore, the sinner must conduct himself with God.

8. 1. State of the question. The question concerns fallen man, or the sinner, and concerns both the necessity of means and the necessity of precept. That is necessary by necessity of means which is a means, and indeed a necessary means, of justification and therefore of salvation, without which, consequently, even if it is inculpably omitted, salvation cannot be obtained. That is necessary by necessity of precept which is so prescribed that its omission, if culpable, is a sin, but if inculpable, does not harm salvation. (a) Now all Catholics teach that penance in general, that is, some detestation and retraction of sin, is necessary by necessity of means, once mortal sin has been posited; the controversy is only whether a formal act of penance is required, or whether a virtual act suffices, such as is contained in an act of perfect charity. The Scotists maintain that a virtual act of penance suffices; many Thomists think that a formal act is required. Suarez, however, distinguishes, saying that a formal act is required per se when someone thinks of his sins, but that remission of sin can per accidens be obtained by a virtual act of penance when, through forgetfulness or lack of consideration, someone does not think of his sins. We embrace this opinion as the more probable.

¹ St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 86, a. 2; Suarez, disp. IX and XV; Salmanticenses, disp. IV, dub. 2; disp. V, dub. 6; Drouin, q. I, ch. 3; Palmieri, thesis 7; de Augustinis, thesis 11; Sasse, thesis 6.

(b) Victoria² denies that there is a special precept of repenting, and therefore denies that impenitence is a special sin. For the texts of Scripture, he says, must be understood of the necessity of means, which is not always joined with a precept: thus, for example, sanctifying grace, although necessary for salvation, does not fall under a precept. But this opinion is commonly rejected by theologians.

² Tr. de Septem Sacram., q. 121.

9. 2. Thesis: Supposing mortal sin, it is certain that at least a virtual act of penance is necessary by necessity of means in the present order of things; it is commonly held that the same is necessary by necessity of precept. I said: once mortal sin has been posited, by which, namely, we are turned away from God, the last end; if the sin is only venial, penance, although desirable, is not necessary for salvation. I said also: in the present order, because some theologians think that God can, by His absolute power, pardon sin and infuse grace without any act of the sinner; but, considering His attributes, especially wisdom, justice, and holiness, He cannot.

(A) As to the necessity of means. (a) Scripture. For that is necessary by necessity of means which is so joined with the end that without it the end cannot be obtained; but, once grave sin has been posited, salvation is so joined with penance that without it salvation cannot be had, as is gathered from these and similar testimonies: "If that nation shall repent of its evil, against which I have spoken, I also will repent of the evil which I thought to do to it... if it shall do evil in my eyes, so that it does not hear my voice, I will repent of the good which I have spoken that I would do to it";¹ "But if the wicked man shall do penance for all his sins... he shall live by life and shall not die... but if the just man shall turn himself away from his justice and shall do iniquity according to all the abominations which the wicked man is accustomed to work, shall he live? All his justices which he had done shall not be remembered; in the prevarication by which he has prevaricated, and in his sin which he has sinned, in them he shall die."² Nor is it otherwise in the New Testament: "Unless you shall do penance, you shall all likewise perish";³ "Do penance, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out,"⁴ as if it were said: the necessary condition that your sins be blotted out is that you do penance. Therefore, in the present order, penance is joined with the remission of sin as a means with the end.

¹ Jer. 18:8-10.

² Ezek. 18:21-27.

³ Luke 13:5.

⁴ Acts 3:19.

(b) Tradition. From the Council of Trent cited above: "Penance was indeed necessary, at every time, for all men who had defiled themselves with any mortal sin, in order to obtain grace and justice." From this it follows that penance is necessary by necessity of means, since at every time, even before a positive law had been established, it was required for the remission of sin.

(c) Theological reason. The sinner cannot be saved unless he has first obtained from God the remission of his sin; but without penance God cannot remit sins. For wisdom forbids that He reconcile to Himself and receive into His friendship one whom He knows to be voluntarily turned away from Himself and obstinate in the love of sin: for this would be nothing other than to foster and reward sin itself. Moreover, justice forbids that an offense be remitted without some reparation; holiness forbids that He unite to Himself something impure still adhering to sin. Now one who has gravely sinned, even from frailty, remains turned away from God, at least habitually, until he repents, and does not repair, as far as he can, the offense inflicted upon God, but perseveres in it and continues to adhere to sin. Therefore God cannot remit sin, considering His attributes, unless the sinner turns himself to God through an act of penance; therefore without penance the sinner cannot be saved.

10. (B) As to the necessity of precept. (a) Scripture. The texts adduced already demonstrate the matter; for God, by declaring the necessity of penance so emphatically and by threatening the gravest punishments to the impenitent, manifests clearly enough that He wills all to be bound to do penance. Furthermore, according to the testimony of Scripture, one who refuses to repent is convicted of disobedience, and indeed of grave disobedience, since he is punished with a grave penalty: "Because I called and you refused, I stretched out my hand, and there was none who regarded... I also will laugh in your destruction."¹ Moreover, Christ preached penance under the form of a precept: "From that time Jesus began to preach and to say: Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."² In vain, however, is it objected that grace, although necessary for salvation, does not fall under a special precept; for grace is not a virtue, but a means to virtue, and therefore it is not directly prescribed; but penance is a special virtue, from what has been said, and therefore falls under a precept.

¹ Prov. 1:24-33.

² Matt. 4:17.

(b) Reason. Each person is bound, by force of justice, to repair an injury inflicted upon another; but man, through mortal sin, has inflicted a grave injury upon God; therefore, from the precept of justice, he is bound to compensate this injury by doing penance. Another reason is added: everyone is commanded to have care for his spiritual salvation; but the sinner cannot save his soul unless he repents of grave sins; therefore by force of charity toward himself he is bound to do penance.³

³ From this St. Thomas infers (3 p., q. 84, a. 7, c. and ad 1) that penance is prescribed by natural law: "For by natural reason man is moved to repent of the evils which he has done, but that he do penance in this or that way is from divine institution."

11. First, the precept of repenting can be considered as negative and affirmative: insofar as it is negative, it forbids one to take complacency in his sins; in this sense it obliges always and for always. Insofar as it is affirmative, it commands that one grieve over sins committed; and then it obliges at the opportune time, both per se, that is, by force of the virtue itself of penance, and per accidens, or by force of another precept which one is bound to fulfill.

(A) Per se, (a) it does not oblige immediately after sin has been committed. For a precept of this kind is affirmative, from what has been said; but it belongs to the nature of an affirmative precept that it does not oblige immediately and for always, but at a determined time, namely when the opportunity presents itself. Moreover, if it obliged immediately, one who did not immediately do penance would thereby sin, and would commit a new sin as often as, conscious of this obligation, he did not repent; but this is opposed to the common sense of the faithful, who by no means accuse themselves of these sins, and of confessors, who do not ask about them.

12. (b) It certainly obliges, however, in the article of death, or even in a very probable danger of death or of perpetual madness; for then each person is bound, by reason of justice toward God and charity toward himself, to be reconciled with God and to provide for his salvation, since otherwise either certainly or very probably no other opportune time remains.

(c) More probably, it also obliges sometimes during life. Thus more commonly against Durandus, Cajetan, Vasquez, and a few others, who contend that no time can be assigned within which this precept obliges outside the article of death. For excessive delay of conversion is gravely reprehended by the sacred authors: "Delay not to be converted to the Lord, and defer not from day to day: for his wrath shall come suddenly, and in the time of vengeance he will destroy thee";¹ "But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest up to thyself wrath in the day of wrath."² Moreover, delay of conversion is dangerous to salvation, because it easily induces into new sins,³ renders merit de condigno impossible, and exposes one to the danger of damnation if death should suddenly occur; it is also injurious to God, since for a long time the sinner remains His enemy and defers until death the compensation for the injury inflicted upon God, thus despising the grace of God which moves him to conversion. And so voluntary delay of penance for a notable time is a new sin, namely the sin of impenitence.

¹ Eccli. 5:8-9.

² Rom. 2:4-5.

³ For St. Gregory the Great rightly says (Moral., bk. XXV, ch. 9, in Migne, P. L., LXXVI, 334): "For sin which penance does not wash away, by its very weight soon draws one to another." The reason for this is that one who remains long in the state of mortal sin is deprived of those efficacious graces which are necessary for overcoming grave temptations. Cf. St. Thomas, 1.², q. 109, a. 8.

13. What time, however, is notable and sufficient to constitute a new sin cannot be accurately defined. Delay for many years is commonly considered a notable time, especially because by the ecclesiastical precept, which seems to be determinative of divine law, the sinner is bound to confess his sins at least once a year, and therefore to do penance.

According to Laymann⁴ and many others, one who satisfies the precept of annual confession does not defer penance beyond the due time, because the Church, by determining the time of confession, seems also to have determined the time of penance. And this opinion is very probable, especially because generally the faithful do not think themselves guilty of a new sin unless they have deferred penance beyond a year.

⁴ De Sacr. Paenitent., ch. 2, n. 6.

Nevertheless, St. Alphonsus⁵ does not wholly acquiesce in this opinion, but he thinks that one month is a notable time in the delay of penance, both because of the obligation of eliciting an act of charity once a month, which the sinner cannot fulfill unless he grieves for his sins, and because one who remains in mortal sin through an entire year cannot avoid the danger of easily falling back into other sins. Yet he adds, and this is to be noted for practice, that sinners, especially the uneducated, can for the most part, indeed almost always, be excused from this sin of delayed penance on account of inadvertence.

⁵ St. Alphonsus, bk. VI, n. 437, and Homo Apostol., tr. XIV, n. 10.

14. (B) Per accidens it obliges whenever the sinner, from some other precept, is bound to recover the state of grace: (a) for administering the sacraments, if he is a priest, or for receiving the sacraments of the living; (b) for overcoming grave temptations, if the sinner is conscious that he cannot resist them unless he elicits an act of contrition; (c) for eliciting an act of charity toward God, if the obligation of fulfilling this precept is urgent. - But the precept of sanctifying feasts and the Lord's day does not import an obligation of eliciting an act of penance, since the state of grace is not required for keeping the Lord's day.

Therefore sinners are to be earnestly exhorted to do penance quickly, not indeed by asserting that the delay of penance is a new mortal sin, but by showing that impenitence is dangerous for the sinner and injurious to God,¹ as above.

¹ Among the passages of Scripture and of the Fathers which can be alleged, these especially are to be attended to: Prov. 1:22-23; Isa. 1:2-31; Jerem. 2, 3, 4; 18:5-17; Ezek. 18:21-32; Matt. 3:8-12; Luke 13:2-5; Acts 3:19-26, etc.; - St. Ambrose, De Paenitentia, bk. II, in Migne, P. L., XVI, 495 ff.; St. Augustine, sermon 20, in Migne, XXXVIII, 140-141, etc. - Cf. Bourdaloue, Careme, sermon for the Monday of the 2nd week, on final impenitence; Massillon, Careme, on final impenitence; Wiseman, Sermons on Moral Subjects, On delay of repentance; Newman, Sermons to Mixed Congreg., Neglect of divine calls and warnings.

15. 1. Notion of the Sacrament of Penance. Before the coming of Christ, Penance was not a sacrament; but in order that the faithful might more securely obtain the remission of sins committed after baptism, the Lord raised penance to the dignity of a sacrament, by handing over to the Church the ministerial power of remitting sins, and by determining the acts to be furnished by sinners for obtaining pardon.

Penance, insofar as it is a sacrament, is commonly defined by theologians: A Sacrament of the New Law instituted by Christ, by which, through the juridical absolution of a priest, sins committed after baptism are remitted to a man who is contrite, has confessed, and promises satisfaction.

It is said (a) by which, through the juridical absolution of a priest, so that there may thus be declared the form of this sacrament, namely, the absolution of the priest; the minister, or priest; and the mode in which it is administered, namely, the judicial form; (b) to a man who is contrite, etc., by which words are designated both the subject and the dispositions of the subject: contrition, confession, and the intention of making satisfaction, which, according to many, are also the proximate matter of the sacrament; (c) sins are remitted, etc., and thus are expressed not only the principal effect, but also the remote matter of the sacrament, namely, all sins, whether mortal or venial, committed after baptism. From what is to be said, it will be clear that this definition is legitimate.

16. 2. Division of this part. In the dogmatic part of this Treatise, we intend to demonstrate the existence, or divine institution, of the sacrament of Penance, and also to declare its nature.

For accomplishing this, we shall examine three things:

I. The power of the keys granted to the Church;

II. The acts of the penitent required for the exercise of this power;

III. The nature of the sacrament, insofar as it can be inferred from these two.

The reason for the division is this: according to the Council of Trent, the Lord especially instituted the sacrament of Penance when He conferred on the apostles the power of remitting sins, which is called the power of the keys; therefore it is necessary to explain this before all else. But since this power is not exercised unless certain acts of the penitent have been posited, namely confession, contrition, and satisfaction, these must be treated afterward. And since the sacrament itself is constituted from the power of the keys and from the acts of the penitent, it is fitting to discuss the sacrament itself by way of corollary, describing its matter and form as well as its effects.¹

¹ In this new edition, we have revised the dogmatic part with the kind cooperation of P. Callou, professor of dogmatic theology in the Seminary of St. Sulpice at Paris.

We shall examine two things: 1. whether this power was truly conferred by Christ; 2. who are the ministers able to exercise it.

17. State of the question. 1. The nature of this power is declared. (A) The power of the keys, as it is taken here, is the power of judging concerning the internal state of conscience, or the power of remitting and retaining sins, not only in the external forum before the Church, but also in the internal forum before God; and therefore it is the power of ruling the conscience of the faithful and of changing its interior relations with respect to God.

It is twofold: (a) the power of establishing new obligations which the penitent must fulfill in order to be freed from his sins, or the power of imposing penalties; (b) the power of dissolving spiritual debts before God, or of remitting sins.

(B) This power indeed is: (a) supernatural, delegated by God Himself, conferred in order to a supernatural end; (b) ministerial under Christ, and, as it were, a certain participation in the divine power; (c) truly efficacious, that is, binding or freeing the conscience itself. (d) Nevertheless it is not absolute, since its exercise and efficacy depend on certain conditions established by God Himself, which both the minister and the penitent must observe; (e) nor infallible, since the minister of God, although judging authoritatively concerning the internal state of the penitent, can err because of human infirmity. God certainly ratifies in heaven the sentence of the minister, but only when what must be posited has been posited, or when the conditions required on the part of the minister and on the part of the penitent have been fulfilled.

18. 2. Errors. Besides the Montanists and Novatians, concerning whom we shall soon treat in their own place, Protestants have attacked the power of the keys in different ways. Their general principle is that justification, and therefore the remission of sins, takes place through faith or confidence (above, n. 6).

(a) Luther indeed remained uncertain for a long time, now acknowledging, then rejecting, a sacrament of this kind; and his disciples imitated this hesitation.¹ Yet absolution, according to them, has only the force of declaring, not of effecting, the remission of sins. (b) Calvin openly denied the existence of the sacrament, teaching that Penance is not truly distinguished from Baptism, or from the remembrance of Baptism; for according to him, sin is not destroyed through Baptism, but only testimony is given that sins have been remitted by faith, or rather are not imputed. But afterward it happens that the baptized person is terrified by subsequent sins, and then it is useful to recall to his memory the Baptism previously conferred, as a pledge of justification received for the whole course of life; this remembrance of Baptism is nothing other than Penance, by which displeasure for sin and the purpose of a new life are renewed.² (c) Anglicans acknowledge that both the dying and those about to communicate publicly can be absolved by presbyters; indeed they admit the utility of confession, but not its necessity.³ (d) The Ritualists, furthermore, teach that absolution is a sacrament, namely one of the lesser sacraments; for among the greater sacraments they count only Baptism and the Supper.

¹ Hence in the Confession of Augsburg (art. 12) one reads: "Concerning Penance they teach that remission of sins can come to those who have fallen after Baptism, at whatever time they are converted; and that the Church ought to impart absolution to such persons returning to penance." (In Schaff, Creeds, vol. III, p. 14). - "Absolution can properly be called the sacrament of Penance, as also the more learned scholastic theologians say" (Melanchthon, Apology, art. 5). Cf. Pfisterer, Luthers Lehre von der Beichte, Stuttgart, 1857.

² "Thus one must think that, at whatever time we are baptized, we are washed and cleansed once for all life: and therefore as often as we have fallen, the memory of Baptism must be recalled, and the soul must be armed with this, so that it may always be certain and secure concerning the remission of sins; for although, once administered, it may seem to have passed, nevertheless it has not been abolished by later sins." (Calvin, Instit., bk. IV, ch. 15).

³ Before communion, these words are spoken by Anglican ministers: "If any among you is found whose conscience is troubled and in distress, and who needs consolation or counsel, let him have recourse to me or to another prudent priest, learned and skilled in the law of God; let him confess and disclose secretly his sins and his anxieties, so that he may be able to receive salutary admonitions, counsels, and consolations, and through us, ministers of God and of the Church, obtain confidence and absolution." Cf. Blunt, The Sacraments, London, 1868, p. 190; Morgan Dix, The Sacramental System, New York, 1893, p. 92-104. - See the doctrine of the Protestants expounded in Vacant, Dict. de Theol., t. I, col. 218-229.

19. (e) In our days, the American Protestant H. C. Lea,¹ renewing the arguments of Dallaeus, attacks the divine institution of confession and absolution in this way: 1) Christ in the Gospel, who often inculcates that God is to be worshiped in spirit and in truth, instituted no external rite for the remission of sins, but requires only love and penance of heart. 2) The power of remitting sins by some sacramental rite was by no means acknowledged in the first centuries of the Church. There did indeed flourish a certain penitential discipline, but it had force only in the external forum, for reconciling sinners with the Church, not with God. 3) The Fathers teach that there are many means for obtaining the remission of sins, but among them they do not mention priestly absolution. 4) Besides, the words of absolution recited over penitents are nothing other than prayers by which priests earnestly begged from God the pardon of sins, and by no means sacramental forms conferring grace.²

¹ Lea, A History of Auricular Confession and Indulgences, Philadelphia and London, 1896. - The Liberals teach nearly the same thing.

² Op. cit., t. I, ch. I-VII, p. 5-167.

Against these errors we shall set forth and vindicate Catholic doctrine, by critically examining the texts of Scripture and of the earlier Fathers.

20. Thesis: Christ conferred on the Church the power of remitting and retaining all sins committed after baptism, and that by a truly judicial act.

It is de fide from the following canons of the Council of Trent:³ 1. "If anyone shall say that, in the Catholic Church, Penance is not truly and properly a sacrament, instituted by Christ our Lord for reconciling to God Himself the faithful as often as they fall into sins after Baptism: let him be anathema."

³ Trent, sess. XIV, can. 1, 3, 9.

3. "If anyone shall say that those words of the Lord the Savior, 'Receive the Holy Spirit: whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained,' are not to be understood of the power of remitting and retaining sins in the sacrament of Penance, as the Catholic Church has always understood them from the beginning, but shall twist them, contrary to the institution of this sacrament, to the authority of preaching the Gospel: let him be anathema."

9. "If anyone shall say that the sacramental absolution of the priest is not a judicial act, but a bare ministry of pronouncing and declaring that sins have been remitted to the one confessing, provided only that he believes himself absolved; or that the priest absolves not seriously, but in jest; or shall say that the confession of the penitent is not required so that the priest may be able to absolve him: let him be anathema."

The Council therefore teaches that the power of remitting and retaining sins was truly conferred upon the Apostles and their successors; - and that it can be exercised in the Catholic Church not once or again, but as often as the faithful fall into sins after Baptism, and therefore that no sin is irremissible; - but that this power is not a bare ministry of declaring that sins have been remitted, but a truly judicial act by which priests reconcile to God Himself sinners who are otherwise well disposed.

In order that the demonstration may be clearer, we premise two things: (a) that Christ, while He lived on earth, exercised the power of the keys, or the power of remitting sins, by a free act of His will, for example, in the case of the paralytic and of the sinful woman; (b) that He likewise, in a general way, conferred on the Apostles all power committed to Himself by the Father for promoting the salvation of souls, as is clear from the four Gospels. Now it is altogether improbable that the power of the keys was excepted from this general mission or delegation.

¹ Cf. Corluy, Spicilegium Dogmatico-biblicum, Ghent, 1884, t. I, p. 33-51; t. II, p. 438-452; Vacant, Dict. de Theol., t. I, p. 138-143.

In reality, Scripture being carefully inspected, two things are established: 1. that the power of the keys was promised to the Apostles and their successors, and within the amplitude of this power is contained the power of remitting sins; 2. that this power was in fact conferred on them on the very day of the resurrection.

21. 1. That this power was promised is clear from the words of Christ to Peter: "And I say to thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven."² Likewise from the words of Christ directed afterward to all the Apostles:³ "Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven." For greater clarity of the proof, the sense of these texts must first be explained.

² Matt. 16:18-19.

³ Matt. 18:18.

(a) To Peter are promised the keys of the kingdom of heaven, that is, the power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, which Christ designates by the name kingdom of heaven, as is clear from the words previously uttered: "upon this rock I will build my Church." For to hand over the keys of someone's house or city is the same as to confer authority to close and open it, or supreme authority, as is clear from the usage of speech among sacred and profane authors; thus, when Eliacim is substituted for Sobna, the prefect of the temple or of the royal house, it is said:¹ "And I will give the key of the house of David upon his shoulder"; likewise, when the glorious Christ wishes to signify that all power has been handed over to Him, He says: "And I have the keys of death and of hell."² Therefore true authority over the Church is promised to Peter.

¹ Isa. 22:22.

² Apoc. 1:18; cf. 3:7.

22. (b) But what the nature of this power is, the following words declare: "whatsoever thou shalt bind... whatsoever thou shalt loose..." These must be declared accurately. We indeed admit that these words historically present a twofold sense: sometimes they signify nothing other than to declare that a thing is lawful or not (for example, in the Talmud one reads: Rabbi M looses, Rabbi N binds, that is, the former asserts that a thing is lawful, but the latter that it is not lawful); at other times, however, they designate legislative and judicial power. Now that this is the sense in the present place is clear from the context: 1) for Christ promises His own authority to the Apostles; but this authority is not only declarative, but at the same time legislative and judicial; therefore Christ promises the Apostles the power of making laws, imposing obligations, and also rendering judgment and loosening bonds which can prevent the faithful from entering heaven, especially sins, which are one of the chief bonds; 2) this agrees with the former part of the text, where there is handed over the power of the keys, or of closing and opening heaven, and therefore of taking away sin, which obstructs entrance into heaven; 3) and it is confirmed from the parallel passage, where the same power is conferred on the Apostles with respect to sins.¹

¹ Matt. 18:15-18. For there it is a question of sins to be remitted or retained: "If thy brother shall sin [against thee is lacking in the best codices]... tell the Church; but if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind, etc."

That this power touches not only the external forum, but conscience itself, is clear from the fact that God ratifies in heaven whatsoever the Church shall have bound or loosed on earth.

23. (c) What Christ had first promised to Peter alone, a little later He likewise promised to all the apostles together; He does not indeed hand over to them the power of the keys, or the supreme power, but the power of binding and loosing, which they will exercise dependently on Peter.

(d) In both cases, there is question here of a power to be exercised over the Church itself, not over those who are outside: "I will build the Church, and I will give to thee the keys..." Likewise, when there is question of the power conferred on the Apostles, the Church is first mentioned: "Tell the Church; but if he will not hear the Church..." A power of this kind is therefore distinguished from the power of baptizing, which is exercised over those who are outside, so that they may be introduced into the Church.

The aforesaid argument, although general, is altogether valid. Its force is confirmed from the words of St. John and from the authority of the Fathers; for already St. Pontiff Callixtus used this text to prove that there was in him the faculty of remitting sins; but Tertullian, although a Montanist, did not deny this sense, but only said that this power conferred on Peter had been transmitted only to spiritual men.²

² Tertullian, De pudicitia, ch. 21, P. L., t. II, col. 1025.

24. 2. The power which Christ had promised He conferred on the Apostles; for, having returned from the dead, He stood in the midst of the disciples and said to them:³ "Peace be to you... As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them: Receive ye the Holy Spirit: whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained."

³ John 20:21-23.

These words indeed are, as it were, an authentic declaration by which one of the many powers already promised to Peter and the Apostles in the aforesaid texts is specifically defined. For the power of which there is question here is not, as Protestants wish, a mere faculty of preaching the remission of sins, or of declaring that sins have been remitted to penitents, but the power truly to remit sins; - not only as to punishment, but also as to guilt; - extending to all sins; - to be exercised in a judicial mode; - and therefore not restricted to the power of remitting sins through baptism. This we shall declare successively.

25. (A) The power here conceded is the power truly to remit sins. This is gathered: (a) from the context; for Christ begins thus: as the Father hath sent me, I also send you; by which words it is declared that the mission to be given to the Apostles is similar to the mission which Christ received from the Father. Now Christ had not only preached the remission of sins, but had truly forgiven them; indeed He had come into the world for this, that He might truly destroy them.¹ Therefore the Apostles received the power truly to remit sins. - Afterward Christ, by the sensible sign of breathing, imparts the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, so that it may thus be manifest to all that the power to be conferred on them is a new and singular privilege, which they can exercise only with the help of the Holy Spirit. But to announce the remission of sins is not so new and singular a privilege, since the Prophets performed this, and any member of the faithful can perform it; the Apostles themselves had already done it by preaching. Therefore there is question not of preaching, but of the remission of sins.

¹ Matt. 9:2-8; Luke 5:20; 7:47; Apoc. 1, etc.

26. (b) From the text itself: 1) for the verb you shall forgive (Gr. aphete) is active, and signifies such remission as is done through a positive and efficacious action, not through a mere declaration of remission already made; this is confirmed from the other word you shall retain (kratete), which likewise denotes a positive action; for Christ did not say "you shall not forgive," which would be merely negative, but you shall retain, as if a positive action of the priest were required. 2) Moreover, in the second clause there is added "they are forgiven them, they are retained"; and this indeed, according to the Protestants themselves, sounds the same as they are truly remitted or truly retained; therefore, by force of the parallelism, the prior words, you shall forgive, you shall retain, ought to be understood in the same sense. For by what right is to forgive, in the prior clause, said to signify to declare remission, and in the latter, truly to forgive? 3) Finally, by force of this text, such is the relation between the remission of sins made by the Apostles and that made by God, that whenever the Apostles remit, God remits; but such a connection is indeed well explained if the Apostles enjoy a true faculty of remitting; but if they have only the power of preaching remission, there is no certain connection between the declaration of the Apostles and the remission of sins. For how, apart from a special revelation, can the ministers of the Church know and declare with certainty that sins have been remitted by God?

27. (B) The power conferred on the Church touches not only the debt of punishment, but also the debt of guilt, and therefore remits guilt itself before God. For Christ here uses the words aphete tas hamartias, which He had previously used to signify the true remission of sins as to guilt.¹

¹ Matt. 9:5, 6; Mark 2:10; Luke 5:20; 7:47-49.

This is confirmed from the context. For (a) there is question of that remission of sins by which the mission of Christ is brought to perfection and completion; but the proper end of this mission was the interior remission of sins: for Christ had come into the world to seek sinners and make them saved, to justify, sanctify, and lead to heaven those who by sin had been made alien from God.² (b) The Apostles, in remitting sins, act in the power of the Holy Spirit conferred on them: "Receive ye the Holy Spirit..." Now it is proper to the Holy Spirit to remit sins as to guilt: for in Him we have been washed and sanctified and justified.³

² Mark 2:17; Matt. 18:11; Luke 19:10; Rom. 5:10, 18, 19.

³ 1 Cor. 6:11.

28. (C) This power extends to all sins. For (a) no limitation is added: "whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them," and the Greek text an tinon aphete clearly designates that all sinners can obtain pardon; (b) moreover, these words are determinative of the general power of loosening bonds, which suffers no exception: "whatsoever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven"; therefore all sins can be remitted.

29. (D) The same power must be exercised by a judicial act, that is, by instructing the cause and rendering sentence. (a) First, indeed, the apostles and their successors must instruct and know the cause. For a twofold power is conferred, both of remitting and of retaining sins (which word, as we noted above, says more than not remitting); now a faculty of this kind cannot be exercised at will, but prudently. But how can someone know whether sins can be remitted or not, ought to be retained or not, unless he has first instituted a juridical investigation of the matter? For this there is required knowledge both of the offenses committed by the sinner and of the dispositions of the subject, so that the Apostles and their successors may be able to judge whether, as ministers of Christ who are bound to render an account of their administration, they can absolve those who are rightly disposed, or bind the indisposed. Therefore the power of remitting sins also supposes the right and the office of instructing the cause.

(b) But once the cause has been instructed, they must also render sentence: for it pertains to them to retain or remit sins according to the dispositions of the penitent, and therefore to prescribe the conditions to be fulfilled for the remission of sins, to impose burdens and satisfactions for the sins committed. For in them there is the power of binding as well as of loosing, and whatsoever things are retained or remitted on earth are retained or remitted in heaven. Therefore they enjoy judicial power, to which sinners are compelled to subject themselves if they wish to be absolved.

30. (E) This power is not restricted to the power of remitting sins through baptism, but also includes the faculty of forgiving sins committed after baptism. We do not indeed deny that the words of John can be understood, and in fact were understood by most of the Fathers, of the power of remitting sins through baptism; for the words of Christ are general, and of themselves can be heard of sins committed before or after baptism. Certainly, however, they are not limited to baptism alone: (a) this is clear from the context, both because they are universal, and because they suppose this power to be exercised indefinitely and in a judicial mode; and this indeed is understood of penance rather than of baptism, since the latter is conferred only once, and not properly after the manner of a judgment.

(b) This interpretation is confirmed by the authority of the Fathers: for Origen openly says that the power of forgiving sins was conferred on the apostles and their successors by force of the aforesaid words.¹ St. Pacian more directly refutes the Novatians, who said that the words of John were parallel to the words of Matthew, "Going therefore, teach all nations, baptizing them..."; and he shows that the text of John is to be expounded according to the words of Matthew, "Whatsoever you shall bind," and therefore regards sins committed after baptism.² St. Ambrose made this interpretation his own.³ But among the Fathers who take the aforesaid words of John concerning the remission of sins through baptism, some, such as St. Cyril of Alexandria, openly teach that the same words can also be understood of sins committed after baptism.⁴

¹ Origen, De orat., n. 28, P. G., t. XI, 529.

² St. Pacian, ep. 3a, n. 11, P. L., t. XIII, 1070.

³ St. Ambrose, De paenit., I, 68, P. L., XVI, 467-468.

⁴ "Moreover, men inspired by the Spirit remit sins, or retain them, in two ways, as I think: for either they call to baptism those worthy, men already proved, of course, by the gravity and constancy of life and faith, or they forbid and keep away from divine grace those who are not yet worthy; or in some other way they remit and retain sins, namely when they correct sons of the Church who sin, or pardon those doing penance." (St. Cyril, In Joan., bk. XII, ch. XX, 22-23, P. G., t. LXXIV, p. 722.)

From these words of St. John, therefore, and from the manner in which they were commonly understood already from the third century, it is rightly inferred that to the Apostles and their successors there was truly granted the power of remitting, by a judicial rite, all sins committed after baptism.⁵

⁵ Rightly, therefore, the following proposition 47 of the Modernists was condemned by the Holy Office (Lamentabili decree): "The words of the Lord: Receive ye the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, etc., by no means refer to the sacrament of Penance, whatever it pleased the Tridentine Fathers to assert."

31. Scholion. (A) On the exercise of the power of the keys by the Apostles. (a) The power of binding, or of imposing penalties for the correction and amendment of sinners, at least where there was question of public offenses, was certainly exercised by the Apostles. An example is had in the case of the incestuous Corinthian concerning whom St. Paul writes: "I indeed, absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged, as present, him who has done this, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ... to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ."¹ For there the Apostle, by an act of judgment, condemns the incestuous man to undergo some penalty. (b) The power of loosing is also indirectly inferred from these words;² for the sinner is handed over to certain temporal penalties, to the end that afterward he may be justified and saved on the day of judgment; and thus already there appears the connection between the canonical penalty imposed by the Church and the remission of sin, which afterward is manifestly exhibited in penitential discipline.

¹ 1 Cor. 5:3-5. Cf. 2 Thess. 3:14-15; Tit. 3:10.

² Certain Fathers and Theologians thought that Paul directly exercised this power when he afterward absolved the incestuous Corinthian (2 Cor. 2:5-11); but it is much more probable that he of whom there is question in the second passage is not the incestuous man of whom there is question in the first.

The same can be inferred from the manner of acting with Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom he indeed hands over to Satan, but for amendment, namely, "that they may learn not to blaspheme."³

³ 1 Tim. 1:20.

32. (B) On the remissibility of all sins. The Apostles were persuaded that all sins, even the gravest, before judgment, were remissible by condign penance. Thus St. Paul supposes that the gravest sins, such as fornication, are remitted through penance;⁴ likewise St. John presents God as threatening dire punishments to those who are guilty of apostasy and idolatry, "unless they shall do penance from their works";⁵ therefore he supposes that the aforesaid sins can be destroyed by penance.

⁴ 2 Cor. 12:20-21.

⁵ Apoc. 2:19-23.

Yet a few texts are opposed, from which it seems to be clear that certain sins are irremissible. It is useful to explain these texts briefly.

(a) Namely, Christ said to the Pharisees: "Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men: but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven."⁶ - Resp. Once the context has been inspected, the sin of which there is question is that by which works manifestly divine, such as miracles done to prove the divinity of Christ's mission, are ascribed to the devil, and thus the eyes are deliberately and pertinaciously closed to the light of faith; for there is question of the Pharisees who were saying that Christ cast out demons in Beelzebub. Now that sin is said not to be remitted, not because it is never forgiven, but because of itself it has no excuse and deserves no pardon; or, according to others, because it is forgiven with greater difficulty, not indeed from a defect of power or will in God and His ministers, but because it is difficult for a sinner who has pertinaciously abused the means of grace to repent sincerely. St. Thomas declares this most excellently (2a 2ae, q. 14, a. 3): "For one who sins from ignorance or weakness deserves a lesser punishment; but one who sins from certain malice does not have any excuse by which his punishment may be lessened. Likewise also one who blasphemed against the Son of man, His divinity not yet having been revealed, could have some excuse because of the infirmity of the flesh which he beheld in Him, and thus deserved a lesser punishment. But one who blasphemed against the divinity itself, attributing the works of the Holy Spirit to the devil, had no excuse by which his punishment might be diminished." The Holy Doctor continues by explaining that sin against the Holy Spirit is also said to be irremissible according to its own nature, insofar as it excludes faith, and therefore those things through which the remission of sins is effected; just as a disease is called incurable according to the nature of the disease, by which that through which the disease can be cured is taken away. "By this, however," he says, "the way of remitting and healing is not closed to the omnipotence and mercy of God, by which such persons are sometimes healed spiritually, as if miraculously."

⁶ Matt. 12:31. Cf. Maldonatus, on this place.

Others, however, with St. Augustine (serm. 71), hold that a sin of this kind is final impenitence, which is remitted in no way, because mortal sin in which a man perseveres until death cannot be remitted either in this life or in the future. Yet this explanation seems foreign to the context.

33. (b) The words of the Epistle to the Hebrews are alleged: "For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, have also tasted the heavenly gift, and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, have nevertheless tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come, and have fallen away, to be renewed again unto penance."¹ - Resp. Here there is question of apostates, who, after Baptism had been received (illuminated), after the Eucharist and Confirmation had been received (the heavenly gift... partakers of the Holy Spirit), were returning to Judaism or paganism; and according to certain Fathers and Theologians, it is declared that they cannot be renewed through Baptism, since a sacrament of this kind cannot be repeated. St. Athanasius hands down this interpretation:² "Nor," he says, "is it impossible to repent, but it is impossible that we be renewed under the pretext of penance. But there is an immense difference between these sayings. For he whom it repents indeed ceases to sin, yet he retains the scars of wounds. But he who is baptized, puts off the old man, and is renewed, born from above by the grace of the Spirit." St. Chrysostom says the same (hom. IX on this place, n. 3). - But very many others, and indeed more probably, understand the word impossible of great difficulty, of moral, not physical, impossibility, so that the sense is that it is exceedingly difficult for apostates to return to the true faith. In almost the same way the following words can be understood: "For if we sin voluntarily after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins, but a certain terrible expectation of judgment";¹ since here also there is question of apostates, who, insofar as they remain in apostasy, lack the sacrifice for sins, just as those who voluntarily remain outside the Church are outside the way of salvation; yet from this the possibility of returning to the Christian faith, in which the sacrifice for sins is offered, is not precluded.²

¹ Hebr. 6:4 ff.

