The Duty of Refusing the Sacraments to the Unworthy

36. To whom they must be denied. 1. Always, even if it is demanded under threat of death, a sacrament must be denied to an incapable subject, because its administration is intrinsically evil, as being an abuse of a sacred thing and a sacrilegious lie committed by deed.

He is called incapable who is not an apt subject for receiving the sacrament, as if order were conferred on a woman, or baptism on one already baptized. Therefore he who administers a sacrament to an incapable subject frustrates not only its effect, but the sacrament itself.

2. The minister is per se bound under grave sin to deny sacraments to the unworthy.

a. There is especially a twofold reason why the sacraments must be denied to the unworthy: from fidelity: for since the minister is not the lord of the sacraments, he must administer them as a faithful dispenser according to the will of his lord; but it is against the will of Christ that they be dispensed to the unworthy: "Do not give what is holy to dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine."¹ From charity: for the minister himself, who dispenses a sacrament to an unworthy person, cooperates in a most grave sacrilege; and the faithful would suffer grave scandal if they saw the sacraments administered to an indisposed and impenitent sinner. Nevertheless the unworthiness of the one requesting the sacrament must be morally certain: for if there were present only doubt or probable suspicion, the sacrament could be conferred, because in doubt anyone is to be presumed good.

b. The unworthy are first of all heretics and schismatics; therefore cn. 731, 2 has these words: It is forbidden to minister the sacraments of the Church to heretics or schismatics, even those erring in good faith and asking for them, unless first, their errors having been rejected, they have been reconciled to the Church.

Those are also called unworthy, or persons asking for a sacrament unworthily, who are known to be in the state of mortal sin without the will to amend themselves. An unworthy person truly receives the sacrament, although because of the obstacle he does not receive the grace of the sacrament; therefore he who dispenses a sacrament to an unworthy person frustrates its effect, not the sacrament itself. The following number (3) concerns these persons.

Therefore before the dispensing of a sacrament, the minister must have knowledge of the worthiness of the receiver. But this knowledge must not be the same in all sacraments: for in some he must inquire into the disposition of the receiver and judge positively about it, as in the baptism of adults and in penance; but in others it suffices that the disposition of the receiver can be prudently presumed; and it is rightly presumed in those who ask for sacraments, unless their unworthiness is evident. In order and matrimony, moreover, he must investigate the determinate conditions of the subject prescribed by law.

3. Nevertheless, from a most grave cause it is licit to administer sacraments to those asking unworthily. For fidelity in the ministry does not require that sacraments be denied where they cannot be denied without very grave inconvenience; moreover, if cooperation in another's sin is material, it is licit from a proportionately grave cause; but scandal must be prevented.

a. The causes from which it is licit to give a sacrament to an unworthy person are reduced almost to these: alpha. lest the sacramental seal be violated; beta. lest scandal and disturbance of the faithful arise, who, if they were ignorant of the cause of the denial, would be kept from the sacraments, since they too would fear repulse for themselves; gamma. lest danger of death or of an evil morally equivalent be undergone by him who ministers the sacrament; delta. lest he who asks for the sacrament be defamed, whose hidden crime would become known from the denial.

b. Concerning the two causes alleged in the last place, authors dispute whether they suffice so that a sacrament can licitly be administered to an unworthy person. St. Alphonsus (n. 49) and Lehmkuhl² teach that danger to life, or an evil morally equivalent, which cannot be avoided in another way, for example by dissimulation of the sacrament, does not suffice; they judge that it is licit to administer a sacrament to an unworthy person only to prevent public harm, not private harm: for where a sacrament cannot be denied without danger to the life of the one who denies the sacrament, they hold that provision must be made for the reverence due to Christ rather than for the life of the minister. But others think that this cause suffices:³ for since the question is of cooperation, although proximate, in the sacrilege of the receiver, and since charity alone directly forbids cooperation, which of itself does not oblige with grave inconvenience, the cooperation seems licit in order to avoid so great an evil. The same must be said of the fourth cause, where the question concerns only the defamation of him who asks for the sacrament. Nevertheless all warn that it is not licit to administer a sacrament to an unworthy person if it is sought in hatred of the faith or in contempt of religion; and in like manner, in no case whatsoever, not even in danger of death, is it licit to administer a sacrament to an incapable subject.

¹ Matt. 7, 6.

² Cf. Theologia moralis, II, n. 43 (n. 59).

³ Lugo, disp. 8, n. 181; Sporer-Bierbaum III, pr. 1, n. 188; Gobat, Experientia theologica, tr. I, n. 274; Ballerini-Palmieri IV, n. 689; D'Annibale III, n. 264; Genicot, Theologiae moralis institutiones, II, n. 122.

37. Rules. From these principles now flow the rules which must be observed in the administration of the sacraments, especially of the eucharist, if at any time a public or hidden sinner asks for it, whether publicly or secretly.

a. A public or notorious sinner is called one whose delict is commonly known, or at least is already known to so many persons that it can no longer be concealed. A hidden sinner is called one whose crime will not become known, and therefore one whose crime is known either to the priest alone or only to a few; and he is called hidden so long as there is hope that his crime can be concealed. Moreover, a crime can be absolutely public, if it has already come to the common knowledge of men, or relatively public, if the greater part of those present know it. He is said to ask publicly who asks before others, and secretly who asks before the minister alone or a few others, of whom nevertheless no account is to be taken, as little children.

b. In three ways a crime can be absolutely public: alpha. by publicity of law, or through the sentence of a judge; beta. by publicity of fact, if the crime was committed publicly; gamma. by publicity of reputation, if the rumor of the crime has been spread in the place and at the same time vehement indications of the committed crime are present.

1. The sacraments must be denied to a public sinner, whether he asks secretly or publicly: for in this case no reason exists for conceding the sacraments; moreover, grave scandal would be prepared for the faithful.

