The Faith and Holiness of the Minister

18. How far they are required. 1. For validly confecting the sacraments, neither faith nor uprightness or the state of grace is required in the minister:¹ for the sacraments do not have their efficacy from the disposition of the minister, but from the merits of Christ and from divine institution.

Therefore the Church has always held as valid baptism or order conferred by a heretic or apostate, if nothing else was lacking.

2. For validly confecting the sacraments, a divinely conferred power is required in the minister: for God alone can join grace to the sacramental action of the minister.

Certain sacraments can be conferred by bishops alone, either exclusively, as order, or by ordinary power, as confirmation. Others can equally be conferred by a bishop and by priests, yet with due subordination, as eucharist, penance, extreme unction. Others finally do not require a specially consecrated minister, as baptism, which can be validly conferred by any man, and matrimony, whose ministers are the contracting parties themselves.

¹ Council of Trent, sess. 7, can. 11, 12.

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.

In order that the minister of a sacrament proceed licitly, first indeed he must minister validly; concerning this there has already been discussion. Then it is required that he minister legitimately, holily, according to the rite, to the worthy, and absolutely or under condition according to the circumstances.

I. Legitimately; namely, it is required that the minister have received from the Church a mission or some jurisdiction, in other words authorization, and that he not have contracted a penalty which deprives him of the use of order. Concerning the jurisdiction required there will be fuller discussion in the treatise on the individual sacraments.

II. Holily, that is, in the state of grace. Now:

1. The obligation of ministering the sacraments in the state of grace is clear from the reverence due to an action so holy. Nevertheless, a necessity excuses which is so urgent that not even an act of contrition can be elicited, for example if absolution must be granted immediately to one dying. For since the sacraments are for men, the harm of one's neighbor to be averted prevails over the reverence due of itself to the sacrament, and thus, when the higher law of charity urges, the irreverence is taken away.

Here, however, it is asked by some whether the minister also is excused who cannot elicit an act of contrition in time without danger of infamy or scandal. Further, theoretically this must be affirmed, because, granted the good will of the minister and his moral inability to repent in time, even the right of preserving reputation and, a fortiori, the obligation of avoiding scandal prevail over the reverence due of itself to the sacrament. But since practically sufficient time for eliciting an act of contrition is available, it can be said that the said excusing cause in fact scarcely exists (St. Alphonsus, VI, 33).

2. As regards the gravity of the obligation, receive the following:

a) The obligation of the state of grace is certainly grave if these three things occur, namely if: 1. the minister is consecrated; 2. he confects the sacrament; and 3. he does this by office, or as consecrated, or solemnly.¹ This is clear from the Roman Ritual, which declares: "Those ministering these things impurely and unworthily incur the guilt of eternal death";² and these words must at least be applied to those of whom we are speaking. So also the Roman Catechism.³ The reason is that grave irreverence is had in this, that someone exercises an act so holy in a state so foul, whether as consecrated and furnished with sacramental grace, or as acting as minister and instrument of Christ and in His name, or with the said titles considered together (cf. St. Thomas, III, q. 64, a. 5, ad 3 and a. 6; St. Alphonsus, VI, 31, 32, 884).

b) It is disputed whether the following sin gravely: 1. a non-consecrated minister who confects a sacrament in mortal sin, namely a layman baptizing and those contracting Matrimony;⁴ 2. a consecrated minister who confects a sacrament, but not by office or not as consecrated, namely a deacon or priest baptizing in a case of necessity. Some affirm, because there is grave irreverence in this, that someone, whether he is consecrated or is not consecrated, whether he acts as consecrated or does not act as such, performs such sublime things in the name of and as an instrument of Christ. Others deny it, and judge that for grave irreverence it is required that someone act by office, and therefore confect the sacrament as public minister of Christ and of the Church. Thus St. Thomas teaches (loc. cit.), nor does St. Alphonsus seem to reject this for practice (VI, 32; Homo Apostolicus, tract 14, n. 6); all things considered, it can be held as practically safe. Likewise, a priest does not sin gravely who, while in mortal sin, only hears confession, yet in such a way that he resolves to elicit an act of contrition before absolution is to be given (St. Alphonsus, VI, 36).