² Ep. 4 ad Serap., n. 13.

¹ Hebr. 10:26.

² Cf. A. Lemonnyer, O. P., Epitres de S. Paul, Paris, Bloud, 1905, t. II, p. 221-223.

(c) The words of John are also opposed:³ "He who knows his brother to sin a sin not unto death, let him ask, and life shall be given to him who sins not unto death. There is a sin unto death; I do not say that anyone should ask for that." - Resp. What that sin unto death is, theologians and commentators dispute. More probably, we think there is question here of the sin of infidelity, by which the divinity of Christ is denied, since throughout this whole chapter St. John is speaking of faith in Christ; but the Apostle does not declare such a sin to be irremissible, but only that the precept of praying for one's neighbor does not extend to those who have stained themselves with such a sin; because, on account of the enormity of their sin, they deserve to be abandoned by the faithful like heathens and publicans. In other words, these sinners are deprived of the public suffrages of the Church, as excommunicated persons are today. But if sin unto death is understood of final impenitence, the explanation already proposed above is valid.

³ 1 John 5:16.

34. Conclusion. The power of the keys, conferred by Christ on the Apostles, was exercised in apostolic times, but not in the same mode in which it is now exercised: (a) namely, not frequently, because lesser or venial sins, as not being necessary matter, were not then accustomed to be subjected to the power of the keys, and moreover greater sins, on account of the fervent life of the first Christians, were rarely committed; (b) with a certain severity, insofar as arduous penance was imposed on sinners, especially exclusion from the Church before absolution was granted, chiefly for this end, that the faithful might be more efficaciously deterred from sin. But it is not wonderful that the matter stood this way: for since Christ had not determined the mode in which the power of the keys was to be exercised, it belonged to the Church, according to the diversity of times and circumstances, to define this for the greater utility of the faithful.

35. 1. State of the question. Since today liberal Protestants contend that the Church reconciled sinners only in the external forum, namely insofar as it received again into its bosom those whom it had excommunicated on account of sins, our purpose is to show that they also obtained the remission of sins in the internal forum and before God.

¹ Petavius, De paenitentiae vetere in Ecclesia ratione, P. G., XLII, 1027 ff.; Morinus, Comment. historicus de disciplina in admin. Sacr. Paenitentiae, Antwerp, 1682, bk. I, ch. 3-7; ch. 16-19; bk. III-VII; Palmieri, Tr. de Paenitentia, 2nd ed., Prato, 1896, thesis IX-XI; L. de San, op. cit., n. 180-245; F. Pignataro, De disciplina paenitentiali priorum Ecclesiae saecul., Rome, 1904; Funk, Zur altchristlichen Bussdisciplin, Paderborn, 1897; Boudinhon, Sur l'histoire de la penitence, in Revue d'hist. et de Litter. relig., t. II, 1897, pp. 306, 496; Vacandard, in Rev. du Clerge francais, t. XIV, p. 192; t. XV, p. 195, etc.; id. in Vacant, Dict. de Theologie, t. I, p. 145-168; Batiffol, Etudes d'hist. et de theologie positive, 3rd ed., Paris, 1904; Swete, Penitential discipline in the first three centuries, in Journal of Theological Studies, April 1903, p. 321-337; Casey, Notes on a History of Auricular Confession, Philadelphia, 1889; P. A. Kirsch, Zur Geschichte der Katholischen Beichte, Wurzburg, 1902; Gartmeier, Die Beichtpflicht, 1905; G. Rauschen, Eucharistie und Bussakrament in den ersten Jahrhunderten der Kirche, 1908, in French, L'Eucharistie et la Penitence dans les six premiers siecles, trans. M. Decker and E. Ricard, 1910.

36. 2. General argument. But before we declare the individual texts, it is expedient to present a general argument, by proving that reconciliation with the Church also involves reconciliation with God, the testimonies of Scripture and of the Fathers being considered. It is proved by a twofold argument: (A) From the fact that to be united to the Church is the same as to be united to God Himself. (a) This is already clear from what was said in the Treatise on the Church, where we proved that the Church was instituted by Christ for sanctifying men (n. 607 ff.), and that outside the Church salvation is not given (n. 824 ff.): for from this it logically follows that to be truly and properly united to the Church is the same as to be joined to God Himself, who alone is the author of sanctification. (b) This indeed is confirmed from the fact that the Church, according to the doctrine of St. Paul, is the body of Christ, so that to be a member of the Church is the same as to be a member of Christ. (c) The most ancient Fathers teach the same, who, with St. Ignatius, assert that those who are intimately united to God and Christ are with the bishop, and that those who, led by penance, have returned to the unity of the Church, by that very fact are of God and live according to Christ.¹ The Fathers of the third and fourth centuries declare the matter more clearly, as we shall say below.

¹ Philad., III.

(B) From the comparison instituted by the ancient Fathers, Hermas and others, between baptism and penance as to the effects which they produce: for just as baptism internally and before God washes away sins, so likewise does penance, although in a different mode.

These things having been premised, we shall prove the thesis by a threefold class of testimonies: 1. by the implicit testimonies of the second century; 2. by explicit testimonies in the controversy with the Montanists; and 3. in the controversy with the Novatians. By way of appendix, we shall speak, 4. of penitential discipline through the first four centuries.

Yet we observe that certain documents of the earlier centuries, and indeed of the greatest importance, have perished, as can be inferred from the fact that the decree of Callixtus, concerning which below, is known to us only imperfectly, namely from the writings of Tertullian, who attacks it. Hence if the historical argument for the earlier centuries appears incomplete, that must be attributed, in part, to the paucity of documents; and therefore the things which are obscure must be elucidated both from the practice of the Church and from the documents of the subsequent age.

37. In the primitive age of the Church, the Doctors were wholly occupied in defending the fundamental dogmas of the faith, namely the unity of God, the divinity of the Christian religion, the divinity of Christ, the obedience to be furnished to bishops, etc. - Furthermore, under the influence of enthusiasm and fervor prevailing in the first Christian communities, not a few of the faithful thought that grave sins could scarcely be committed by the faithful, and therefore they thought little about penance. - Yet experience made it known that even the baptized were not impeccable, indeed that some also sometimes fell into very grave sins. From this arose the question whether and how these sins could be destroyed. Certain rigorists thought that sins committed after baptism were irremissible. Against them, the Fathers of the second century taught that sins committed after baptism can be destroyed through penance: not expressly, however, but incidentally and obscurely, if the matter is judged only from the documents which survive.

Prior law

74. 1. The first part renews the disposition of the prior law, by which, in the General Decrees, § 2, n. 13, all writings of this sort were punished. Cf. Arndt, p. 148, n. 119.

Whether it is required that it be done of set purpose

2. Because words are to be taken properly, and the Legislator is accustomed to express the clause of set purpose wherever he requires it; indeed because in this same article, in the third part, he inserts the expression by designed effort, we cannot agree with the distinguished Pennacchi, who thinks that clause is to be understood here. With us are Génicot,¹ Card. Gennari,² Moureau.³

Yet practically we do not differ much. For, arguing from the inscription of this fifth chapter, "On Certain Books of Special Subject Matter," we think it necessary that the book be injurious to God, etc., sufficiently notably, although not yet of set purpose, so that it can be said to be of this special subject matter.⁴ Otherwise, moreover, contrary to the mind of this Constitution, this condemnation would extend itself to too many books. Finally, as Génicot, cited place, observes, scarcely will those books be apt gravely to wound or diminish the just esteem of God, etc., unless they are books in which the detraction is developed to some extent. But that grave wounding seems altogether necessary. Therefore it is necessary either that the detraction "be made in a notable manner,"⁵ or that from those detractions the work itself be morally reputed impious. Desjardins elegantly translates: "impious works, which attack God," etc.⁶

Wherefore a work in which detraction against the Blessed Virgin Mary is continued through two or three pages, even if in other parts honorable, we judge to be prohibited by this article.

What it is to disparage? Formal detraction is required

3. Furthermore, to disparage is to take away, diminish, the fame or esteem of someone by words. In French you would say: vilipender, dénigrer, discréditer. Thus detraction differs from heresy, by which a dogma is not derided but denied. But detraction is to be taken as formal, flowing from a depraved intention, not merely material or beyond intention.

Examples

4. God, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the saints, the Catholic Church, and her worship or sacraments. Pennacchi, cited place, and C. Gennari⁷ report many examples of detractions of this sort, and well selected ones. Yet we do not, with Pennacchi, take the worship of the Church concerning the honor due to the Church, which would make that clause plainly useless, but concerning the divine worship which is exercised through liturgical actions. Thus the obvious sense has it, thus also the structure of the words which joins worship with sacraments: "and her worship or sacraments"; and with us say Desjardins, cited place, Son Culte; Gennari, cited place, Il sacro Culto; Hollweck, Ihr Cult; Planchard.⁸

What worship is

5. Apostolic See. This is not the person of some Pontiff as such. Yet if, from the intention of attacking the Holy See, reproachful narrations against various Supreme Pontiffs are heaped together, the present clause will obtain.

¹ Cited work, I, 452.

² On this place, p. 43.

³ Rev. des Sciences Eccl., t. 6, pp. 100, 101.

⁴ C. Gennari, cited place, sins here by excessive severity: "in whatever measure it is done (provided it is in grave matter)"; and Moureau, cited place: "it suffices that it be [injurious] in fact in some place."

⁵ Wernz, n. 111.

⁶ Études, t. 71, p. 208.

⁷ "He disparages God who blasphemes God or denies His goodness, justice, omnipotence, or any other attribute. He disparages the Blessed Virgin Mary who denies her virginity, divine maternity, sanctity, mercy, or in another way calumniates her excellence. He disparages the Saints who holds them as vicious or useless men, who are unworthy of honors, or who contemns their virtues and supernatural gifts. He disparages the Catholic Church who attacks some note or endowment of hers, or her divine origin, or equates her with other human institutes. He disparages sacred worship who exposes Catholic rites, as divine honors, to mockery, or detracts from their necessity and reasonable fittingness; he disparages the Sacraments who denies that they are necessary or useful, makes them ridiculous, or holds suspect the intentions of the Church administering them (that seems to us rather to be referred to detraction of the Church). He disparages the Apostolic See who contemns its supreme authority, divine institution, sublime and infallible magisterium." Thus nearly C. Gennari, on this place.

⁸ Desjardins, cited work, p. 34; Planchard, Rev. Th. Fr., n. 41.

1. The efficacy of the Sacraments depends solely on the will of God, and hence all that is required for their valid administration on the part of the minister is power and jurisdiction, proper application of matter and form, and an actual or at least a virtual intention of doing what the Church does.¹ It is a mortal sin for any one not in the state of sanctifying grace to administer a Sacrament solemnly. Ignorance, of course, is an excuse, and so is urgent necessity, as when the administration of Baptism or Penance cannot be postponed without danger to the salvation of others. In such urgent cases the minister is called minister necessitatis; in all others, minister called minister necessitatis; in all others, minister solemnitatis.

¹ Conc. Trident., Sess. VII, De Sacr., can. 10, 11, 12; Sess. XIV, De Poenit., can. 10 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 853, 854, 855, 920).

Hence the general rule that no Sacrament should be performed or administered by one who is in the state of mortal sin. One who is so unfortunate as to be called upon to administer a Sacrament in that state, should first cleanse himself by the worthy reception of Penance, if he can conveniently find a confessor (habita copia confessarii)² or else by an act of perfect contrition.

² Conc. Trident., Sess. XIII, cap. 7, can. 11; Rit. Rom., De Administr. Sacram., tit. i, n. 4; Codex Iuris Can., can. 807.

Matrimony is the only Sacrament that is not administered by the priest but by the contracting parties to each other, and hence husband and wife are themselves the ministers.³ They should receive this holy Sacrament in the state of grace, which means, ordinarily, that they should go to confession and Communion before plighting their troth.

³ Conc. Trident., Sess. XXIV, De Reform. Matr., c. i; Rit. Rom.t De Sacr. Matr., tit. 7, c. 1, n. 17.

In regard to the other Sacraments the question arises: If a priest who is in the state of mortal sin be called upon to administer a Sacrament, must he go to confession, or is perfect contrition sufficient? We answer: Perfect contrition suffices for all Sacraments except the Holy Eucharist (i. e., saying Mass). The reason is this: Perfect contrition, including the votum sacramenti, restores sanctifying grace, and the administration of all the Sacraments, with the exception of the consecration of the Eucharist, is always, morally speaking, a matter of necessity. When the celebration of Mass is a matter of necessity, as sometimes happens, it will suffice for the priest to make an act of perfect contrition, but he is bound to receive the Sacrament of Penance as soon thereafter as an opportunity offers, i. e., at least within three days, according to the common interpretation of the law.⁴

⁴ Conc. Trident., Sess. VI, c. 5-6.—Missale Rom., De Defect. in Cel. Missae, tit. 8, n. 2 sq.— Prop. Damnat. ab Alexandra VII., 38: "The command of the Council of Trent, given to a priest who celebrates from necessity while in mortal sin, to confess as soon as possible, is a counsel, not a precept."—Prop. 39: "That phrase ‘as soon as possible’ is understood to mean when the priest confesses in his own time." (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1138 sq.).—Cfr. Ferreres, Comp. Theol. M., ed. 8a, Vol. II, n. 431, qu. 5.

It follows that all those who are ex officio entrusted with the administration of the means of grace, are in duty bound to hold themselves in readiness to administer the Sacraments, in other words, to be habitually in the state of grace.⁵

⁵ Cfr. St. Augustine, Enarr. in Ps., CIII, s. i, n. 9: "Let those who use holy things unholily consider what account they will have with God." (Migne, Pat. La*., XXXVII, 1343).

So much for the interior disposition of the minister. Now for the act of administration. As the minister acts in the name and by authority of the Church, the first rule is that he must comply with her directions. Sancta sancte tractanda. Hence it is a mortal sin knowingly to employ the wrong matter or form, or, except in case of necessity, a matter or form of doubtful validity; since this would endanger the Sacrament. In cases of necessity (iusta causa) a doubtful matter or form may be employed, because the Sacraments are instituted for the sake of men (sacramenta propter homines). It is likewise sinful (mortally or venially, according to the circumstances of each case) to alter or mutilate the words of the form, to utter them inarticulately or without devotion, or to omit important rites or ceremonies prescribed by the Church. If this is done out of contempt for Christ or the Church, or if it causes grave scandal, the minister commits a mortal sin, and even when the motive is mere negligence, a mortal sin is committed every time the object is materia gravis.⁶ 2. The faithful have a right to the Sacraments, and hence all duly appointed ministers of the Church are bound in justice to administer the same whenever they are asked, and should always be ready and willing to comply with every reasonable request, nay exhort their people to make frequent use of the divinely appointed means of grace.⁷ It is a mortal sin for a priest entrusted with the care of souls to refuse to administer a Sacrament without good reason, or to administer it with manifest reluctance. Such conduct is apt to deter the faithful from the reception of the Sacraments and easily causes scan- dal. The duty of administering Baptism and Penance, in particular, binds even when there is danger of contracting a contagious disease or incurring grave risk to life or limb.⁸ Of course, all reasonable precautions may and should be taken in such cases. The duty just mentioned does not bind priests who are not officially engaged in pastoral work, though all are bound to respond to urgent calls when there is grave necessity, as, e. g., on the field of battle, or when some one is seriously ill or dying and no other priest can be had. The same rule applies to a pastor in his conduct towards those not under his care. We need hardly add, however, that no true priest will confine himself to what is of strict duty in matters of this kind.

⁶ Cfr. Conc. Trident., Sess. VII, De Sacr., can. 13 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 856); Rit. Rom., De Administr. Sacram., tit. 1, n. 11.

⁷ Cfr. Concilium Trident., Sess. XXIII, De Ref., c. i; Rit. Rom., De Administr. Sacram., n. 5.

⁸ John X, 11-13. —Benedict XIV, De Synodo Dioecesana, XIII, c. 19, n. 8.—Cfr. I. Chapeauville, Tract. de Necessitate et Modo Ministrandi Sacramento, Tempore Pestis, Mayence 1612.

It is forbidden (extra periculum mortis) to administer the Sacraments to persons who are notoriously unworthy (publice indigni), especially if these persons are excommunicated by name, or are under an interdict, or if they lead a life of public infamy, e. g., prostitutes, fortune tellers, concubinarians, and Freemasons publicly known as such, unless indeed they have done penance and repaired the scandal given. The reason for this prohibition is the danger of scandalizing the faithful and Christ's admonition not to give that which is holy to the dogs nor to cast pearls before swine.⁹

⁹ Matth. VII, 6.—Cfr. 1 Tim. V, 22.—Rit. Rom., De S. Eucharist. Sacr., tit. 4, c. 1, n. 8-9. —Chr. Pesch, Praelect. Dogmaticae, Vol. VI, 3rd ed., pp. 126 sqq.

In applying this rule attention must be paid to the distinction between public and private sinners and to the nature of the request made. If the priest knows of the unworthiness of an applicant only by his official position, i. e., through the confessional, he is obliged to administer the Sacrament asked for, e. g., Holy Communion, because the preservation of the seal and the good name of the recipient are more important than regard for the sanctity of the Sacrament. Hence if a person who is guilty of secret sin should publicly demand a Sacrament, his demand must not be refused if there is danger of public defamation or grave scandal. The case is different with public sinners and secret offenders who apply privately to the priest. To such (extra periculum mortis) no Sacrament should be administered except Penance and, under certain conditions, Matrimony.

To simulate a Sacrament, e. g., by administering an unconsecrated host, is never allowed, not even for the purpose of preventing sacrilege or saving one's life.¹⁰ To bless or pray over a penitent not properly disposed, in order to protect the secret of the confessional or the good name of the sinner, is not a simulatio or fictio sacramenti, and therefore permitted.¹¹

¹⁰ The proposition: "Urgent grave fear is a just cause for simulating the administration of the Sacraments." was condemned by Pope Innocent XI (Prop. Damnat., n. 29; Denz.- Bannwart, n. 1179).

¹¹ H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. III, 11th ed., pp. 40 sq.

READINGS. —St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, 3a, qu. 60-90. —St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, 1. VI, tr. 1-5 (ed. Gaudé, Vol. III).—P. Schanz, Die Lehre von den hi Sakramenten, Freiburg 1893, pp. 161 sqq. —N. Gihr, Die hl. Sakramente der kath. Kirche, Vol. I, 2nd ed., Freiburg 1902, pp. 140 sqq.—Chr. Pesch, S.J., Praelectiones Dogmaticae, Vol. VI, 3rd ed., pp. 98 sqq. —P. Pourrat, Theology of the Sacraments, 2nd ed., St. Louis 1914. —Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. I, St. Louis 1915, pp. 161 sqq. —Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology, Vol. II, 2nd ed., London 1901, pp. 366 sqq. —J. E. Pruner, Lehrbuch der Pastoraltheologie, Vol. I, 2nd ed., Paderborn 1904, pp. 94 sqq.—H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. III, 11th ed., pp. 3 sqq. —J. de Lugo, De Sacramentis in Genere, disp. 1-9. —Ballerini-Palmieri, SJ., Opus Theol. Mor., 3rd ed., Vol. IV, n. 642-710.—A. Lehmkuhl, SJ., Theol. Moral, Vol. II, 11th ed., pp. 1-43 —Sabetti-Barrett, SJ., Comp. Theol. Mor., 22nd ed., pp. 515 sqq.—Th. Slater, SJ., A Manual of Moral Theology, Vol. II, pp. 15 sqq.

1. BAPTISM. —Since the coming of Christ Baptism is "the laver of regeneration,"¹ in which every man must be washed, either actually (in re), or at least in desire (in voto), in order to be saved.²

² John III, 5.—Conc. Trident., Sess. VI, c. 4; Sess. VII, De Bopt., can. 2 sqq. (Denzinger-Bannwart, n, 796, 858 sqq.)—Cfr. Pesch, Prae- Sess, Praelect. Dogm., Vol. VI, 3rd ed., pp. 181 sqq.

¹ Tit. III, 5.

The necessity of Baptism, therefore, is a necessitas medii; but it is also a necessitas praecepti, on account of Christ's command to the Apostles to teach and baptize all nations.³

³ Matth. XXVIII, 19.

The precept of receiving Baptism obliges all who have the use of reason and are capable of receiving this Sacrament.⁴ Nothing can dispense from this duty except utter inability. a) Baptism being "the Sacrament of faith," is necessary for all men, including the children of Christian parents, and as an indispensable condition of membership in the mystic body of Christ imposes certain well-defined duties.

⁴ Conc. Trident., Sess. V, can. 4; Sess. VI, c. 7 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 799); Rit. Rom., De Sacr. Bapt., tit. 2, c. 1, n. 1.

Parents and their representatives are bound under pain of grievous sin to have their children baptized as soon as possible after birth. To allow a child to die without Baptism is a mortal sin. As regards the time, due attention should be paid to approved custom and local ecclesiastical regulations. Under the present discipline infants must be baptized as soon as it can conveniently be done.⁵ Most theologians deem it a mortal sin to defer Baptism for more than a month without reasonable cause. It is safe to say that the reception of this most important Sacrament should not be postponed for more than a few days unless there be some very good reason for delay.

⁵ Cat. Rom., P. II, c. 2, qu. 33. — Decree of the Holy Office, of Jan. 11, 1899: “It must be urged that Baptism be administered as soon as possible.” — Codex Juris Can., can. 770: "Infants are to be baptized as soon as possible; and pastors and preachers are frequently to remind the faithful of this grave obligation of theirs."

The Rituale Romanum forbids a child to be baptized in utero matris on the ground that the Sacrament cannot be validly administered under such conditions. This prohibition is based on an assumption which has proved to be unfounded. With the means now at command it is possible to baptize an infant in utero, and therefore it should be done. If the head can be reached, the child should be baptized in the regular way, and the Baptism must not be repeated if the child is born alive; if the head cannot be reached but some other limb protrudes, the child should be baptized conditionally and rebaptized sub conditione after birth.⁶

⁶ Codex Iuris Can., can. 746, § 1: "No one enclosed in the mother’s womb is to be baptized until there is probable hope that, once duly delivered, he can be baptized. If an infant has put forth the head and danger of death is imminent, he is to be baptized on the head; nor afterward, if he survives, is he to be baptized again conditionally. If he has put forth another member, he is to be baptized conditionally on it if danger is imminent; and then, if he lives after birth, he is again to be baptized conditionally." —Cfr. Rit. Rom., De Sacr. Bapt., tit. 2, c. 1, n. 16. —Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 68, art. 11.

Apparently still-born infants, and such as are incompletely developed (foetus abortivus) or abnormally shaped (monstra), should be conditionally baptized if there is doubt whether they are dead or alive.⁷

⁷ Codex Iuris Can., can. 747, 748.

In case a mother dies during pregnancy, the fetus should be carefully extracted from the womb and baptized, —absolutely if it is certainly alive, conditionally if there be doubt.⁸

⁸ Rit. Rom., De Sacr. Bapt., tit. 2, c. 1, n. 17. —Cfr. Stohr-Kannamuller, Handbuch der Pastoralmedisin, 5th ed., Freiburg 1909, pp. 479 sqq.; Pruner, Lehrb. d, Pastoraltheol., Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 157 sqq. —Codex Iuris Can., can. 746, § 4.

Infants should be baptized privately immediately after birth if there is reason to fear that they will die before the Sacrament can be administered in the ordinary way. This precept implies the duty, on the part of physicians and midwives, of calling attention to such danger, where it exists, and on the part of all concerned of seeing to it that the Sacrament is administered in time.⁹

⁹ Codex Iuris Can., can. 759, § 1; can. 743. —Rit. Rom., De Sacr. Bapt., tit. 2, c. 1, n. 13. —The decree of the Holy Office of Jan. 11, 1899, already quoted, says: "It can then be permitted that the midwife confer it when there is a positive fear that the child will die during the delay." —Cfr. J. B. Geniesse, La Mort Reclle et la Mart Apparente et leurs Rapports avec I'Administration des Sacrements, Paris 1906; J. Antonelli, Medicina Pastoralis, Vol. I, 2nd ed., Rome 1906, pp. 265 sqq.

b) After having their child baptized, parents are in duty bound to give it a good Christian education, in order that the grace conferred by Baptism may be preserved. In case of death or neglect, this duty devolves upon the sponsors, of whom there should be at least one and not more than two.¹⁰

¹⁰ Codex Iuris Can., can. 760, 764. —Rit. Rom., De Sacr. Bapt., tit. 2, c. 1, n. 25. —Cfr. C. Krieg, Wissenschaft der Seelenleitung, Vol. I, p. 110. Under the new Code no spiritual relationship is incurred by Baptism except between the baptizing minister and the person baptized, and between the latter and the sponsors (can. 768).

2. CONFIRMATION. —The Sacrament of Confirmation bestows the grace to be "a good soldier of Christ Jesus,"¹¹ to profess the Catholic faith courageously, and never under any circumstances to deny it. Hence all who are able to receive this Sacrament are in duty bound to do so.¹² Culpable neglect in this matter exposes one to great spiritual danger and is a mortal sin if inspired by formal contempt for the Sacrament or accompanied by grievous scandal, or when there is proximate danger of losing faith or charity.

¹¹ 2 Tim. II, 3. —Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 72, art. 1 and 7.

¹² Codex Iuris Can., can. 787.

Bishops are under a grave obligation of affording the faithful an opportunity to receive this Sacrament at least once every five years.¹³

¹³ Ibid., can. 785, § 3 sq.

Each person confirmed ought to have a separate sponsor, whose obligations are similar to those assumed by the sponsor at Baptism.¹⁴

¹⁴ Codex Iuris Can., can. 794, 797.

There is no obligation either to administer or to receive this Sacrament fasting, though, according to St. Thomas, "where it can conveniently be done, it is more becoming that both giver and receiver should be fasting."¹⁵

¹⁵ Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 72, art. 12, ad 2: "Because of the multitude of the faithful and the dangers that threaten, it is tolerated that this Sacrament, which can be given only by bishops, be given or received even by those who are not fasting, because one bishop, especially in a large diocese, would not suffice to confirm so many people if their time were restricted. Yet where it can suitably be observed, it is more fitting that it be given and received by those who are fasting."

The Holy Eucharist is entitled to an important place in Moral Theology because it has been instituted as the spiritual food of the soul, as a means to avoid everyday sins, and as a pledge of eternal glory.¹ Christ instituted this Sacrament for the twofold purpose of transforming and ennobling human nature, and enabling men to advance on the way to righteousness and become intimately united with God. As Communion the Holy Eucharist is both the efficient cause and sign of a real and mystic union with Jesus Christ ² —"the sacrament of ecclesiastical unity, which is brought about by many being one in Christ." ³ "From the Eucharist the martyrs drew their strength, the virgins their zeal, the saints their courage." ⁴ The nature and effects of this Sacrament give rise to the following obligations.

¹ John VI, 50 sqq.—St. Ignatius (Ep. ad Ephes., 20, 2) calls the Holy Eucharist "the medicine of immortality, the antidote that we should not die, but live forever in Christ." (Funk, Patres Apost., Vol. I, 2nd ed., p. 230). —Rit. Rom., De S. Euch. Sacr., tit. 4, c. 2, n. 6: "O sacred banquet, in which Christ is received, the memory of His Passion is recalled, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us."

² Cfr. John VI, 54; 1 Cor. X, 16 sq.—Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. II, 2nd ed., pp. 218 sqq.; M. Heimbucher, Die Wirkung der hi. Kommunion, Ratisbon 1884.

³ "The Sacrament of ecclesiastical unity, which consists in this, that many are one in Christ." (St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 82, art. 2, ad 2). —St. Augustine 123 exclaims: "O Sacrament of piety! O sign of unity! O bond of charity!" (TV. in loa., 26, n. 13). In another place (ibid., n. 14) he calls the Eucharist "panis concordiae." Again he says: "The martyrs are strong, the martyrs are steadfast; but bread strengthens the heart of man, the bread which came down from heaven." (Serm., 333, c. i; Migne, P. L., XXXVIII, 1464). —Cfr. K. Adam, Die Eucharistielehre des hl. Augustin, Paderborn 1908.

⁴ Don Bosco.

1. THE DUTY OF RECEIVING HOLY COMMUNION. —Holy Communion is not necessary as a means of salvation (necessitate medii), but a divine precept imposes upon all who have attained the use of reason the duty of receiving the Eucharist if possible (necessitas praecepti).⁵

⁵ Cfr. Luke XXII, 19; John VI, 4 1 Cor. XI, 26. —Conc. Trident., Sess. XIII, c. 2, can. 9; Sess. XXI, c. 4, can. 4 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 875, 891, 933, 937)- —St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 73, art. 3; qu. 80, art. 11. 5 "The most perfect and most necessary provision for the journey."

1. This duty is based on the same general reasons as that of receiving Confirmation, plus the additional one that Holy Communion is a food without which the supernatural life of the soul must needs grow weak or cease altogether. There can be no doubt that the divine precept of receiving the Holy Eucharist as viaticum 6 (when there is danger of death from whatever cause) obliges under pain of mortal sin, for Christ expressly declared: "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you." ⁷

⁷ John VI, 54. —Codex Iuris Can., can. 864, § 1. —Conc. Nicaen. I., can. 13 (Hefele, Concilicngeschichte, Vol. I, 2nd ed., p. 417). —Conc. Trident-, Sess. XIII, c. 8. —On the ancient custom of receiving Communion as viaticum see A. Struckmann, Die Gegenwan Christi in der hi. Eucharistie, Vienna 1905, pp. 210 sqq.

2. The duty with which we are concerned is inculcated by the well-known ecclesiastical precept which commands all the faithful who have attained the use of reason to receive Holy Communion at least once a year, during Easter time. This law, passed by the Fourth Council of the Lateran,⁸ was at first purely disciplinary, but received dogmatic character at the Council of Trent.⁹ The paschal precept must be regarded as an authentic interpretation of the divine command to eat the Body and Blood of the Lord. Needless to say, it can be fulfilled only by a worthy Communion.¹⁰ If for some reason the precept is not complied with during the paschal season, it remains binding for the remainder of the ecclesiastical year, and if one foresees that he will be unable to perform his Easter duty within or after the prescribed time, he should try to attend to it in advance.¹¹

⁸ Conc. Lat. IV. (A. D. 1215), c. 21 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 437).

⁹ Conc. Trident., Sess. XIII, can. 9. —Cfr. J. P. Gury, Comp. Theol. Moralis, Vol. II, n. 218 sq. —The new Codex Iuris Can. states the law of paschal Communion in the usual terms of our catechisms, but adds (can. 859, § 1): "unless perhaps, on the advice of his own priest and for some reasonable cause, he judges that its reception should be postponed for a time."

¹⁰ This has been indirectly defined by Innocent XI when he condemned the proposition: "The precept of annual Communion is fulfilled by a sacrilegious eating of the Lord." (Prop. Damnat., n. 55; Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1205). The new Codex Iuris Can. expressly says (can. 861): “The precept of receiving Communion is not fulfilled by a sacrilegious Communion.”

¹¹ Cfr. Koch-Preuss, Handbook of Moral Theology, Vol. I, p. 179. —St. Alphonsus, Theol. Moral., 1. VI, n. 297 sqq.

The place for making the Easter Communion is the parish church. One who makes it elsewhere, under the new Code of Canon Law, is admonished to inform his pastor of the fact.¹²

¹² Codex Iuris Can., can. 859, § 3: "The faithful are to be advised that each fulfill this precept of paschal Communion in his own parish; and those who fulfill it in another parish are to take care to notify their own pastor that the precept has been fulfilled." —On the history of this procept see A. Villien, A History of the Commandments of the Church, St. Louis 1915, pp. 210 sqq.

II. PREPARATION FOR COMMUNION. —The nature of the Holy Eucharist is such that it must be received with the greatest possible purity of soul and body. i. PREPARATION OF THE SOUL. —In order to receive Holy Communion worthily, the soul must be free from mortal sin.¹³ Therefore, if one is conscious of a mortal sin, he must worthily receive the Sacrament of Penance before approaching the Holy Table. If he must communicate, and confession is impossible, he should at least make an act of perfect contrition. Mortal sins forgotten in a worthy confession should, if a good opportunity offers, be confessed before approaching the Holy Table. There is, however, no strict obligation to do so, and if one has no opportunity to confess, it will suffice to mention such sins in the next confession. To receive the Holy Eucharist while conscious of mortal sin is a very grievous sin, and the greatest of sacrileges, though, contrary to the opinion of many, by no means the most grievous sin a man can commit.¹⁴

¹³ Cfr. 1 Cor. XI, 27 sqq.; Conc. Trident., Sess. XIII, c. 7, can. 11 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 880, 893); Sess. XXII, De Observ. et Evitand. in Celebrat. Missae. —Cfr. Prop, Dantnat. ab Alexandra VII., n. 38 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1138).

¹⁴ Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, 3a, qu. 80, art. 5; Pohle- Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 268 sq. —On the participation of Judas in the Last Supper see St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 81, art. 2; J. Belser, Die Geschichte des Leidens und Sterbens des Herrn, Freiburg 1903, pp. 162 sqq.

As an immediate preparation for Holy Communion, acts of faith, hope, charity, adoration, desire, devotion, and humility should be elicited. All these acts may profitably be directed to Christ's sacrificial death on the cross.¹⁵ A part of the preparation for Communion in the wider sense is the thanksgiving following its reception. This is a very important and effective means of preserving the graces obtained and of making them fruitful for the spiritual life. The thanksgiving after Communion should consist mainly in acts of adoration, humility, gratitude, love, and self-oblation,¹⁶ and should contain some special petitions and resolutions.

¹⁵ Cfr. Luke XXII, 19; 1 Cor. XI, 26; Rit. Rom., De Euch. Sacr., tit. 4, c. 1, n. 4; F. S. Renz, Die Geschichte des Messopferbegriffes, Vol. I, pp. 115 sqq.

¹⁶ Cfr. P. Lejeune, Avant et après la Communion, Paris 1901.

2. PREPARATION OF THE BODY. —On the part of the body the worthy reception of the Eucharist requires: a) Cleanliness and a decent habiliment. Neglect of these requisites betrays a moral defect and is a violation of the respect due to the Sacrament and to Jesus Christ, who is present therein. Holy Communion must not, however, be denied to those who suffer from diseases which ordinarily involve physical uncleanness, e. g., leprosy, smallpox, eczema, etc. The married are advised (though not commanded) to abstain from carnal intercourse immediately before and after Communion. ¹⁷ "Neither legitimate cohabitation nor a flow of blood nor seminal pollutions during sleep but only impious and illicit conduct can violate nature or expel the Holy Ghost/' ¹⁸ b) A second bodily requisite for the worthy reception of Communion is that the recipient be fasting. The Eucharistic fast, known as ieiunium naturale, consists in complete abstention from food and drink and everything that is ordinarily taken after the manner of food and drink (per modum cibi et potus) after midnight (post mediam noctem).¹⁹™ This law binds under pain of mortal sin and admits of no parvitas materiae. The term midnight is to be understood physically, not morally, but we are allowed to follow either standard or sidereal time.

¹⁷ Cfr. 1 Cor. VII. 5 sq.; Cat. Rom., P. II, c. 4, qu. 56; Innocent XI's Decree "Quum ad Aures," Feb. 12, 1679 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1147); Missale Rom., De Defect, in Celebr. Missae, tit. 9, n. 5; Pseudo- Augustine, Append. Serm., 292 (at. 244 De Temp.), n. 3 (Migne, P. L., XXXIX, 2298).

¹⁸ Constit. Apost., VI, c. 27 (ed. Funk, Vol. I, p. 371); cfr. Struckmann, Die Gegenwart Christi in der hi. Eucharistie, pp. 207 sqq.; St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, Suppl., qu. 64, art. 3.