In order to prevent doubts which can arise in applying this rule, the following must be noted:

a. If the crime of the one asking is absolutely public, the sacrament must be denied, even if among the men present many are present who are still ignorant of the crime; for a public sinner has already lost the right to reputation.

b. If the crime of the one asking is relatively public, the sacrament must be denied whenever among those present there are only a few who are still ignorant of the crime; but it must not be denied if many are present who are still ignorant of the crime, even if on the other hand many also are present who have knowledge of the crime, because the one asking for the sacrament has not lost the right to reputation in relation to those who are still ignorant of the crime.¹

c. If the crime of the one asking is not known in the place where he asks for the sacrament, it must be denied where knowledge of the crime will shortly come even to that place: for the irreverence of the sacrament and scandal of the faithful must be prevented rather than a slight acceleration of defamation; but if it will not come there, or only after a long time, the sacrament must not be denied: for the one asking is compared to a hidden sinner asking publicly.

2. The sacraments must likewise be denied to a hidden sinner asking secretly: for in this case each reason set forth above is valid, unless his crime is known from confession: for because of the sacramental seal a sacrament must never be denied because of a crime heard in confession.

3. The sacraments must not be denied to a hidden sinner asking publicly, lest he be defamed and lest the faithful, who because of a hidden crime would fear repulse for themselves also, be kept away from the sacraments.

a. From the first rule there must be excepted: alpha. the sacrament of penance, to which not only must he be admitted who seriously asks for it, but per se anyone also must be absolved who is judged disposed. Moreover, beta. the sacrament of matrimony must be excepted, for contracting which the Church, for most grave reasons, admits both heretics and public sinners.

b. Therefore, in order that a public sinner can be admitted to the sacrament of the eucharist, it is not enough that he be worthy or disposed, but in addition it is required that his worthiness be known to others, for avoiding the scandal of others. Nevertheless, in order that his worthiness become known to others, some time of good conduct is not required; rather, it suffices that he has confessed publicly before others who will soon make known his amendment. Wherefore, once confession has been publicly made, he can ordinarily also be admitted publicly to holy communion immediately; indeed, even if he has not confessed publicly, he can ordinarily be admitted immediately to holy communion, unless it is evident that he has not confessed, because confession made can and must be presumed. Yet if public scandal which still endures must be removed by a public sinner, whether because he is in an occasion of sinning, or because he has spread impious doctrine, etc., ordinarily it must be required of him that by retracting the doctrine or removing the occasion, etc., he remove the scandal before he approaches holy communion, unless he wishes to communicate secretly or can prevent the scandal of the faithful in another way.

Whether the parish priest can assist at the matrimony of those of whom both, or one, is a public sinner.

The parish priest assisting as witness at the matrimony of those of whom at least one is unworthy cooperates in the sacrilege which is committed by contracting; but he does not administer the sacrament. But this cooperation is material; therefore it can be permitted from a just cause. But a just cause is the good of the contracting parties, the good of the innocent party, and the good of the community. Whether one of the contracting parties can administer the sacrament to the other, who is unworthy, will be stated in its own place.

¹ Ballerini-Palmieri IV, n. 688; Lehmkuhl, Theologia moralis, II, n. 39, 3 (n. 55).

38. On the simulation of the sacraments. Definitions. 1. Simulation in general is the fictitious placing of a sign, or it is the placing of an action which signifies something other than what the agent has in mind. Simulation of a sacrament is the fictitious placing of a sacramental sign, or it is the placing of a sacramental action without the sacrament being confected. A twofold simulation is distinguished: formal, by which the foreseen deception of others, who think that a true sacrament is confected, is intended; and material, by which the foreseen deception of others is only permitted.

2. From simulation of a sacrament there must be distinguished dissimulation of a sacrament, which is the placing of a non-sacramental action in those circumstances in which others falsely judge that a sacrament is conferred. Dissimulation is accustomed to have place for the end that denial of the sacrament may be hidden either from the receiver himself or from others.

a. Therefore he simulates a sacrament: alpha. who applies the matter and form of a sacrament without the intention of confecting the sacrament; beta. who employs matter invalid because of a hidden defect; gamma. who over matter utters an invalid form; and (because of analogy) delta. who presents to one about to communicate a host not consecrated as though consecrated.

b. He does not simulate but dissimulates a sacrament: alpha. who dismisses an indisposed penitent with only a blessing, lest those present notice that he is dismissed without absolution; beta. who, by arrangement with one about to communicate, only utters the words Corpus D. N. I. Ch., but does not give the sacred host to him, but immediately places it back in the ciborium, which can licitly be done from a grave cause;¹ gamma. a penitent who enters the confessional and speaks with the confessor about another matter, or asks from the confessor only a sacred blessing, when he is not disposed for making confession.

¹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 61.

39. Principles. 1. It is never permitted to simulate a sacrament, whether formally or materially, not even to avoid danger of death, since any simulation, even material simulation, is in itself and intrinsically evil.¹ For simulation, even material simulation only, is an abuse of a sacred thing instituted by Christ solely for sanctifying man; therefore it is a most grave injury inflicted on Christ. Moreover, he who simulates a sacrament commits a sacrilegious and gravely harmful lie. But if simulation is committed in confecting the eucharist, others are also induced to material idolatry; and if it is committed in distributing the eucharist, there intervenes indeed no simulation of the sacrament, but nevertheless an inducement to material idolatry.

Wherefore it is never permitted, in order to avoid a sacrilegious communion, to present a host not consecrated, not even to one knowing and consenting; nor is it permitted, in order to avoid a sacrilegious celebration, to utter the words of consecration without the intention of consecrating: for the simulation itself is a graver sin than sacrilegious communion or celebration.²

2. It is licit to dissimulate a sacrament from a just cause: for in dissimulation, since matter and form are lacking, no injury is inflicted on the sacrament, but only the deception of the neighbor concerning the administration of the sacrament is permitted, which can be licitly done from a just cause, for example, to avoid infamy or scandal.