c) It is further disputed whether a priest or deacon sins gravely who, while in mortal sin, does not confect, but only administers a sacrament. This question regards only the distribution of the Holy Eucharist. Further, St. Alphonsus, against many, affirms it, "because," he says, "a priest ministering the Eucharist in mortal sin inflicts grave injury on this sacrament, because, as a minister consecrated for dispensing it, he ministers it unworthily (cf. can. 845). And just as in the other sacraments the minister proximately concurs in the sanctification of those receiving through confection, so here he proximately concurs through dispensation, since the minister of the Eucharist cannot exhibit himself as minister otherwise than through dispensation" (VI, 35). There is added that Nicholas II compares a dispenser in the state of sin to a burning torch, which, while it illuminates others, consumes itself.⁵ Finally, the Roman Catechism favors this opinion.⁶

d) He does not sin gravely who, while in mortal sin, exercises other sacred functions, for example: 1. one who performs the functions of the Diaconate, Subdiaconate, or minor Orders; 2. one who performs consecrations, for example of Sacred Oil, and blessings; 3. one who touches or carries the Holy Eucharist or gives Benediction with the Most Holy Sacrament; 4. a priest who assists at Matrimony; 5. finally, one who preaches while in mortal sin does not sin gravely (St. Alphonsus, VI, 37-40).

Corollary. A minister who in mortal sin confects several sacraments in one continuous act commits as many sins as the sacraments he confects. The contrary must be said of him who by one moral action distributes the Holy Eucharist to several. Finally, he who celebrates while in mortal sin more probably commits four sins, namely he unworthily confects the sacrament, unworthily receives the sacrament, unworthily administers the sacrament to himself, and administers the sacrament to an unworthy person, again to himself (St. Alphonsus, VI, 35; vol. I, p. 201).

3. As regards the mode of recovering lost grace, one about to confect or administer a sacrament while constituted in mortal sin can recover grace either by an act of perfect contrition or by confession. If, however, there is question of confecting the Holy Eucharist, Confession is required of itself; this is clear from canon 807, to be explained later. Besides, the confection of this sacrament has its reception annexed to it. Further, he who has sinned mortally cannot receive the Holy Eucharist unless he has first received the sacrament of Penance (n. 179). With regard to the confection of the other sacraments, it is indeed fitting to confess,⁷ but there is no obligation.

¹ The word solemnly, which in the case is commonly used, does not regard external rites, but signifies the same as by office.

² Title I, single chapter, n. 4.

³ Part 2, chapter 1, q. 17.

⁴ Nevertheless, they sin gravely insofar as they receive Matrimony in mortal sin.

⁵ Chapter 5, cause 15, question 8.

⁶ Part 2, chapter 1, question 17.

⁷ Roman Ritual, title I, n. 4.

III. According to the rite, that is, according to the rites prescribed by the Church. Rites, however, are customarily distinguished as essential and accidental, according as they belong to the essence of the sacraments or do not belong to it. Concerning the essential rite, that is, concerning the use of matter and form, there has already been discussion, so that it remains to speak only of the accidental rite. Concerning this, let these things be observed:

1. That there is an obligation of observing the rites is of faith from these words of the Council of Trent: "If anyone shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, can either be contemned, or omitted by the ministers at their pleasure without sin, or changed into other new rites by any pastor of churches whatsoever, let him be anathema."¹ The obligation is likewise drawn from the Constitution Apostolicae Sedi of Paul V,² placed at the head of the Roman Ritual; likewise from canon 733, § 1, which establishes: "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." Yet this does not prevent certain rites from being called directive rather than preceptive; this is drawn both from the words of the Ritual and from the thing itself, as will be noted in its place.

2. The obligation of observing the rites is grave by its genus, so that he sins gravely who neglects the law in grave matter; this is drawn both from the importance of the matter being treated and from the penalties to be inflicted on incorrigible transgressors (cf. can. 2378).

3. Each person is bound to follow his own rite (can. 733, § 2). Now the rite to be observed in the Latin Church is contained in the Missal and Roman Ritual, the Roman Pontifical, the Ceremonial of Bishops, and the Memoriale Rituum.³

Note 1. The sacred oils which serve for administering certain sacraments must have been blessed by the Bishop on the most recent Thursday in the Lord's Supper; and old oils are not to be used unless necessity urges. When the blessed oil is nearly lacking, other unblessed olive oil is to be added, even repeatedly, but in a smaller quantity (can. 734). The pastor must request the sacred oils from his Ordinary and diligently preserve them in the church in safe and decent custody under key; nor is he to retain them at home, unless because of necessity or another reasonable cause, with the permission of the Ordinary (can. 735).

Note 2. The reverence due to the sacraments also requires that they be confected with the decency which the nature of the sacrament demands; to this also belongs due attention. Nevertheless, voluntary distraction is only venial, unless there is added danger of a substantial or at least notable defect. Yet voluntary distraction of a priest during consecration and communion is held by many as grave irreverence, namely because of the eminent dignity of the Sacrifice (cf. St. Alphonsus, VI, 14, 224, 410, dub. 5).

¹ Session 7, On the Sacraments in general, canon 13.

² 17 June 1614.