¹⁹ St. Augustine, Epist., 54 (a/. 118), n. 8: "It pleased the Holy Spirit that, in honor of so great a Sacrament, the Lord’s body should enter the Christian’s mouth before other foods; for this is why that custom is observed throughout the whole world." (Migne, P. L., XXXIII, 203). Missale Rom., De Defect, in Celebr. Missae, tit. 9, n. 1-4; Rit. Rom., tit. 4, c. 1, n. 3. —St. Thomas says (Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 80, art. 8, ad 5): "The Roman Church begins the day at midnight. Therefore, if anyone takes anything after midnight by way of food or drink, he cannot receive this Sacrament on the same day; but he can if it was before midnight." —The new Codex Iuris Can. reinforces the old law as follows (can. 858, § 1): "One who has not observed the natural fast from midnight cannot be admitted to the Most Holy Eucharist unless danger of death is urgent or there is a necessity of preventing irreverence toward the Sacrament."

The Eucharistic fast does not, however, bind those who are in danger of death, i. e., who suffer from a disease in which the Holy Eucharist is given as viaticum (which may be done repeatedly in the course of the same illness²⁰20). Nor does it bind when there is danger of a profanation of the Sacrament by unbelievers, or of scandal or infamy, or when a priest is compelled to complete the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass after the Consecration, either because he has "consecrated" and consumed water instead of wine (in which case he is obliged to reconsecrate and consume both species) or, for good reason, the wine only, or because he is overcome by sudden illness or death. It is of precept to complete a Mass once it has proceeded beyond the consecration of the bread, and in case of necessity it may be done by one who is no longer fasting. If the priest who finishes a Mass in place of another has not yet said Mass himself, he is not allowed to say another Mass, etiam ablutione non sumpta, unless he has the privilege of binating.²¹

²⁰ See the decision of the Holy Office of Sept. 7, 1897, and that of the S. Congregation of the Council, of Dec. 7, 1906. —Codex Iuris Can., can. 858, § 2; 864, § 3.

²¹ Missale Rom., De Defect, in Celebr. Missae, tit. 10, n. 5. —Cfr. St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mort, 1. VI, n. 287 sqq.

The Eucharistic fast, finally, is not binding on in- valids or on those who have been legitimately dispensed by the Pope. Invalids may receive Communion once or twice a week even if they are obliged to take some liquid food.²¹

²¹ Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 858, § 2.

III. FREQUENT COMMUNION. —By frequent Communion (communio frequens) is understood the reception of the Holy Eucharist daily or at least several times a week. i. There can be no doubt that frequent Communion agrees perfectly with the teaching and practice of the Church. St. Augustine says that, unless a man's sins are so great as to merit excommuniation, he should not deprive himself of the daily medicine of the Body of Christ.²² The Council of Trent "admonishes, exhorts, begs, and beseeches... that all and each of those who bear the Christian name... would believe and venerate these sacred mysteries of [Christ's] Body and Blood with such constancy and firm- ness of faith, with such devotion of soul, with such piety and worship, as to be able frequently to receive that supersubstantial bread/' ²³ which, according to the same holy Synod, is "an antidote whereby we may be freed from daily faults and preserved from mortal sins/' "the spiritual food of our souls/' by which we are "fed and strength ²⁴ ened."

²² St. Augustine, Epist., 54 (al. ii 8), n. 4: "If sins are not so great that anyone is judged worthy of excommunication, he ought not separate himself from the daily medicine of the Lord’s body. Yet let each one do what, according to his faith, he piously believes should be done. For one, out of reverence, does not dare to receive daily, while another, out of reverence, does not dare to omit it on any day. This food desires only that it not be despised, just as the manna desired not to be loathed." (Migne, Pair. Lat., XXXIII, 201 sq.)—IDEM, Serm., 227 (al. 83 De Diversis): "You, the newly born, ought to know what you have received, what you are about to receive, and what you ought to receive every day." (P. L., XXXVIII, 1099). —Pseudo-Augustine, Append, Serm., 84 (al. 28 De Verbis Domini), n. 3: "Receive daily what may benefit you daily; live so that you may deserve to receive daily. He who does not deserve to receive daily does not deserve to receive after a year." (P. L., XXXIX, 1908 sq.). —The latter passage appears verbatim also in Pseudo-Ambrose, De Sacram., 1. V, n. 25 (P. L., XVI, 452).

²³ Conc. Trident., Sess. XIII, c. 8; Sess. XXII. c. 6 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 882, 944). —Cfr. the decree of Innocent XI, "Quum ad cures" (Denzinger-Bannwart. n. 1147 sqq. ); St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 80, art. 10; Lejeune, La Pratique de la Sainte Commitnion, Paris 1900; F. X. Godts, C.SS. R., Exagcrations Historiques et TMologiques concernant la Communion Quotidienne, Roulers and Bruxelles, 1904; Ch. Madridius. —J. P. Bock, De Frequenti Usu S. Eucharistiae Sacramenti, Vienna 1909.

²⁴ Conc. Trident., Sess. XIII, c. 2 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 875). — Cfr. Cat. Rom., P. II, c. 4, qu. 69; F. Meffert, Der hl. Alfons, pp. 253 sqq.

2. Since frequent Communion is so ardently desired by Jesus Christ and His Church, the way to the altar railing should be open to all the faithful without distinction of rank, class or condition. No one should be turned away who is in the state of grace and approaches the table of the Lord with a right intention. The right intention demanded by the Church consists in the desire to receive the Eucharist, not as a matter of habit, or out of vainglory or human respect, or for some other earthly motive, but for the purpose of pleasing God, of becoming more closely united with Him by charity, and of seeking this divine remedy for one's weaknesses and defects.²⁵

²⁵ Decree of the S. Congr. of the Council, Dec. 20, 1905, "Sacra Tri- dentina Synodus." The best English commentary on this decree is, The Decree on Daily Communion, by J. B. Ferreres, S.J., translated by H. Jimenez, S.J., London 1909.

The frequent reception of Holy Communion quite naturally entails certain demands upon the recipient.

While it would be presumptuous to set up absolute rules, we may safely say that a) It is fitting that he who receives Communion daily be free from conscious attachment to (venial) sin and strive earnestly and sincerely after perfection. However, though it is highly desirable that daily and frequent communicants be free from venial sins, at least from those which are entirely voluntary, and also from all attachment to sin, it is sufficient if they avoid mortal sins and harbor the earnest intention to sin no more, for with such a purpose they will inevitably be weaned more and more from sin. b) How often each one may go to Communion is a question to be decided by the confessor.²⁶ In admitting children to their first Communion, the parents and the confessor should be consulted, but the final decision rests with the pastor.²⁷

²⁶ Innocent XI's Decree "Quum ad aures" (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1147): "Frequent approach to receive the sacred nourishment is to be left to the judgment of confessors who examine the secrets of the heart; from purity of conscience, the fruit of frequency, and progress in piety, they ought to prescribe to laymen engaged in business and to married persons whatever they foresee will benefit their salvation." (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1147). —Cfr. Leo Kill's Decree "Quemadmodum omnium rerum hutnanarum," Dec. 17, 1890.

²⁷ Codex Iuris Can., can. 854, 5 5-

In regard to frequent Communion two extremes must be avoided: (i) Jansenistic rigorism, which demands a high state of perfection, and (2) laxism, which regards the frequent reception of the Holy Eucharist as an infallible mark of predestination.²⁸

²⁸ Prop. Damnat. ab Alex. Vlll., Dec. 7, 1690, prop. 22: "Those are to be judged sacrilegious who claim a right to receive Communion before they have done fitting penance for their offenses." —Prop. 23: "Likewise those in whom there is not yet a most pure love of God, free from every admixture, are to be kept from Holy Communion." (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1313)- —Prop. Damnat. sub Innoc. XI., prop. 56: "Frequent confession and Communion, even in those who live like pagans, is a sign of predestination." (Denzinger-Bannwart, n- 1206).

Since the promulgation of the decree " Sancta Tridentina Synodus/' Dec. 20, 1905, it is forbidden to engage in " contentious controversies " concerning the dispositions required for frequent and daily Communion.²⁹

²⁹ Decree "Sancta Tridentina Synodus," art. 9; Ferreres, The Decree on Daily Communion, p. 33.

—The duty of adoring Christ in the Blessed Sacrament is fulfilled, broadly speaking, by participating in the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, which is the acme and centre of our religion. The custom of offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in common on Sundays is as old as Christianity itself.³⁰ The duty of attending Mass on Sundays and holydays was enforced by ecclesiastical synods since the sixth century.³¹ Under the present discipline this duty can be complied with in any church or in any public or semi-public oratory.³² Pastors are bound to offer the Holy Sacrifice on every Sunday and holyday of obligation for the people under their charge.

³⁰ Cfr. Justin Martyr, Apolog., I, 65 sq.; Pliny, Epist.. X, 97; Tertullian, De Fuga, c. 14.

³¹ Conc. Agath., A. D. 506, can. 47; cfr. the Decretum Gratiani, dist. i, can. 64, De Consecratione (Friedberg' s ed., Leipsic 1879, col. 1312).

³² Cfr. Noldin, Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, 11th ed., pp. 280 sqq. —Conc. Trident., Sess. XXII, Deer, de Observandis; Sess. XXIII, c. 1, De Ref. —Codex Iuris Cano- nlci, can. 859, § 3.—Instruct™ Pa- Storalis Eystettenstis, 5th ed., Freiburg 1902, pp. 20 sqq.

Moved to compassion by the errors that are current in a society become partly pagan, by the ignorance to which many of the Faithful are becoming more and more the victims so far as to lose sight of the sanctity of their state of life, and by the growing corruption of morals against which nature protests, the Supreme Pastor declares that he yielded to an imperious necessity in publishing an encyclical which is doctrinal and which at the same time highly champions the cause of Christian marriage.

The Sovereign Pontiff wished to remind every one of what is now too commonly ignored, the sanctity of marriage, especially of Christian marriage; to stigmatize the false principles and practical abuses relating to it, and to win the Faithful away from them; and to point out the way of escape from the deplorable state of affairs, and give hope of a restoration beautiful in itself and salutary to society. To this end, the Vicar of Jesus Christ wishes through the voice of the Bishops to instruct the entire Church, and even the whole human race¹. On the nature and dignity of marriage, especially Christian marriage; 2. On the blessings and benefits which flow from it for the family and for society ; 3. On the prevailing errors on the subject of marriage; 4. On the abuses that are commonly practised against the conjugal state 5. On the principal remedies to do away with the abuses and to restore Christian marriage to its true place.

¹ P. 22 of the edition published by the America Press, February, 1931. (It is to this edition that all page references will be made.) All quotations in italics are from the Encyclical.

The encyclical falls naturally into three principal divisions : The fundamental principles, and the three great benefits and blessings of marriage: children, conjugal fidelity, and sacramental elevation;

Erroneous theories and the vices contrary to these three great blessings, together with their sad consequences; The principal remedies to avoid the abyss into which the abuses against marriage are drawing society, and to make way for the restoration of marriage to its true dignity.

By no means. Fifty years before, on February 10, 1880, Leo XIII published a doctrinal Encyclical beginning with the word “Arcanum.” Its chief purpose was to set forth the sacred character of every conjugal union, and to condemn purely civil marriages and divorce.

On the contrary the Pope expressly desires to give it new force, and he makes all its teachings his own. More than once he appeals to it as an authority.

The new one has a more practical purpose. Whereas the Encyclical “Arcanum” concerned itself chiefly with theory and refuted the errors embodied in civil legislation, the Encyclical “Casti Connubii,” while not departing from theoretical principles, pays special attention to erroneous teachings which have more recently gained currency, and condemns the vices which are now perverting marriage. It is particularly designed to meet the needs of the present time.

The Encyclical lays down to begin with this immutable fundamental doctrine: Matrimony was not instituted or restored by man, but by God ; not by man were the laws made to strengthen and confirm and elevate it but by God, the Author of nature, and by Christ our Lord by whom nature was redeemed.

The Encyclical tells us:¹ This is the doctrine of Holy Scripture, this is the constant tradition of the Universal Church, this is the solemn definition of the Sacred Council of Trent, which declares and establishes from the words of Holy Writ itself that God is the author of the perpetual stability of the marriage bond, its unity and its firmness. Genesis records that God gave the first woman as a companion to Adam, who, by Divine inspiration, as the Council of Trent tells us,² exclaimed: “This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: wherefore a man shall leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh.” This is what comes about by the use of marriage. God confirmed this inspiration by blessing them both and saying to them: “Increase and multiply.” Our Lord Himself quoted the words of Adam as containing the Divine law of unity, which limits true marriage to two persons.

¹ Pp. 22, 23.

² Sess. XXIV, De Sacramento Matrimony, at the beginning.

We mean that these laws are written in man’s very nature, even apart from all revelation.

The law of unity; the law of perpetuity; the law of indissolubility.

By human authority, yes. Man, being subject to the rational moral order can in no case derogate from it even for purposes which he thinks good. But God, the Author of nature and of order, can without offense to His own wisdom make some exceptions to laws other than the most principal or most essential ones. This He may do by positive authorization of the exceptions, for ends worthy of Himself, or by tolerating them through consideration of the weakness of human nature, with due regard to all the circumstances. Never has He permitted adultery or free love or fornication ; but He did tolerate among the Jews a certain

polygamy, and even in certain cases the repudiation of the wife.¹

¹ “Every action,” says St. Thomas, whose doctrine we abridge (Supplement 3 P. q. 67, art. 15), “which contradicts the end which nature has in view, is called contrary to the natural law. But such an action may be contrary to a primary or to a secondary end . . . according as it entirely prevents the attainment of the end or only makes its attainment more difficult or less perfect. Thus if an act is so contrary to the end intended by nature as to render a primary purpose directly unattainable, that act is forbidden by a primary precept of the natural law; if it prevents in any way the attainment of a secondary end, or makes a primary end more difficult or less perfect in its realization, it is forbidden, not in virtue of the primary precepts of the natural law, but in virtue of the secondary precepts which are derived from the primary; and in this sense it is contrary to the natural law. Now marriage has for its principal end the procreation and education of children, . . . and for its secondary end, community of life. . . . Plurality of wives does not entirely suppress nor even prevent the attainment of the primary end, since one husband can be a father by several wives and can educate the children they may bear him. But, as regards the secondary end, polygamy, if it does not entirely suppress it, at least places a great obstacle to its realization, for peace will not easily reign in a family where several wives claim the same husband. Thus it is clear that polygamy is in one way contrary to the natural law, while in another way it is not.” It is for this reason that God, but God alone, was able to dispense from the Divine law which made unity a necessary condition of conjugal union. (The same work, art. 2, c.) As for the power of putting away the wife, St. Thomas is of the opinion that it did not render the act licit, but merely exempted it from the legal penalty, and that this power was accorded only to prevent a greater evil, that is the murder of the wife. (The same work, q. 67, art. 3, c.) In the preceding article, however, he names indissolubility among the secondary precepts of the natural law, in which God can give a general dispensation. For that matter, there is no doubt of God’s power to permit divorce for higher reasons of His Providence. (Compare Meyer, Institutiones Juris Naturalis, Part 2, Thesis XVII, p. 99, 5.)

We prove it by the analysis of the sentiment which leads to the conjugal union; by the conjugal union considered in itself; and by the evil consequences of plurality. The sentiment of love, quite a different thing from that of quiet friendship, is jealous and exclusive. “Conjugal love,” says Abbé Dermine,¹ “must be exclusive under pain of dissolving itself. Conjugal love shared with another excites jealousy and divides the heart.” “I want to love you, you alone, you more than all the world. We want to belong to each other, live for each other, share joy and suffering together. That is the way this love expresses itself.”² Moreover the practically equal number of births of the two sexes shows that polygamy is possible only by the killing or mutilation of human beings—two abuses contrary to nature. Besides how could the mutual total self-surrender which the conjugal union implies be realized between more than two people?

Finally, plurality of wives reduces each one to a condition of too great inferiority; plurality of husbands lowers the male sex, and, by throwing doubt upon paternity, takes away from marriage one of the resources intended for the education of the child.

¹ Les lois du mariage chrétien, p. 103.

² Schilgen, Im Dienste des Schöpfers, p. 58.

We prove it by the natural aspiration of the sentiment of love which desires to last forever ; by the irrevocable character of mutual self-surrender, which takes away from the woman her integrity; by the duty of education, which by its nature requires years, and which goes on indefinitely, being renewed at every birth; finally, by the duties of mutual help and mutual upbuilding which are implied in marriage and which do not cease until death.

We prove it by the irreparable consequence which the consummation of marriage entails for the bride; by the obstacle which the mere possibility of divorce puts in the way of a perfect union between the spouses; and by the harm which the breaking of the bond necessarily inflicts upon the children. (See also Number 64 and the following sections.)

Because Christ, in virtue of His Divine power, suppressed polygamy which, even for the Jewish people, had been merely tolerated under the Old Law; and abolished the repudiation of the wife which the law of Moses had allowed in certain cases. In this way He restored to marriage its primitive unity and stability. Therefore [says the Sovereign Pontiff] although before Christ the sublimeness and the severity of the primeval law was so tempered that Moses permitted it to the chosen people of God on account of the hardness of their hearts that a bill of divorce might be given in certain circumstances; nevertheless Christ, by virtue of His supreme legislative power, recalled this concession of greater liberty and restored the primeval law in its integrity by those words which must

never be forgotten: “What God hath joined together let no man put asunder.”¹

¹ P. 31.

Polygamy and repudiation were tolerated in virtue of a Divine dispensation, as being reconcilable strictly speaking with the essential demands of nature. (See Number 11, above.) As regards the reason why, Our Lord Himself in the passage where He restores both the conjugal unity and indissolubility gives but this one reason for it: that the dispensations had been a concession to the moral weakness of the Jewish people.

Yes, the Sovereign Pontiff expressly teaches in this Encyclical that all forms of polygamy are abolished for the entire world. After recalling the fact that the primitive law of marriage was monogamy, the Holy Father adds:¹ And although afterwards this primeval law was relaxed to some extent by God, the Supreme Legislator, there is no doubt that the law of the Gospel fully restored that original and perfect unity and abrogated all dispensations, as the words of Christ and the constant teaching and action of the Church show plainly. With reason therefore does the Sacred Council of Trent solemnly declare: “Christ Our Lord very clearly taught that in this bond two persons only are to be united and joined together when He said: ‘Therefore they are no longer two but one flesh.’” Consequently when the Holy Father, immediately after these words, declares that Our Lord wished “to condemn any form of polygamy or polyandry,” he evidently means a condemnation which applied to the whole world. The restoration of a law which was primitively universal, is itself universal.

¹ Pp. 27, 28.

It has the very noble part of giving rise to every particular marriage. Every marriage is created by mutual consent, and that consent no other human power can supply. (Canon 1081, §1.)

It must be free. Each of the two parties must really wish to contract marriage, and to contract it with a certain determinate person.

If the consent were given under the influence of grave fear resulting from a human action, the marriage would be void, at least by ecclesiastical law.

Because fear from any other cause (unless, indeed, it were so excessive as to interfere with the deliberation which is essential to any human act), for example the emotion arising from some misfortune, from a storm, an earthquake, an illness, the thought of the punishments of the future life, does not nullify marriage nor any other contract.

Because the invalidity or nullity of the marriage by the natural law is less evident; it is a disputed question.

Consent can change some of the accidental terms, such as the agreement to live in such or such a place, but it can alter neither the nature of the contract nor the essential laws which govern it, because these are fixed by the law of God. The nature of marriage [says the Encyclical] is entirely independent of the free will of man, so that if one has once

contracted matrimony he is thereby subject to its Divinely made laws and its essential properties.¹

¹ P. 23.

If the mistake were purely interior it might be implicitly corrected by the preponderant intention to contract marriage, but, as the Encyclical states, citing St. Thomas,¹ these things are so contained in matrimony by the very marriage pact that if anything to the contrary were expressed in the consent which makes the marriage, it would not be a true marriage.

¹ Sum of Theology, III, Supplement, question 49, article 3, body.

By matrimony the souls of the contracting parties are joined and knit together more directly and more intimately than are their bodies, and that not by any passing affection of sense or spirit, but by a deliberate and firm act of the will; and from this union of souls, by God's decree, a sacred and inviolable bond arises.¹

¹ P. 23.

Lawful authority has the right and even the strict duty to forbid, prevent, and punish those shameful unions which are contrary both to reason and nature, [for example adultery, the corruption of children, etc., but] to take away from man the natural and primeval right of marriage is beyond the power of any human law.¹

¹ P. 23.

In the case of baptized persons, who in consequence of their baptism are subject to the authority of the Church, the peculiarly sacred character of their marriage has this consequence, that the Church alone can create impediments or sanction those which the civil law may have established. In the case of unbaptized persons, one may admit the competence of the civil authority, not as merely secular, but because for those persons the authority of the State is by

the very necessity of the case extended, with certain limitations, into the field of religion and morality.¹ The activity of the State as such should be restricted to regulating the civil effects of marriage: the tenure of property, the order of inheritance, the registry of births.

¹ Dermine, La doctrine du mariage chrétien, p. 28, note: “In pagan countries, marriage is regulated by the State, not as a civil but as a religious institution.”

Because positive human law, while it may for the common good establish regulations for the use of a right, has no authority to suppress the right itself which is given by nature. Now nature, in bestowing upon human beings the power of generation, allows the normal use of that power. In other words, the office of a human lawgiver is to adapt the order of nature to varying circumstances and to supplement its general decrees by more definite provisions; but he cannot subvert or contradict that order, as he himself is subject to it.

There follows from them this beautiful conclusion, that the sacred partnership of true marriage is constituted both by the will of God and the will of man; from God comes the very institution of marriage, the ends for which it was instituted, the laws that govern it, the blessings that flow from it, while man through generous surrender of his own person, one to another for the whole span of life, becomes, with the help and cooperation of God, the author of each particular marriage, with the duties and blessings annexed thereto from Divine institution.¹

¹ P. 24.

It is not. Assaults are actually launched against it to ridicule and disparage it, to exalt the vices that violate its sanctity, and to substitute in its place monstrous unions which are more in accord with what is called the “modern mind,” that is the spirit which denies the Faith and the morality founded on Faith, under the pretext of “emancipating itself from ancient prejudices.”

By all the channels of publicity which science places at the disposal of everyone: by books, not only obscene or subtly suggestive novels, but works that pretend to be scientific; by newspapers and magazines, text and illustration; by theaters, movies, the radio; by official propaganda as well as by advice given openly or under cover. These thoughts are instilled into men of every class, rich and poor, workers and masters, lettered and unlettered, married and single, the godly and the godless, old and young,— but for these last, as easier prey, the worst snares are laid.¹

¹ P. 35.

As in all errors, there are in this matter extremists and moderates; and the more moderate errors themselves admit of various degrees. As a matter of fact, it is the moderates who do the most harm, because they give less alarm and thus succeed more readily in seducing the mind and effecting a transition which paves the way for the worst excesses. The most moderate are those who, whilst they retain in theory the moral principles relating to marriage, believe that in practice certain concessions should be made to human weakness, that certain difficulties should be met by compromise. Not all the sponsors of these new doctrines are carried

to the extremes of unbridled lust. There are those who, striving as it were to ride a middle course, believe, nevertheless, that something should be conceded in our time as regards certain precepts of the Divine and natural law. But these likewise, more or less wittingly, are emissaries of the great enemy who is ever seeking to sow cockle among the wheat.¹

¹ Pp. 35, 36.

It is deeply rooted in atheistic materialism, which is fatally blinded to whatever is above the things of the senses and of earth; in sensualism which mistakes sensual pleasure for happiness and governs everything by the dictates of the lower appetites; in a spineless education which no longer concerns itself with self-conquest; in a disregard of the Cross of Christ, which makes satisfaction instead of duty the absolute standard. Corrupted by these evil influences, man has forgotten how to look up, how to restrain his passions, how to practise the self-denial, at times heroic, which right conduct demands. The message of Christian doctrine is: Lift up your hearts! It says: Master your appetites. It preaches the Cross, and denial of self. It demands faith in Jesus crucified. If anyone wants to understand marriage, he must first understand Christ; and whoever wants to understand Christ must know the meaning of the Cross.”¹

¹ Dr. W. Spael, Le mariage chrétien. Premières considérations sur l’Encyclique . . . Kölnische Volkszeitung, Jan. 31, 1931. Supplément hebdomadaire, Im Schritt der Zeit. Documentation Catholique, 1931, p. 460.

Their basic principle lies in this, that matrimony is repeatedly declared to be not instituted by the Author of nature nor raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a true Sacrament, but invented by man. Some confidently assert that they have found no evidence for the existence of matrimony in nature or in her laws, but regard it merely as the means of producing life and of gratifying in one way or another a vehement impulse. On the other hand, others

recognize that certain beginnings, or as it were seeds, of true wedlock are found in the nature of man, since, unless men were bound together by some form of permanent tie, the dignity of husband and wife or the natural end of propagating and rearing the offspring would not receive satisfactory provision, at the same time they maintain that in all beyond this germinal idea matrimony, through various concurrent causes, is invented solely by the mind of man, established solely by his will.¹

¹ P. 36.

That the laws and morals of marriage are variable, according to prevailing ideas and the shifting circumstances of human affairs; that the generative power has a wider range than matrimony; and hence that it may be exercised outside as well as within the confines of wedlock.

The Holy Father repudiates in the name of Catholic morality, or rather in the name of natural morality: temporary marriages, contracted only for a definite time, for example whilst the parties live in a certain country or are engaged in a certain enterprise; trial marriages, entered upon as a provisional experiment; companionate marriage, based on a so-called friendship which claims the most intimate relations, but insists on their remaining unfruitful. Whilst he condemns these enormities, the Holy Father is even more severe against the effrontery of those who insist that these monstrosities be legitimatized by law or at least legally tolerated.

The Encyclical brands in the first place the base selfishness and the audacious lie of many who dare to call the

child “the disagreeable burden of matrimony”;¹ it brands the “criminal abuse”² of those who avoid children by frustrating the marriage act, whether they wish to gratify their passions without the consequent burden, or whether they excuse themselves on the ground of two concurrent impossibilities: that they cannot on the one hand remain continent, nor on the other have children. This last impossibility is claimed to exist either because of personal difficulties, or the condition of the mother, or family circumstances.

¹ P. 37.

² The same work.

He rejects them all at one sweep by reminding us:¹ No reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Conjugal relations debased in this way are nothing more than “a form of debauchery which the world has come to look upon as regular and permissible.”²

¹ P. 38.

² Paul Bureau, L’Indiscipline des moeurs.

He does this in three ways: 1. By a proof from natural reason. It is a violation of nature to deliberately deflect from its natural end an act which belongs to the rational order to which we are subject. Now the marital act belongs to that superior order to which we are all subject. And its natural purpose is procreation. Hence any artifice which deprives the conjugal act of this its destiny is necessarily and always a violation of nature. 2. By Holy Scripture. According to the interpretation which is accepted in the Church, God struck Onan dead because he was guilty of this sin. 3. He proves it from the teaching of the Church, where he states that an uninterrupted traditional Christian teaching reprobates these practices, and where he solemnly confirms this teaching of the ordinary magisterium of the Church.

Before formally answering so grave a question it seems proper to quote the words of the Sovereign Pontiff himself.

Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition, some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God had entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of Divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: Any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offence against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.¹ Next, let us remember that the Pope, either alone or in union with the College of the Bishops, is the teaching Church, whose infallibility is guaranteed by Our Lord Jesus Christ. The Church speaks through the Pope, not as through her messenger, but as through her head and teacher. This mission of teaching and of defending the integrity of morals to which the Holy Father appeals here, is in himself. Infallible, in matters of faith and morals, is the traditional and constant doctrine of the Church treasured in the ordinary magisterium of the Bishops united to the See of Peter. Infallible is the solemn proclamation of a doctrine regarding faith or morals which the supreme Pastor, speaking as such to the universal Church, obliges it to hold. To what conclusion do these considerations lead us? We must conclude that the Holy Father, who, in this Encyclical, from the start, declares that he is addressing himself to the entire Church and even to the whole world: (a) States that on this question of conjugal onanism, there exists a Christian doctrine which has been transmitted from the beginning and which has been always faithfully kept, and hence is already infallibly taught by the ordinary magisterium; (b) Takes occasion from the departure from this doctrine on the part of some to promulgate it solemnly for all; and since he does this as teacher of the universal Church, conscious of his mission to teach, and as a sign of his Divine mission, he thereby obliges all to hold this doctrine. It is,

as he explicitly states, the Catholic Church which speaks by his mouth. In the presence of such language on the part of the supreme Pastor,² we cannot doubt that we are confronted with one of those cases, which are not infrequent, where the Pope teaches infallibly a truth already defined and believed by the Church. This is the reason why the Sovereign Pontiff can also declare himself an infallible interpreter of the primitive Church.³

¹ P. 38.

² The phrase in which the Holy Father declares that the Catholic Church speaks through his mouth on this subject, “is extremely solemn and impressive.” Dr. John Ryan, Ecclesiastical Review, 1931, p. 265, “The Moral Teaching of the Encyclical.”

³ We admit, however, that there are some very estimable priests who hesitate to recognize this as an infallible declaration ex cathedra distinct from the equally infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium. On the other hand, a professor of theology, after a personal study of the passage, said to us: “If that is not an infallible definition, I do not know what terms the Pope could use in order to make one.” The manner in which the Belgian Bishops in their Pastoral on the Encyclical represent the role assumed by the Vicar of Jesus Christ in this memorable document, serves only to confirm our conviction. See Z. H. Paus, Pius XI, Wereld-brief “Casti Connubii” en het Belgisch Episcopaat (Vastenbrief 1931) over het Christelijk Huwelijk, p. 53.

— A Sacrament of the New Law is a sensible thing which, from the stable institution of Christ, has the power of effecting the sanctity or grace which it signifies.

No one is ignorant that there have been and still exist several usages, even ecclesiastical ones, of the word sacrament. But we assume the word in the technical usage of this book in the definition.

It is defined by faith in Trent, Session VII, canon 1, that there are seven sacraments, neither more nor fewer, truly and properly such, namely baptism, confirmation, eucharist, penance, extreme unction, order, and matrimony, and that all and each were instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord.

This definition does not prevent Christ, the author of the sacraments, from having been able to commit the ultimate determination of the elements of a sacrament to the Church. Concerning this matter dogmatic theologians are to be approached. This power of the Church is also the reason why moral theologians, solicitous for practical security, are accustomed, more than dogmatic theologians, to define the conditions of validity circumspectly and severely. The same power imposes on us also a diligent attention to the sacramental decrees which are issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, through which the supreme authority of the Church is accustomed to express its mind in this matter.

As a sensible thing assumed for signifying, a sacrament is in the genus of sign. But it is proper to this sign that by signifying it operates, and indeed operates that which it signifies.

But it signifies sanctifying grace, whether first grace, when it first gives or restores it; or second grace, when it increases the same; then sacramental grace, special to the individual sacraments, that is, a special right to helps accommodated to the end of each sacrament.

But it signifies these things by means of the very title to having these things, which it places in the soul. This title, in three sacraments, constitutes a real, spiritual, indelible quality. That quality is called character, which, according to St. Thomas (3 p., q. 63, art. 3, c.), "is specially the character of Christ"... a certain participation of the priesthood of Christ, derived from Christ himself. But the sacraments by which it is imprinted are baptism, confirmation, and order. As often as these sacraments are validly conferred, that character is imprinted, although an obstacle can stand in the way of the further effect of grace.

Not only in these but in all sacraments, very many theologians, after St. Thomas, distinguish that which is sign only, or signifies and is not signified: the sacrament itself; that which is reality and sacrament, because it is simultaneously signified and further signifies, as character; finally, that which is reality only, or which is merely signified and does not signify: sanctifying and sacramental grace.

But what is the proper character of the three sacraments which imprint character, and what, in the other sacraments, is the title demanding grace, does not plainly agree even among those who think that in all sacraments there is reality and sacrament.

Moreover, a sacrament is a stable sign, or a sign instituted permanently in the Church militant. Wherefore the washing of feet at the Last Supper, the breathing by which Christ risen gave the Holy Spirit to the apostles, and the words of Christ to Magdalene and to the paralytic, "Your sins are forgiven you," although they signified the spiritual effect of grace, are not sacraments, since perpetual institution is lacking.

Finally, it effects or operates grace ex opere operato, that is, by its use and application through its own efficacy, and not ex opere operantis, or not from the act and disposition of the minister, which, even when it is required for the effect of the Sacrament, is not the cause, but the condition without which not.

— Properly speaking, the following are not sacraments:

1. The figures and sacraments of the Old Law: various purifications and consecrations of priests; the paschal lamb, and especially circumcision; both because they were not instituted by Christ and because they did not effect true sanctity. And although, from the received opinion of theologians, circumcision at one time took away original sin through true grace, it did this either ex opere operantis, in adults, or not ex opere operato simply and rigorously; for it did not contain grace as cause, because the fountain of grace had not yet flowed forth, that is, the merits of Christ had not yet been acquired through his passion; nor did it formally confer grace insofar as it was circumcision and from its own institution, but insofar as it was a profession of faith; nor did it confer it by force of its application and use, for it did not give it to everyone not placing an obstacle. But circumcision was a sign of incorporation into the people heir of temporal promises, which were a figure of the spiritual promises made to those who are children of Abraham not by flesh but by spirit, that is, to the Christian people.

2. Sacrifices both of the Old and of the New Law, because they are formally instituted not for conferring grace ex opere operato, but for exhibiting and rendering worship to God. Although the Sacrifice of the New Law, or the Mass, obtains grace ex opere operato for him for whom it is offered.

3. Martyrdom, because although it confers grace ex opere operato, it is not specially instituted for this end.

4. Sacramentals, as the blessing of an abbot, because precisely from their use and ex opere operato they do not confer grace.

5. Acts of virtues, because they do not confer grace but merit it, and they are not all sensible.

— Therefore the sacraments are divided:

1. Into sacraments of the living, which, instituted for nourishing or increasing grace, of themselves demand a subject already living or endowed with sanctifying grace; and of the dead, which, instituted for conferring first grace, do not require in the subject an antecedent state of grace. The sacraments of the dead are baptism and penance; extreme unction is of a certain mixed character; the other four are of the living. Yet in a true sense, even first grace derives from the eucharist, insofar as, before the reception of the eucharist, no one obtains grace except from some desire for it, "either through himself, as adults, or by the desire of the Church, as little ones" (St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 79, art. 1 ad 1).

2. Into sacraments necessary by necessity of means or of precept, and not necessary. Necessary of themselves for all are baptism and eucharist; necessary after grave sin is the sacrament of penance; necessary in a qualified way are confirmation and extreme unction; of simply free use are order and matrimony.

Necessity is considered with respect to individuals; for those which are of free option to individuals, that is, order and matrimony, are most necessary to the Church.

3. Into sacraments repeatable or not repeatable. Strictly, the latter are those which imprint character (c. 732, §1). From the present discipline, extreme unction cannot be repeated in the same danger of death.

4. Into formed sacraments, which are as it were completed by the effect of grace, and unformed or not formed sacraments, which, validly administered, nevertheless, because of a defect of disposition in the subject, do not confer grace on the subject. At least some, with the obstacle removed, revive or confer grace: this is certain concerning the sacraments which imprint character. Concerning the others the matter is less clear, but, with the eucharist excepted, it can probably be affirmed. Cf. below, n. 208.

— On the Matter and Form of the Sacraments. Sacraments can be taken by way of a physical composite or by way of an artificial composite. In the former way, they are compared by scholastic doctors with physical substances which consist of matter and substantial form. Matter is the more determinable part; form is the determining and perfecting part. Matter itself is distinguished as remote: the sensible thing, as, in baptism, water; in the eucharist, bread and wine; in extreme unction, blessed oil; and as proximate, or the same matter as employed in the sign: the very action of washing or immersing, of anointing, in baptism and extreme unction; the sacramental species remaining after the conversion, in the sacrament of the eucharist. Form is the words or what is put in their place, as, in matrimony, the sign of consent.