In hearing confessions it sometimes happens that, after a simple blessing has been given and certain prayers recited, denial of absolution must be hidden from others, lest the seal be broken and lest the penitent be defamed because his unworthiness is betrayed. Indeed, St. Alphonsus (n. 59) judges that the very form of absolution can be uttered in a low voice by interposing not, namely: I do (not) absolve you, etc.

¹ This proposition (29) was condemned by Innocent XI: "Urgent grave fear is a cause for simulating the administration of the sacraments."

² Cf. Viva, Theses damnatae, on prop. 29 condemned by Innocent XI, n. 7; Bucceroni, Casus conscientiae^5 (Rome: Typogr. august., 1904), n. 109, 10.

“ 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.

What about the obligation of denying the sacraments to the unworthy who ask? - Generally and under grave obligation, speaking in itself, the minister is bound to deny the sacraments to the unworthy, because natural law obliges the dispenser to dispense the goods of the Lord faithfully and according to his will; moreover the certain will of Christ is that the sacraments not be conferred on the unworthy, according to that saying of Matthew 7:6: Do not give what is holy to dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine. Roman Ritual de SS. euch. sacr., de Sacr. extr. unct. - Cf. Lugo d. 8, n. 164, 180, 193; Suarez d. 8, s. 2. Indeed, as St. Alphonsus 43 notes, "in certain sacraments, for the minister to show himself a faithful dispenser, it does not suffice if he does not know the petitioner to be unworthy, but further he is bound to have a prudent reason that he is worthy; for in the sacrament of penance, since the disposition of the penitent is altogether required for validity, the minister, as judge constituted for this, must make himself certain about it. Likewise in the sacrament of order, the bishop must have certain knowledge concerning the dignity of the one to be ordained, since for order, as directed to the public good, no one has a right unless he is called by God, as Aaron was. But in matrimony the assisting priest must inquire into impediments, since he is constituted for this by the Church. But in the other sacraments, they are not to be denied to those who live as Catholics, unless the unworthiness of the penitent is established... The reason is that all the faithful have a right to these other sacraments and the ministers are not judges, but dispensers; hence in these they do not have a right of inquiring, but only the duty of dispensing to all who ask, provided they are not positively unworthy." Cf. Decr. Ne temere de Spons. et Matr., S. C. C., Aug. 2, 1907.

To a public sinner, whether asking secretly or publicly, the sacrament is to be denied; because there is no reason why an exception should be made to the general rule; indeed grave scandal of the faithful would follow from the concession of the sacraments. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 80, a. 6; L. 44. But in the case of doubt whether someone has sinned, it is to be conceded; in doubt whether he has done penance, it is to be denied. L. 48. "Yet excepted is a sinner constituted at the point of death,"

L. 44, because everyone is then presumed to wish to dispose himself rightly, and necessity removes scandal, as does the hidden penance itself of the dying person, to be made public by the minister if the sacraments were to be publicly ministered to him. La Croix 143. Very rare is the case in which the denial of the sacraments is extended even to penance. But the obligation is always present, as regards penance itself, of denying absolution to one indisposed.

Likewise the sacrament is to be denied to a hidden sinner asking secretly; because reverence toward the sacrament and charity toward one's neighbor demand this in these circumstances, St. Thomas 3 p., q. 80, a. 6; L. 50, except the case in which the crime was known from Confession; for then it is not even licit for the minister to warn the sinner. And this is forbidden even if the confessor could deny the sacrament under the pretext of other causes. L. 50, 51. - But the sacrament is not to be denied to a hidden sinner asking publicly. The reason is drawn from the inconveniences which would follow from denial of the sacrament; for scandals and disturbances would arise in the Church, and especially the faithful, brought into suspicion lest they be prohibited from the sacraments, would withdraw from them. But he who ministers sacraments to an unworthy person cooperates only materially in his sin, and such cooperation is licit from a grave proportionate cause. Cf. 374. St. Thomas p. 3, q. 80, a. 6; L. 49, 50; Lugo d. 8, n. 176; Roman Ritual de Euch. sacram. - E. M.

When is a sinner judged public, or notorious, or hidden; and secretly asking for a sacrament? - A public sinner is called one whose crime or very bad life is commonly known. But if his infamy has not yet come into common knowledge, yet is known in such a way that it can no longer be concealed, he is called notorious; but if there is no danger that the wickedness become known, he is called a hidden sinner. Wherefore one will still be a hidden sinner if his wickedness is known only to a few who will not manifest it, so that it is withdrawn from common knowledge. - 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 to be taken, as little children, etc. Otherwise he is judged to ask publicly.

Is the sacrament to be denied to an unworthy person asking publicly, whose crime is indeed notorious but not yet public? - Resp. In the negative according to the more probable opinion, because he cannot yet be called a public sinner; moreover denial would be exposed to various inconveniences. Indeed, more probably the sacrament is not to be denied even if most of those present know the crime, since it is not simply public. Except unless the crime is soon to be made public, and scandal of the faithful would consequently have to be feared from the concession of the sacrament. Cf. n. seq.; L. 45.

Is the sacrament to be denied to a sinner when his crime is not public where he asks, yet is public elsewhere? - Resp. In the negative, at least more probably; because on the one hand, in 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 come from denial made to a hidden sinner. But it must be said otherwise if knowledge of that crime will easily reach that place shortly. For it can prudently be feared that scandal of the faithful may arise from the concession of the sacrament. L. 46.

What is required so that the Eucharist can be ministered to a public sinner? - "Laymann, etc., require, besides Confession, some time of good conduct for removing scandal. Possevinus, etc., say that Confession before several persons suffices, provided, Bernal adds, that the penance is shortly to be publicly manifested. And Croix rightly adheres to this opinion when the sinner does not have a proximate occasion of sinning; because one who has publicly confessed is publicly judged amended; otherwise, if the occasion were present and he had not left it. But he who asks secretly, it suffices that he has secretly done penance." L. 47; Roman Ritual de Euch. sacram. - E. M.