³ The Memoriale Rituum is a small book of rites given for the City by Benedict XIII (1723) and promulgated for the whole world by Pius VII (1827).

IV. To the worthy. The sacraments can be ministered only to the worthy, at least of themselves. But it suffices that worthiness be established as will be explained below. I said:

1. They can be ministered only to the worthy. He who ministers them to an unworthy person commits: 1. the sin of sacrilege, on account of the irreverent treatment of a sacred thing, that is, of a sacrament; 2. the sin of scandal, on account of cooperation in the sin of one's neighbor (St. Alphonsus, VI, 43).

2. At least of themselves; because, as if accidentally, the sacraments can be ministered to an unworthy person if there is present a cause by which both the irreverence which is contained of itself in ministration to the unworthy is removed, and cooperation in the sin of one's neighbor is made honorable. Causes of this kind are: violation of the sacramental seal, infamy, scandal, and other inconveniences to be avoided. From these things follow:

a) A sacrament must be ministered to an unworthy person if his unworthiness is known only by sacramental knowledge. For the rest, the following rules hold:

b) The sacraments are to be denied to a public sinner whether he asks secretly or publicly. The reason is that neither scandal nor infamy to be avoided makes the ministration honorable¹ (can. 855, § 1; St. Thomas, III, q. 80, a. 6; St. Alphonsus, VI, 44). A public sinner, however, is one whose crime is notorious either by fact, by law, or by reputation; he is occult as long as there is hope that the crime can be hidden.

c) The sacraments are to be denied to an occult sinner if he asks for them secretly, that is, before the priest alone, or before a few others who do not understand what is being done and will not spread the matter; they are not to be denied if he asks for them publicly. It is said:

a) They are to be denied if he asks for them secretly (can. 855, § 2; Roman Ritual):² the reason is that from denial there does not follow the inconvenience mentioned above (St. Thomas, loc. cit.; St. Alphonsus, VI, 44). Except if the priest knew the state of the sinner from confession alone; for he cannot use knowledge from confession with the burden of the penitent (St. Alphonsus, VI, 51, 658).

b) They are not to be denied if he asks for them publicly (can. 855, § 2; Roman Ritual).³ The reason is that from the fact that a minister could publicly deny the sacraments from private knowledge, the greatest inconveniences would follow: namely, not only the loss of the reputation⁴ of the one asking, but especially disputes, disturbances, scandals, and the danger that many would abstain from the sacraments, namely from fear lest they be kept away by an imprudent or malicious minister (St. Thomas, loc. cit.; St. Alphonsus, VI, 49). Except, however, the sacrament of Order, from which even one occultly unworthy must be kept away (Council of Trent;⁵ can. 970). "The reason is certain, because he who thrusts himself into public offices for which he is not suitable must be repelled, even with infamy, on account of the public good to be preferred to the private good" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 52; cf. St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 36, a. 4). Besides, "it must be noted that in that case the Bishop is not bound to manifest the cause why he repels him from ordination; according to the declarations of the Sacred Congregation of the Council issued on 21 March 1643 and on 21 April 1668, which the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XIV brings forward at length"⁶ (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).

If the crime is public in another place, but occult in the place where the sacrament is asked, the sacrament should not be denied unless knowledge of the crime will easily reach there (St. Alphonsus, VI, 46; cf. can. 855, § 2).

d) It is forbidden to minister the sacraments of the Church to heretics, even those erring in good faith and asking for them, unless first, having rejected their errors, they have been reconciled to the Church (can. 731, § 2). It is forbidden both because the sacraments generally cannot be ministered to heretics and schismatics without scandal,⁷ and because ministration of the sacraments to non-Catholics fosters indifferentism.

Insofar as these things are also to be applied to the dying, see in the treatise on Penance and on Extreme Unction.

3. It suffices that worthiness be established as follows:

a) With regard to Baptism of adults, Penance, Order, and Matrimony, the worthiness of the recipient must be established more or less positively, and therefore inquiry must be made into it, as will be explained more fully in the treatise on the said sacraments. Meanwhile consult, with regard to Baptism, canon 752, § 1; with regard to Penance, canons 886 and 888; with regard to Order, canon 973, § 3; with regard to Matrimony, canons 1020, 1021, § 1, and 1033.

b) With regard to the other sacraments, worthiness must be presumed, while unworthiness must be proven in some measure, so that in doubt the sacraments ought rather to be granted. The reason is that all the faithful have a right to these other sacraments, and ministers are not judges but dispensers; whence in these cases they do not have the right of inquiring, but only the duty of dispensing to all who ask, provided that they are not positively unworthy (St. Alphonsus, VI, 43). If, however, unworthiness has been established, amendment must be proven, and sometimes, besides, the satisfaction performed must be established. Concerning this the Roman Ritual has these words: "All the faithful are to be admitted to sacred Communion, except those who are prohibited for a just reason. But the publicly unworthy are to be kept away, such as the excommunicated, the interdicted, and the manifestly infamous: as prostitutes, concubinarians, usurers,⁸ magicians,⁹ sorcerers, blasphemers,¹⁰ and other public sinners of that kind, unless their penitence and amendment are established, and they have first satisfied for public scandal."¹¹ Canon 855, § 1, inculcates the same for the same reason. With these things considered, the following can be drawn:

¹ Roman Ritual, title IV, chapter 2, n. 3.