Here we are treating of the former account.

In the other way, or when sacraments are taken by way of an artificial composite, the matter and form themselves, or the things and words together, have themselves after the manner of matter, but the signification after the manner of form.

— On the Union of Matter and Form. A question to be solved presents itself spontaneously: what conjunction of matter and form is essential to a sacrament? This is the general rule. As much conjunction as is required that one sign be constituted, so much conjunction is required. But a sign which must signify commonly is to be judged from common estimation. Therefore there must be such conjunction between matter and form that, according to the moral estimation of men, with the nature of the individual sacraments considered, one affects the other, that is, that the words are judged to fall upon such a thing and to compose one sign with it. Hence:

Physical "simultaneity" is required in the eucharist alone, so that the words may be true: "For this is my body," etc.

Moral simultaneity strictly so called is necessary in baptism, confirmation, extreme unction, and order: that is, so that one sign may be constituted, the words must be pronounced and the matter must be applied morally at the same time. This is had without doubt if you have begun to pronounce the words before the application of the matter has had its end, or have begun to apply the matter before you have ceased to pronounce the form; indeed, if, without interval, the pronouncing follows the ablution or anointing, or the ablution or anointing follows the pronouncing. But if the matter is separated from the whole form by one Pater Noster, validity itself is already denied by St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 9.

In penance, which is by way of judgment, absolution can be delayed for a rather long time. And provided the circumstances demonstrate the connection between accusation and sentence, there is no reason why we should assign a maximum interval. Yet there are those who deny that so great a distance can intervene as can separate, in forensic judgment, the instruction of a case and its definition. This stricter opinion seems to be supported by the extrinsic authority alone of St. Alphonsus (l. 6, n. 9).

Finally, in matrimony, which is made by way of contract, and in which matter and form are found in mutual consent, it suffices, as in other contracts, that the consent of the one reach the morally persevering prior consent of the other.

— On the Truth or Integrity of Matter and Form.

1. The very value of the sacrament prevents matter or form from being changed substantially; but an accidental change will often be illicit. In this matter, the common estimation of men must be very much attended to. Matter is changed substantially when, according to common use and estimation, it differs in name and in reality from that which Christ prescribed. Thus raw material is not called bread, nor is that held as elemental water which is contained in the juice of a plant. Corruption of the form is to be called essential or accidental according as the same sense remains or does not remain. But it is corrupted essentially not only when the very sentence is formally changed, but also: a) when individual words are materially corrupted, so that they express nothing or something different; this occurs more easily in the base or root, that is, in the beginning, than at the ending, as if you should say matris instead of patris; b) if, because of an excessive interval, the words no longer seem to coalesce into one sentence; c) if not one single person pronounces the whole form, but several, one one part and another another part of the whole form. - On the contrary, the form may be able not to perish if you either omit, add, substitute, transpose, or, from defect of language, pronounce less well certain sounds which are plainly indifferent to the sense. Cases will be given concerning the individual sacraments.

2. A good intention does not avail to restore a signification which has been taken away by a change. But a signification which of itself is ambiguous can, from a manifest intention, be determined to one thing, so that the same material corruption may be held accidental if it appears to have proceeded from unskillfulness or distraction, while if done from a depraved intention or deliberately, it would have been substantial. Thus Pope Zacharias resolved the case concerning baptism. Cf. c. Retulerunt, 86, d. 4, Cons.

3. Without doubt, under one pronunciation of the form, several are validly baptized or absolved at the same time; and licitly indeed, in a case of urgent necessity; outside this, some hold it prohibited under mortal sin, others under venial sin. Cf. St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 29; d'Annibale, III, 235. - If while one applies the matter another pronounces the form, for example, "I baptize you," he utters a falsehood and therefore says it in vain, as the Holy See itself declared. Cf. n. 225. Nevertheless in extreme necessity this might be attempted under condition, because the person saying and the person doing perhaps are morally one, since the application of the matter and the pronunciation of the form are done in the name of the one Christ. But the sacrament stands if several ministers perform the whole, for example, if they absolve or consecrate together, or if one perfects one part, another another part, of a composite sacrament; for example, in extreme unction, one, with the congruent form, anoints the hands, another the feet (d'Annibale, l. c.); or, in the sacrament of order, one, after the litanies, imposes hands; another, toward the end of the Mass, by the third imposition of hands confers the power of forgiving and retaining sins.

— I. A Sacrament of the New Law is a sensible thing which, from the stable institution of Christ, has the power of effecting the sanctity or grace which it signifies.

We know by defined faith that there are seven sacraments properly such.

A sacrament is a sign which by signifying operates that which it signifies: that is, sanctifying grace, whether first or second, and sacramental grace. But these are signified by means of the title to having them, which it places in the soul. This title in three sacraments, baptism, confirmation, and order, is character, or a real, spiritual, and indelible quality. That it be imprinted, valid conferral of the sacrament suffices. A sacrament is said to be efficacious ex opere operato, insofar as it operates not from the act and disposition of the minister or subject, but by its use and application.

II. Sacraments are: of the living and of the dead, according to the primary end of their institution; necessary to individuals and not necessary; repeatable and not repeatable; formed, which are as it were completed by the effect of grace, and unformed, which, validly administered, because of a defect of disposition in the subject, do not confer grace on him. Those which imprint character, with the obstacle removed, revive or confer grace. The same can probably be affirmed concerning the other sacraments.

III. Sacraments consist of a more determinable part, or matter, and a determining and perfecting part, which is form. Matter is remote: the sensible thing; or proximate: the same as employed in the sign. Form is the words, or that which is put in the place of words, and of itself, in matrimony, any sign of consent.

Between matter and form so great a conjunction is required that, according to the moral estimation of men, they constitute one sign, through simultaneity which, according to the nature of the sacrament, can be required as physical, thus in the eucharist; or suffice as broadly moral, as in penance and matrimony; or as strictly moral, as in the other sacraments. A substantial change of matter, when it differs in name and reality from that which Christ prescribed, or of form, when the sense becomes none or another, stands in the way of the value of the sacrament; but an accidental change will for the most part be illicit. Intention cannot restore a signification taken away; but a manifest intention can effect that ambiguity be brought to the right signification. The matter must be applied by the minister pronouncing the form, if the form expresses the action of the minister. But the sacrament is valid if several, concelebrating, express the whole, or if, in extreme unction, one perfects one part, another another part, of a composite sacrament.

— Who can be called a Minister of the Sacraments. In the broad sense, anyone who ministers a sacrament at least validly is called a minister of a sacrament: thus a layman baptizing, thus baptized persons contracting matrimony. But properly a minister of a sacrament is one who, having received the power of order, is deputed to confer that sacrament, although perhaps some condition must be added either for the value itself or for liceity. Thus a priest has been ordained for absolving sins; yet he needs jurisdiction in order to confer valid absolution. He has also been ordained for baptizing; yet of itself the license of the Ordinary or pastor is required that he baptize licitly.

Moreover, a minister can be deputed simply, or principally, as though to a proper office, or secondarily and in a supplementary manner. The first is the ordinary minister, the other the extraordinary minister. Thus a deacon is the extraordinary minister of baptism and of the holy eucharist.

— Conditions of Value. On Intention. No faith or probity of the minister is necessary for the value of a sacrament; but, besides the power to be explained afterward, there is required and suffices an intention, or will, at least virtual and absolute, or one equivalent to this, and determined to a certain matter and person, of doing not merely the external ritual act, but the sacrament, or at least that which the Church does or which Christ instituted. Thus holds the common opinion from Trent, session 7, canon 11, against Catharinus, who was content with the will of the external act. No faith or probity is necessary, because the sacraments operate not from the disposition of the minister but from divine power, according to the institution and merit of Christ. - Intention at least virtual is required, because no act human and free in itself proceeds from habitual or interpretative intention, and administration must be done through a human act; virtual intention suffices, because this is referred to free and efficacious will, and because actions done from such a will are imputed as human when they are done by a man who, being master of himself, can impede the efficacy; and, because of easy distractions, indeed the moral impossibility of always having an intention strictly actual, it would have been too hard and full of scruples if actual intention were essential. Concerning the various account of the voluntary, cf. what was said in I, 46. - Absolute intention is required, by which a condition concerning the future is excluded, because, in conditioned administration, there is no will at the moment at which the external sign is placed; but when the condition arrives, the sign or operating cause is no longer had. Nevertheless matrimony must be excepted, because it is made by way of contract and follows the laws of contract. Now contracts can be made conditionally, and, when the condition has been fulfilled, pass into absolute ones. - Finally determined intention is required, lest the will lack an object and, being applicable to no thing or person, be shown vain. Cf. G. Boed, L'intention de faire ce que l'Eglise fait dans le ministre du sacrement (N. R. Th., 1923, pp. 453, 533 ff.).

Therefore one drunk or dreaming does not confect a sacrament, although he previously intended the confection, because the act is not in itself human; nor does the priest who, having bread before him, merely recites the deed and words of Christ consecrating, because he has no intention of the sacrament. Concerning the deed of Athanasius as a boy and of Genesius the mime to whom baptism is said to have been conferred in a play or comedy, it is not sufficiently established historically; but manifestly he effects nothing who intends merely to play. A pagan baptizing must have the intention of performing a rite which, not indeed from his persuasion but from that of Christians, is sacred. But the will of a matrimonial contract suffices in a heretic, even if he stubbornly denies the sacrament of matrimony, because the contract itself is the sacred rite of baptized persons who marry. Indeed, if he does not wish to do what the Roman Church does, or does not wish to confer or receive grace, falsely thinking Catholics to be deceived, the sacrament will be valid, because the will of making a true contract is judged the more powerful; and the general intention of doing those things which Christ instituted prevails over an intention which proceeds from error. If by a prevailing will he did not wish to do what the Roman Church does, the administration would not be valid. Also, because of positive exclusion of the will of doing what the Catholic Church does, Anglican ordinations were null. Cf. Leo XIII, Constitution Apostolicae curae, September 13, 1896. - One distracted while he consecrates or absolves must repeat nothing under condition: the act remains human.

— "He who in the usual way places the actions required for a sacrament cannot prudently doubt concerning the required intention, unless he positively excludes it. The reason: because he wishes to do what he sees others doing, and others are accustomed to similar things" (Lacroix, p. 2, n. 58). Omission of the required intention in a Catholic man "is an almost impossible case" (Ballerini-Palmieri, Op. theol., tr. 10, s. 1, c. 2).

— If someone has had several contrary intentions, the matter is to be decided from the intention which, after examination has been made, must be judged principal and prevailing.

This is especially to be considered in weighing the force of conditions or clauses which are repugnant to the nature of matrimony.

— Voluntary distraction in the sacramental action itself, although it does not harm the value, is nevertheless a much graver fault than distraction which is admitted during prayer. Nonetheless, with grave danger of notable error excluded, it is only venial. Many, with St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 410, but with others contradicting, except the consecration of the eucharist.

— On Conditioned Administration. 1. Equivalent to absolute, as to the effect, is the placing of a condition which regards an essential element: if you are not baptized, if you are capable, I baptize you; if you truly are sorry, I absolve you. - Wherefore he sins only venially who irrationally places a condition of this kind; but as often as a reasonable doubt, according to the nature of the sacrament, is present concerning such an element, reverence for the sacrament requires that, if it is conferred, it be conferred in no other way than under such a condition.

2. If a sacrament is to be conferred, it is generally gravely illicit, because of connected inconveniences, to place a condition which does not regard an essential element, especially if it is not easily certain. Thus it would be grave for one ordaining to place the condition, "if the one to be ordained is worthy, impeded by no censure or irregularity"; for the consequences of a vain or doubtful ordination are most grave. Canon 942 itself excepts the case of extreme unction to be administered to a sick person concerning whose contumacy in manifest mortal sin there is doubt. For this conditioned administration, by which reverence for the sacrament is cared for, is without inconvenience. Matrimony also is excepted, which, for a just cause, can be contracted under a condition concerning the present or suspensive concerning the future, but not under a resolutory condition.

3. The placing of a condition which regards an essential element does not always suffice to make the administration of the sacrament licit. Thus it is scarcely ever lawful, unless perhaps when better matter is not found for completing the sacrifice, and it is not to be proposed for adoration, to confect the sacrament of the eucharist with doubtful bread or wine.

4. Conditioned administration is to be done, however, with the case just mentioned excluded, if denial of the sacrament exposes a man to danger of grave harm, or deprives him of a great good. And this is especially valid when it does not stand through him that he does not avert the danger or remove the doubt: as if there is question of baptizing a man who is destitute of the senses; of anointing a man who perhaps is dead. But the more necessary a sacrament is to salvation, the more easily conditioned administration will be prescribed, or at least permitted.

5. Of itself it suffices that the condition be conceived mentally. Before the Code, the heresy of rebaptizers caused that, by positive law, pronunciation of the condition was prescribed in baptism. This law is indeed confirmed by no canon, but since it seems to be contained in the Ritual itself, concerning the sacrament of baptism, and liturgical laws are not revoked by the Code unless expressly (cf. c. 2), this obligation must be said to remain.

— On Conditioned Repetition of a Sacrament. 1. Unless the minister is excused by scruples, especially since time for deliberating scarcely suffices for one anxious, it is grave, because of the joined irreverence, to repeat a sacrament under condition when no reasonable doubt concerning the value of the conferred sacrament subsists. - Yet to repeat one word of the form in vain is not judged grave. - But one who is conscious to himself of a depraved custom of uselessly repeating the form or part of the form must strive, under grave sin, which rarely will be committed because of excusing scruples, to amend it.

2. The more necessary the sacrament is, say baptism, or the more harmful its nullity is, say presbyteral or episcopal ordination, the lesser cause suffices for it to be repeated licitly.

3. But when a reasonable doubt stands, the necessity of the recipient or harms to others to be guarded against, for example, when there is question of ordination, impose the obligation of repeating the sacrament. But where there is question of baptism or of ordination, repetition will be licit, although not prescribed, if some apparent reason or authority of Doctors troubles the mind, although the doubt is supported by no intrinsic reason or suitable authority. Cf. Lugo, Resp. mor., l. 1, d. 33, n. 3. Hence c. 732, §2: "But if a prudent doubt exists whether they truly or whether they validly have been conferred," namely the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and order, "let them be conferred again under condition."

— That he may administer the sacraments licitly, it is necessary that the Minister:

1. be immune from censure. This is required under grave sin in him who offers himself spontaneously. Insofar as one excommunicated or suspended can administer the sacraments when asked by others because of utility, cf. below, n. 211.

But insofar as by a canonical penalty they are prohibited from exercising order, those become irregular who place an act of it (c. 985, 7°);

2. be immune from irregularity, if there is question of exercising the power of order, unless grave harm excuses;

3. be immune from mortal sin. Some demand the state of grace because of the gravity and sanctity of sacramental action, which is done in the person of Christ and operates sanctity, so that it is most gravely unbecoming to exercise the same in the state of mortal sin. Thus Lugo, De sacramentis in genere, d. 8, n. 150. But others, as Suarez, De Sacramentis, p. 1, d. 10, sect. 4, and St. Thomas himself, as Ballerini-Palmieri think, tr. 10, s. 1, c. 2, locate the grave unbecomingness in this: that a "person specially deputed and consecrated from office to that function," and therefore furnished with special graces and bound by a special obligation to minister the sacraments worthily, without due sanctity acts as public minister of Christ and of the Church in a holy action, such as a sacrament is.

Therefore the latter, contrary to the former, do not condemn every administration in mortal sin as of grave fault, but only the confection and solemn administration of a sacrament for conferring which the minister has been deputed by the very order received.

Hence, according to a probable opinion, they do not sin gravely who, in the state of mortal sin: a) do not confect the eucharist but merely minister it, which Lugo, n. 155, holds against Suarez; b) exercise sacramentals, bless water or nuptials, consecrate altars, churches, vessels, and preach: these actions do not tend proximately to the sanctification of the soul. Yet it would be mortal to consecrate chrism or bless the oil of the sick in mortal sin, because he who constitutes valid matter of a sacrament begins to sanctify; c) a deacon and subdeacon ministering in their own order in the sacrifice, because they confect no sacrament; d) laypersons baptizing in necessity, or conferring matrimony upon themselves: but as recipients, they must be in the state of grace; e) a priest baptizing not solemnly; f) a deacon baptizing solemnly but without commission at least legitimately presumed; with commission, he is in the condition of a minister consecrated for that; h) a bishop conferring minor orders or even the subdiaconate, because it is not certain that these are sacraments.

In this opinion it is more easily explained why he probably sins only by one sin who in one course baptizes, confirms, or absolves several while entangled in mortal sin.

But the state of grace, unless there is question of confecting the eucharist in the celebration of Mass, must not be procured through use of the sacrament of penance: it is enough that with sincere persuasion the minister judge himself contrite. And if there is danger in delay, and he cannot confess or become contrite so quickly, administration will be done without irreverence (cf. Lugo, d. 8, n. 151); but he who foresaw the case and neglected to fortify himself will be culpable in the cause (d'Annibale, III, 248 [6]).

— The minister sins mortally who, in the administration of a sacrament, with danger to its value, abandons the safer opinion (St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 57); or, outside necessity, uses doubtful matter or form. For he treats the sacraments unworthily.

— The minister sins gravely who does not merely dissimulate the administration of a sacrament, which sometimes can be done laudably, but falsely simulates it. Hence proposition 29 among those reproved by Innocent XI: "Urgent grave fear is a just cause for simulating the administration of a sacrament." But here simulation strictly so called must be distinguished from the other, more broadly so called.

Simulation strictly so called consists in a feigned utterance of the form over matter of itself apt. This, unless the circumstances betray that nothing is being done seriously, in which case not even simulation is had, is "a sacrilegious lie, since the minister abuses the sacred thing itself, namely a sacred rite instituted by Christ, as a means of uttering a lie" (Lehmkuhl, II, De Sac. in genere). Proposition 29 must be understood of this simulation alone. Cf. Palmieri, Op. theol., IV, 694.

Simulation more broadly so called is had when, in place of the due form or matter, something else representing the appearance of them is employed. And it is formal or material, according as the deception of another is intended or this merely follows and is permitted. And of itself that deception in religious matters is illicit.

Thus it is certain that it is wicked for a non-consecrated host to be offered as consecrated to someone ignorant; or for someone to celebrate Mass while omitting the form of consecration. Certain other things are permitted for a grave cause: a) lest he manifest to others an indisposed penitent, a priest could pray something and make the sign of the cross, which bystanders will take as absolution: here the denial of absolution is merely dissimulated. Nor does he lie who stands before a confessor to speak about another's business; for he himself has properly spoken nothing with others; b) for avoiding scandal or infamy, in a most rare case, a priest could pronounce the words "The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ" and not offer the host to someone sitting at the sacred table; c) for a grave cause, they permit that a feigned consent be given in Matrimony. If a lie is absent, not even the sacrament is simulated, since the matter and form are contained in true consent.

— He sins gravely or lightly, according to the moment of the matter: a) who pronounces the words of the form corruptly, inarticulately, indevoutly; b) who accidentally changes the matter or form; c) who, contrary to the custom of the Church, without cause changes or omits ceremonies. If this happens from contempt, it will be mortal; if from negligence, it is often mortal when, in a grave matter, it is opposed to a precept strictly such. "In confecting, administering, and receiving the sacraments, the rites and ceremonies which are prescribed in the ritual books approved by the Church are to be accurately observed." Thus c. 733, §1. The words and received usages teach us which dispositions of the Ritual oblige under grave sin, or under light sin; which are merely directive. Thus the rubrics of the Missal within Mass are judged almost all preceptive; outside Mass, the more common opinion holds them as merely directive. Cf. St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 399.

— The obligation of ministering the sacraments can flow from justice or charity.

1. Those who are engaged in a pastoral office, from ordinary or delegated jurisdiction, must, under grave sin and from justice, minister the sacraments to their subjects reasonably asking. For they must from office provide not only for necessity but also for the fitting progress of their subjects. And besides the great detriment which subjects may suffer, the very danger already of turning them away from frequent use of the sacraments makes the sin grave.

The same are bound, in common necessity, such as sinners in general suffer, with grave inconvenience to themselves; but in grave and in extreme necessity of their subjects, even with evident danger of life, since the execution of the office undertaken extends to that point. The degrees of necessity were declared in volume II. Yet it is enough to administer the necessary sacraments with danger of life when, without new danger, other aids cannot be supplied. But the necessary sacraments are: baptism, penance, and, in defect of this or for those who, not yet absolved, are destitute of the senses, extreme unction. If success or necessity is only probable, the obligation for the pastor indeed remains with probable danger of life; it does not seem to stand with morally certain death: as if you seem likely to perish before you reach the infant to be baptized, or you probably presume him to have been baptized, or if an adult can easily elicit perfect contrition, or another is present who can and wishes to furnish that. Cf. Cappello, op. c., n. 67, 3. Wherefore Benedict XIV (Syn., l. 13, c. 19, nn. 2, 6) does not condemn the pastor who, if a suitable vicar assists the sick, reserves for himself the care of the healthy; for it is expedient that someone be at hand whom they will not flee from fear of contagion. A prevailing reason of the common good, as if, with you perishing, the salvation of many would be endangered, can excuse a pastor.

Hatreds also to be avoided against the Catholic Church can prevent you from being obliged or able to provide even for someone's extreme necessity, for instance that of an infant dying without baptism. Cf. d'Annibale, II, 82 (3).

When there is question not of public attack upon the faith, but of sacraments, such as Penance, which are customarily administered by priests with care of souls rather than by prelates, the obligation of mediate prelates is less personal and is regularly fulfilled through others.

Corollaries. a) They sin gravely who often show themselves morose and difficult; who wish to hear confessions of subjects only on a few days within the month, much more those who wish to hear them only in Easter time; who establish inopportune times for the distribution of the most holy eucharist. Once or twice to deny the sacrament to one who is in no necessity is not judged grave.

b) A pastor requested by name must himself minister to the subject, unless he has been impeded, or the subject would willingly go to another. Yet he must not comply with an irrational petition; wherefore, with the sacramental seal saved, he must by no means waste time with a scrupulous person or a little devotee.

2. Other ministers are bound according to the laws of charity alone: therefore under grave sin in grave necessity of neighbor, but they will be excused by grave inconvenience of their own. With probable danger of life they must administer sacraments absolutely necessary only in extreme or quasi-extreme necessity and insofar as success is morally certain.

N.B. Grave common necessity is deservedly equated to extreme necessity: both because common harm prevails over private harm, and because grave common necessity brings with itself the extreme necessity of many.

— The obligation of denying the sacraments to one asking unworthily also presses the minister, according to the following rules.

1. Religion, lest the sacred thing be profaned; charity, which forbids scandal and participation in another's sin; and fidelity in the entrusted function of dispensation compel the minister prudently to have regard to the worthiness of the one receiving the sacrament.

2. The rules are reduced to two chief heads: a) where the petition is made in secret, the sacraments are to be given to the worthy and denied to the unworthy. For no other reason here occurs of itself to be considered. Except the prohibited use of sacramental secrecy; b) where the petition is made publicly, the publicly unworthy and the manifestly infamous are to be kept away, but not occult sinners. For nothing prevents a public sinner from being treated according to his merit. And it is easily understood why, even after grace has been recovered, the same man cannot ask for the sacrament with detriment to the public good, or before scandal has ceased. Reasons again drawn from the public good, besides the right not to have reputation injured, are most powerful for declaring why occult sinners who ask publicly are not to be repelled. For to bestow the sacrament on one merely unworthy, who of himself, up to the last moment, can make himself worthy by an act of contrition, is not intrinsically illicit, but is material cooperation in another's sin, which reasons drawn from the good of men, for whose sake the sacraments exist, are able to excuse. Now it seems wicked that, from private and fallible knowledge of unworthiness, any minister could afflict the faithful with public disgrace, with danger of hallucination and error from ignorance, levity, or passion of soul. And even if he acted according to the merit of the cause, the minister nevertheless would seem to give and deny the sacraments according to his pleasure, which would furnish occasion for many offenses and disturbances, and would give rise to the gravest scandal of turning the faithful away from frequenting the sacraments themselves.

An insufficient reason for the concession of a sacrament would be sought from preserving the reputation of the one asking. For the unworthy man who dares to approach the sacrament ought to ascribe to himself the harm of reputation arising from repulse. Cf. Cappello, De Sacramentis, I, nn. 72, 76.

Therefore if only a few are present who would not wonder at the matter, the benign rule itself already seems to cease.

Nor should you confuse denial of a sacrament with delay commanded for a just and public cause, as if someone approaches irreverently, or is ordered first to care for cleanliness or decency itself in clothing.

— It remains that we briefly explain the rules themselves.

1. What inquiry into the qualities of the subject is permitted or prescribed to the minister?

a) He who asks entrance into the Church possesses no special right; but the approach to the Church is not open except to those who approach spontaneously and give a founded hope of Christian life. Wherefore before the baptism of an adult, inquiry must be made concerning his consent, knowledge, and competent disposition;

b) Once baptism has been received, a Christian has the right of receiving the sacraments which regard his own sanctification; and the presumption of probity favors him. Wherefore where the minister is not a judge but merely a dispenser, the sacraments are of themselves to be denied to no one living as a Catholic, unless unworthiness is certain. In Penance, on the contrary, the minister, because of the office of judge, must prudently be made more certain concerning the disposition of the penitent.

The case of Order and Matrimony is special. For it belongs to the public good that Order not be conferred on one who is feared likely to be an unworthy minister; nor is every cause of unworthiness infamous; nor is repulse made openly, at the altar. Wherefore a candidate who asks for order is judged to permit that a special inquiry be made concerning him, which the conferrer of the function prudently institutes concerning every candidate, and the bishop can, from informed conscience, or because of causes known to himself, even secret ones, deny him ascent. But observe that here worthy reception of the sacrament is not considered, but the worthy exercise of sacred functions. The right conclusion of matrimony contributes very much to the common good of the city and of the Church. Wherefore, besides impediments of divine law, the Church prudently orders the matrimony of the faithful through other impediments and laws, and commits to the pastor, to whom belongs the right of assisting at matrimony, that he diligently investigate, both by the public pronouncement of banns and by private investigation, whether perhaps something stands in the way of the matrimony. He prudently questions the spouses themselves concerning impediments, concerning free consent, especially that of the woman, and concerning sufficient doctrine. But where nothing stands in the way, he is forbidden to deny his presence, which is not that of a minister but of an authorizable witness; indeed, for avoiding greater evils, he must sometimes assist at marriages little to be approved. But the spouses themselves, although they confer the sacrament one on the other, are not ministers of the Church. From charity indeed one must impede the sin of the other, but grave inconvenience excuses them so that they can enter a matrimonial covenant with an unworthy person. Therefore no investigation is made concerning the worthy reception itself of the sacrament except for baptism and penance.

— 2. Who are the publicly unworthy who must be repelled? And how long are they to be kept away?

a) Strictly, publicly unworthy is only he whose present sin or unworthiness is already commonly known; less strictly, he who is not yet infamous, but whose iniquity has notoriety of law because of the sentence of a judge or confession of a delict in judgment (c. 2197, 2°), or can no longer be hidden by any subterfuge. Otherwise he is occult. But he asks a sacrament occultly who asks before the minister alone, or before a few others of whom no account is to be taken.

Therefore publicly unworthy are no longer all, in our regions, who are alleged in the Ritual by way of example, money-lenders, blasphemers, etc.; for, at least from presumed confession, their unworthiness regularly has ceased when they ask for the sacraments. Nor, of themselves, are those publicly unworthy who follow the parties of liberals or socialists: for the account of liberalism and socialism is equivocal, and in some good faith can be admitted. But publicly unworthy will almost always be the notoriously excommunicated, interdicted, prostitutes, concubinarians, those exercising a notoriously illicit profession, or an office prohibited by public decree. Such also are those liberals or socialists who glory in the sacraments received, as though in a motive of impenitence and perseverance in error. Code c. 855 calls publicly unworthy "the excommunicated, the interdicted, and the manifestly infamous."

b) Lest what is holy seem to be given to dogs, the Roman Ritual keeps the publicly unworthy from the eucharistic table "unless their penance and amendment are certain, and they have first satisfied for public scandal." Canon 855 repeats this in almost the same words. Therefore those from whom only amendment must be demanded are to be distinguished from those who besides must give public satisfaction or reparation. Public approach to the sacrament of penance of itself suffices for proving amendment. And that approach can easily be presumed. Others must separate from a concubine, leave a brothel, dismiss an office, or repair public scandal. And if it is commonly certain that someone, notwithstanding confession, has often relapsed, generally he will have to be proved for some time before he is admitted to the holy table. But it will belong to the confessor to warn such persons concerning their obligation, lest they expose themselves to repulse.

c) Indeed, in doubt concerning amendment and satisfaction furnished, it is judged that the eucharist should rather be denied to a public sinner of this kind. Thus from St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 48; d'Annibale, III, 262, and Lehmkuhl, II, 56. On the contrary, where a greater evil is to be feared from denial, all the circumstances are to be weighed, and, if there is opportunity, recourse should be had to the local Ordinary. No one fails to see that the greatest prudence is needed today in our regions.

d) In the article of death, it will be enough that the confessor take care, after a faculty has been sought from the sick person insofar as there is need, that the faithful know the dying man has satisfied, as he could, the obligations present. Yet the sick person's own retraction before two witnesses will be preferable. And if a concubine, or an adulterous party, for example one who after merely civil divorce married another, is staying in the very house of the sick person, the eucharist certainly cannot be brought to him openly.

N.B. The stricter indications of the Ritual, which in our regions are outside use, can be very useful in foreign missions, so that missionaries may know what they can opportunely demand, without excess, from neophytes of little cultivation.

What if one asks publicly whose delict is not yet strictly public, or is public in another place but not in the place where he asks for the sacrament?

Because of the scandal of the faithful to be feared, probably the sacrament is not to be denied unless, because of divulgation soon to happen, a greater offense of the people would arise from the sacrament conceded.

— Can the minister because of fear of death give the sacrament to an unworthy person?

By no means, if the sacrament is sought in contempt of religion. With contempt excluded, the matter is disputed. Palmieri, t. 4, n. 689, and d'Annibale, III, 264, permit the conferral, because it is not intrinsically illicit; Lehmkuhl, II, 53, denies it, because the good effect, or the life preserved for the minister, follows not equally immediately, but by means of the profanation of the sacrament. But since the very conferral of the sacrament is not yet its profanation, for the recipient could dispose himself by interior contrition, and since profanation has for its cause not indeed the action of the minister but the disposition of the recipient, Palmieri seems to have resolved the case rightly. Thus also Cappello, I, 71. St. Alphonsus adhered first to the benign opinion, then to the stricter.

— Exclusion of Heretics and Schismatics. Not indeed from the general rule by which sacraments are to be denied to the unworthy, but from the proper account of their separation from the Church, which possesses the sacraments as its own good, "it is forbidden to minister the sacraments of the Church to heretics or schismatics even erring in good faith, unless first, their errors rejected, they have been reconciled to the Church" (c. 731, §2).

This rule gives place to no exception when there is question of persons in good health. It is indeed circumscribed, with the text itself attended to, to those who have the age at which formal reconciliation is demanded by the Church, that is, who have completed 14 years of age (Holy Office, November 1878 and March 8, 1882, in Coll. de P.F., ed. 1, nn. 660 and 1680; ed. 2, n. 1566). But reverence owed to our sacraments will command that even adolescents of a lesser age be kept away if they are foreseen afterward to be going to adhere to a non-Catholic sect.

Nevertheless the necessity of consulting, in danger of death, the salvation of a soul permits that the sacraments of necessity, strictly or broadly so called, namely penance and extreme unction, be administered to dying non-Catholics, at least conditionally, if they are destitute of the senses, or, if present to their senses, if they seem prudently to be left in good faith. And one destitute of the senses will be helped more certainly by extreme unction than by sacramental absolution, because it does not require acts of the subject as the quasi-matter of the sacrament. Yet scandal or wonder of the people must be guarded against, if extreme unction cannot be ministered sufficiently secretly.

Nor does there stand in the way a particular response of the Holy Office, May 17-20, 1916, and published only in a diocesan periodical, by which it was denied that these sacraments could be conferred on material schismatics constituted in the article of death and in good faith asking either absolution or Extreme Unction, but it was required "that, in the better way in which it can be done, they reject errors and make profession of faith." For that response gives a general rule concerning schismatics alone, with whom one can more easily sin by a certain indifferentism, and who, because of the very petition, seem able rather conveniently to be brought to abjuration of errors; nor does it contemplate the case in which, dangerously for the eternal salvation of the soul, good faith would be disturbed.

— In the administration of the sacraments, the proper vestments to be used are stole and surplice, but not the rochet, which is an insignia of canons and is distinguished from the surplice by lesser breadth and narrow sleeves.

The stole is not to be used except in the confection of sacraments and sacramentals, and in functions for which its use is prescribed by the Roman Ritual. In the act of preaching it is not used except in places where such use is in force.

— Canon 736 also prescribes gratuitous administration of the Sacraments, forbidding that for any cause or occasion, whether directly or indirectly, the minister ask anything for the administration of sacraments except the offerings defined by the provincial Council or by a meeting of the bishops of the province and approved by the Holy See.

Nevertheless offerings admitted by custom seem able to be received. Thus Cappello, I, 96, arguing from c. 463, §1, concerning Pastors, which, because of parity of reason, he extends to others.

— I. Valid administration of the sacraments. 1. Besides power, in the minister there is required and suffices an intention at least virtual, absolute or without a future condition, with matrimony excepted, of doing not only the external rite, but also the sacrament, or at least that which the Church does or which Christ instituted.

From several contrary intentions the prevailing one resolves the matter. Voluntary distraction of the minister does not harm the value, but is a venial sin among the graver ones, especially if there is question of consecration.

2. No faith or probity of the minister is necessary.

3. If an added condition concerns an essential element, it brings in no doubt concerning the value; and it must be added when, notwithstanding the danger of nullity, the spiritual necessity or utility of the recipient counsels administration of the sacrament. Of itself it is enough that the condition be conceived mentally; nevertheless in baptism it must be expressed. But it is never lawful to confect the eucharist with doubtful bread or wine, with the case indicated in n. 184 excepted.

It is generally gravely illicit, because of connected inconveniences, to administer a sacrament under a condition which regards a non-essential element, especially if it is not easily certain. Except matrimony and extreme unction conferred on a sick person concerning whose contumacy in manifest mortal sin there is doubt, because reverence for the sacrament is thus cared for without inconvenience.

4. Conditioned repetition of a sacrament without reasonable doubt concerning the value of the conferred sacrament is objectively gravely illicit because of the joined irreverence; but the more necessary the sacrament is, the more harmful the nullity, the lesser cause permits repetition. But when reasonable doubt stands, the necessity of the recipient or harms to others to be guarded against impose the obligation of repeating the sacrament.

II. Licit administration. - 1. It requires a minister: a) immune from censure. Nevertheless, unless he is one to be avoided or judicially condemned or declared, one excommunicated or suspended can accede to one asking for a sacrament. In danger of death the faithful can ask absolution from any excommunicated person; and, if other ministers are lacking, also the other sacraments and sacramentals; b) immune from irregularity, if there is question of exercising the power of order, unless grave harm excuses; c) immune from mortal sin, and this under grave sin, at least when there is question of the confection and solemn administration of a sacrament, for conferring which the minister has been deputed by the very order received.

2. It forbids under grave sin that, without necessity of the faithful, a sacrament be exposed to danger of nullity: it is an unworthy treatment of the sacrament.

3. It forbids under grave sin simulation of a sacrament, which is had strictly when the form is feignedly uttered over matter of itself apt: it is a sacrilegious lie. Simulation broadly so called, by which, in place of the due form or matter, another thing representing the appearance of them is employed, of itself indeed is illicit in religious matters, even if the deception of another is merely permitted. Nevertheless it is lawful for a grave cause to give consent feignedly in matrimony.

III. Administration is owed from justice, to subjects reasonably asking, by those who from ordinary or delegated jurisdiction are engaged in pastoral office. And those who often show themselves morose and difficult would sin gravely. In common necessity, they are bound with grave inconvenience to themselves; in grave and extreme necessity of their subjects, they must, even with evident danger of life, administer the necessary sacraments, unless they are excused by a prevailing common good.