Hence, as is clear, one account would have to be taken of a public blasphemer who has already publicly approached Confession in church, or is presumed to have approached; another, however, of a public concubinary who has contracted only civil marriage and keeps his concubine at home, which scandal regularly must first be removed.

Is the sacrament of order to be denied to a hidden sinner asking publicly? - Resp. In the affirmative. "The reason is certain, because he who intrudes himself into public functions for which he is not fit must be repelled even with infamy, because the public good is to be preferred to the private. And that an unworthy cleric, although because of a hidden crime, can and must be repelled, is clear from Trent, where in sess. 14, c. 1 de R. it is said that the bishop can prohibit a cleric from ascending to further orders; and the cleric is bound to obey him, even if ascent has been interdicted by his prelate 'from any cause whatever, even because of a hidden crime, in any way whatever, even extrajudicially.' And it is added that 'no license granted contrary to the will of his prelate, by causing himself to be promoted, shall avail him.' And it is especially to be noted that in that case the bishop is not bound to reveal the cause why he repels from ordination, according to the Declarations of S. C. C., March 21, 1613; April 26, 1668; Benedict XIV, de Syn. l. 11, c. 2, n. 16. But that the bishop not only can, but also must repel the unworthy, although hidden, obvious reason persuades from the same Trent sess. 23, de R., c. 5 and 7, where it is expressly prescribed that the ordaining bishop diligently investigate and examine morals. 'For what purpose, then, must the prelate investigate and examine the morals of clerics, unless to repel those whom he knows to be unworthy?'" L. 52, 69; St. Thomas Suppl. q. 36, a. 1, 3, 4.

Note: "Concerning this matter, says the same holy Doctor 803, bishops in seeking this proof ought not be content with the simple attestation of pastors... but besides, secret information having been taken from other trustworthy persons, they ought to be made certain not only that the one to be initiated has not been bad... but also that he is positively good, etc." Cf. Benedict XIV, Const. Ubi primum; St. Thomas Suppl. q. 36, a. 4 ad 3.

Can a pastor assist at the marriage of those who are public sinners? - Laymann, Croix, and Lugo affirm. The reason is that the pastor is not the minister of the sacrament, but only a witness; whence, on the one hand, since he is a public minister, he cannot deny his assistance; and on the other, he can licitly assist, since his cooperation is merely material. But others deny it, among whom is St. Alphonsus, unless from a grave and proportionate cause, both because by natural law no one can cooperate in the sin of his neighbor, and because the pastor is bound from justice, from the contract entered into with the community from which he receives a stipend, to attend to the spiritual salvation of his sheep, by turning them away from sins. And immediately the holy Doctor adds, "what we say of the pastor must also be said of the witnesses; yet they would be sufficiently excused from sin if they assisted compelled by grave fear, since they are not bound except from charity to impede sin. But the pastor also can be excused in order to avoid death, or other graver evils of the community, or of the contracting parties themselves, for example lest they persevere in sin." L. 54; E. M.

If one of the spouses is publicly unworthy, can the other enter into marriage with that one, and consequently minister the sacrament to him or her? - Resp. In the negative, if the person is unworthy because he or she is an excommunicate to be avoided, as is clear. - In the affirmative, if the person is unworthy because excommunicated, but tolerated; for the Council of Constance granted indistinctly that the faithful can communicate with tolerated excommunicates. In the affirmative, if the person is unworthy because of some sin, and the other spouse could not recede from the marriage without grave inconvenience. Thus more probably and more commonly. The reason is that the aforesaid administration is by them as ministers not consecrated for this. L. 55; H. A. tr. 14, n. 6. Hence one who contracts with an unworthy person is excused from mortal sin; for he does not sin insofar as he ministers to the unworthy person, because charity alone forbids this, and grave inconvenience excuses, which is scarcely absent, or not even scarcely; nor insofar as he asks from an unworthy person, because that person is a minister not consecrated for this. - Lugo d. 8, n. 226, 230; L. l. 2, n. 60.

What if a sacrament cannot be denied to an unworthy person without danger to life? - It is not licit to give it if it is asked in contempt of Religion or in hatred of the faith, or if it cannot be given without offense of others and scandal. These being removed, there are those who deny it, because it is the greatest irreverence to give what is holy to dogs; and this is licit only for avoiding common harms.

Nor are there lacking those who do not admit even this, since the matter is intrinsically illicit. For profanation of the sacrament is had immediately in the case by its very concession, and, by means of that profanation, escape from death is had. Others affirm it, because in so great a crisis of matters irreverence ceases. Others dispose of the matter by another way; for they teach that it is licit to simulate the administration of a sacrament, except the priesthood; not indeed formally, but materially, namely by substantially changing the matter or form, e.g., if he says: I do not absolve you, or, I will absolve you, or, Do I absolve you? with scandal always removed. Cf. n. seq. But to confer sacraments on the unworthy is not evil of itself. Indeed, Christ gave communion to Judas; who would say that Christ did a thing materially evil? And if it is licit to give a sacrament to an unworthy person in order to protect his reputation, why will the same not be licit in order to protect one's own life? Charity alone forbids cooperating in the sacrilege of the recipient, but charity does not oblige with grave inconvenience.

Properly speaking, however, cooperation is not had in the case, but mere permission. For the whole of that which the minister does is good and holy in itself, which one unworthily receiving the sacrament abuses from his own malice. - L. 49, 59; Lugo d. 8, n. 180, 181; Suarez d. 67, s. 1, at the end; Viva in prop. 29 condemned by Innocent XI, n. 11; Cardenas in the cited prop. n. 53; Lehmkuhl ed. 8, n. 43. Cf. here 375.