The obligation of a mediate prelate to minister parochial sacraments is less personal, and regularly is fulfilled through others.

Other ministers are bound according to the laws of charity.

IV. Administration is prudently to be denied to the unworthy, because of religion, charity, and fidelity in the entrusted function of dispensation. Wherefore, where the petition is secret, the sacraments are to be given to the worthy and denied to the unworthy, with sacramental secrecy saved. But where the petition is made publicly, only the publicly unworthy and infamous are to be kept away. For the occult unworthy person, with whose sin the minister merely materially cooperates, cannot be repelled without danger of error and of public offense, which would turn the faithful away from the sacraments.

Is the one asking worthy: this is to be inquired into before baptism and sacramental absolution. Is he fit: this is examined before ordination, just as before matrimony investigation is made lest something stand in the way. For the other sacraments, the baptized person asking is presumed worthy.

Today the publicly unworthy are the notoriously excommunicated, the interdicted, and the manifestly infamous. But they are to be kept away until their penance and amendment are certain, and they have first satisfied for public scandal. In the article of death, the retraction of the sick person before two witnesses is preferable, although it is enough that the faithful know the dying man has satisfied the present obligations as he could.

Heretics and schismatics also are to be repelled, even those erring and asking in good faith (c. 731, §2), except in the necessity of danger of death.

Can the minister because of fear of death give the sacrament to an unworthy person? This is controverted, but seems to be admitted when it is not asked in contempt of religion.

V. Sacraments are to be administered gratuitously, except for offerings duly defined.

VI. The vestments to be used in the administration of sacraments and confection of sacramentals are of themselves stole and surplice.

— Principles. I. For valid reception of a sacrament these three things are commonly required and suffice:

1. radical capacity, which all and only wayfaring men have with respect to baptism; and all baptized by baptism of water have with respect to the remaining sacraments. Nevertheless extreme unction demands dangerous illness, and, like Penance, use of reason by which sins could have been committed; Order demands the male sex; Matrimony demands diversity of sex and habitual use of reason, together with freedom from another bond, and excludes those laboring under perpetual impotence.

2. in adults, reception voluntary at least in this sense, that it is not physically coerced while the interior will resists; and besides, according to the very common opinion, will at least habitual and implicit. For just as an adult is not justified without his own consent, so, without the same consent, he is not initiated and consecrated to God through a sacrament. Yet because one who receives a sacrament, as such, does not act, virtual will which renders the act human is not of itself necessary. But according to the nature of the sacrament, as will be said afterward, habitual expressed will, or even virtual will, must be present.

Yet for little children and those perpetually insane, the intention which the minister has in the name of Christ and of the Church suffices. For these are saved and sanctified without their own consent. Wherefore the defect of consent in them stands in the way only of matrimony, whose essential matter and form are placed in consent itself;

3. the intention of the minister sufficiently determined so that it affects such a person of the recipient.

— What if an adult approaches feignedly or simulatedly to receive a sacrament, that is, if he accepts the external rite voluntarily, while internally he does not will the sacrament?

And it is sufficiently certain that nothing is obtained by that sacrilegious reception of sacraments which do not imprint character; indeed, there is plainly no reception of the sacrament of penance and matrimony, where acts of the recipient enter the essence of the sacrament. The more common opinion also denies that baptism, confirmation, and ordination are valid for him who dissents in heart while by mouth or by the very approach he asks for the sacrament. Nevertheless Cardinal Gasparri holds the opposite opinion as truer: both because Innocent III, c. 3 De baptismo (III, 42), approves those who hold that the character of Christianity is received by one who externally indeed does not resist, though he approaches baptism feignedly; and because one so approaching wills that the minister place upon him the matter and form of the sacrament, with the due intention: but in these the sacrament consists; then the interior will of not receiving the sacrament is elided by the opposite will by which the act of approaching is commanded. Indeed an intention expressly terminated to the external rite alone does not suffice in the minister, who must sanctify instrumentally; but it is not proved necessary in him who must merely receive the sacrament. Cf. Gasparri, De sacra ordinatione, c. 3, s. 2, art. 1.

— II. Corollary and Applications. 1. A sacrament which someone coerced by fear wishes to receive is beyond doubt valid. Except matrimony, at least from the positive disposition of the Church. She also does not wish to impose obligations connected with sacred orders upon a cleric who, coerced by grave fear, received sacred order.

— 2. When there is not question of sacraments which of themselves demand a human act of the recipient, the will which is required in the recipient is rather that of one not opposing than that of one positively consenting. For every action is done by the minister; the effect is obtained ex opere operato, unless the contrary will of the recipient stands in the way of that efficacy.

But practically the sacraments which impose a burden must be distinguished from others by which a benefit is conferred without burden. For the former it is certainly required that there have been a positive will which at least implicitly is terminated to that sacrament. When there is question of ordination, a will once expressed and not retracted alone seems able to contain this positive intention. Wherefore for ordination habitual expressed will is necessary in the adult recipient. Many demand the same for the valid reception of baptism.

Yet there are those who are content with the will, which is had in every contrition or attrition, of doing what is necessary for salvation.

Confirmation, viaticum, and extreme unction bring grace without burden. Wherefore whoever wish to live or die Christianly in no way resist reception of these sacraments. Therefore their implicit habitual will amply suffices, not only that these sacraments be validly, but also that they be licitly bestowed on the sick who are destitute of the senses and are not to be presumed indisposed in soul. For the eucharist one must also beware of danger of exterior irreverence; and, since its necessity is less but its dignity greater, a positive presumption of the good state of the soul seems necessary, so that it may be licitly bestowed on a man who is deprived of the use of reason but seems likely to receive it with exterior decency.

He who is by no means alien from receiving a sacrament does not for that reason have the will of receiving the sacrament at any time, without consciousness of himself, at least when the time is not determined by necessity itself. Wherefore one can at least doubt concerning the value of a sacrament which without necessity is conferred on someone outside the present use of reason. Therefore, outside probable danger of death, one must wait until someone has come out of sleep or temporary insanity; and what we were saying just now about viaticum is not valid concerning the dispensation of the eucharist outside danger of death. Cf. Lehmkuhl, II, 65, note, to whom Ballerini, IV, 701, partly contradicts, and deservedly indeed when implicit habitual intention suffices.

He who takes a host which he does not know to be consecrated generally receives materially only, but not sacramentally and with fruit, the thing which is the sacrament, because sufficient will is generally lacking. Thus St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 80, art. 3 ad 3; d'Annibale, III, 257, note 2.

— 3. Matrimony, which has the character of contract, demands habitual expressed will, or will which, formally conceived, afterward has not been retracted. Indeed virtual consent is required when it is celebrated personally and between parties present.

In Penance, virtual will is needed with respect to the acts of penance; for receiving absolution alone, implicit habitual will suffices. Cappello, De Sacramentis, I, 83 and 85, 4°.

— On the Insane. 1. Those who after use of reason have fallen into insanity are to be treated as adults, whose will or disposition is to be estimated from the time before the use of reason was lost. Except matrimony, which requires the present use of reason.

2. As to those who are perpetually half-witted or doubtfully insane, the probable utilities of the subject are to be composed with reverence for the sacred sign, yet in such a way that in an ambiguous matter this prevail: the sacraments are for men.

Hence it is never lawful to give them Order. Matrimony is not permitted to them, just as to the insane in lucid intervals, except for a grave cause, to be proposed to the Ordinary. The eucharist will not be given to them too frequently; Penance and Extreme Unction will be ministered only conditionally. Finally, the sacraments which certainly are valid in children will be conferred absolutely on those who ask according to their manner; conditionally on others.

The deaf and at the same time mute from birth, if they have been suitably instructed, are capable of all sacraments just like adults. Those who have lacked instruction most probably do not have the expeditious use of reason. Wherefore, according as hope of competent instruction is still had or is lacking, they seem to be treated as children or as perpetually almost insane. Therefore to those themselves who in no way ask for the sacraments, baptism and confirmation are to be administered conditionally; and sometimes absolution itself will be given under condition. To those dying, extreme unction will be conceded conditionally, which will be able to profit them more certainly than penance; and, with danger of irreverence excluded, after conditioned absolution, at least viaticum will be able to be given.

— On Error. In matrimony, error about the person, when someone thinks that he gives fidelity to Titius and only Caius is present, is regarded as substantial. In the others it suffices that the will affect that capable individual, even if perhaps you absolve a woman as a man, or promote willing Sempronius, as absent Gracchus, by sacred order.

— II. That baptism and penance may be received licitly and fruitfully, there is required and of itself suffices, besides the will of receiving the sacrament, the disposition of faith, hope, and attrition: because they are sacraments of the dead. The remaining sacraments, which are called of the living, demand the state of grace.

To approach a sacrament of the living with habitual venial sin is of itself not a sin; to approach with actual affection for venial sin will be a venial sin if the present disorder regards the very reception of the sacrament, as if someone presents himself irreverently; if it does not regard the reception, the circumstances are to be considered. It will be no sin if someone seeks in the sacrament a remedy for putting off the disordered affection; it will be sin if he neglects to put off the affection when he can do this easily enough. Cf. Cappello, De Sacramentis, I, n. 88.

The state of grace is to be procured by confession for the eucharist, not for the other sacraments, from a special precept, at least of ecclesiastical law (c. 856).

In what way extreme unction holds, in some manner, a middle place between the sacraments of the living and of the dead will be said in its proper place.

Acts of faith and hope are sufficiently contained in attrition itself or contrition, so that special solicitude is not to be borne concerning the disposition of faith and hope.

Rather, let the minister know this: whether or not the recipient holds those things which are to be believed by necessity of means and which must be known for receiving this sacrament fruitfully. Nevertheless, by an act of faith or hope, a sin contrary to faith or hope, if any has been committed, will have to be retracted.

— In foreign missions those can create difficulty who, doubtfully adult, are not yet sufficiently instructed and ask baptism. If instruction can be completed without notable inconvenience, baptism itself must be deferred. But if delay is subject to serious inconvenience, if, for example, administration by Protestant heretics is to be feared, those seem able to be baptized who, with parents or circumstances attended to, give hope of greater instruction in the Catholic religion, provided they ask according to their measure. Otherwise baptism will have to be deferred, yet in such a way that the salvation of the soul is always employed as the supreme rule.

— On Reviviscence. With the obstacle removed, baptism certainly revives and confers first grace. The same, with divine goodness and the very nature of the sacraments attended to, is commonly admitted concerning the other sacraments which imprint character; and also concerning matrimony and extreme unction, which cannot be repeated in the same marriage or danger. Concerning penance itself, most rather deny that the sacrament can be validly and at the same time fruitlessly received; we shall hold the contrary side. But they commonly deny that the most holy eucharist revives, since it can be repeated frequently, unless perhaps you remove the obstacle before the species have already been consumed.

Nor then, as R. P. Cappello observes, op. c., n. 14, is there properly question of reviviscence, since the sacrament of the most holy eucharist is the very permanent body of Christ under the species. Therefore the question ought to have been posed thus: can the application of the sacrament which previously was fruitless, indeed gravely culpable, be converted into fruitful by a better disposition of the subject for as long as the eucharistic species remain? Cardinal Billot affirms this, consequently to his chosen opinion by which, in the sacrament of the eucharist, he considers the presence of the body of Christ as reality and sacrament and therefore as title of grace to be received (De sacramentis in communi, Thesis 6, p. 107). But those who hold that grace is conferred not insofar as Christ is present in us, but insofar as he is eaten, will deny the same, unless they think that eating is not completed by the very taking within, but perseveres until the species are corrupted.

But the obstacle is removed when that disposition is procured which would have had to be had for receiving the sacrament fruitfully. But if the reception was sacrilegious, or after the sacrament received a mortal sin was committed, these will have to be blotted out before there can be place for reviviscence.

— The required disposition must be morally certain to the recipient himself, lest he expose the sacrament to danger of frustration and thus derogate from due reverence. Wherefore in doubt which cannot be solved by presumption, greater certitude of itself will have to be procured or awaited. Yet you are excused by a prevailing necessity, because sacraments are for men, nor is supreme reverence owed to them as such, though otherwise one must speak of the eucharist insofar as it contains Christ. Therefore moral certitude is not to be taken in such a way that reception becomes subject to scruples and anxieties; but it is judged to be had when a solid reason for affirming is attacked by no positive reason to the contrary.

Yet there are those who are content with probable disposition in the recipient and prohibit only the minister from using a merely probable opinion. Cf. St. Alphonsus, l. 1, n. 51.

If there is danger in delay, the sacraments by which provision is made for the necessity of a dying person will have to be bestowed by the minister himself, while at the same time guarding against scandal and offense of the faithful. If the doubt affects the value, or there is question of extreme unction, administration will be done conditionally. And today, at least in places where many are not baptized, baptism itself seems first to be administered conditionally to an unknown man who is in danger of death and destitute of the senses.

— Licit reception of a sacrament also supposes immunity from a prohibiting censure. Excommunication prohibits reception (cc. 855, §1; 2260, §1), and, as to certain sacraments, interdict. Cf. on censures.

— It is further necessary that you ask the sacraments from a fitting minister. 1. Of itself, such a minister is legitimate and worthy.

2. "From excommunicated persons to be avoided, and also from other excommunicated persons after a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has intervened, the faithful can, in danger of death alone, ask both sacramental absolution... and also, if other ministers are lacking, the other sacraments and sacramentals" (c. 2261, §3). The same must be said, because of prohibited communication in sacred things (c. 1258), concerning those who are ascribed to a non-Catholic sect; and concerning those publicly intruded, because of scandal. Cf. for example, in Lehmkuhl, II, 73, the responses of Pius VI, May 28, 1793, concerning intruded persons at the time of the French disturbance.

3. From other excommunicated persons it is lawful for the faithful "for any just cause to ask the sacraments and sacramentals, especially if other ministers are lacking; and then the excommunicated person requested can minister the same, nor is he held by any obligation to inquire of the requester concerning the cause" (c. 2261, §2).

4. One must not speak otherwise concerning a minister whom you know to be constituted in mortal sin, because a thing good in itself is sought, and it stands through the minister if he does not dispose himself rightly. Therefore, with a special reason of scandal or of danger to be averted excluded, in order that you honestly ask a sacrament from a sinner, some inconvenience in some way notable, which you do not lightly bear, suffices, or "any just cause of necessity or utility" (d'Annibale, III, 261).

But if there is question of a minister who from office must minister the sacraments to you, the inconvenience of going to another church or changing confessor suffices.

5. A legitimate minister is not always a minister of any Catholic rite whatever. Outside necessity, a priest of one's own rite is to be approached for the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, order, and matrimony. Sacramental absolution can be asked from a priest of any rite who has been approved by the local Ordinary. Holy communion can be received by any faithful person out of devotion in the rite of the church where he approaches the holy table. "Yet it is to be advised that each faithful person satisfy the precept of Easter communion in his own rite. Holy viaticum must be received by the dying in their proper rite; but in urgent necessity, let it be lawful to receive it in any rite" (c. 866, §§2 and 3). Observe that a priest must always observe his own proper rite in that ministration. In urgent necessity, if a priest of a different rite is not present, it is lawful for those who are permitted to consecrate only unleavened or leavened bread to minister the eucharist in leavened or unleavened bread, while their own rites are observed in other respects (c. 851, §2).

115. Among those whom, because of their dogmatic agnosticism, to which moral skepticism is sometimes joined, we have assigned to the neo-pagans, some, who attempt to unite ancient moral views with recent "laicism," profess a moral doctrine concerning marriage which does not seem to depart greatly from the natural law, although they commend or proclaim institutions from which the Catholic Church greatly recoils. Therefore, once their defects have been disclosed, we shall have to strip these institutions of their honorable appearance. Others, devoted to "naturalism," attempt to reform conjugal institutions completely. We shall treat the latter first, because we can complete the matter more expeditiously and because we also treated them first in the preceding chapter.

116. This is common to the naturalists, that they declare war on either all matrimony or at least perpetual matrimony, because it imposes a yoke to be borne even by the unwilling. Therefore, they wish that in place of a "marriage of compulsion" (Zwangsehe), or a marriage whose firmness is derived from compulsion and whose use, when it is exercised by spouses without love, they mark with baseness, there should succeed a union which draws its origin and happy firmness from free love, that is, love immune from juridical necessity: they claim that this is consonant with nature, that this is demanded by the present, or at least imminent, age of the human race and will be secured.

Secondary wishes are added to these essential wishes. Thus several desire that the covenant of sexual life, withdrawn from every public government, be placed altogether among private matters. Ellen Key, a sufficiently noted woman of Scandinavia, also devised "moral adultery." For it happens that two persons whom love no longer joins nevertheless ought, for just causes, for example philanthropic ones, to preserve a common external cohabitation. Then, this woman says, let legitimate permission be given to each, so that one may generate from another woman and the other may bear a child by another man: this "legitimate" intercourse with one who is not a spouse is adorned with the name of moral adultery.

117. These deliriums, which are at once vain and futile but pernicious to morals, must be refuted and reproved as abominable contrivances and endeavors against nature itself. And indeed:

1. At the suggestion of nature, man seeks in promises which induce a moral necessity a protection against his own or another's inconstancy, which even the angels possessed in the perfection of their will; and, when it seems to concern the public good, those promises are sanctioned by law itself.

Thus, in social life, military oaths, magistracies, the offices of rulers and of others occur; if these could be admitted and renounced at pleasure, civil life would be at an end. Without moral necessity and the legal sanction of covenants, what mutual fidelity will subsist, and what great or long-lasting work could be undertaken prudently? Yet ought not the "naturalists," if they are consistent with themselves, to repudiate every covenant as odious servitude?

Can they give a reason why in matrimony alone the firm bond of union should be cast aside, when nature herself demands one so intimate that it attains to a certain unity of two persons ¹? What, on the contrary, do we observe? Passions have a part in this union which are most prompt to promise and yet are shown to be most inconstant; there, between the nobler and the inferior appetites, conflict is most frequent; there, in domestic society, man at the same time hopes for himself a tranquil enjoyment toward which he is so greatly inclined. But take away the force of promises and the support of a juridical bond: from even a brief observation of the present nature of men, it is perceived that the door to mutual confidence is closed to most, while it is opened wide to suspicions, jealousies, and quarrels which make life anxious and troubled and often extinguish love, far from favoring it. Nowhere else, therefore, are promises so natural; nowhere is their efficacy more necessary.

¹ Compare what was said above, nos. 61 and 104, concerning the nature of matrimony.

2. At the suggestion of nature, besides the impulse of passion, the very intention of a nobler affection and the irreparable harm which a deflowered woman suffers move men to enter perpetual covenants of marriage. Nor does the lustful desire by which not a few unbelieving women hold a perpetual bond in hatred render doubtful this inclination of better persons toward perpetual marriages, or the lamentable condition which divorces create for many women.

3. At the suggestion, indeed at the command, of nature, the husband ought to be the guardian and protector both of the wife and of their common offspring; this offspring must be nourished jointly by both parents ². And it is so evident that free loves are contrary to offspring, whether to be begotten or to be educated, that some naturalists preserve a profound silence concerning offspring, while others wish the good of offspring to be preserved by inept devices.

² Compare what we said above, nos. 104-106, concerning matrimony.

4. What of the fact that a firm purpose and a bond of law have very great power over the very force and stability of the affections? We are taught this by the psychological observation of human nature, so that the naturalists depart so far from nature that those who preach marriages founded on love alone diminish love itself in marriages.

Nor can they themselves boast of the new age which they wish to foreshadow. For that kind of union which rested upon no bond of law was admitted long ago in Roman law under the name of concubinage. In the society then greatly corrupted it existed together with marriage, and it was often practiced for this purpose, that an inequality of social condition might be preserved between those united. Wherefore an institution of this kind is not only opposed to good morals but is also insufficiently consonant with the democratic spirit of present institutions.

But, they object in this way, perpetual servitudes are repugnant to present laws. Moreover, the civil sanctions of religious vows have been suppressed: why should the legal servitude of matrimony be preserved as a vestige of a former age?

Response. Honorable spouses would consider it insulting for the name of servitude to be given to a covenant which they entered of their own accord with pure and free affection and from which they by no means wish to withdraw. Moreover, the name of servitude is not suited to every obligation or bond, but only to one which is imposed on an unwilling person, which is displeasing in itself, and which of itself yields entirely to the benefit of another.

Nor does the comparison limp only slightly in which the vows of religious, which are pronounced with a supernatural intention and do not constitute any institution necessary to the natural society of men, are compared with the matrimonial covenant, which is natural and, as the principle or first beginning, founds every other human society, and which also, since it is often sought for the sake of pleasure, stands in much greater need of the protection of an external law.

Although the expediency of laws by which religious profession is treated unfavorably is very doubtful.

118. - Yet there is no error which does not contain something true and useful. We can borrow this lesson from the naturalists: a matrimonial covenant is to be positively approved only between those persons whom sincere love has already joined spiritually.

119. - The opinions of those who, outside the Church, profess themselves devoted to the natural law and to moral uprightness can be reduced to the following heads ¹.

¹ Errors concerning Christian matrimony are condemned in propositions 65-74 of the Syllabus of Pius IX, in the encyclical letter of Leo XIII Arcanum divinae sapientiae, February 10, 1880, and in canons 1012, 1013, 1016, 1960, and 1961 of the new Code.

1. Having wrested jurisdiction over marriages from the Church, they assign it to the civil power. Wherefore they defend the institution of civil marriage.

2. They acknowledge and defend the perpetuity of matrimony; yet in such a way that they contend that there are just causes on account of which civil divorce, although rarely, is to be granted.

3. They declare the use of marriage to be of itself consonant with nature. Yet, when compelled by the necessity of physical health, most do not dare to condemn either sterility sought through devices or abortion itself; indeed, several do not hesitate positively to advise devices of this kind.

Therefore, civil marriage, civil divorce, and the excuse of neo-Malthusianism must be discussed briefly.

1389. In order that men, who have suffered the loss of original justice, may return into that state in which they can truly satisfy all the precepts of the natural law; and that they may be able to rise again to supernatural life, which in them, through sin, has been utterly extinguished, and thus be gathered into the most honorable company of the sons of God: they are commanded to approach the fonts of grace and salvation placed in the midst of the Church, namely the SACRAMENTS OF THE NEW LAW: which indeed were instituted for this end by Christ the Lord, that through them, conferred by the ministers of the Church, supernatural life may either first be infused, or, if lost, restored, or, once acquired, increased, and thence the Christian people be divinely constituted.

Hence there arises a new order of offices, regarding both those who are about to receive these Sacraments, and those by whom, from the will of Christ, they are to be administered. The explanation of these offices is the task of moral Theology, in which nevertheless, by reason of the intimate connection of things, not a few matters which properly pertain to the dogmatic discipline are commonly touched upon.

There will be eight treatises: 1. on the Sacraments in general; 2. on Baptism; 3. on Confirmation; 4. on the Eucharist; 5. on Penance; 6. on Extreme Unction; 7. on Order; 8. on Matrimony.

One must treat: 1. of the Nature; 2. of the Minister; 3. of the Subject of the Sacraments; 4. of Sacramentals.¹

So that the nature of the Sacraments may become known, 1. certain things must be premised concerning their notion and distinction, whether numerical or specific; 2. their efficacy, or power, must be inquired into; 3. their constitution must be weighed, which is placed in matter and form.

1390. DEFINITION. A Sacrament of the New Law is a sensible sign of invisible grace, for sanctifying the people of God, permanently instituted by Christ.²

It is said: 1. a sensible sign, that is, one which denotes internal grace and can be perceived by an external sense. For thus the means of salvation are adapted to the nature of man, who, in operating, is subject to the senses, and at the same time they become the foundations of divine worship and of Christian society. 2. Of invisible grace, which the Sacrament produces ex opere operato, that is, by force of the divine institution, independently of the work of the one operating, namely of the minister conferring and of the subject receiving, provided the subject is rightly disposed. 3. Instituted by Christ, in distinction both from the Sacraments of the old Law and from the Sacramentals of the Church, which have not been instituted by Christ. There is added: permanently, or stably; for as long as the Christian religion shall remain, so long also will the Sacraments remain.³

"Therefore three things are required for constituting a Sacrament: 1. an external sign; 2. a promise of grace; 3. the institution of Christ, since all the Sacraments have their power from the passion of Christ the Lord."⁴ See the Dogmatic theologians.

1391. NUMERICAL DISTINCTION. "It is of faith that there are seven Sacraments of the New Law, neither more nor fewer," as the Council of Trent defined, sess. 7, can. 1.

The Council of Florence, in the Decree to the Armenians, thus demonstrates the fittingness of this sevenfold number: "For spiritual life, just as bodily life, needs seven things: 1. That the faithful be generated, and this Baptism furnishes; 2. that they be increased and strengthened, and this Confirmation gives; 3. that they be nourished, and this the Eucharist furnishes; 4. that they be healed, and this Penance bestows; 5. that the remains of sins be taken away and the powers of the soul be refreshed, and for this there is Extreme Unction; 6. that ministers of the Church be formed, and this Sacred Ordination furnishes; 7. that children be begotten and religiously educated for the worship of God and the conservation of the human race, and this Matrimony gives."⁵

1392. SPECIFIC DISTINCTION. The Sacraments, according to their various properties, are distinguished:⁶

1. Into Sacraments of the dead, that is, Baptism and Penance, which of themselves are conferred upon the spiritually dead, that is, those lacking grace, and produce first grace; and of the living, which of themselves are not administered except to those having first grace, and work an increase of grace in them.

2. Into repeatable Sacraments, as the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Matrimony; and unrepeatable, as Baptism, Confirmation, and Order, on account of the character which they impress indelibly.

3. Into a permanent Sacrament, as is the Eucharist, which consists in a permanent thing; and transient Sacraments, as are all the others, "because they are Sacraments only when they are made and applied."⁷

4. Into Sacraments necessary by necessity of means for salvation, as are, for all, at least in implicit desire, Baptism, and more probably also the Eucharist, as will be explained in its own place (n. 1563); likewise, for those fallen into mortal sin, Penance; and necessary by necessity of precept, such as are Confirmation and Extreme Unction, according to the more probable opinion, altogether to be urged. Order and Matrimony are not necessary for private persons, but for the community.

5. Sacraments are called formed, when in the one receiving they really produce grace; unformed, when indeed they are valid in themselves, but in the one receiving, on account of the obstacle which he places, they do not produce the ultimate form of the Sacrament, that is, grace.⁸

1393. Note. In the old Law there were true Sacraments, as the Council of Trent openly implies when it hands down that the Sacraments of the New Law differ from the Sacraments of the Old Law. Such was the tree of life in the state of innocence; the sacrifice of Melchisedech and circumcision in the state of the law of nature; the paschal lamb, various purifications, and consecrations of priests in the Mosaic law. Yet these Sacraments, and even circumcision itself (as the more probable opinion teaches), did not confer grace by a power proper to themselves, that is, ex opere operato, but ex opere operantis, that is, from the merit of acts of faith, religion, penance, etc., which those ministering or receiving elicited. But for blotting out original sin there sufficed, more probably, faith in Christ to come, manifested by some exterior sign, especially through circumcision.⁹

1394. There are two EFFECTS of the Sacraments: one common to all, namely grace; the other proper only to some, namely character.

A twofold grace is conferred through the Sacraments: sanctifying grace and sacramental grace.

1395. Principles. I. All the Sacraments confer SANCTIFYING GRACE, which renders man a friend of God (see the Dogmatic theologians).¹⁰

This grace is FIRST or SECOND, namely: the Sacraments of the dead, Baptism and Penance, of themselves and primarily confer first grace, by which namely the sinner is justified; the other Sacraments, which are called of the living, confer of themselves and primarily second grace, that is, an increase of pre-existing grace.

We said of themselves and primarily. For: 1. The Sacraments OF THE DEAD sometimes and accidentally confer second grace, when namely they find grace already existing in the soul; otherwise they would be sterile, which assuredly would be said absurdly and impiously. 2. The Sacraments OF THE LIVING, according to the common opinion, can likewise confer first grace, when namely someone in the state of lethal sin receives the Sacrament with good faith and at the same time with attrition. That this must be said of the Most Holy Eucharist seems to be concluded from the words of Trent (sess. 13, can. 5), defining: "If anyone shall say that the principal fruit of the Most Holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, let him be anathema." St. Thomas hands down this very thing,¹¹ not only concerning the Eucharist, but also concerning Extreme Unction; and theologians commonly agree with the Angelic Doctor, who affirm the same concerning the other Sacraments of the living. But the reason for the affirmation is that in Trent (sess. 7, can. 6) it is read: "If anyone shall say that the Sacraments of the New Law ... do not confer grace on those placing no obstacle ... let him be anathema"; now indeed, "he who approaches a Sacrament of the living with attrition, which excludes affection for sin, both actual and habitual, already places no obstacle"; therefore.¹²

Note. It can happen in many ways that one guilty of mortal sin receives a Sacrament of the living in good faith, namely: 1. if he invincibly does not know that he is in the state of sin; 2. if he invincibly thinks himself perfectly contrite, or rightly absolved, when he is not; 3. if he invincibly does not know that the state of grace is required for the reception of a Sacrament, etc. (cf. n. 1547).

1396. II. "The Sacraments also confer SACRAMENTAL GRACE, namely helps for obtaining the end for which each Sacrament is instituted."¹³ See again the Dogmatic theologians.

In particular: 1. BAPTISM supplies to a man not placing an obstacle a special help, so that he may be able to conquer concupiscence, despise the enticements of the world, and perform Christian works. 2. CONFIRMATION, so that, when occasion is given, he may profess and defend the faith fearlessly. 3. The EUCHARIST, so that he may remain in the love of Christ and in union with God, by advancing in it from day to day. 4. PENANCE, so that he may detest more perfectly the crimes committed, avoid occasions of sins, persevere in grace, and be able to expiate past faults. 5. EXTREME UNCTION, so that he may be purged from the remains of sin, be relieved in illness, and more easily resist the snares of the demon. 6. ORDER confers on sacred ministers helps by which they may worthily carry out ecclesiastical offices. 7. MATRIMONY bestows powers upon spouses for restraining inordinate concupiscence, for preserving conjugal fidelity, for piously educating offspring, and for constantly fulfilling all the obligations of the conjugal state.¹⁴

1397. Questions. Q. 1. Whether Sacraments received FEIGNEDLY, or WITH AN OBSTACLE, revive when that obstacle has been removed?

Preliminary notes. 1. When a Sacrament is indeed valid, but unformed, it is said to be received FEIGNEDLY, because the one receiving in a certain way feigns that he is disposed for the fruit of the Sacrament, when he is not. 2. This feigning is called an OBSTACLE to grace, and is either material, when namely the omission of the required disposition is inculpable, on account of ignorance, forgetfulness, etc.; or formal, when the omission is culpable, so that it contains the malice of sacrilege.

Resp. 1. The Sacrament of BAPTISM, received with feigning, whether material or formal, when the obstacle has been removed through a subsequent disposition, revives. Thus commonly the authors (except Scotus and a few others) from St. Augustine and St. Thomas.¹⁵ "The reason is that sin before Baptism, or consummated in the very reception of Baptism, is not subject to the keys of the Church; whence it must necessarily be remitted through the power of Baptism alone, which, when the obstacle has been removed, has the effect previously suspended by reason of the feigning."¹⁶

2. Many probably teach the same concerning CONFIRMATION, ORDER, EXTREME UNCTION, and MATRIMONY. The reason is that Confirmation and Order absolutely, Extreme Unction in the same danger of death, and Matrimony while the same spouse is living, cannot be repeated; nevertheless it seems consonant with divine goodness that such recipients should not remain forever deprived of the sacramental grace which they need.

3. The Sacrament of PENANCE does not revive when the feigning is formal, and the reason is that then the Sacrament is invalid. But whether it revives when the feigning is only material depends on the question whether this Sacrament can be valid and at the same time unformed. Some indeed deny it, because the dispositions of the recipient required for the liceity of the Sacrament are at the same time the matter of the Sacrament required for its validity; but others commonly and more truly affirm it, for the case namely in which someone places some material obstacle; if, for example, having two mortal sins, one of theft and the other of sacrilege, he in no way thinks of the sacrilege, nor confesses it, nor grieves over it, not even implicitly, and receives absolution for the theft alone, having conceived attrition from the supernatural turpitude of that sin. For in this case, the Sacrament, in which all the essential parts are found (that is, attrition and sincere confession with absolution), cannot, on the one hand, be called invalid; but on the other hand, it is not informed by grace, because the sin stands in the way, concerning which he neither accuses himself nor grieves. Whence that confession, since it is valid, is not to be repeated, and therefore the Sacrament received with a material obstacle, when this has finally been removed, revives. Thus Suarez, Lugo with St. Thomas¹⁷ and others.

4. The EUCHARIST, as is commonly taught, whether the feigning is material or formal, does not revive, unless the obstacle is removed before the sacred species are consumed. It does not revive if the feigning was formal; "otherwise this absurdity would follow, that a priest who several times in his life had celebrated sacrilegiously, if at death he confessed with remiss attrition, would receive the whole heap of graces of so many sacrilegious Communions; indeed, the more often he had celebrated unworthily, the more abundantly he would be enriched with graces."¹⁸ Nor, more probably, does it revive if the feigning was only material, because, since this Sacrament from its institution can be frequently repeated, there was no need that a broader efficacy be attributed to it.

Q. 2. How must the OBSTACLE be removed, so that the Sacrament may revive?

Resp. In order that Sacraments validly, but feignedly, received may revive, more probably there is required and suffices the same disposition which was required and sufficient in the reception itself for obtaining grace. Hence: 1. The Sacraments of the dead, namely Baptism and Penance (received with a material obstacle), revive through universal attrition. 2. The Sacraments of the living, that is, Confirmation, Extreme Unction, Order, Matrimony, and, while the sacred species have not yet been consumed, the Eucharist, likewise revive through attrition, if they were received with a material obstacle; for in such a case, even these Sacraments accidentally produce grace in one attrite. Otherwise, if they were received with a formal obstacle, because otherwise they do not seem able to revive except through the Sacrament of Penance received, either in reality with attrition, or in desire with perfect contrition.¹

1398. "Character is a certain spiritual, indelible seal, impressed on the soul of one receiving a Sacrament. It is impressed only in Baptism, Confirmation, and Order; and it signifies the power or dignity received from Sacraments of this kind."²

It is fitting, according to the Angelic Doctor,³ that Sacraments through which a man is constituted in some state which of itself is perpetual should impress a character, by which man is deputed to that state; but through these three Sacraments alone man is constituted in some new state which of itself is perpetual, namely through Baptism he is enrolled forever in the family of Christ, through CONFIRMATION in the army of Christ, through ORDER in the ministry of Christ. Thus there are only three Sacraments which, even if received illicitly, impress a character. Hence: "1. In Baptism character is the sign of the sheep of Christ, by which the faithful are made fit for receiving the other Sacraments. 2. In Confirmation it is the sign of the soldiers of Christ, by which they receive strength for constantly professing the Faith. 3. In Order it is the sign of the ministers of Christ, by which they acquire power for ministering the Sacraments to the faithful."⁴

1399. "All the Sacraments are perfected by three things, namely by things as matter, by words as form, and by the person of the minister conferring the Sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does." Thus Eugene IV, to the Armenians. We shall treat of the MINISTER in chapter II.

DEFINITIONS. Generally, that has the notion of matter which is determinable and perfectible through another; but that has the notion of form which is determinative and perfective of another.⁵ Hence in the Sacraments:

1. MATTER is a sensible thing, to be determined to the notion of a Sacrament through the form. It is twofold: remote, or the pre-existing sensible thing which is employed in the Sacrament, or about which the sacramental action is exercised; and proximate, which is the very application or use of the remote matter in the sacramental action. Thus in Baptism water is the remote matter, ablution the proximate matter.

2. FORM is the part of the Sacrament which determines the matter to producing the sacramental effect; and it consists in words uttered by the minister, or, for the Sacrament of Matrimony, and this alone, in signs which can hold the place of words.⁶

1400. Principles. I. Each Sacrament has its OWN matter and form, divinely instituted. It is certain that Christ determined in species the matter and form of Baptism and the Eucharist, as is clear from the Scriptures. As regards the other Sacraments, the same is not altogether certain. For some, with St. Bonaventure, probably think that the Lord constituted the matter and form of several Sacraments, for example Confirmation and Order, only in a general way, by committing to his Apostles the care of determining those signs more particularly when occasion should be given. Yet others, with St. Thomas, more commonly and more probably affirm that all matters, and also forms as to substance, were determined in species by Christ; and consequently that the diversity of sacramental rites which exists between Latins and Greeks, or between the ancient and present Church, does not pertain to the essence of the things.⁷

Hence you will deduce: 1. Christ the Lord must be called the immediate author of the Sacraments, because, even in the former opinion, he distinguished all the Sacraments singly. 2. The Church, in the dispensation of the Sacraments, can establish or change those things which she judges to be more expedient for the utility of those receiving or for the veneration of the Sacraments themselves, yet with their substance preserved, as Trent has it, sess. 21, cap. 2.

1401. II. For making a Sacrament, certain matter and form must be applied TOGETHER by the same minister, with every essential VARIATION excluded. But that, from the institution of Christ, conjunction, invariability, and certitude of matter and form are required will be clear from what is to be said; for each must be treated singly.

1402. So that a Sacrament may be validly made, two RULES must be observed:

Rule 1. Matter and form must be UNITED or applied by the same minister and toward the same subject.⁸ The reason is that, if one should place the matter and another the form, the words of the form would not be verified; for example, if Titius should say: "I baptize thee," while Caius pours the water, Titius would utter something false, as is plain.

Rule 2. Between matter and form there must be such a CONJUNCTION that, according to the moral estimation of men, with the nature of each Sacrament considered, the one affects the other; or, in other words, the conjunction must be such that, according to human usage, the words are judged to fall upon such a thing and to constitute with it one moral sign. Otherwise the words of the form would not express the truth.

We said with the nature of each Sacrament considered; for according to the diversity of the Sacraments, the conjunction, or simultaneity, must be diverse.

Whence: 1. In the EUCHARIST physical conjunction is required, since the demonstrative pronoun This and This cannot be verified unless the matter is present. 2. In BAPTISM,⁹ CONFIRMATION, EXTREME UNCTION, and ORDER it suffices for validity that the matter be applied immediately before the form is pronounced, or immediately after it has been uttered. But a delay of one Our Father between the two would invalidate the Sacrament. Whence, in practice, the opinion of Cajetan, as safer, is to be advised; he requires that the form be begun before the application of the matter is completed, or conversely. 3. In PENANCE, which follows the nature of a judgment, a longer delay of time, for example of one hour, can intervene between accusation and absolution. 4. Finally, in MATRIMONY, the same interval is admitted as in contracts, namely it suffices that the consent of one be placed while the consent of the other perseveres.¹⁰

1403. Preliminary note. In the matter and form of the Sacraments there can occur a twofold variation or change, namely substantial and accidental. "A substantial change of matter is said to occur when, according to the common use and estimation of men, it differs, in name and in reality, from that which Christ prescribed. An accidental one is said to occur when it retains the same use and name with it. A change of form is essential when the same sense does not remain; accidental, when it remains."¹¹

1404. Principles. I. A SUBSTANTIAL change in matter or in form, whether it is made on purpose and deliberately, or from error or inadvertence, always prevents the validity of the Sacrament. The reason is that through such a change the rite instituted by Christ is taken away (cf. n. 1400).

1405. II. An ACCIDENTAL change does not prevent the validity of the Sacrament; but, according to the gravity or smallness of the change, it induces grave or light sin. The reason for the first is that an accidental change does not take away the institution of Christ. The reason for the second is that it takes away the rite prescribed by the Church: either under grave obligation, for example when she commands that consecrated water be employed in solemn Baptism; or under light obligation, for example when she orders that even the least interruption in pronouncing the words of the form be avoided.¹²

Matter is changed substantially in many ways, the principal of which we shall enumerate in their proper places.

1406. Form can be changed especially in six MODES, as is indicated by these little verses:

Take nothing from the form, add nothing, vary nothing; Beware to transpose, to corrupt words, to delay.

1. By OMISSION: a change of this kind is substantial if essential syllables or words are omitted, for example the word Thee in the conferral of Baptism; but it is only accidental if non-essential words are omitted, for example I, in the same conferral of Baptism.

2. By ADDITION: this is substantial if it takes away the truth of the Sacrament, for example if you say: I baptize thee in the name of the greater Father, of the lesser Son, etc.; accidental, if it does not remove the due sense, for example if you say: In the name of the Father, who created thee, etc.

3. By VARIATION of words: this can be substantial or accidental according as the explicit sense of the form is taken away, for example if you say: In the name of the Most Holy Trinity; or is retained, for example, I wash thee.

4. By TRANSPOSITION; this ordinarily is only accidental, as: Thee I baptize.

5. By CORRUPTION of words, namely from a change of letters. Such a change is more easily substantial at the beginning than at the end of words, because the sense is more easily changed for those hearing, for example if one says: in the name of the mother instead of of the Father; than if one says: chalis instead of chalice.

6. By INTERRUPTION, by which the unity of the speech can be taken away, as if, after having said, This is, you recite a psalm or delay much; but not if, after having said, I thee, you cough, or impose silence on children, and then immediately conclude baptize, etc.

1407. Preliminary note. Doubt concerning the matter or form of the Sacraments can be of law or of fact. The first is when it is doubted whether such matter, for example water extracted from flowers in Baptism, or such a form, was instituted by Christ as valid. The other is when it is doubted whether the matter or form to be employed, or already employed, is that which Christ instituted: for example, whether this liquid is water; whether the form was duly uttered.

RULES. In every doubt, whether of law or of fact, concerning matter and form, or generally concerning the VALIDITY of the Sacraments, three rules must be observed: The first is: If there is possibility, let the safest way be chosen, that is, the safer or morally certain opinion. The second: If there is no possibility, let the way be chosen which is nearest to the safest, that is, when certain matter is lacking, let doubtful or probable matter be employed, but under a conditioned form, so that counsel may be taken both for the necessity or grave utility of the recipient, and for the reverence due to the Sacrament. The third: When the impossibility ceases, what the impossibility prohibited must cautiously be supplied.¹³ The first and second rule have already been weighed in the Treatise on Conscience (n. 82). Finally, concerning the third, here:

1408. IT IS ASKED. Whether and when a Sacrament not rightly made can or must be REPEATED?

Resp. 1. If it is prudently doubted whether one of the three unrepeatable Sacraments has been validly conferred, it must again be conferred under condition: Baptism indeed, on account of the greatest necessity of this Sacrament; Order, lest it happen that the Sacraments be invalidly administered; Confirmation, lest the soldier of Christ lack strength for constantly holding and professing the faith. The reason is that, on the one hand, in doubt concerning the validity of a Sacrament, the opinion favoring souls is to be preferred; but on the other hand, no irreverence is inflicted upon the Sacrament when it is conferred under condition from a reasonable cause.

Resp. 2. If there is prudent doubt concerning the validity of a repeatable Sacrament, it CAN be conferred again under condition when notable utility of neighbor is present; but it MUST be, when the Sacrament is necessary. The reason is the same as above.

Resp. 3. To repeat, on account of an empty doubt, a Sacrament, although under condition, is of itself a grave sin. The reason is that a rash repetition of a sacramental action is grave irreverence. Nevertheless, by accident the scrupulous are excused, on account of perplexity. And he seems to sin only venially who repeats a word or syllable in the utterance of the form.

Note. When doubtful Baptism is conferred publicly, the condition must be expressed in words (as the Ritual wills), lest those standing by believe that Baptism is being repeated absolutely against the law of the Church. Indeed, it will be safer (or at least more becoming) to express the condition in words whenever any Sacrament whatever is ministered under condition, whether publicly or privately.¹

1409. DEFINITION. The minister of the Sacraments is called the one who, in the name of Christ, whose mandatary he is, completes the sacramental action.

DIVISION. One minister is ordinary, who, according to the customary order constituted by Christ and by the Church, can make the Sacrament. Another is extraordinary, who, outside this order, makes some Sacraments, but on account of a peculiar privilege, delegation, or necessity. Thus in Baptism the ordinary minister is a priest; the extraordinary minister, in a case of necessity, is any man whatever (cf. n. 1411).

These things having been noted beforehand, we shall treat of those things which are required in the minister, 1. that he operate validly, 2. that he operate licitly.

1410. Principles. I. For the valid making or administration of the Sacraments there is not required in the minister either the STATE OF GRACE, or PROBITY OF LIFE, indeed not even FAITH itself. This is established from Trent, sess. 7, can. 11 and 12; and the reason is that the Sacraments operate not from the disposition of the minister, but through divine power, according to the institution and merits of Christ.² But indeed:

1411. II. There is required in the minister POWER divinely granted. The reason is that God alone can join grace to the acts of the minister. But certain Sacraments can be conferred by Bishops alone, either exclusively, as Order, or by ordinary faculty, as Confirmation. Others fall equally under the power of Bishops and simple priests, yet with suitable subordination, as the Eucharist, Penance, and Extreme Unction. Finally others do not require for themselves a specially consecrated or deputed minister, as Baptism, which can validly be conferred by every man; and Matrimony, whose ministers are the contracting parties themselves.³

1412. III. There is required in the minister at least an INTENTION, or will of doing what the Church does; but a VIRTUAL intention suffices. The reason why some intention is required is that the matter and form of the Sacraments are of themselves indifferent to the being of a Sacrament, since they can be ordered to a joke or to another end; therefore they must be determined through intention.⁴ Now, to denote the object and quality of the intention:

It is said 1. There is required at least the intention of doing what the Church does; this is clear from the Decree of the Council of Florence, where it is said that the Sacraments are made "with the intention of doing what the Church does." Nicholas I declared the same, who responded that Baptism conferred by a Jew or pagan is valid, "if it was conferred with true matter and form; for such a Baptism is valid, on account of the general intention of doing what the Jew or pagan has heard is done by Christians or by the Church of Christ."⁵

From this you will deduce: 1. That for the validity of a Sacrament there is not required an explicit intention of making a Sacrament; or of performing an external rite as formally and absolutely sacred; or of producing the effect of the Sacrament: for these are held implicitly in the intention of doing what the Church does. 2. That a mimicking intention, or another by which the intention of doing a sacred thing would be excluded, does not suffice, as is drawn from the condemnation of Luther;⁶ nor does an intention, even a serious one, of placing an external act suffice; for that act could be directed to other ends, for example to exciting faith, as heretics will; whence the opinion of Catharinus, teaching that an external intention suffices, is scarcely probable (and therefore in no way safe), although concerning this opinion no express definition of the Apostolic See has come forth.⁷ 3. The authors add that there is not required the intention of doing what the Roman Church does, but that the intention of doing what the true Church instituted by Christ does suffices. Whence those rightly baptized by heretics, who deny that the Roman Church is the true Church, are not to be rebaptized.⁸

1413. It is said 2. A VIRTUAL intention suffices (cf. n. 272, 6). For it is certain that an actual intention is not required; although this is excellent, and therefore greatly to be desired, nevertheless it is not always possible to man, "because, besides the intention," as St. Thomas writes,⁹ "when a man wishes to intend much, he begins to think other things." It is likewise certain that a habitual intention does not suffice (namely one which someone had at some time and has not revoked, and which endures in no effect); because an intention of this kind does not make the action elicited in a human manner, as is required in the minister, from whom the Sacraments proceed as from an operating cause. Much less sufficient will be the intention which is called interpretative, when someone, for example sleeping or drunk, has no actual intention and never had one, but would have it if he noticed. Therefore a VIRTUAL intention is required and suffices, namely that by which someone, although here and now he does not intend to make a Sacrament, nevertheless acts by force of an actual intention previously had; as if someone, for example, having had in the morning the intention of celebrating Mass, afterwards goes to the church, clothes himself with sacred vestments, etc. For, led by such an intention, the minister operates in a truly human manner, since the intention is the true cause of the act which he places. Thus all.¹⁰

Hence you will deduce: 1. A minister who in the usual manner placed the actions required for a Sacrament, provided he did not exclude the intention, afterwards doubts concerning the same only imprudently; because at least he willed to do what otherwise is usually done by himself or by others, and thus he had the intention in act exercised. 2. Even a coerced intention and one extorted by fear suffices for the validity of the Sacrament, because fear does not take away the voluntary. Matrimony is excepted, from which force and fear must be absent, at least from the definition of the Church. 3. The Sacrament is valid even if the minister perhaps erred concerning the person of the recipient, unless his intention was bound exclusively to some determinate person, which is wont to happen only in Matrimony.

1414. Questions. Q. 1. Whether a Sacrament conferred with a CONDITIONED intention is valid?

Resp. Affirmatively, if the condition is appended concerning a present or past thing; for, since the added condition has already been verified, the conditional intention passes into an absolute one. Nor does an appended condition of this kind prevent the validity of the Sacrament, nor even its liceity, if namely it is appended on account of a just cause, as we shall say in its own place (n. 1663, q. 5).

But the Sacrament is not valid if the condition concerns the future; because no Sacrament is perfected unless the form is applied to present matter. Matrimony is excepted, which, after the likeness of other contracts, can be celebrated under a condition concerning the future; for then the Sacrament is perfected when, the condition having been fulfilled, the contract is perfected.¹¹

Similarly, a Sacrament is not valid if a condition is appended which cannot be known humanly, for example, "I absolve thee, if God truly foreknows that it will be that thou restore." The reason is that, since God has committed the administration of the Sacraments to the knowledge and will of men, a condition cannot be appended which is impassable to human knowledge.¹² Recall what was said, n. 1408, Note.

Q. 2. What if the minister has two contrary intentions?

Resp. 1. If those two contrary intentions are simultaneous, the predominant one prevails, namely that which would be chosen by the minister if he knew that both could not stand together; but if neither is predominant, the minister effects nothing, for the one destroys the other. 2. If one intention succeeds another, the later one prevails. Except if through the former any subsequent will whatever was revoked, at least virtually; for then the prior will, provided it is not expressly revoked, certainly prevails. If doubt perseveres, the validity of the Sacrament will be doubtful. These things can happen especially in the Eucharist and in Matrimony.¹³

Q. 3. Whether, besides intention, ATTENTION also is required in one making a Sacrament?

Resp. Certainly attention is required for LICEITY, as will be seen below.¹⁴ But the opinion of Lacroix, who affirms that attention is necessary for the VALIDITY of a Sacrament, seems improbable. For all authors say that for the validity of a Sacrament, nothing else is required, besides matter and form, than the intention of the minister, as was defined by the Councils. Nor does it prevent this to say that an action which happens without attention is not human; for although a man, about to operate in a human manner, must attend to the end of the work which he intends to perfect, nevertheless it is not required that he actually attend to the work which he executes. Hence Suarez excellently teaches that a minister, although distracted, truly makes the Sacrament; because, as he says, his action is simply human and free, and proceeds from a prior intention.¹⁵

Besides those things which are necessary for validity, three things are required on the part of the minister, namely that 1. he be worthy and fit; 2. that he act worthily and rightly; 3. that he confer the Sacraments on the worthy.

1415. Principles. I. In order that the minister of the Sacraments be worthy and fit, there is required first that the CHURCH in some way have DEPUTED him. The reason is that the making and administration of the Sacraments is part of the sacred ministry, which Christ committed to his Church.

But one is deputed either generally or specially: generally indeed for private Baptism in a case of necessity, and for Matrimony; specially, however, for the other Sacraments; for these cannot validly be made except by a consecrated or ordained minister, nor licitly administered (indeed, if Penance is in question, not even validly), unless by a minister endowed with some jurisdiction, at least delegated.

1416. II. For the licit making and administration of the Sacraments there is required that the minister (at least if he is consecrated and ministers solemnly) be IN THE STATE OF GRACE. The reason is that holy things are to be treated holily, and because the minister must be conformed to Christ, whose person he bears and in whose name he operates.¹⁶ "Wherefore" (thus the Roman Ritual) "he will perpetually take care of this, that he conduct life integrally, chastely, and piously; for, although the Sacraments cannot be defiled by the impure, nor the effect impeded by wicked ministers, nevertheless those ministering them impurely and unworthily incur the guilt of eternal death" (cf. n. 583).

1417. From these things it follows: 1. Pastors and other priests upon whom from office it is incumbent to minister the Sacraments are bound always to have themselves prepared for ministering the Sacraments in the state of grace. But if someone, existing in mortal sin, must minister them, he is first bound to elicit an act of perfect contrition; but he is held by no law to confess, except before Communion or the celebration of Mass, according to the Decree of Trent, sess. 13, cap. 7.¹⁷ "But if he has an abundance of a Confessor, and the account of time and place allows, it is fitting to confess." Thus the Roman Ritual (cf. n. 1547).

2. One celebrating Mass in mortal sin commits four mortal sins, because he unworthily consecrates, unworthily ministers, ministers to himself unworthy, and unworthily receives.¹⁸ Yet he sufficiently expresses these in confession if he says: "I celebrated in mortal sin."

3. A priest (or Deacon) ministering the Eucharist in mortal sin sins mortally, because he unworthily places an act by which he proximately concurs toward the sanctification of those communicating. Thus one must hold with Suarez and many against Lugo and others. Yet he does not commit several sins if he distributes Communion to several, because it is one banquet.¹⁹

4. A Confessor commits as many sins as the persons whom he absolves while constituted in mortal sin; because each absolution is a complete judgment. But if he only hears confession, more probably he does not sin gravely, because he does not make the Sacrament.²⁰

NB. See other things n. 1439, on the unworthy MINISTER.

1418. Questions. Q. 1. Whether one sins gravely who, necessity compelling, ministers a Sacrament in mortal sin if he HAS NOT BEEN ORDAINED to it; or, if he has been ordained, ministers it NOT SOLEMNLY?²¹

Resp. The first opinion denies this with St. Thomas; because he does not exhibit himself as a minister of the Church, but aids one suffering necessity. This opinion is indeed probable; but the second opinion, affirming, considered according to reason, seems more probable. The reason is that the obligation of ministering in the state of grace is not derived only from the consecration of the minister, but also from the sanctity of the Sacraments themselves, which must always be handled holily; and indeed under grave obligation, in a grave matter. Moreover, although a minister who is not consecrated does not act in the name of the Church, nevertheless he acts in the name of Christ, cooperating immediately with Him for the sanctification of the soul; whence whoever exercises such an office ought to be endowed with sanctity.¹

Hence, more probably, speaking per se, the following sin gravely: 1. a layman, or a priest, ministering Baptism non-solemnly in a case of necessity, if he ministers in mortal sin; 2. one contracting Matrimony in mortal sin; and since such a person at the same time receives and ministers the Sacrament, he stains himself with a twofold sin.² We have said, speaking per se; for, per accidens, a minister, whether consecrated or not consecrated, is excused if he ministers in mortal sin the Sacrament of Baptism or Penance in necessity, for example if he could not be contrite so quickly, and there were danger that the dying person would depart without Baptism or absolution, as is commonly taught.³

Q. 2. Whether a minister sins gravely who, in mortal sin, exercises other SACRED FUNCTIONS which are not the making or administration of the Sacraments?

Resp. Some affirm with St. Thomas, who says that all who exercise, from office, the functions of the Order received, from the Bishop even to the Porter, commit grave fault if they are in mortal sin. But others more commonly, and sufficiently probably, deny this with Suarez; and the reason is that, since all the other exercises of Orders, besides the making and administration of the Sacraments, are not proximately ordered to the sanctification of the soul, they do not seem under grave obligation to require the sanctity of those exercising them. Yet these commit venial fault, and indeed the graver, the more their action approaches the ministry of a Sacrament.⁴

Hence: 1. Not improbably several authors assert that he does not sin gravely who, existing in mortal sin, touches the Eucharist immediately or mediately from office, for example by carrying it in procession, or by blessing the people. Yet the opposite opinion of St. Thomas is also very probable.⁵

2. Deacons and subdeacons who, in mortal sin, minister at the altar do not sin gravely, according to a sufficiently probable opinion, even if they minister frequently.⁶

3. A Bishop who, in mortal sin, makes chrism or holy oil does not seem to sin gravely.⁷ Nor does a Bishop or priest sin mortally who, in mortal sin, consecrates a church, blesses sacred vestments or corporals, assists at Matrimony, blesses ashes, lustral water, etc. Thus very commonly against a few.⁸

4. A preacher, preaching in mortal sin, does not sin gravely, as is taught more commonly and more probably. Yet authors commonly do not excuse him from venial sin, on account of some irreverence which is done to the divine word. Nay more, if the preacher inveighs against a vice concerning which he himself is publicly defamed, he does not seem to be excused from mortal sin; because then he gives scandal and impedes the end of doctrine.⁹

We must treat concerning the Sacraments: 1° their nature and division; 2° matter and form; 3° the Minister; 4° the subject.

1206. - I. Definition. A Sacrament is a sensible sign instituted by Christ for signifying and conferring grace.

Hence three things are necessarily required in every Sacrament, namely: 1° a sensible sign; 2° divine institution; 3° the power of producing the grace promised by Christ.

All Sacraments are perfected by three things: 1° by things as matter; 2° by words as form; 3° by the person of the Minister confecting the Sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does. - This is clear from the Council of Florence in the Decree of Union.

Sacraments, besides sanctifying grace, produce grace which is called sacramental, i.e. they confer, if due conditions are not lacking, helps for obtaining the special end for which each Sacrament was instituted. Sacraments operate ex opere operato, i.e. by force of the divine institution independently of the work of the one operating, namely of the Minister and subject of the Sacraments.

1207. - II. Number. The Sacraments are seven, as is clear from Trent:¹ If anyone shall have said that the Sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ, or that there are more or fewer than seven, namely Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony; or that even some one of these seven is not truly and properly a Sacrament, let him be anathema.

III. Division. Sacraments according to various properties are thus distinguished:

1° Necessary, or not necessary. Again, necessary Sacraments are necessary either by necessity of means, or by necessity of precept. By necessity of means, at least in implicit vow, Baptism is necessary, which is the gate of the Church and of the kingdom of heaven; Penance is necessary for those who have fallen into mortal sin after Baptism; and, according to St. Alphonsus,¹ probably also the Eucharist, both on account of the words of Christ:² Unless you shall have eaten, etc., you shall not have life in you; and because the Eucharist is the end of all the Sacraments. - By necessity of precept all the others are necessary, with the last two excepted, which are not necessary for private persons, but only for the community.

2° Imprinting, or not imprinting, character in the soul. Baptism, Confirmation, and Order imprint character; the others do not imprint. - Trent.³

3° Formed, or unformed, according as they produce grace while they are received, or, with an obstacle intervening, suspend their effect until the obstacle is removed.

4° Sacraments of the living or of the dead, according as they already suppose sanctifying, or first, grace, and only increase it; or, from their primary institution, confer that same grace.

1208. Questions. - Query 1° Can the Sacraments of the dead confer second grace?

Resp. Affirmatively. But this can happen in a twofold case: 1° when venial sins alone are subjected to the keys, which frequently

happens; 2° when a penitent, guilty of mortal sin, approaches the Sacrament of Penance with perfect contrition; because perfect contrition with the vow of the Sacrament, even before reception of the same, justifies a man: therefore then the Sacrament confers not first grace, but second grace only.

Query 2° Can Sacraments of the living sometimes avail to confer first grace?

Resp. Affirmatively, more probably; not indeed per se, as is clear from their institution, but per accidens, or by means of Charity infused by force of the Sacrament in a subject not voluntarily opposing an obstacle. The case would be if someone of good faith, about to approach a Sacrament of the living, approaches in mortal sin, either because he is ignorant of this, or because he thinks himself contrite, or because he thinks that he approaches licitly in that state; now, in these circumstances the Sacrament of the living infuses grace into the soul, and therefore blots out the sin. For Sacraments always confer grace on those not placing an obstacle.¹ But an obstacle is not placed by him who approaches thus in good faith.²

1209. - Query 3° Is attrition required or does it suffice, that Sacraments of the living may confer first grace?

Resp. Affirmatively to each: 1° indeed it is required, because first grace cannot be infused except by the destruction of mortal sin; but the destruction of mortal sin cannot happen without detestation of the same, namely without contrition or at least attrition; 2° it suffices, because from the things said Sacraments of the living can sometimes confer first grace: but this could not happen if attrition did not suffice, since a sinner justified by perfect contrition would always approach the Sacrament.³

Query 4° Is original sin blotted out in Baptism valid indeed, but unformed because of defect of disposition in the adult baptized?

Resp. Negatively. The reason is, because no sin dissolving from the friendship of God is forgiven except through reconciliation with God, i.e. through justification. But this cannot happen unless first grace is infused; but this first grace is not infused if dispositions are lacking. Therefore. But once the obstacle has been removed, whether by perfect contrition with the vow of the Sacrament, or by the Sacrament with attrition, the sacramental grace of Baptism revives, or its suspension ceases, and it blots out original sin, and at the same time all actual sins committed before Baptism. But the Sacrament of Penance blots out sins committed after Baptism, and, according to the sentence which St. Alphonsus¹ calls most common, but whose foundation does not seem convincing to him, the sin of fiction, or of depraved disposition, with which the Sacrament of Baptism was received. Yet insofar as this depraved disposition persevered after Baptism, it is certainly blotted out through the Sacrament of Penance.

1210. - Definitions. Matter is a sensible thing to be determined to the notion of a Sacrament through form. Hence matter is that which in the Sacrament is more indifferent, and has a less perfect signification; and therefore it must be determined through another thing for signifying.

Matter is twofold: one remote, and another proximate. The former is the sensible thing itself, which is employed in the Sacrament, or the thing about which the sacramental action is exercised. The latter is the very application, or use, of the remote matter in the sacramental action. Thus in Baptism water is the remote matter, ablution the proximate matter.

But form is the part of the Sacrament which determines the matter for effecting the Sacrament, and which ordinarily (n. 1554. II.) consists in words uttered by the Minister.

1211. Principles. - I. Matter and form are altogether necessary for the validity of a Sacrament; therefore, with either one lacking, Sacraments cannot be confected. The reason is, because a Sacrament cannot be confected except in that mode in which Christ instituted it, who alone is the author of the Sacraments. It is of faith. It is clear besides from dogmatic definitions, especially from the Council of Florence in the Decree of Union, etc.¹

II. In confecting a Sacrament, outside the case of necessity, matter and form ought to be employed morally certain. The reason is, because, unless necessity urges, it is not lawful to use probability which does not remove the danger of invalidity. Cf. n. 60. I.

III. Matter and form ought to be united, or applied, by the same Minister and toward the same subject. "The reason is, because if one should place the matter, and another the form, the words of the form would not be verified; for the Minister, who, for example, should say: I baptize thee, while another pours out the water, would utter what is false, since he himself would not baptize.

IV. That a Sacrament be valid, there ought to be so great a conjunction or simultaneity between matter and form that one affects the other. The reason is, because otherwise the words would not fall upon such a thing, nor therefore with it constitute one total sign.

1. In the Eucharist physical simultaneity is required between matter and form; for the demonstrative pronoun THIS and HERE cannot be verified unless the matter is present.

2. In the other Sacraments moral simultaneity suffices, and that diverse according to the diverse nature of the individual Sacraments. Hence:

a) In Penance absolution can be deferred for some little time, for example for an hour; for it was instituted in the manner of a forensic judgment, in which sentence is not always immediately pronounced.

b) In Matrimony the consent of one party can follow the consent of the other for as long as this is morally judged to endure, as happens in contracts, whose nature Matrimony imitates.

c) In the other Sacraments, for validity, it suffices that the matter be applied immediately (i.e. within a space less than one Pater) before the form is pronounced, or immediately after it has been uttered. - In practice, however, as safer, the sentence of Cajetan is to be advised, which requires that the form be begun before the application of the matter is completed, or conversely.¹

1212. - There is given a twofold change both in matter and in form, namely substantial and accidental.

The change will be substantial in matter, if according to the use and estimation of men this cannot be called the same as that which was determined by Christ, as if in Baptism you should employ wine instead of water; but in form, if the sense of the words intended by Christ is changed into another, as if in Baptism you should say: I anoint thee in the name, etc. But the change is called accidental which is concerned only with the qualities of the thing, as if you baptize with water not blessed; or which does not change the sense of the words, as if in place of: I baptize, you should say: I wash.¹

Principles. - I. Every substantial change in the matter and form of a Sacrament invalidates the Sacrament, because it is no longer the rite instituted by Christ; and, if it is voluntary, constitutes grave sin, because it inflicts grave injury upon the author of the rite.

II. No accidental change in the matter and form invalidates a Sacrament; yet it induces grave or light sin, according as it is, or is not, notable.

The form of the Sacraments can be changed substantially in many ways:

1° By subtraction of an essential syllable or words, as if you say: I baptize, omitting that word thee; but not of accidental words, as if in Latin you say: I baptize thee, omitting that word I.

2° By addition, by which the truth of the Sacrament is taken away, as: I baptize thee in the name of the greater Father, of the lesser Son; but not by that addition by which only the error of the Minister is expressed, in a separate proposition, and not as an explicit or implicit condition, as: by the authority conferred upon me by Calvin, I, etc.

3° By variation of words through others not synonymous, as if in place of: I absolve, you say: I change.

4° By transposition of words, which ordinarily is only accidental, as: Thee I baptize.

5° By corruption of the same, for example by changing letters, which will more easily be substantial at the beginning than at the end of the words; because more easily for hearers the sense will be changed, for example in "in the name of the mother" for "of the father," than in "of the chalice" for "of the cup."

6° By interruption, by which the unity of the sentence is taken away, as if, after having said: This is, you should recite a Psalm or delay long; but not if, after having said: I thee, you should cough, impose silence, saying: Be silent, chatterers, and then at once conclude: baptize, etc.

1213. - A threefold rule must be established:

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

II. Sacraments generally cannot be repeated without grave sin, when there is no prudent doubt concerning their value. The reason is, because without cause they would be repeated, and therefore a grave injury would be inflicted upon them.

III. Sacraments ought to be repeated whenever, a prudent doubt concerning their value having arisen, charity, justice, or religion demands this; that is, whenever from justice, charity, or religion they ought to have been confected or administered. The reason is, because the nullity of the Sacrament, if perchance it were present, would turn to the harm of the neighbor, and sometimes to contempt or irreverence of Religion. But then they are to be repeated only conditionally, that reverence for the Sacrament may be provided for.¹

1214. Resolves. - 1° The Sacraments more necessary, and those which are conferred only once, namely Baptism and Order, are more easily to be repeated, even if a much greater probability makes for the value of the Sacrament against doubtful or only slightly probable reasons in the opposite direction. - Thus commonly.

2° Absolution is to be repeated with a penitent guilty of mortal sin, if there is prudent doubt concerning the due utterance of the form. But if the penitent is not in the state of mortal sin, it will not be necessary to repeat the form, since Communion can be permitted to him even without absolution.

3° The Minister who doubts lightly, and does not know why he fears, or only does not reflexively remember that he pronounced the words of the form, sins mortally per se if he repeats the form, or even one word three or four times. The reason is, because he changes the form, and introduces a new rite concerning the gravest action of all. Moreover he exhibits Christ, whom he represents, as speaking ridiculously. In practice, however, the scrupulous who repeat the form are for the most part excused from mortal sin, indeed often also from venial sin, because, too much agitated by scruples, from perplexity or without advertence, they act so foolishly. - Thus Voit.¹

4° If in Mass after the Consecration a doubt arises for you concerning the due utterance of the form, or concerning its total omission, you ought not, nor can you, repeat anything, since otherwise you are not accustomed to omit these things; for one must judge from things commonly occurring, unless nevertheless you doubt very probably, as the Rubric speaks. - See St. Alphonsus.²

The Minister of the Sacraments is he who, in the name of Christ, whose place he bears, performs the sacramental action.

We must treat: 1° of the requisites in the Minister for conferring the Sacraments; 2° of the office of the Minister in the administration of the Sacraments.

1215. - Definition. Attention is the application of the mind to the things which are being done, or it is an act of the intellect by which a man considers that which he is doing.

Division. Attention is distinguished as twofold: one internal, which consists in the advertence itself of the mind to that which is being done; another external, which excludes every action physically incompatible with internal attention. - See the things said at n. 402.

Principles. - I. For the validity of the conferral of Sacraments no other attention is required except that which is found in every truly human act. Therefore Sacraments can be validly ministered even by a distracted Minister, or one thinking at the same time about other affairs. The reason is, because in order that an act be and be considered human, what is looked to is not actual attention, but the procession of the act itself from an act of the rational will. Moreover attention often does not depend upon the will of man; but Christ could not require in the Minister of the Sacraments a condition which is sometimes impossible.¹

II. For the licit conferral of Sacraments attention is required, so that every voluntary distraction be absent. The reason is, because the reverence due to the Sacrament demands that it be treated diligently, and that the danger of erring be avoided. Nevertheless, according to the common sentence of theologians, voluntary distraction ordinarily does not exceed venial sin, unless one exposes himself to a danger of gravely erring in the form.²

They except the Eucharist, i.e. the canon, and especially the Consecration and Communion, during which every notable voluntary distraction, on account of the greatest dignity of the Sacrament, is probably mortal. Others, however, deny this. St. Alphonsus adheres rather to the former sentence.³

1216. - Definition. Intention is an act of the will tending toward some end, or an act of the will by which one intends to do or omit something.

Division. It is manifold, namely: 1° actual, virtual, habitual, and interpretative (n. 5. 4°); 2° internal or true, or external, which regards only the external act; 3° determinate or indeterminate, or in a confused way; 4° absolute or conditionated.

Principles. - I. For the validity of a Sacrament there is required in the Minister some true and serious will at least of doing that which the Church does. - It is clear from Trent.¹

II. Nevertheless an actual intention is not required, but a virtual one suffices. The reason is, because actual intention, although best and desirable, is sometimes morally impossible; but a virtual intention sufficiently flows into the action of the Minister, so that this can be called truly human and deliberate. - Thus all.

III. A habitual intention does not suffice, nor an interpretative one; not the first, because it is neither actually elicited by the will, nor, although sometimes elicited, does it endure in some effect or in a series of actions; not the second, because it is neither actually elicited, nor was it ever actually elicited, but it would only be elicited if the mind were thinking about the thing to be done (n. 5. 4°).

1217. Questions. - Query 1° Is an internal intention required?

Resp. Affirmatively; because, if the Minister should intend only the external act, that act - for example, ablution, which can be referred both to cleansing stains and to baptizing - would not be determined to its being.¹

Query 2° Is there required in the Minister the intention of doing what the Roman Church does?

Resp. Negatively, provided he has the intention, at least implicit, of doing that which the true Church does, even if from error he should think his own heterodox church to be the true Church.²

Query 3° Is there required in the Minister the intention of confecting a Sacrament?³

Resp. Negatively, at least explicitly, provided this intention is not excluded. For it suffices that he intend in general and implicitly to do what the Church does.⁴

1218. - Query 4° Must the intention of the Minister be determined to a certain matter and person?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is: 1° as regards the matter, because, as was said above in q. 1°, otherwise it would remain in a state of indifference; for it cannot be drawn from that state and determined to the Sacrament except through the intention of the Minister; 2° as regards the person, because the effect of the Sacrament cannot be applied in general, but to some subject; otherwise no application would be made. - Nevertheless an error in the person does not stand in the way of the validity of the Sacrament, except in Matrimony, or unless the Minister should bind his intention exclusively to a certain person. But even in this case he would validly administer the Eucharist, as is clear.¹

Query 5° Is a Sacrament valid when conferred with a conditionated intention?

Resp. 1° With Matrimony excepted, as being a contract (concerning which later), negatively, if the condition added is either concerning an impossible thing and is seriously added, as: I absolve thee, if thou hast touched heaven with thy finger, because then no intention of absolving is present; or concerning a future contingent thing, because such a condition suspends the intention of the Minister, and prevents the form here and now from being applied to the matter; nor afterward can it be applied, the condition having been verified, since then the matter and form have already ceased to be present.