Is simulation of a sacrament intrinsically illicit? - Simulation, taken most broadly, is the placing of a sign indifferent of itself to several things, with the foresight that someone is to be deceived, because he will receive it in a sense which is not true. By this it is distinguished from dissimulation, because dissimulation is the omission of every sign when one deservedly ought to be placed. - One simulation is formal, by which the minister directly intends to deceive; another is material, by which the minister does not directly intend to deceive, but, acting from a reasonable and just motive and foreseeing deception, permits it. - Simulation of a sacrament can be either concerning a thing plainly indifferent with respect to the essence of the sacrament, or concerning a thing regarding the very nature of the sacrament. Simulation can be either merely concerning the administration of the sacrament, or concerning the sacrament itself; namely, when someone either places an action by which others can falsely believe there is confection or conferral of a sacrament, or fictitiously places something which pertains to the essence of the sacrament.

Moreover, formal simulation is not licit, not only in the sacraments, but in any other case whatever, because it is a lie of deed. St. Thomas 2.2, q. 111, a. 1. Material simulation concerning a thing that stands plainly indifferently toward the sacrament, that is, toward the administration itself of the sacrament or the essence of the sacrament, speaking in itself, is not illicit, because it is not simulation of the administration of the sacrament, or of the sacrament; nor is another vicious circumstance present, as is supposed. Material simulation concerning the administration itself of the sacrament, speaking in itself, is not intrinsically illicit; for no action is placed which of itself pertains to the essence of the sacrament, and the action which is in reality placed is, as is supposed, an honorable action, although an opinion of the conferral of the sacrament can be induced in others from it. Material simulation concerning the sacrament itself, or an essential part of the sacrament, is altogether illicit. The reason is that it is grave irreverence toward Christ, whom the minister mocks by abusing sacred things instituted by him. Moreover, this is shown from proposition 29 condemned by Innocent XI, in which material simulation is specially treated. And by the Holy Office, Sept. 6, 1628, before the Most Holy, it was cautioned that priests who are compelled by Turks to baptize their children, not so that they may become Christians, but for bodily health, cannot... baptize them by applying matter without form. Benedict XIV, Const. Postremo mense § 21. - L. 59, 62; La Croix 150, 158; E. M.

You will resolve: "If someone, unwilling to confess, enters the confessional and, kneeling, speaks with the confessor about some business, he does not simulate the sacrament, nor does he sin with the sin of lying." L. 60. That action is of itself indifferent; and in it the matter and form of the sacrament are wholly lacking. L. ib. - A confessor would sin gravely who pronounced the words of absolution without the mind of absolving, even if he did this in order to extricate himself more easily from an indisposed penitent who was urgently asking absolution, or even demanding it by very grave threats. Many say that in this case the confessor can say: I absolve you, pronouncing the word "not" so quietly that it is not heard by the penitent. St. Alphonsus 59 judges this not improbable; but the confessor could more easily then pronounce other words or prayers rather than the form of absolution; for the rest, that case seems almost chimerical. - But the confessor does not simulate the sacrament of penance if he recites prayers over an indisposed penitent, lest bystanders notice that he is dismissed without absolution; for it is clear among all that penitents are often dismissed with a blessing alone, and sometimes approach the sacred tribunal without the intention of confessing or of completing Confession. L. 59.

A priest would sin most gravely who in Mass pronounced the consecratory words over bread and wine while excluding the intention of consecrating. Nor can they be excused in good faith who, laboring under crass ignorance and celebrating in mortal sin, simulate consecration lest they become guilty of sacrilege, even if they wholly omit the words of consecration. - A priest sins gravely who presents an unconsecrated host as consecrated, even to one knowing and consenting, as sometimes happens to miserable priests with an accomplice who approaches the sacred table for the sake of preserving reputation. The reason is that in this way an unconsecrated host is exposed to the adoration both of the bystanders and even of the knowingly receiving person himself with external reverence, which constitutes external and material idolatry, and therefore something intrinsically evil. L. 61; St. Thomas Quodl. 5, a. 12. "In the case in which someone cannot dispose himself for Communion, he could sometimes agree with the pastor, in order to avoid infamy or scandal, that the latter say over him only the words: May the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve, etc.; and not present the host, as La Croix 160 admits." L. 61.

According to the common opinion, those who, compelled by grave fear, simulate entering marriage do not sin, at least gravely. The reason is that since voluntary consent is lacking, according to the now certain opinion which holds that the spouses are the ministers of this sacrament, matter and form are lacking, and therefore it is not simulation of a sacrament, but only simulation of a contract. "For the same reason he would not sin by the sin of sacrilege who contracted marriage knowing that he had a diriment impediment." L. 62. Furthermore, it must be noted that although someone then wishes to contract marriage, because of the defect of validity of the contract, in reality he does not contract marriage.

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

Question. What is to be said to the Case?

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

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

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

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

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

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.

As regards the denial of the sacraments, two general principles are set down, and then certain particular applications for the individual sacraments are appended, all those theoretical hypotheses which are no longer practical today being omitted.

75. Principle 1. It is never lawful to administer any sacrament to an incapable subject, such that the sacrament would be not only illicit but also altogether invalid.

The reason is that such an administration is intrinsically evil, as being a most wicked abuse of a most sacred thing. For it is a grave sacrilege directly procured. Hence, even to avoid death, a minister cannot, for example, confer sacred orders upon a woman, confirmation and the other sacraments upon someone not baptized, or give sacramental absolution to someone who certainly does not have sufficient attrition, etc. Although a priest is not the proper minister of the sacrament of matrimony, nevertheless he can never assist at a matrimony which is certainly null, for example, because of the impediment of a prior bond.

76. Principle 2. It is not lawful to administer any sacrament to an unworthy subject except for a most grave cause.

The reason is that a minister is bound under a threefold title to deny the sacraments to an unworthy subject, mindful of that precept: "Do not give what is holy to dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine":²⁸⁵ namely, a) from the virtue of religion, which forbids that a sacred thing such as a sacrament be treated irreverently; b) from fidelity, since the office of administering the sacraments was entrusted to the minister only as a faithful steward and mandatory of Christ, and not as an absolute lord who can do whatever he wills; c) from charity, because from an unworthy administration great harm is caused both to the recipient, who commits a grave sacrilege, and to Christian society, which thereby, at least sometimes, suffers great scandal.

He is called unworthy who lacks some disposition essentially required for the licit reception of the sacrament, namely, either the necessary knowledge or the state of sanctifying grace required for the licit reception of the sacraments of the living. Because of a lack of at least some knowledge of the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation, it is not lawful to administer the sacrament of baptism to an adult,²⁸⁶ as was already said above, I, n. 490. It is said: except for a most grave cause. The reason is that it is lawful to cooperate materially in the sin of another if a grave cause is present. Now, to administer some sacrament to an unworthy person for a grave cause seems to be nothing other than material cooperation in the sin of the one receiving the sacrament. For it proceeds solely from the malice of the recipient that the action of the minister, which in itself is good, becomes evil. This is confirmed by the example of Christ Himself, who, according to the common interpretation of the older exegetes, conferred upon the most unworthy Judas Iscariot the sacraments of the Eucharist and order.²⁸⁷ The action of Christ is our instruction; and therefore the Angelic Doctor says:²⁸⁸ "Christ therefore did not repel Judas from Communion, so that He might give an example that such sinners are not to be expelled by other priests."

²⁸⁵ Matt. 7:6.

²⁸⁶ Cf. Holy Office, January 25, 1703.

²⁸⁷ Several exegetes, especially modern ones, think that Judas did not receive Holy Communion but departed after consuming the Pasch. Cf. Knabenbauer, Comm. super Matth., c. 26.

²⁸⁸ S. theol. 3, q. 81, a. 2 ad 2.

77. The causes for which it is lawful to give the sacraments to the unworthy are:

1. Lest the sacramental seal be violated.

Thus all teach in our times. Older writers indeed thought that a confessor could deny a sacrament because of a crime heard in confession under the pretext of other causes,²⁸⁹ but this opinion is no longer safe in practice, since it renders confession odious and induces a violation of the sacramental seal. Moreover, on November 18, 1682, the Holy Office²⁹⁰ proscribed a similar opinion. Therefore, for example, a confessor is bound to give Communion to a penitent demanding it whom, immediately beforehand, he dismissed without absolution because of the penitent's indisposition.

2. Lest the very person who unworthily requests a sacrament incur most grave infamy from the disclosure of an occult crime.

Hence, for example, a pastor cannot exclude Paul from the celebration of matrimony when he knows privately that Paul has committed fornication and has not yet confessed it. The reason is that by acting thus the pastor would illicitly defame Paul. Nor can it be objected that the lesser of two evils must be chosen and that the defamation of the sinner is a lesser evil than the sacrilegious reception of the sacrament. For, as St. Thomas says: "Although it is worse for an occult sinner to sin mortally by receiving the body of Christ than to be defamed, nevertheless, for the priest ministering the body of Christ, it is worse to sin mortally by unjustly defaming an occult sinner than that the latter sin mortally, because no one ought to commit a mortal sin in order to free another from sin."²⁹¹ Or briefly: Evils are not to be done that goods may come.

3. Lest grave scandal arise among the faithful, who, if they were ignorant of the cause of the denial, would be kept away from the sacraments, since they would fear rejection for themselves also.²⁹²

This case can rarely occur in our days, for either it concerns a public sinner, and then true and well-founded scandal cannot arise because of the sacrament being denied; or it concerns an occult sinner, and then it is not lawful to deny a sacrament to one who requests it publicly, as will be said below.

²⁸⁹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 6, nn. 51 and 658. The text which is adduced from St. Thomas (IV Sent., dist. 9, q. unic., a. 5, sol. 1) for this opinion is not so clear. Moreover, the Angelic Doctor manifestly teaches the contrary in S. theol. 3, q. 80, a. 6, saying: "But if they are not manifest sinners, but occult, Holy Communion cannot be denied to them when they request it."

²⁹⁰ Denz., n. 1240.

²⁹¹ S. theol. 3, q. 80, a. 6 ad 2.

²⁹² Thus Noldin, De sacr. in gen., n. 36.

78. Scholion. Older and modern authors dispute greatly whether danger of death or a similar evil threatening a priest is a sufficient reason for giving a sacrament to an unworthy person. Whatever may be said concerning the theoretical probability of the affirmative or negative opinion, this case is scarcely possible today. For in the sacraments of matrimony and penance this case cannot occur: not in matrimony, because the priest is not the minister of this sacrament and is not forbidden sometimes to assist passively at the matrimony of a public sinner, as will be said below; not in penance, because a man unjustly threatening death or another grave harm to a confessor would receive the sacrament not only unworthily but invalidly. Now, it is never lawful to administer a sacrament to an incapable person, as was said above.

Likewise, this case can scarcely, or indeed cannot at all, occur in the other sacraments. For if these threats of death or another evil are public, they are customarily made out of hatred of the faith, contempt of religion, or with great scandal to the people, and then the priest ought rather to undergo death than yield to such hatred or contempt. But if the threats are occult and the sinner is occult, then the public petition must be yielded to. An occult petition, however, will scarcely ever occur. St. Alphonsus,²⁹³ Peter de Ledesma,²⁹⁴ Concina,²⁹⁵ and Lehmkuhl²⁹⁶ deny that the administration of a sacrament is lawful from fear of death; but Lugo,²⁹⁷ Sporer-Bierbaum,²⁹⁸ Ballerini-Palmieri,²⁹⁹ Genicot,³⁰⁰ D'Annibale,³⁰¹ and Noldin³⁰² affirm it.

²⁹³ Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 49.

²⁹⁴ Summa de euchar., c. 12, concl. 2, dub. 3.

²⁹⁵ De sacr. in gen., c. 12, n. 12.