Resp. 2° Affirmatively, if the condition is either concerning a future necessary thing, and the suspension of the Sacrament is not really intended, because the intention under such a condition passes over into an absolute intention; or concerning a past or present thing, and in fact this exists, because even then a conditionated intention passes over into an absolute intention; but if the condition is not verified, then there is no intention, since it has been restricted to a non-existing condition.²

1219. - Query 6° Is it lawful to confer Sacraments with a conditionated intention, in doubt whether they have been validly conferred?

Resp. 1° As regards Sacraments imprinting character, it is certain that this is lawful. For it is established by Canon Law, where in doubt of Baptism this form is indicated: If thou hast not yet been baptized, I baptize thee, etc.¹

Resp. 2° Also as regards other Sacraments it is lawful, if a sufficient cause adds the condition. The reason is, because Sacraments are on account of men, and, by adding a condition, reverence due to the Sacrament is sufficiently preserved, provided also that the consultation of the Sacrament itself be looked after as much as can be done, and with the good of those who receive the Sacrament, if perhaps they are capable of it, and with reverence toward the Sacrament. - Thus more commonly with St. Alphonsus, against some.² But it is certain that in extreme necessity, where nothing is present except doubtful matter, the Minister not only can, but also is held under grave obligation, to minister the Sacrament conditionally.³

Query 7° Must the condition be expressed in words?

Resp. Negatively. The reason is, because it is enough for reverence toward the Sacrament if it is conceived in the mind. Indeed Gobat thinks that it is not necessary for him who administers the work to have the condition explicitly and formally in mind, but it is enough if it is held implicitly and virtually, as he who wishes to hear Confessions according to the institution of Christ or the intention of the Church has it; because thus also reverence due to the Sacrament is sufficiently preserved. Yet it is to be added by mouth also where the Rubric prescribes this, as in conditionated Baptism, especially if it is conferred publicly, lest, namely, bystanders believe Baptism to be repeated absolutely, and, on account of the sentence, although little probable (and contrary to the Rubric of the Missal), of those who hold that the value of a Sacrament does not depend on the intention of the Minister, but only on the serious conferral of it, it is more right to express the condition also in words.⁴

Note. - 1° More rightly, according to St. Alphonsus, it is held that Sacraments are invalidated by a condition humanly unknowable. - 2° If the Minister has two intentions contrary to each other, and at the same time, the predominant one prevails; and so, whatever uniting incompatibles may have been chosen beforehand, if neither is predominant, the Sacrament does not subsist. - But if they have been successive, the later one prevails, unless the first, not revoked, had virtually excluded any subsequent one beforehand. - If doubt remains, the Sacrament will be doubtful.⁵

1220. Principles. - I. For the value of the Sacraments neither faith, nor probity, or state of grace, is required in the Minister. It is clear: 1° from the perpetual practice and tradition of the Church, which has never wished those baptized by heretics and the wicked to be rebaptized. It is clear: 2° from the definition of the Church. - Trent.¹

II. For the licit administration of the Sacraments, however, faith and probity are required in the Minister, at least if he has been consecrated for conferring Sacraments, and confects solemnly, i.e. with the whole rite prescribed by the Church. Therefore he sins gravely who ministers Sacraments in mortal sin; for a Minister destitute of faith, or unworthy, inflicts grave injury on God and Christ, by treating sacred things unworthily, and, as much as is in him, by contaminating them. Moreover, since the Minister of the Sacraments represents Christ, the primary Minister, who is the Saint of saints, and bears his person, it is necessary that he himself also be holy.

1221. Questions. - Query 1° Does a Minister sin gravely who confers a Sacrament in mortal sin, in a case in which he has not been specially ordained or consecrated for this, for example, if a woman ministers Baptism in the state of sin?

Resp. Negatively, probably; because the obligation of having holiness in a Minister does not arise precisely from the very holiness of Christ and of the Sacrament according to itself, but from the consecration of the Minister for conferring the very holiness of Christ and of the Sacrament. - Billuart,¹ St. Thomas,² and many others.

Yet not a few others affirm, both on account of the reason diametrically opposed to the negative sentence, namely on account of reverence due to Christ, whose minister also in this case is a lay person, although he is not a minister of the Church, and on account of the Sacrament, since here too sacred things, and indeed in a grave matter under grave obligation, are being handled. Thus Collet, Lacroix, Lugo, etc. - St. Alphonsus adheres to the affirmative sentence as intrinsically and by far more probable.³

Query 2° Does a priest, or consecrated Minister, sin gravely when he ministers indeed a Sacrament in mortal sin, but not solemnly, for example, Baptism without ceremonies in a case of necessity?

Resp. It is disputed, as in the preceding question; but St. Alphonsus adheres to the affirmative.⁴

Query 3° Does a Minister sin gravely in mortal sin, if grave necessity urges?

Resp. Negatively, speaking rigorously, namely if the danger is so urgent that no time is allowed for an act of contrition to be elicited by him. But this hypothesis must generally be denied. Moreover, a Minister conscious of mortal sin is not excused who can foresee such a case of necessity, as a Pastor and others (for example, priests exercising the care of souls subsidiarily, or ministering in large hospitals or in camps), who by office are bound to minister the Sacraments, and by an almost special obligation are held to remain habitually in the state of grace.⁵ Resolve the same concerning midwives.

1222. - Query 4° Does he sin who, outside the celebration of Mass, ministers the Eucharist in mortal sin?

Resp. Affirmatively, probably. The reason is, because grave injury is done to the Most Holy Eucharist. For although he does not act as an efficient cause in confecting the Sacrament, nevertheless he is its dispenser, and for this is specially consecrated, and he undertakes a ministry by which he cooperates immediately in sanctification (n. 219. § Otherwise).¹

Query 5° Do they sin who in mortal sin touch or carry the Most Holy Eucharist, whether mediately or immediately?

Resp. It is disputed. There is a threefold probable sentence:

I. It affirms in each case, because the thing is most holy, or the Body of Christ, which they handle unworthily. St. Alphonsus calls this very probable.²

II. It denies, because here there is no administration of a Sacrament, nor does matter so grave appear that it would induce mortal sin. - Thus Lacroix,³ Salmant.,⁴ Busemb.,⁵ and St. Alphonsus says that this is not improbable.⁶

III. It thus distinguishes: They who immediately touch the Most Holy Eucharist in mortal sin do indeed sin gravely, but not they who touch mediately. The reason is repeated from the very diverse grade of irreverence between the first and second case. - Thus Billuart.

1223. - Query 6° Do they sin gravely who exercise other sacred functions in mortal sin?

Resp. Negatively; because all other exercises of Orders besides the confection and administration of Sacraments do not seem to require holiness under grave obligation, since they are not proximately ordered to the sanctification of the soul. - Thus more commonly and more probably Salm., Mazzotta, and St. Alphonsus says that this is sufficiently probable.¹ - Nevertheless a preacher exercising from office is with difficulty excused from mortal sin, who from office preaches, and inveighs against that very vice of which he is publicly defamed, since the scandal impedes the fruit of doctrine.²

Query 7° Is a Minister confecting a Sacrament held to confess beforehand, if he is guilty of mortal sin?

Resp. 1° Affirmatively, if there is question of the celebration of Mass, and the availability of a confessor is not lacking to him; because all the faithful who are guilty of mortal sin and about to communicate must first make Confession, from the Decree of Trent.³

Resp. 2° But negatively, more probably, if there is question of other Sacraments; because by no law is he obliged to Confession; and therefore it suffices that he elicit an act of contrition.⁴

1224. - Query 8° Does he sin gravely who hears Confession in mortal sin, but does not absolve, or with the purpose of eliciting contrition before he absolves?

Resp. Negatively, more probably; because a confessor, by hearing Confession, does not confect the Sacrament.⁵

Query 9° How many sins does a confessor commit by absolving several penitents successively in mortal sin?

See the response at n. 219.

1° As regards the obligation of ministering Sacraments; 2° as regards the obligation of sometimes denying them; 3° as regards the mode of conferring them.

1225. Principles. - I. Those who have the care of souls are held under grave obligation from justice to minister the Sacraments to their subjects reasonably asking. For by taking up the care of souls they have obliged themselves to this by a tacit contract entered into with the subjects, from whom they receive support or at least honor.

Therefore they are held if the common precept of receiving them urges, or if the private necessity or utility of the one asking demands the administration, for example, if the one asking foresees some danger, or is placed in temptation and needs the grace of the Sacrament, or if he wishes to exercise a devotion suitable to his state, or to gain an Indulgence, etc.

II. Others not having the care of souls are not held to minister Sacraments from justice; yet sometimes they are held from charity, namely in a grave necessity of the neighbor.¹

1226. Questions. - Query 1° Who are considered to have the care of souls?

Resp. All those who from office, or by a special title of spiritual jurisdiction or delegation, ought to feed or care for some part of the fold of Christ. Therefore such are Bishops, Pastors, and whoever have subsidiary care of souls from a commission or public office, as among us are quasi-pastors and their coadjutors. Likewise, with respect to Regulars, their own Prelates or Superiors.²

Query 2° Which Sacraments are to be ministered in necessity, even with danger of death, whether by those having the care of souls or by others?

Resp. 1° Those who do not bear the care of souls certainly are held only to minister the Sacraments absolutely necessary for salvation, namely Baptism and Penance, or Extreme Unction when someone can in no way confess, and is more probably known to be in mortal sin. The reason is, because they are held only from charity alone to assist the neighbor in the gravest danger of salvation. But only the aforesaid Sacraments are necessary for salvation. Therefore, etc. - Thus most commonly theologians with St. Alphonsus.³

Resp. 2° Even those bearing the care of souls are very probably held to minister only the aforesaid Sacraments with any danger whatsoever. The reason is, because the other Sacraments are not of such necessity that one is held to confer them with grave danger of life. - Thus St. Alphonsus,⁴ relying on the Declaration of Gregory XIII (12 Oct. 1576), and the Declaration of the S. C. C. approved by the same Pontiff. (O) p. 399. Nevertheless those who bear the care of souls are held to expose life not only in extreme necessity, but also in grave necessity, while other Ministers are obliged to this only in extreme necessity.⁵ Cf. the things said at n. 279. 3rd Rule.

Query 3° Is one held to expose life for ministering the aforesaid Sacraments with probability only of success or of necessity?

Resp. It seems it must be denied, because it is too hard to exact so heroic an act for aiding the neighbor, unless there is morally certain hope of success and the necessity is sufficiently certain. Hence you are not held to expose life in order to baptize or absolve someone, if you probably must perish before you can fulfill this, or if you legitimately presume that he is baptized, or is not placed in the state of mortal sin, or even that he can easily assist himself by an act of perfect contrition.¹ Cf. n. 279. 2nd Rule.

1227. Resolves. - 1° Those having the care of souls sin gravely not only if they deny their ministry without reason, but also if they often show themselves morose and difficult; because thus they deter the faithful from the Sacraments, and the matter falls back to the same as if they denied the Sacraments.

2° Nevertheless it is not mortal to deny the Sacrament of Penance or of the Eucharist to one or another, or to the same person once or twice, asking without necessity; because the harm can easily be repaired, nor is the subject therefore judged to be gravely unwilling. Yet Confession is rarely deferred for men, especially those rarely confessing, particularly today, without grave danger to the soul.

3° If subjects ask irrationally, there is no sin. Hence the pastor is not held daily to spend time with a scrupulous person or little devout souls, nor is this expedient for them.

4° If the pastor has suitable coadjutors, he will not be held so rigorously to receive the Confessions of his subjects; yet he ought to satisfy the faithful who request him by name, unless either he is impeded, or the penitents are readily going to approach another confessor.

5° Generally speaking, those bearing the care of souls sin gravely who do not wish to receive the Confessions of their subjects except on a few determined days within the month; because they are the cause that the faithful remain long in the state of sin and are kept away from receiving the Sacraments.¹

See more where the individual Sacraments are treated; and recall the things said concerning the office of Pastors in the Treatise on States, n. 1141. IV.

1228. Principles. - I. The Minister is held under grave obligation, per se speaking, to deny Sacraments to the unworthy, because the natural law obliges a dispenser faithfully and according to his will to dispense the goods of the Lord; but the certain will of Christ is that Sacraments not be conferred upon the unworthy, according to that saying of Matthew:¹ Do not give the holy thing to dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine.

II. Sacraments, in which the Minister acts the part of dispenser alone, can be ministered to those asking without prior inquiry into their disposition, and can be denied only to those concerning whose unworthiness it is certain. The reason for the first is, because in these he does not act the part of judge, and therefore is not held to inquire. The reason for the second, because each one is presumed good until he is proved evil.

I said: 1° in which the Minister acts the part of dispenser alone. For it is otherwise if at the same time he ought to act the part of judge, and thus in Penance he is held to inquire concerning the acts of the penitent; in the Baptism of adults, concerning consent and dispositions; in Order, concerning the dignity of the one to be ordained; in Matrimony, concerning impediments. 2° concerning whose unworthiness it is certain. But it is certain if a) the crime is certain, or public suspicion concerning it is so vehement that it is equivalent to moral certitude, which cannot be laid aside by a probable reason; b) the penance is doubtful.²

1229. Special Rules. - I. A Sacrament is not to be ministered to a public sinner, even one asking secretly, not even from fear of death, as St. Alphonsus thinks; because no reason is present why an exception should be made to the general rule; indeed a grave scandal of the faithful would follow. - Except: 1° Penance, unless someone is prohibited from it, for example, on account of reserved censures;¹ 2° if someone has given a sufficient indication of conversion, such as is Confession made at least before several by one who is not notoriously placed in an occasion or in habitual scandal.²

II. To an occult sinner, asking secretly, the Sacrament is likewise to be denied;³ because reverence toward the Sacrament and charity toward the neighbor in these circumstances entirely demand this.

III. To a truly occult sinner, asking publicly, the Sacrament is not to be denied. The reason is drawn from the inconveniences which would follow from the denial of the Sacrament; for scandals and disturbances would arise in the Church, and especially the faithful, having been led into suspicion, lest they be prohibited from the Sacraments, would withdraw from them. - Thus all with St. Thomas,⁴ St. Alphonsus.⁵

Except nevertheless: 1° the Sacrament of Order, from which, on account of the public good, the unworthy man is to be repelled even with his own infamy, if he cannot otherwise be kept away, and this although the offense cannot be proved juridically. Nor is the Bishop obliged to the manifestation of the cause of the repulse, nor does an appeal belong to the one repelled, but only recourse to the Holy See.⁶

2° Matrimony, if the pastor outside Confession knows some impediment, or knows that the spouses are ignorant of the rudiments of the Faith, and this on account of protecting the legitimation and education of offspring.⁷

1230. Questions. - Query 1° When is a sinner considered public or notorious, or occult; or secretly asking for a Sacrament?

Resp. 1° That sinner is called public whose crime or very bad life is notorious, either by law, or by juridical proof or sentence, or by fact, as if the crime was committed in a public place, or by fame among many, arising nevertheless from sufficient indications.¹

Resp. 2° A sinner secretly asking is called one who is found alone with the Minister, or with a few others of whom deservedly no account is had, as are little children, etc. Otherwise he is considered to ask publicly. (X) p. 414.

Query 2° Is the Sacrament to be denied to an unworthy person asking publicly, whose crime is not simply public, but known nevertheless to most of those present, not to all?

Resp. Negatively, more probably; because he still possesses fame among those few who do not yet know his crime. Except if one or another upright person is ignorant, who is thought not likely to divulge it (n. 519. R. 3°).² - Hence only then is the Sacrament to be denied to an unworthy person publicly asking, when either his unworthiness is absolutely public (by fame, by law, or by fact), although perhaps known to none of those present; or respectively public, or known to all those present, which very rarely happens in great cities, especially ours, on account especially of the defect of personal knowledge; but it can happen more easily in small places.

1231. - Query 3° Is the Sacrament to be denied to a sinner when his crime is not public where he asks, but is public elsewhere?

Resp. Negatively, at least more probably; because on the one hand, by ministering the Sacraments to him, there is no scandal of others, and on the other hand, if they were denied, those inconveniences and harms would arise which proceed from denial made to an occult sinner. - But one must say otherwise if knowledge of that crime is easily about to come into that place.¹

Query 4° How ought Pastors to conduct themselves in the celebration of Matrimony of those who notoriously have incurred ecclesiastical censures?

Resp. The Sacred Penitentiary, 10 Dec. 1860, dub. 10: "Care is to be taken with all strength that those bound by ecclesiastical censures be reconciled with the Church in the due manner; but if they refuse to be reconciled, and unless the marriage is celebrated, grave harms seem to be imminent therefrom, the Pastor should consult the Ordinary, who, having considered the account of things and circumstances and weighed all things which are handed down by approved authors, and especially by St. Alphonsus (L. VI. 54), should declare those things which he shall have judged more expedient in the Lord." Namely, according to the Holy Doctor, the Pastor will be able to assist "in order to avoid death, or other graver evils of the community, or of the contracting parties themselves, for example, lest they themselves persevere in sin."

Query 5° Is it lawful to simulate the administration of a Sacrament, lest it be conferred on an unworthy person?

Resp. Theologians distinguish a twofold simulation: one formal, by which the Minister directly intends to deceive; another material, by which someone does not directly intend to deceive, but from another motive is induced to simulate, for example, if he is compelled by grave fear, etc.

I say: It is never lawful, not even materially, to simulate a Sacrament. The reason is, because every simulation is an injury and grave irreverence toward Christ, whom the Minister mocks by abusing sacred things instituted by him.

1232. - Query 6° In what precisely does simulation of a Sacrament consist?

Resp. Theologians do not agree. Some say that generally it consists in this, that it can lead those receiving or others into error. More probably, according to the common sentence, it seems to be present only when something is put fictively which pertains to the essence of the Sacrament, so that the neighbor is necessarily deceived; and thus they distinguish simulation from dissimulation, which is had when the fiction or defect is exterior and, per se speaking, can be recognized, as, for example, if in the confection matter or form is not placed, but something else is substituted in its place, so that something other than the Sacrament is done. This dissimulation is lawful from a licit cause, since thus truth alone is hidden, and the Sacrament is not treated irreverently, scandal, contempt, intention of deceiving, etc., being excluded. (Cf. the number immediately following, 1233. 6° and 8°.) Hence the C. S. O., if ever it happened that infidel parents offered infants for Baptism, not so that they might become Christians, but so that they might be preserved from certain diseases, never permitted the pouring of water without the utterance of the form, so that the parents might thus desist from importunate prayers, since "Baptism is the gate of all the Sacraments and the profession of the Faith, and can in no way be feigned."¹

1233. Resolves. - 1° Among those who, as publicly unworthy, are to be kept away from Communion, the Roman Ritual enumerates excommunicates, interdicted persons, and the manifestly infamous, as harlots, concubinaries, usurers (at least public by law, or condemned by sentence of a judge), magicians, sorcerers (among whom fortune-tellers also are to be held), blasphemers (as also are to be held those who by writings or words are accustomed to assail God, or the Saints, or Religion and the Church with calumnies). "But as often," says Kenrick,² "as the exterior composition of the body denotes a humble soul, it can be had as a retraction of those things which one has contumeliously uttered"), and other public sinners of this kind, such as public customary impenitents, those publicly known as enrolled in some condemned society, actors and actresses exhibiting impious or base plays. - "Public sinners," says Kenrick,³ "who resist the legitimate authority of their prelates, or behave badly with grave offense of the faithful, are unworthy to be admitted to the Eucharist; but whenever the manner of acting, even if unjust, can be extenuated from error of mind or some other reason, it is better to repel no one approaching, but to leave him to the judgment of God and of the confessor." - Nor are all those to be barred who have publicly committed some grave sin, since scandal is regularly removed by Confession made or presumed. Yet, as is clear per se, those are to be barred who are publicly and actually in sin, for example, those manifestly and here and now drunk, or women so immodestly denuded that the denudation is mortal per se (n. 295. 11°).

2° To a public sinner, even one dying but nevertheless still master of himself, the Sacraments are to be denied, unless he repents not only before God, or in Confession, but also before men, unless perhaps the matter has been erased by oblivion. But this penitence before men ought to be exhibited outside Confession, and in such a way (for example, before witnesses), that it can come to the knowledge of others. Cf. Rit. Rom. on the Communion of the sick.

3° If Sacraments are to be denied publicly, let them be denied in a prudent manner. Hence all those things must be guarded against by the Minister by which either he would become liable to laws punishing defamation, or a greater impediment would be put in the way of the conversion of the unworthy person. Hence the motives of the refusal are not to be publicly exposed; and the priest, as he is assisting at the Sacred Table with others, should pass by without signifying anything either by words or by a nod. But if he comes alone during Mass, the priest will remain at the altar, announcing to the unworthy person through another that he may go away, but not why.

4° A priest would sin most gravely who in Mass should pronounce the consecratory words over bread and wine while excluding the intention of consecrating. Nor can those be excused by good faith who, laboring under crass ignorance and celebrating in mortal sin, simulate Consecration lest they become guilty of sacrilege, even if they omit the words of Consecration altogether.

5° A confessor would sin gravely who should utter the words of absolution without the mind of absolving, even if he were doing this in order to free himself more easily from an indisposed penitent instantly and importunately asking absolution, or even exacting it by most grave threats. - Several say that in this case a confessor can say: I do not absolve thee..., pronouncing the word not so softly that it is not heard by the penitent. St. Alphonsus does not judge this improbable;⁴ but the confessor could more easily pronounce other words or prayers rather than the form of absolution; moreover this case seems to be almost chimerical.

6° A confessor, however, does not simulate the Sacrament of Penance when he recites prayers over an indisposed penitent, lest bystanders perceive that he is dismissed without absolution; for it is established among all that penitents are often dismissed by only a blessing, and sometimes without the intention of confessing or completing the confession they approach the sacred tribunal.⁵

7° A priest sins gravely who offers a host not consecrated for a consecrated one, even to a person knowing and consenting, as sometimes happens to miserable priests when an accomplice, who is a woman, comes to the Sacred Table to save reputation. The reason is, because thus a host not consecrated is exposed to adoration both by bystanders and by the one receiving herself knowingly with external reverence, which constitutes external and material idolatry, and therefore something intrinsically evil.⁶

8° Yet according to the common sentence they do not sin, at least not gravely, who from grave fear simulate entering Matrimony. The reason is, because since voluntary consent is lacking, according to the sentence now certain, which holds that spouses themselves are the ministers of this Sacrament, matter and form are lacking, and therefore there is no simulation of the Sacrament, but only of the matrimonial contract. Otherwise the error could be sufficiently perceived from the circumstances, and thus deception would not necessarily be present.

1234. - It is not enough if the minister diligently observes those things which regard the matter and form; but he ought carefully to keep all the laws of the Holy Church concerning the administration of the Sacraments. Hence the Minister sins who contemns them, omits them without sufficient cause, or changes them;¹ and this according to the gravity of the matter, and therefore gravely, if either he neglects integral ceremonies (namely those which complete the sacramental action and indicate its effects more clearly, as exorcisms in Baptism), or even accidental ceremonies (which pertain to the ornament and decorum of the act, as genuflections), in great quantity, or with grave scandal, or from contempt.

1235. Questions. - Query 1° Is the use of the Roman Ritual of precept in the administration of the Sacraments?

Resp. Affirmatively, as regards our Provinces, yet with the modifications conceded by the Holy See,² it being forbidden:

1° That priests depart from it "under the pretext of custom or any other pretext whatsoever."³

2° That "if they have judged it expedient, for the sake of explanation, to add a version in the vernacular language of those things which" in administering the Sacraments and in the burial of the dead they recite in the Latin language, "they use any other than that which shall have been sanctioned by the Ordinary."⁴

3° That the Latin form of the prayers never be omitted.⁵ (I) p. 400.

I said: affirmatively as regards our Provinces; but whether the use of the Roman Ritual in the administration of the Sacraments is of precept everywhere, disputed on each side, see, if you please, in De Herdt.⁶

1236. - Query 2° What sacred vestments are required for the administration of the Sacraments?

Resp. With the case of urgent necessity excluded, a stole and surplice are generally required. - It is said, surplice; for "the rochet is not a sacred vestment to be employed in the administration of the Sacraments, and therefore for administering them the surplice must necessarily be used."⁷

But the stole ought not to be worn except in the confection of Sacraments and Sacramentals, and in the act of preaching where custom prevails, and also in certain other functions, as is prescribed in the Roman Ritual. But the use of wearing the stole as a sign of jurisdiction and preeminence is reprobated as an abuse.⁸

More things concerning the mode of administering Sacraments will be treated where the individual Sacraments in particular are considered. - Generally let the following admonition of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore be kept before the eyes:¹ "While they minister Sacraments, let the words be pronounced distinctly and articulately; let their approach, countenance, motions of the body, and modulation of the voice express consciousness of the most holy thing which is being done, and excite the faithful to firm faith and inward devotion. Moreover, according to their strength and the circumstances of things, let priests take care that those things which are required for the dispensation of the Sacraments be clean and becoming. Let Pastors instruct the flock committed to them concerning the Sacraments and the religious preparation to be put before these, as often as occasion is offered."

1237. - The subject of a Sacrament is called he who receives the Sacrament, and is capable of the effect of the Sacrament.

The subject of the Sacraments is man alone as a wayfarer; because, as is clear from Sacred Scriptures and tradition, the Sacraments were instituted for wayfaring men alone. Yet not all men are capable of all the Sacraments. For neither can women receive the Sacrament of Order, nor can children not yet using reason receive the Sacraments of Penance and Extreme Unction.

The reason a priori why man alone as a wayfarer is capable of the Sacraments is the will of Christ the Lord, the institutor of the Sacraments. But the reason of fittingness is, because, according to the order of the present Providence, man alone as a wayfarer is capable of first grace or of the increase of grace; but the Blessed or souls detained in purgatory are not of this kind, since for them there has already been determined a measure of glory corresponding to the grace which they had in mortal life. Much less are the damned capable of grace, as being now separated from God for eternity.

These things having been posited, we must treat of the requisites both for the valid and for the licit reception of the Sacraments.

In the first volume of this work, there are found expounded in general the more universal principles of the whole of moral science, and also the doctrine concerning the theological virtues, which are concerned with the ultimate end itself, which in things to be done is the first principle.

In the second volume there was said in particular concerning the various means intrinsically necessary for the end from the very nature of the thing, to which the moral virtues dispose us; all of these are reduced to the four cardinal virtues.

But there are also other extrinsic means, prescribed for salvation from the positive will of God, namely the sacraments instituted by Christ the Lord; among which the Most Holy Eucharist excels, which at the same time is the continual sacrifice of the New Law. Wherefore in the present volume the whole moral doctrine concerning the sacraments comes to be handed down, both in general and in special, with all rules and precepts which pertain to them.

But it does not seem possible to understand those practical questions perfectly unless a right concept is present concerning the general nature of the sacraments and concerning the proper character of each one; and we hold it to be contrary to pedagogy to separate moral solutions from the speculative doctrine on which they rest. Therefore let it please us, after the manner of a foundation, to expound also the speculative questions concerning the sacraments, yet briefly and summarily, leaving longer demonstrations, deeper explanations, and more subtle investigations to dogmatic theologians.

Concerning the sacraments ecclesiastical legislation has decreed many things, whose canons and prescriptions certainly will have to be attended to, yet with a certain moderation: namely when, and insofar as, it will be necessary for a sufficient understanding or for a fuller knowledge of moral theology, such as can seem to be duly required in priests. We intend to remain spare from greater abundance, lest we wish to convert moral science into canonical discipline; for we judge that more perfect elucidations of texts, more intricate problems, more special ways in juridical process, and the synthetic aspect of the whole of law are to be reserved to jurists.

May God grant that, under the patronage of the Blessed Virgin, the work begun may be completed unto the more certain instruction of schools, the greater utility of the clergy, and the more perfect building up of the body of Christ.

I was writing on the feast of St. Albert the Great, Confessor and Doctor of the Church, November 15, 1932.

The Author.

1. Matter to be treated. - Theology is a science deduced from the principles of revelation concerning God Himself and other things in order to God. It embraces several parts:

1. One is merely speculative, dogmatic, whose direct end is solely to know the truth concerning God Himself: both a) in Himself, as a supernatural being elevated above all things, and b) as the supernatural principle, or author and end of things, especially of man, whom God has destined to the intuitive vision of Himself, to which man can come through grace. From this there spontaneously arises:

2. Another part, practical, moral, whose direct and principal end is to direct human actions. For if God is our principle and end, there follow in us moral relations and offices toward Him: namely, we must acknowledge Him as our author, and tend toward Him as ultimate end. The moral part treats in general and in special a) of human acts by which we must tend toward God, of their rules, namely of conscience and of law, and of their principles, namely of habits, that is, of virtues and of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, all of which are means intrinsic to man and necessary by their very nature, by which we tend toward God; and on the contrary b) it treats of sins by which we are distanced from God or withdraw from Him, and of their principles, or of vices.

These two parts are necessary in theology, so that without them it could not even be conceived, for it cannot exist unless it concerns God and unless it is made by man knowing the supernatural end; but if these are present, it is also understood to be complete of itself.

3. But in the present order, after original sin, from His free will God ordained other special means extrinsic to man, so that we may be able to know Him and tend toward Him. These are namely a) the Incarnate Word, who showed us the way of truth and leads us to the salvation of eternal beatitude; b) the sacraments, by which we obtain grace and salvation, and which have their efficacy from Christ. And thus a third part of theology was added.

Now the doctrine concerning the Incarnate Word is wholly speculative and therefore is explained in dogmatic theology; but the doctrine concerning the sacraments, in general and in special, is partly speculative, partly practical. Since, however, the sacraments were instituted rather that they may be received than that they may be believed, they pertain more to moral theology, and therefore sacramental doctrine is more rightly and more suitably expounded in the moral part. And this is the matter which now is to be treated.

The division handed down is that of the Summa of St. Thomas, who in I, q. 2, proem., writes: "First we shall treat of God, not only according as He is in Himself, but also according as He is the principle of things and their end, and especially of the rational creature; second, concerning the movement of the rational creature into God; third, concerning Christ, who, according as He is man, is for us the way of tending into God."

2. The order to be followed in the treatment. - The matter to be explained is the whole doctrine concerning the Sacraments, both in general and in special, and concerning certain other things which have connection, relation, or likeness with them, such as sacramentals, rites and ceremonies, irregularities or impediments, censures or indulgences. These things are to be declared according to the natural order itself of the sacraments, namely:

1. On the Sacraments in general,

2. On Baptism,

3. On Confirmation,

4. On the Eucharist as sacrament and sacrifice,

5. On Penance,

6. On Extreme Unction,

7. On Order,

8. On Matrimony.

St. Thomas III, q. 60, a. 1 and 2.

3. Sacrament according to the name etymologically signifies that which makes sacred, or a means of making sacred; whence it is denominated from order to something sacred and to sanctity. In Greek it is called mysterion, which signifies that which is hidden; but it sounds almost the same: for sacred or divine things are wont especially to be secret.

But because something sacred exists in many ways, and order to sanctity exists in many ways, the signification of sacrament is manifold. For just as healthy is said not only of the animal which properly has health, but also by analogy of the face or color which is a sign, and of medicine which is a cause of health, so sacraments are called not only those things which have in themselves some hidden sanctity, but all those things which have toward that sanctity either the order of a sign or of a cause, or any other relation whatever. Hence the word sacrament signifies in ecclesiastical speech:

a) divine truths, sacred in themselves, exceeding the light of reason,¹ and especially those which in the ancient Church were hidden from the non-initiated;

¹ Mt. XIII, 11: "To you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven"; Eph. I, 9: "that He might make known the sacrament of His will"; likewise III, 3, 9; Col. I, 27; I Tim. III, 16; Wis. II, 22; VI, 24; I Cor. XIII, 2.

b) figures, parables, similitudes, symbols by which supernatural realities are proposed to us;² in which sense St. Augustine often spoke;³

² Apoc. I, 20: "the sacrament of the seven stars"; XVII, 7: "I will show you the sacrament of the woman"; Eph. V, 32: "a great sacrament in Christ and in the Church"; Dan. II, 18, 30, 47.

³ De Civitate Dei, book X, 5: "A visible sacrifice is a sacrament, that is, a sacred sign, of an invisible sacrifice"; Contra Faustum, book XIX, 11, ceremonies of external worship, and book II On the Merits and Remission of Sins, rites imposed on catechumens are called sacraments; ep. to Marcellinus 138, n. 7: "signs, when they pertain to divine things, are called sacraments."

c) ceremonies or rites and signs instituted for the worship of God, by which man is sanctified with sanctity and initiated into sacred things.⁴

⁴ I Cor. IV, 1: "Let a man so account us as ministers of Christ and dispensers of the mysteries of God."

In profane speech it is taken: a) for every secret, insofar as it is not to be violated but to be kept as if it were sacred: thus in Tob. XII, 7, it is read: to hide the sacrament of the king is good; b) for an oath, especially of soldiers toward the republic, because it is made by something sacred, and because it is not to be violated but is to be kept as something sacred; c) for the money of litigants deposited in a temple, because there it is kept as a sacred thing.

Now for many centuries, by the usage of theologians and of the Church, the word sacrament has become especially proper to sanctifying signs;⁵ whence in the present treatise it is taken in this sense: "properly," says St. Thomas, q. 60, a. 2, "a sacrament is said, according as we now speak of sacraments, to be that which is a sign of a sacred thing insofar as it is sanctifying men."

⁵ In the twelfth century Hugh of St. Victor says that the sacraments contain grace; the Summa Sententiarum, that they confer it; Peter Lombard, that they cause it. This doctrine was received by common usage and approved by the Council of Trent. And it has a positive foundation in the Fathers, although among them the sense of the word sacrament is very indeterminate. For they describe sanctifying signs, recalling a visible symbol in which there is the power of the Holy Spirit and invisible grace. Cf. Tertullian, On Baptism IV; Ambrose, On the Holy Spirit, I, 77; Augustine, Questions on the Heptateuch, III, 84.

4. Division of the treatise. - The treatise is divided into five parts: on the essence of the sacraments, on necessity or existence, on effects, on cause, and on number.

The first part is: On the essence of a sacrament: 1. on the notion and signification of the sacramental sign; 2. on the parts of the sacramental sign: a) on matter and form, b) on the union of matter and form; 3. on the determination of the sacramental sign: a) on the cause determining matter and form; b) on the change of matter and form.

The second part is: On the necessity of the sacraments in the present order, before original sin, before and after Christ.

The third part is: On the effects of the sacraments: A. on grace: 1. on grace caused by the sacraments: a) on habitual grace making one pleasing, b) on special or sacramental grace, c) on unequal grace caused; 2. on the mode by which grace is caused: a) on the efficient causality of the sacraments, b) on the instrumental causality of the sacraments, c) on the causative power of the sacraments, d) on the causality of the sacraments of the Old Law; 3. on the time at which grace is caused; B. on character: 1. on the existence of character; 2. on the essence of character; 3. on the sacraments imprinting character.

The fourth part is: On the cause of the sacraments: 1. on the instituting cause; 2. on the administering cause or minister: a) on the various ministers, b) on the faith and sanctity of the minister, c) on the intention of the minister, d) on those to whom the sacraments are to be administered; 3. on the receiving cause or subject: a) on the conditions of valid reception, b) on the conditions of licit reception.

The fifth part is: On the number of the sacraments: 1. on the sevenfold number; 2. on the order of the sacraments, or comparison with one another.

There follows an appendix: on the ceremonies of the sacraments and sacramentals.

The theory concerning the sacraments in general is not exhibited in the Scriptures or in the Fathers, but only doctrine concerning each one; nevertheless it has its foundation in St. Augustine; and it was built up by the Scholastics of the twelfth century, who began to consider all the sacraments after the manner of one.⁶

⁶ Concerning the Sacraments there can usefully be consulted: St. Thomas, in III, q. 60-65, with the commentaries of Cajetan, John of St. Thomas, Sylvius, the Salmanticenses, Nugno Cabezudo, Billuart; likewise Peter de Ledesma, Summa de Sacramentis; Drouin, De Re Sacramentaria; among the Jesuit scholastics, St. Robert Bellarmine, Suarez, and de Lugo; among recent dogmatic theologians, Franzelin, Billot, Heinrich-Gutberlet, Hugon, De Baets, Van Noort, Pohle, Diekamp, Del Val, Sasse; likewise Haine, Principia dogmatico-moralia universae theologiae sacramentalis; De Smet, Tractatus dogmatico-moralis de Sacramentis in genere; Chardon, Histoire des Sacrements; Hahn, Die Lehre von den Sakramenten in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung; Oswald, Die dogmatische Lehre von den h. Sakramenten; Probst, Sakramenten und Sakramentalien in die drei erste Jahrhunderten; Pourrat, La Theologie sacramentaire; Schanz, Die Lehre von den h. Sakramenten der Katholische Kirche; Gihr, Die h. Sakramente der Katholische Kirche; for practical questions, St. Alphonsus and modern manuals, such as Ballerini, Lehmkuhl, Marc, Aertnijs-Damen, Genicot-Salsmans, Noldin-Schmitt, Prummer, Tanquerey, Vermeersch; among canonists, Cappello, Tractatus canonico-moralis de Sacramentis, I; among orators, Monsabre, Les Sacrements.

I. Three things are required for the validity of Baptism: 1) the intention of the minister, at least virtual, of doing what the Church does; 2) valid matter and form posited together; 3) a capable subject, for which in an adult there is required the intention, at least habitual, of receiving the sacrament. But if one of these is doubtfully present or has been present, Baptism, just as in a case of necessity it is to be conferred, so also is to be renewed: conditionally.

Concerning these, no special difficulty occurs, in relation to the present questions about embryology, except nevertheless for the matter of the sacrament, about which, therefore, we shall speak especially. But so that the exposition may be more complete and more perfect from every part, and the whole synthesis of theological doctrine may be seen, and at the same time the solution of cases may be manifest in all things, we also add the principles to be held concerning the form of the sacrament.

II. The remote matter required for validity is natural or elementary water in a liquid state, as is established from Jn. III, 5, and Acts of the Apostles VIII, 36; from the rituals; from the Fourth Lateran, Florence, and Trent defining it, sess. 7, can. 2; i.e., everything which comes under the use and name of water among men. Such is water of rivers, rain, a well, a spring, ponds, cisterns, a bath, marshes, lakes, the sea, whether bitter or poisoned or sweet, whether warm and boiling or cold and icy, whether blessed or not. Likewise water dissolved from snow, ice, hail, dew, mists, condensed vapors, or flowing from stones (sweat of pavement), leaves, or walls in rainy or winter time; likewise water obtained by chemical art or by distillation of another element, if it is pure from foreign elements; likewise water mixed with foreign matter in a small quantity, provided that not only chemically but also according to common estimation water is certainly predominant and it is still called water, e.g., turbid or somewhat muddy water, mineral, sulphurous, ferruginous water, etc.

Hence:

1. invalid matter is: wine, oil, broth of flesh or fat, fluids of an animal or human body: milk, blood, urine, saliva, tears, sweat, mucus, amniotic fluid, spittle, phlegms, etc.; sap pressed from trees, fruits (apples, pears, cherries), flowers, herbs, roots, grains; snow, ice, hail, hoarfrost, vapor, and other things not dissolved because they are not suitable for ablution; water very much mixed, so that it has more of a foreign substance than of water, or is no longer suitable for ablution, e.g., mud, ink, very good beer, good coffee, good tea, good broth, lye. For all these things are not water; or if they are, according to common estimation they do not have the use or name of water.

2. doubtful matter is thin broth, lye not too thick, small beer, ordinary tea-water or coffee-water, slight ink, water dissolved from salt, artificial water extracted by distillation from flowers or herbs, e.g., rose-water, violet-water, etc., or flowing from a vine or trees.

III. The proximate valid matter is the ablution of the one to be baptized by the one baptizing; otherwise the sense of the form would not be verified, and besides this is held by universal tradition. It is said:

1. Ablution, for which it is required that water immediately and physically touch the body and successively flow and run over some part of it, so that it is judged washed or cleansed. For this, however, a small quantity suffices; nor is it necessary that bodily filth be wiped away: for the ablution of Baptism is ordered to spiritual cleansing alone. It can be done either a) by movement of the one to be baptized in the water, or b) by movement of the water upon the one to be baptized; namely:

a) by immersion, for which it is required that someone be moved in or under the water; whence Baptism would be invalid if someone were held unmoved in unmoved water; and probably, according to certain authors, also that he be drawn out from the water. Hence an ablution which kills, by which someone would throw an infant into a river, is doubtfully valid; besides, it is gravely illicit because evils are not to be done that goods may come about. But the very throwing is already evil of itself, as tending directly only to killing, nor does it immediately have a good effect, as ablution, but only mediately and by accident, because in fact it is terminated rather to water and ablution than to something else. Namely, the ablution in the case is an effect of the throwing, which, even if it were not done into water, would nevertheless cause death.¹ Nevertheless, it is licit to wash with icy water, if no other is available, even if death were feared as about to be hastened somewhat, because this action of itself and immediately tends to ablution and sanctification, not to killing; whence death would happen by accident and would be compensated by the more excellent good of eternal life;

¹ Cf. Billuart, de Bapt., art. 3, § III.

b) also by infusion and by sprinkling, although this last mode is dangerous in practice; for these some movement of water is required. Whence invalid matter is the mere touch of water without flow, a drop or wet cloth remaining on the forehead; ablution performed by one or another drop, or in the manner of an anointing, is easily doubtful (S. Off., 14 Dec. 1898); it is valid if someone by movement of a finger or moistened cloth would wash a part of the body.

2. Ablution of the one to be baptized, i.e., a) of the whole body or of a principal part, namely the head, "in which all the interior and exterior senses flourish" (S. Th., III, q. 66, a. 7, ad 3). Baptism is valid if it is done upon the head covered with an ulcerous crust, because the crust is nothing but the skin of the infant foully disfigured by disease, and otherwise a man whose whole head were covered with smallpox could neither be washed nor baptized. Baptism is doubtful if the ablution is done on other members than the head, because in none is the integrity of life as in the head; and it is the more doubtful the more it is done on a member less notable and more remote from the head; whence it is more probably valid if it is done on the heart, breast, neck, shoulder-blades, shoulders; more doubtful on the arms or legs; very doubtful on the foot, hand, finger;

b) of the body itself, which must be physically and immediately touched. Hence there is doubt concerning the value of Baptism conferred on hairs, even of the head, because they are not certainly parts of the body;² it is more doubtful if on beard or nails; very doubtful if on the umbilical cord or on one of the two membranes which immediately envelop the infant in the mother's uterus and which are born from the ovum, for although they are of fetal origin, nevertheless they are not a permanent part of the infant but rather a covering or transitory instrument; almost certainly invalid if on the third, exterior membrane enveloping the fetus, because this arises from the substance of the mother; invalid if it is done on the clothing or body of the mother (S. Off., 21 May 1671).

² But if the head is covered with hair, the priest must, while with the right hand he pours water upon the crown of the head, with the left separate the hairs, or take care that the water run over the temples of the head, or, what is easier in practice, confer Baptism on the forehead, because that it must be washed on the crown is nowhere prescribed. Cf. Noldin, Th. M., III, n. 60. Certain authors, such as Lugo and Genicot, judge Baptism conferred on the hairs to be as certain as on the skin, for if the hairs of an animal are washed, the animal is said to be washed. Nevertheless it can be answered that this is true of an animal which cannot be washed otherwise, not of a man who by his nature does not have hairs everywhere, and therefore can be washed immediately.

3. Ablution by the one baptizing: for if it were done by the baptized person, or by a third person, or by a natural cause alone, e.g., while a child falls into water, the words would be false: I baptize thee. Baptism is valid if someone holds an infant under falling water without the help of another, or under water already poured out by another, because the one holding is the sole cause of the ablution; but if another intends or knows that he is pouring water upon the infant, Baptism is doubtful because it is doubted whether the one who holds or the one by whose help the water descends is the cause of the ablution.

IV. For liceity there is required pure and specially consecrated water; and in the Latin Church the ablution is to be done by triple infusion, in the manner of a cross. He sins mortally against reverence toward the sacrament who without necessity employs impure, dirty, turbid water, or who in solemn Baptism does not use consecrated water, or changes the usual manner of ablution, or does not make the triple infusion. But if in a case of necessity consecrated water is lacking, blessed water is to be employed; otherwise natural water (S. Off., 22 Jun. 1883). Outside a case of necessity new water is to be blessed (17 Apr. 1839).

In merely private Baptism, even by a deacon not commissioned, it is better to use blessed water, or, if the one baptizing is a priest, even consecrated water.

III. Concerning Extreme Unction. - Extreme Unction is not to be given to all Christians who are in danger of death, but to adults dangerously sick; for, besides Baptism, there is required for its validity that one be a) a sinner and therefore an adult, or have the use of reason; b) dangerously sick; c) intending to receive the sacrament. Therefore the following cannot receive the sacrament:

1. The insane, unless previously they had the use of reason and then formed the intention of receiving Extreme Unction.

2. The healthy, even if they are in extrinsic danger of death, as those condemned to death; those about to navigate or fight dangerously, unless after they have received a lethal wound; women who regularly give birth with some danger of death, unless death is to be feared on account of a special infirmity, or their strength has already been greatly weakened from childbirth; and those about to undergo a dangerous incision, unless from an illness already contracted they are in danger of death. - On the contrary, those can be anointed for whom, from illness, there is not only imminent but also probable intrinsic danger of death, as all who have contracted an infirmity that will probably bring death, those infected by poison, the gravely wounded, those who after surgical incision are greatly weakened, indeed also decrepit old persons even if they labor under no special disease, for old age itself is for them an incurable disease, can. 940, § 1.

3. Those who do not intend to receive the sacrament; but an actual or virtual intention is not required, but a habitual intention, not retracted, even implicit, suffices, such as the intention of Catholics not to die without the sacraments, or of dying as a Catholic; not, however, the simple intention of saving oneself. Hence:

a) Of itself and regularly Extreme Unction is to be given to all the sick to whom absolution is granted, even if they are deprived of the senses. The reason is that it is a more secure means of salvation than absolution itself, for it is certain that Extreme Unction remits mortal sins, Jas. V, 15, and it is also certain that it is valid if absolution certainly valid cannot be had. For when sufficient external signs of contrition are lacking and therefore absolution is very doubtful, Extreme Unction is received validly, because contrition, which is a part of the sacrament of Penance, is not a part of Extreme Unction required for its validity, but only a disposition for its fruitfulness.

b) Accidentally, however, it can happen that Extreme Unction must be denied, when it cannot be given without the scandal of those standing by to some impious man already deprived of the senses, to whom absolution was granted secretly; likewise to him who now appears dead. Scandal can often be prevented by secretly administering one anointing, or even by admonishing those standing by; but if this cannot be done, the sacrament is to be denied, because the spiritual evil of many prevails over the conjectural good of one.

c) In doubt whether the sick person has attained the use of reason, whether he is actually placed in danger of death, or whether he is dead, the sacrament is to be ministered under condition, can. 941.

d) Extreme Unction is to be ministered absolutely to all, even sinners, who in life had an intention, not retracted, of dying as Catholics, can. 943; under condition, if you are capable, if it concerns unknown persons, or those who do not certainly live, as was already said, or sinners so impious that it can be doubted whether they have the intention of dying as Catholics; but not to those who, impenitent, contumaciously persevere in manifest mortal sin, can. 942.

e) In a case of necessity, Extreme Unction is to be ministered by one anointing only on the forehead, with the form: Through this holy anointing may the Lord pardon you whatever you have sinned. Amen. But if death has not followed, the other anointings are to be added as indicated in the ritual, and indeed absolutely, not under condition. The anointing on the loins is now to be omitted; the anointing of the feet can be omitted for any reasonable cause, can. 947.

2. As regards ordinary confession, although certain persons of very tender conscience have been accustomed to confess daily, ordinarily, however, it suffices to confess once, or, exceptionally, at most twice in a week.

3. He who lacks the opportunity of confessing and is burdened by venial sin, even one altogether deliberate, ought not on that account to omit communion, both because venial sin does not impede communion, and also because, besides confession, it can be remitted by other remedies, e.g., by an act of contrition or charity virtually retracting it; indeed it can happen that on this occasion he prepares himself for communion by more fervent acts of contrition, confidence, and humility.

4. In the confession of venial sins, one must beware lest they be declared from mere custom and as a mere narration, without contrition or purpose, or only in general; - but let them accuse in species a few sins well determined, with the cause or motive of sinning added; besides, let them add some defect to be extirpated, by which the state of the soul may become more known to the confessor, or even some graver sin from the past life.

5. That confession may be truly devout, let it not be made without preparation, nor only with examination having preceded, humble and sincere accusation, true sorrow and efficacious purpose, but let the penitent also seek means of amendment and resolve to avoid the occasions of sins.

6. When carefully made, confession purifies, restores, and confirms, and joins one more to God.

After the pastoral questions concerning the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, learnedly and lucidly arranged by R. P. Merkelbach, O.P., our purpose is to attempt a similar work concerning the sacrament of matrimony, so that the pastoral treatise on the sacraments may thus be completed. The office of pastoral theology is wholly practical, since its proximate end is to guide pastors of souls in fulfilling their office faithfully, prudently, and with spiritual fruit. Therefore in this treatise concerning the sacrament of matrimony our scope will be above all practical: namely, to provide parish priests and confessors, and also young men who are being taught the pastoral art, with brief, clear, certain, and, so far as possible, complete notions concerning matrimonial matters insofar as these concern them. We cannot, indeed, pass over the dogmatic part altogether, since it exists in great part as the principle and source of matrimonial legislation. But it will be enough for us briefly to indicate the theses which pertain to that part. We have also judged it better to abstain from enumerating individually the authors who favor or oppose this or that opinion. Thus we believe that we are serving brevity and lucidity. The reader will at once notice, by scanning the index with his eyes, that we have omitted those things which pertain to the conjugal debt and the sins of spouses. The reason is that R. P. Merkelbach, in the excellent book Concerning Chastity and Lust, which was the first published among the Pastoral Questions, has arranged that matter very well. It was proper for us to refer the reader to his work, lest we do again what has already been done.

Literature. On this extensive matter very many authors, both ancient and modern, have written, of whom we cite only a few, but the principal ones, namely: St. Thomas, S. theol. 3, q. 60-65; St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 1-94; Drouven, O.Pr., who learnedly composed two large volumes on sacramental matters (2nd ed., Venice 1756); Christian Pesch, Praelectiones dogmaticae, vol. VI; August Lehmkuhl, Theol. mor. (12th ed.), n. 3-43; Gihr, Die heiligen Sakramente der kath. Kirche (2nd ed.), I, 1-178; Schanz, Die Lehre von den Sakramenten der kath. Kirche (1893); Pourrat, La théologie sacramentaire (4th ed.), Paris 1910.

We divide the treatise on the sacraments in general into six chapters: 1. on the essence and existence of the sacraments; 2. on the number and division of the sacraments; 3. on the efficacy and effects of the sacraments; 4. on the institutor of the sacraments; 5. on the minister of the sacraments; 6. on the subject of the sacraments. At the end of the treatise, by way of an appendix, we shall treat the sacramentals.

We subdivide this chapter into four articles: 1. on the name of sacrament; 2. on the real definition of a sacrament; 3. on the matter and form of the sacraments; 4. on the existence of the sacraments.

2. The word sacrament is employed in many and diverse senses by writers, both secular and sacred. There is no reason for us to linger long over the meanings in which secular writers use this word. For these meanings can easily be seen in any good Latin dictionary. The principal ones are: a) a pledge deposited by litigants in a sacred place; b) an obligation to military service; c) an oath of perseverance imposed upon soldiers.¹

In Sacred Scripture and among the ancient ecclesiastical authors, the word sacrament is employed in so many diverse senses that great circumspection is not rarely needed to perceive the author's true sense.² The principal and more frequent senses seem to be the following three:

1. Sacrament signifies the same thing as the Greek word μυστήριον, that is, a sacred hidden or secret thing.

In this sense the Incarnation is called "the sacrament of the will of God,"³ and St. Ambrose entitles his treatise on the Incarnation: Book on the Sacrament of the Lord's Incarnation. Likewise, the truths of faith are called a sacrament, and therefore St. Paul says: "To me, the least of all the saints, was given this grace ... to enlighten all as to what is the dispensation of the sacrament hidden from ages in God."⁴ Christ Himself is called "the great sacrament of piety."⁵ The holy Fathers also frequently employ the word sacrament in this sense. Thus, for example, St. Cyprian calls ecclesiastical union "the sacrament of unity." Hugh of St. Victor, writing on theology, gave it the title: On the Sacraments [that is, on the mysteries] of the Christian Faith.

Sometimes, but very rarely, the name sacrament is also taken for an evil secret or mystery, for example: "And the Angel said to me: Why do you wonder? I will tell you the sacrament of the woman and of the beast that carries her."⁶

2. Sacrament signifies a sign or symbol of some hidden sacred thing.

In this sense Christian matrimony is called by St. Paul⁷ a great sacrament, because it signifies the union of Christ with the Church. Likewise, the figures of the Old Testament, for example, manna and the passage of the Jews through the Red Sea, are called sacraments by St. Ambrose.⁸

3. Sacrament signifies human sanctification,⁹ so that a sacrament is not only a holy sign, but also a sign of sanctification actually to be given.

Several such signs were already possessed in the Old Testament, and therefore St. Thomas, speaking of the sacraments of the Old Law, says: "Those things are properly called sacraments which were employed for the worshipers of God for a certain consecration, by which, namely, they were in some manner deputed to the worship of God."¹⁰ Nevertheless, the sacraments of the Old Law were unable of themselves to produce the true interior sanctification of the recipient; but the sacraments of the New Law not only signify sanctification but also produce it ex opere operato. Moreover, a fuller discussion of the efficacy of the sacraments will return below. In the following articles, the name sacrament signifies nothing other than a practical sign of our sanctification.

¹ Fahneneid, military oath. Cf. Cicero, De offic. 1, 11; Pro domo 29; Pro Milone 27.

² In St. Cyprian alone, the word sacrament can be perceived as employed in ten diverse acceptations, namely: 1. for an oath; 2. for a profession of faith; 3. for the cause of our salvation; 4. for a prophetic figure; 5. for a symbol; 6. for a commemorative sign; 7. for a prophecy; 8. for a testimony; 9. for the deposit of faith; 10. for a bond. Cf. J. B. Ponkens in Bulletin d'ancienne litt. et archéol. chrét. II, 289, and especially Ghellinck, S.J., who with several associates wrote an entire learned work: Pour l'histoire du mot Sacramentum (Louvain 1924).

³ Eph. 1:9.

⁴ Eph. 3:8ff.

⁵ 1 Tim. 3:16.

⁶ Apoc. 17:7.

⁷ Eph. 5:32. Nevertheless, from this text it can be solidly proved that matrimony is a true sacrament of the New Law. Cf. below, n. 643.

⁸ De sacr. l. 1, c. 4ff. (Migne, Patr. lat. 16, 420ff.).

⁹ This acceptation is more common after St. Augustine, to whom the definition of a sacrament was attributed: it is a visible sign of invisible grace; yet this definition is found in St. Augustine not word for word, but only as to its sense (cf. Gietl, Die Sentenzen Rolands, p. 155). Hugh of St. Victor, who assuredly is eminent among theologians treating the sacraments, has these words: "Three genera of sacraments present themselves to be distinguished in a first consideration. For there are certain sacraments in which salvation principally consists and is received: the water of baptism and the reception of the Body and Blood of Christ. There are others which, although they are not necessary for salvation (because salvation can be had without them), nevertheless conduce to sanctification, because by these virtue can be exercised and more abundant grace can be acquired, such as the water of sprinkling, the reception of ashes, and similar things. Again there are other sacraments which seem to have been instituted for this alone: that through them those things which are necessary for sanctifying and instituting the other sacraments may in some manner be prepared and sanctified, whether concerning persons to be perfected in sacred orders, or in those things which pertain to the equipment of sacred orders to be initiated, and other things of this kind" (De sacr. l. 1, c. 7; Migne, Patr. lat. 176, 327).

¹⁰ S. theol. 1, 2, q. 102, a. 5.

3. The common opinion of theologians admits that there were true sacraments even in the Old Testament, which, although they were much more imperfect than the seven sacraments of the New Testament, nevertheless cannot be reduced to a mere analogy of sacrament.¹¹ Hence St. Thomas¹² simply teaches: "Before the coming of Christ it was necessary that certain sacraments be instituted," and the Council of Trent¹³ defines: "If anyone says that these same sacraments of the New Law do not differ from the sacraments of the Old Law except that the ceremonies are different and the external rites are different, let him be anathema." It is established, therefore, that there existed true sacraments both in the New and in the Old Law, and yet that there is an essential distinction between the two. Therefore, a quasi-generic definition is to be sought which includes all the sacraments both of the Old and of the New Law. The Scholastics labored greatly to find such a definition, but they departed into various opinions.¹⁴ The definition given by St. Thomas¹⁵ seems better to us:

Generic definition. A sacrament is a sign of a sacred thing insofar as it sanctifies men.

¹¹ The younger St. Thomas seems to have taught that the sacraments of the Old Law were not sacraments in a univocal sense with the sacraments of the New Law; nevertheless, when he had grown older, he retracted this opinion, as Cajetan, Dominic Soto, and John of St. Thomas clearly show (cf. Billuart, De sacr. diss. 1, a. 1).

¹² S. theol. 3, q. 61, a. 3.

¹³ Session 7, canon 2 on the sacraments in general (Denz., n. 845).

¹⁴ See Lugo, De sacr. in gen. disp. 1, sect. 1.

¹⁵ S. theol. 3, q. 60, a. 2.

4. This is explained. It is said, 1. A sacrament is a sign, and indeed a sensible sign. For in all the sacraments, even those of the Old Law, something sensible is contained, for example, circumcision, washing, anointing, etc., which signifies a spiritual effect. Hence the ancient Scholastics were accustomed to say: a sacrament is in the genus of sign and not in the genus of cause, because, namely, a sacrament taken formally does not cause but only signifies a supernatural effect. For this reason the sacraments of the Old Law indeed signified sanctifying grace, but, as "weak elements," they were unable of themselves to cause it; for grace proceeded not precisely from those sacraments but from faith in the Messiah to come. But the sacraments of the New Law not only signify but also cause sanctifying grace.¹⁶

It is said, secondly: of a sacred thing. This sacred thing is manifold. First, there is sanctifying grace. All the sacraments, both of the Old and of the New Law, signify sanctifying grace to be conferred. Hence Eugene IV taught in the Decree for the Armenians: "They [namely, the sacraments of the Old Law] did not cause grace, but they prefigured that it was to be given through the Passion of Christ."¹⁷ Then there is sacramental grace proper to each sacrament, as will be said below.

It is said, thirdly: insofar as it sanctifies men. All Catholic theologians teach: a) that the sacraments of the New Law either confer or increase sanctifying grace;¹⁸ b) that the sacraments of the Old Law did not confer sanctifying grace ex opere operato.¹⁹

St. Thomas²⁰ wrote to the point: "The sacraments of the Old Law did not have in themselves any power by which they operated to confer justifying grace, but they only signified the faith through which men were justified.... And therefore it seems better to say that circumcision, like the other sacraments of the Old Law, was only a sign of justifying faith.... In circumcision grace was conferred insofar as it was a sign of the future Passion of Christ." From these words of St. Thomas it is manifest that in circumcision and the other sacraments of the Old Law God conferred the sanctification of man, not indeed on account of those sacraments themselves, but insofar as they were professions of faith in the Christ to come. In another place the same Angelic Doctor expresses still more explicitly the same doctrine concerning circumcision, which is one of the sacraments of the Old Law: "In circumcision grace was conferred as to all the effects of grace, yet in another manner than in baptism. For in baptism grace is conferred by the power of baptism itself, which it has insofar as it is an instrument of the Passion of Christ already accomplished; but in circumcision grace was conferred not by the power of circumcision, but by the power of faith in the Passion of Christ, of which circumcision was a sign; so, namely, that the man who received circumcision professed that he received such faith, either an adult for himself or another for infants."²¹

Therefore, all the sacraments are practical signs of sanctifying grace. Since, however, in sanctifying grace there can also be considered its meritorious cause, namely, the Passion of Christ, and its end, namely, eternal glory, St. Thomas hence teaches that the sacraments signify three things, namely: the Passion of Christ, which is the meritorious cause of sanctification; sanctifying grace, which is the form of sanctification; eternal life, which is the ultimate end of sanctification.²²

¹⁶ Cf. below, n. 38.

¹⁷ Denz., n. 695.

¹⁸ Cf. below, n. 35.

¹⁹ Only a few Scotists, such as Mastrius (De sacr. disp. 1, q. 2, a. 2, n. 86) and Bosco (Theol. sacram. disp. 1, sect. 2, concl. 6, n. 65), taught the contrary concerning circumcision and the so-called sacrament of nature.

²⁰ S. theol. 3, q. 62, a. 6, corpus and ad 3.

²¹ Ibid., q. 70, a. 4.

²² Cf. ibid., q. 60, a. 3: "A sacrament is both a commemorative sign of that which preceded, namely, the Passion of Christ; and a demonstrative sign of that which is effected in us through the Passion of Christ, namely, grace; and a prognostic sign, that is, a sign foretelling future glory." The Angelic Doctor set forth these three things most beautifully in the antiphon O sacrum convivium: "The memory of His Passion is recalled, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us."

5. Corollaries. 1. The sacraments cannot be practical signs of sanctifying grace except by divine institution. For it entirely exceeds the capacity of any natural thing practically to signify something supernatural, such as sanctifying grace.

2. Not all sacred signs have the character of a sacrament. For example, the cross, sacred images, the passage through the Red Sea, manna, the bronze serpent, very many ceremonies, etc. The reason is that all these things are indeed sacred signs, but they lack a divine institution elevating them to practical signs of sanctifying grace.

3. Sacrifices also are not sacraments. The reason is that sacrifice is primarily ordered to worship to be offered to God Himself, whereas the sacraments are primarily ordered to the sanctification of men. Nothing prevents the same thing, accepted under a diverse aspect, from being both a sacrifice and a sacrament. Thus, in fact, the Eucharist in the New Law and the immolation of the paschal lamb in the Old Law are at once a sacrifice and a sacrament, but accepted under a diverse aspect.

4. The opinion of heretics concerning the sacraments is false, who teach that they are only testimonies of justice received (the Lutherans); or signs by which a man is distinguished from gentiles and Jews (the Anabaptists and Socinians); or certain pledges by which men bind themselves to Christ and openly profess that they wish to follow His religion (the Zwinglians); or external symbols of divine benevolence toward us and attestations of our fidelity toward God (the Calvinists); or commemorative signs of benefits received from God, which signs were introduced not by Christ Himself but by the Apostles and their successors (the Modernists).²³ Hence, according to all these heretics, no true causality of our interior sanctification belongs to the sacraments. Their opinions are false because they rest upon a false foundation, namely, that the justification of man is not effected through the infusion of sanctifying grace, but either through faith alone or through the mere imputation of the merits of Christ.²⁴

5. The definitions adduced by the Council of Trent and the Roman Catechism agree with the definition given. The Council of Trent defines a sacrament as "a symbol of a sacred thing and a visible form of invisible grace."²⁵ The Roman Catechism adduces two definitions: a) "A sacrament is a visible sign of invisible grace instituted for our justification";²⁶ b) "A sacrament is a thing subject to the senses which, by God's institution, has the power both of signifying and of effecting sanctity and justice."²⁷ The former definition of the Catechism applies to all the sacraments; but the latter definition, which has always been regarded as the most perfect, applies to the sacraments of the New Law, which alone can properly cause sanctifying grace.²⁸ Therefore, this definition is specific to these sacraments.

6. For the essence of any sacrament there are required: an external and sensible sign, interior grace, institution made by God, and a due minister. The institution and minister of the sacraments will be treated below in chapters 4 and 5, and interior grace below in chapter 3. But now the external and sensible sign must be explained more fully.

²³ Cf. Loisy, L'Évangile et l'Église, 3rd ed., c. 6. The errors of the Modernists concerning the sacraments are described in this manner in the encyclical Pascendi of 8 September 1907: "For the Modernists, the sacraments are bare symbols or signs, although not devoid of force. To indicate this force, they themselves use the example of certain words which are commonly said to have met with fortune, because they have acquired a power for propagating certain robust ideas which strike souls most forcefully." In the decree of the Holy Office Lamentabili of 3 July 1907, proposition 41 of the Modernists was proscribed: "The sacraments are directed only to this: that they recall to the mind of man the ever-beneficent presence of the Creator" (Denz., n. 2041).

²⁴ Drouven reports and refutes the opinions of the heretics exceedingly well, De re sacr. l. 1, c. 2; cf. also Schanz, Die Lehre von den Sakr. 1, § 4.

²⁵ Session 13, c. 3 (Denz., n. 876).

²⁶ Part 2, c. 1, q. 3.

²⁷ Ibid., q. 8.

²⁸ For other definitions given by St. Augustine, Hugh of St. Victor, etc., see Peter Ledesma, Summa, de sacr. 1.

Preliminary note. In this article the discussion concerns only the sacraments of the New Law, because the sacraments of the Old Law no longer exist, nor were they constituted by matter and form.²⁹ For nowhere is it read, for example, that determinate words necessarily had to be pronounced in circumcision or in the eating of the paschal lamb. Since this article is rather long, for the sake of clarity it is divided into seven paragraphs: 1. on the notion and necessity of matter and form; 2. on their immutability; 3. on their union; 4. on their certitude; 5. on the application of form to matter; 6. on the repetition of matter or form; 7. on a conditional form.

²⁹ Cf. S. theol. 3, q. 60, a. 6 ad 3.

6. Notion. The external and sensible sign of the sacraments is composed of two elements, namely, matter and form, which must be applied by a legitimate minister. Hence Eugene IV says in the Instruction to the Armenians: "The sacraments are constituted by three things, namely, by things as matter, by words as form, and by the person of the minister conferring the sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does; if any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not constituted."³⁰ According to the Council of Trent,³¹ moreover, "the essence of a sacrament is constituted by matter and form." The Roman Catechism³² teaches similarly: "For there are two things from which every sacrament is constituted, of which one has the character of matter and is called the element, while the other has the force of form and is commonly called the word.... In this matter that testimony of St. Augustine,³³ well known and widely repeated among all, is familiar: 'The word comes to the element, and it becomes a sacrament.'"

³⁰ Denz., n. 695.

³¹ Session 14, c. 2, on the sacrament of penance (Denz., n. 895).

³² Part 2, c. 1, q. 8.

³³ In Joann. tr. 80, n. 3 (Migne, Patr. lat. 35, 1840).

7. Twofold acceptation. Matter and form are taken in two senses in sacramental matters:

a) Matter is the whole sensible sign, for example, in baptism the washing with water together with the pronouncement of the words; form is the signification of all these things, namely, sanctifying grace. This acceptation is little used, and consequently we shall not employ it hereafter.³⁴

b) Matter is the thing or act of the sensible sign; form is the words or signs by which those things or acts receive their determinate signification and efficacy; for example, the water and the washing made with water are the matter in the sacrament of baptism, whose form is the words: "I baptize you, etc." We take matter and form in this sense.

³⁴ Form is still taken for sanctifying grace in the expression "an unformed sacrament," which is a sacrament not producing sanctifying grace, although it is valid. Cf. below, n. 33.

8. Origin of this terminology. "It must be observed that these words 'matter and form' with respect to the sacraments were not in use until around the year 1215 and were first employed by William of Auxerre, since they are found nowhere before him, not even in the Master of the Sentences [Peter Lombard]." Thus Billuart,³⁵ together with Christian Pesch, Hurter, Fei, and the common opinion. Certainly the holy Fathers knew that which we call the matter and form of a sacrament, but they designated them by other words; for example, they called matter the sign or element, but form the word. Since the Scholastics, according to Peripatetic philosophy, taught that every created sensible being is composed of matter and form, by analogy they said the same thing concerning the sacraments. Matter is the determinable part, but form determines matter to an individual thing. Thus, in like manner, in the sacraments the sensible thing is indeterminate, that is, not yet determined to signify something special. But the words applied to this matter give it a special signification. This manner of speaking about the matter and form of the sacraments has been universally received in both the Latin and the Eastern Church since the thirteenth century. Only a few theologians, among whom is Durandus of Saint-Pourçain, In 4 Sent., dist. 1, q. 3, rejected this manner of speaking as though hylomorphic. Against them, it is plainly established that this manner of explanation is most apt, especially for discerning whether some sacrament is valid or not. For whenever there is a substantial change of matter or form, the sacrament is not constituted; but, on the contrary, when only an accidental change exists, the validity of the sacrament is not affected. This change will be discussed again in the following paragraph.³⁶

Distinction. Since the time of St. Thomas,³⁷ remote and proximate matter are customarily distinguished in the sacraments.

Remote matter is the sensible thing itself employed in the sacraments, for example, water in baptism and chrism in confirmation.

Proximate matter is a human act, namely, the actual application of the sensible thing or remote matter; for example, the proximate matter in baptism is the washing made with water; in confirmation, the proximate matter is the anointing made with chrism.

The form of a sacrament must be expressed orally in words; nevertheless, in the sacrament of matrimony, whose form is the mutual manifestation and acceptance of matrimonial consent, it can also be expressed in writing or by a nod, at least validly.

³⁵ De sacr. diss. 1, a. 4, § 2.

³⁶ Concerning the progress of theological science in this matter since the thirteenth century, cf. Pourrat, La théol. sacr., chap. 2, § 5. The manner of speaking indeed became different, but the thing itself was already known to the holy Fathers.

³⁷ Cf. S. theol. 3, q. 80, a. 2.

9. Necessity of matter and form. The most common opinion of theologians, which is strongly confirmed by the words of Eugene IV, the Council of Trent, and the Roman Catechism cited above, teaches that matter and form are of the very essence of every sacrament of the New Law, and consequently are altogether necessary. Hence St. Thomas³⁸ says: "Every sacrament is distinguished into matter and form as into parts of its essence." I pass over the opinions of Durandus, who denies this, and of certain Scotists, who even after the Councils of Florence and Trent boldly teach that the sacraments are indeed perfected, but are not intrinsically constituted, by matter and form.³⁹

³⁸ Ibid., q. 90, a. 2.

³⁹ Cf. Christian Pesch, Prael. dogm. VI, n. 34.

10. If matter and form pertain to the essence of a sacrament, as is evident from the preceding paragraph, it follows that they are not only altogether necessary for the validity of the sacrament, but also immutable or invariable, so that whenever either one is substantially changed, the sacrament is not validly constituted. For the essences of things are immutable.

The Church has always taught that the matter and form of the sacraments are invariable as to substance. Thus the Council of Trent⁴⁰ declares "that this power has perpetually existed in the Church, that in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being preserved, she might establish or change those things which she judged more expedient for the benefit of the recipients or for the veneration of the sacraments themselves, according to the diversity of things, times, and places." From these words it can be deduced that a twofold change of matter and form is found: one substantial, the other accidental.

⁴⁰ Session 21, c. 2 (Denz., n. 931).

11. 1. A substantial change of matter is present if, according to the common estimation of men, the matter is considered another thing in name and signification, even if perhaps it does not differ in physical species.

Hence, although, for example, a raw mass of flour does not differ in physical species from bread, or ice from water, nevertheless theologically a substantial change is considered present with respect to the sacraments of the Eucharist and baptism. For if a prudent man is asked concerning flour or ice, "Is this bread or water?" he immediately answers negatively. Therefore, certain theologians rightly distinguish a substantial change into physical and theological. A physical substantial change is present whenever from one matter there comes to be another essentially diverse matter, as, for example, ashes come to be from burned wood. But a theological substantial change is that which, according to the common estimation of men, renders the matter unfit to signify in a sacrament that for which it was instituted. Not only a physical but also a theological substantial change of matter invalidates a sacrament. Thus, for example, certain liquid colors are nothing other than water to which colored matter, say green, black, etc., has been added. Nevertheless, such liquid colors⁴¹ are matter unfit for baptism because they cannot signify the washing to be performed in baptism. For no one washes his face with green color.

⁴¹ Commonly Wasserfarben, détrempe [watercolors, distemper].