²⁹⁶ Theol. mor. II, n. 59.

²⁹⁷ De sacr. in gen., disp. 8, n. 181.

²⁹⁸ Theol. mor. III, P. 1, c. 3, n. 188.

²⁹⁹ Opus theol. IV, n. 689.

³⁰⁰ Theol. mor. II, n. 122.

³⁰¹ Summula Theol. mor. III, n. 264.

³⁰² De sacr. in gen., n. 36 (3).

79. Practical rules.

1. The sacraments, matrimony excepted, must be denied: a) to a public sinner, concerning whose amendment there is not sufficient certainty; b) to an occult sinner requesting them occultly.

2. The sacraments must not be denied, but must be given, to an occult sinner requesting them publicly.

A public sinner is considered to be one whose crime is truly scandalous and notorious with notoriety either of law or of fact, that is, one who either has been convicted of a great crime in a public judgment or, in the place where he requests the sacraments, is so notoriously criminal that he is known by a great part of the people. Heretics or schismatics, even those erring in good faith, are equated in this matter with sinners public by law; it is not lawful to administer the sacraments to them unless, after first rejecting their errors, they have been reconciled to the Church.³⁰³ Thus at least outside the danger of death. Those also are to be kept from the sacraments as public sinners who actually and publicly are in the state of mortal sin, for example, those who are manifestly drunk here and now, and women so immodestly dressed that this immodesty is truly scandalous and mortally sinful.

An occult sinner is held to be one whose unworthiness is known to one or a few discreet persons.

A petition for a sacrament is public if it is made in the sight of several persons; but it is occult if it is made before the minister alone or before a few others who do not perceive the denial of the sacrament, so that no infamy arises therefrom.

With these things noted beforehand, the first part of the first rule is easily explained. For the Roman Ritual,³⁰⁴ with which canon 855, § 1 of the Code of Canon Law agrees, determines: "Those publicly unworthy are to be kept from the Eucharist, such as the excommunicated, the interdicted, and the manifestly infamous [such as prostitutes, concubinarians, usurers, magicians, diviners, blasphemers, and other public sinners of that kind], unless their penance and amendment are established and they have first made satisfaction for the public scandal." From these words it appears that a public sinner, although rightly absolved from sins, cannot at once be admitted to the public reception of Communion unless he has first repaired the scandal given. In what determinate manner this scandal is to be repaired must be established after all the circumstances of persons and places have been considered. In practice it is often better first to consult the bishop concerning this reparation of scandal. Holy Communion can be administered occultly to every sinner sincerely amended and rightly absolved. Thus at least according to the present discipline of the Church.

The other part of the first rule is expressed in this manner by the Roman Ritual and the Code of Canon Law:³⁰⁵ "If occult sinners request [Holy Communion] occultly and the minister knows that they have not amended, let him repel them." The reason for both parts is that from a sacrament being denied to a sinner requesting occultly or to a public sinner, no defamation or other grave inconvenience follows. On the contrary, the sinner receives a salutary admonition, and the sacrament is protected against an attempted irreverence.

The second rule is not only manifestly contained in the Roman Ritual and in the Code of Canon Law,³⁰⁶ but also follows clearly from the causes enumerated above, on account of which it is lawful, indeed necessary, to administer a sacrament to the unworthy. For from the denial of the sacrament there would then follow great infamy for the petitioner and scandal to the people.

³⁰³ Code of Canon Law, c. 731, § 2.

³⁰⁴ Tit. 4, c. 1, n. 8.

³⁰⁵ Tit. 4, c. 1, n. 9; c. 855, § 2.

³⁰⁶ L.c.

80. Applications to the individual sacraments.

1. Concerning the baptism of infants who are born of Catholic parents, there is neither difficulty nor obstacle. But infants of non-Catholic, and especially Jewish, parents are not to be baptized, except in danger of death, unless the parents promise all things necessary, as will be said more broadly below, n. 128. Baptism cannot be given to an adult, outside the danger of death, unless his good disposition is positively established.

2. Confirmation cannot be conferred except upon one whose worthiness is morally and positively established. The bishop, the minister of confirmation, customarily requires testimony concerning the worthiness of the person to be confirmed, either from the pastor or from another legitimate superior.

3. The rules given above pertain especially to the administration of the Eucharist. That the Eucharist is publicly requested by a public sinner occurs in our days especially in two cases: a) if a Catholic man, in contempt of the laws of the Church, enters a mixed matrimony and permits the non-Catholic education of the offspring; what must be done before such a man is admitted to the sacraments will be said below in the tract on matrimony, n. 784; b) if someone lives in notorious concubinage and now, being situated in grave illness, requests Viaticum. In this case the sacrament is not to be granted unless the scandal has first been removed. The sick person is therefore bound either to cast the concubine out of the house or to marry her before he receives the sacrament.

4. The sacrament of penance is never to be denied to a man rightly confessed and contrite. But the confessor can, and indeed must, require that the penitent perform all those things which are required for sufficient disposition, and notably the prior removal of scandal, of a proximate voluntary occasion, and of a censure that may have been incurred. Sacramental absolution can and must be given, at least conditionally, to every dying baptized adult, even a heretic, who is deprived of his senses, unless it is manifestly established that he rejects this sacrament. The reason is that such a dying person is customarily situated in extreme spiritual necessity, in which it is lawful to administer even a doubtfully valid sacrament.

5. Extreme unction, since it is administered only to a man existing in danger of life, must not be denied to one sincerely requesting it, explicitly or at least interpretatively. If, however, the sick person is in possession of his mind, he must first promise a serious amendment of life and the other things necessary according to the precepts of the Catholic Church.

6. According to the truer opinion, the sacrament of order can never be administered to an unworthy person, since he, even if occultly unworthy, is altogether to be kept from orders.³⁰⁷ Therefore St. Thomas³⁰⁸ teaches that it does not suffice that the prelate be ignorant that the one to be ordained is in sin, "but it is further required that, according to the measure of the order ... more diligent care be applied, so that certainty may be had concerning the quality of those to be promoted." Following the Council of Trent,³⁰⁹ canon 970 of the Code of Canon Law determines: "The proper bishop or major religious superior can, for any canonical cause, although not at his mere pleasure, even an occult cause and even extrajudicially, forbid his clerics ascent to orders, without prejudice to the right of recourse to the Holy See, or even to the general moderator if it concerns religious whose ascent the provincial superior has forbidden." The reason is that the sacrament of order unworthily received causes the greatest harms both to the cleric himself and to the whole Church.

7. A priest can more easily assist at the matrimony of a public sinner, since he is not the minister of this sacrament but only a qualified witness. Therefore, to avoid greater evils, the Church permits a pastor, with certain precautions observed, to furnish assistance at the valid matrimony of a public sinner.³¹⁰ This matter will be discussed more broadly below in the tract on matrimony. Likewise, for a most grave cause the Church permits a Catholic party to contract matrimony with a non-Catholic or sinful party.

Note. If any sacrament must be denied, it is always necessary to proceed with the greatest prudence and humanity, so that all may perceive clearly that the priest was unwilling to offend anyone, but intended only the honor of religion and the salvation of souls.

³⁰⁷ St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 52.

³⁰⁸ Suppl., q. 36, a. 4 ad 3.

³⁰⁹ Sess. 14, c. 1 de reform.

³¹⁰ Code of Canon Law, c. 1066.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I say. The Minister is bound under grave obligation, speaking in itself, to deny the sacraments to the unworthy, both because the natural law obliges a dispenser to dispense faithfully the goods of the Lord, and because it is the positive will of Christ that the sacraments not be conferred upon the unworthy, according to that saying of Matthew, vii, 6: "Do not give what is holy to dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine." - I said, speaking in itself, because in particular cases one must attend to the following:

1st. To a public sinner, whether asking secretly or publicly, the sacrament must be denied; because there is no reason why an exception should be made to the general rule; indeed grave scandal of the faithful would follow from the concession of the sacraments. - Cf. St. Thomas, 3, q. 80, art. 6. - St. Alphonsus, n. 44.

§ 1. Those who are publicly unworthy, such as the excommunicated, the interdicted, and the manifestly infamous, are to be kept away from the Eucharist, unless their repentance and amendment are established and they have first satisfied for the public scandal (Can. 855).

2nd. To a secret sinner asking secretly, likewise the sacrament must be denied; because reverence toward it and charity toward the neighbor demand this in these circumstances. - Cf. St. Thomas, ibid. - St. Alphonsus, n. 50.

§ 2. But secret sinners, if they ask secretly and the minister has known them not to be amended, he is to repel; not, however, if they ask publicly and he cannot pass them by without scandal (Can. 855).

3rd. To a truly secret sinner asking publicly, the sacrament is not to be denied. The reason is deduced 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 brought into suspicion, would withdraw from them lest they be prohibited from the sacraments. - Cf. St. Thomas, ibid. - St. Alphonsus, ibid. - Lehmkuhl, nn. 38 and seq.

4th. § 2. It is forbidden to minister the Sacraments of the Church to heretics or schismatics, even those erring in good faith and asking for them, unless first, their errors having been rejected, they have been reconciled to the Church (Can. 731).

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

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

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

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

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

You Will Resolve. 1st. A confessor would sin gravely who pronounced the words of absolution without the intention of absolving, even if he did this in order to extricate himself more easily from a penitent who was indisposed and asking insistently for absolution, or even demanding it by very grave threats. - But a confessor does not sin who, in the aforesaid case, would say: "I do not absolve you" . . . pronouncing the particle not so softly that it is not heard by the penitent; although he would act better if he then pronounced other words or prayers than the form of absolution. Recourse is especially to be had to this means as often as, on the one hand, the penitent is indisposed, and, on the other, those standing by can easily notice that he is dismissed without absolution. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 59.

2nd. A priest would sin most gravely who in Mass pronounced the consecratory words over bread and wine while excluding the intention of consecrating, both by reason of simulation and by reason of idolatry, by exposing the bread to the public adoration of the faithful. But if the words themselves of consecration are omitted, then, according to some, the sin of simulation would cease, but the most grave sin of idolatry would still remain. And this is the reason why, by Innocent III in cap. de homine, 7 de celebr. Miss., it is said that the priest who has fraudulently presumed to simulate that he consecrates sins more gravely than if he celebrated in mortal sin.

3rd. Likewise a priest would sin most gravely who would offer an unconsecrated host as consecrated, even to one knowing and consenting, as sometimes happens to wretched priests with an accomplice, who approaches the sacred table for the sake of preserving reputation. The reason is that thus the unconsecrated host is exposed to the adoration both of those standing by and also of the very one knowingly receiving it, with external reverence, which constitutes external and material idolatry and therefore something intrinsically evil.

4th. According to the common opinion they do not sin, at least gravely, who, either from grave fear unjustly inflicted or with knowledge of a diriment impediment but under urgent necessity, because, for example, all things are prepared, fictitiously contract Matrimony. The reason is that, consent being lacking, the contract itself is lacking, and therefore also the matter and form of the sacrament are lacking, and consequently there can be no true simulation.

VIII. QUESTION V. Can a priest, on account of fear of death or of notable infamy to himself, administer the Eucharist to a public sinner? ANSWER. The affirmative opinion is to me false. For it is not lawful to give what is holy to dogs, even for the sake of avoiding death. Nor less false is the opinion teaching that a priest can hold out an unconsecrated host to a hidden sinner. Since, says St. Thomas, III, q. 80, art. 6, that priest makes those commit idolatry who believe the host to be consecrated. No less does a priest sin who, for the avoiding of a sinner's infamy, simulates that he puts the host into his mouth. This lying simulation, whether of the Eucharist or of Penance, is sacrilegious and full of scandal.