² Title IV, chapter 1, n. 9.

³ Title IV, chapter 1, n. 9.

⁴ This reason is not adequate, because the reverence to be shown of itself to the sacrament prevails over the private good of the reputation of the sinner, who, as is supposed, is not of good will; but it does not prevail over the common good.

⁵ Session 14, on reform, chapter 1; Session 23, chapters 5 and 7.

⁶ De Synodo, book 12, chapter 8, n. 2.

⁷ Holy Office, 20 July 1898 (Collectanea, n. 2012).

⁸ That is, those judicially convicted as such.

⁹ That is, those who publicly practice true and certain magic.

¹⁰ That is, those who from a spirit of impiety are accustomed by mouth or writing to utter injurious things against God, against the Saints, or against the Church.

¹¹ Title IV, chapter 1, n. 8.

Corollary I. If unworthiness arises from sin alone, generally it suffices that the sinner has confessed publicly; indeed, the very approach to the Holy Eucharist seems generally to suffice that he be judged amended. If, however, a public sinner of this kind, notwithstanding confessions and communions, does not cease falling back into the same habit, and the relapse is notorious, then the ministration of the sacraments should be deferred for some time, so that amendment may be sufficiently proven, unless now particular signs of amendment appear, as can occur especially on the occasion of a Mission.

Corollary II. If someone has publicly lived in a proximate occasion; likewise, if some resignation of office, or retraction, or satisfaction must be imposed, for example if someone has performed a wicked office, or has publicly enrolled in a wicked society, or has spread pernicious errors, or has publicly and unjustly stripped another of reputation, generally the occasion must be abandoned or the other obligation fulfilled before the sinner is publicly¹ admitted to the sacraments.

Corollary III. If someone has been publicly excommunicated, or has notoriously adhered to a heretical sect, before he communicates he must be reconciled with the Church in the external forum and absolved from the censure.

Corollary IV. If the crime is doubtful, the sacrament should not be denied, unless nevertheless someone is so suspected that by charity he is bound to remove the suspicion. If the crime is certain, but penitence doubtful, the sacrament should be denied, because penitence is not established; which the Roman Ritual cited above and canon 855 require (cf. St. Alphonsus, VI, 48).

Corollary V. If a doubt remains whether the sacraments must be denied to someone, the Ordinary should be consulted; or, if there is not time, after the sacrament has been granted, recourse should be had to him for the future.

For the rest, if the sacraments are to be denied, one should proceed most prudently. As far as can be done, the sinner should be warned in time, so that the request itself may be forestalled. If the matter does not succeed, the denial should be made without disturbance. The ordinary circumstances are especially regarded by the things said above; concerning the things to be observed in urgent danger of death there will be discussion in its own place.

Finally, here it is customary to ask whether the minister can administer a sacrament to an unworthy person in order to avoid harm threatening himself, for example death. Some affirm, provided that the one asking can here and now validly receive the sacrament and does not ask for it in contempt of God or of religion. They affirm this because there is had only material cooperation, which is licit for a cause of this kind. But with St. Alphonsus (VI, 49) it seems it must be denied; since the conferral of a sacrament on an unworthy person, and this in the supposed circumstances, carries with it so great an injury to the sacrament that it does not seem it can be admitted for averting private harm from the minister, but only for preventing inconveniences that would follow for the community from the denial (St. Alphonsus, VI, 49). As we already noted above, the adequate reason why it is permitted to confer a sacrament on an occult sinner is not the avoidance of infamy for a contumacious sinner, but the inconveniences which would arise for the community from the denial (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).

¹ Of themselves, the sacraments can be ministered at least secretly to all who are truly penitent, but according to the Sacred Penitentiary (1856) it is not fitting "to admit to secret participation in the sacraments those who have not made retraction, on account of the scandal of the weak, who can believe that the penitent has persevered in obstinate pertinacity."

V. Absolutely or conditionally, according to the circumstances. The sacraments are to be conferred absolutely if there is no serious doubt about validity; otherwise under condition. Yet he who, being certain of validity, places a condition, seems of himself to sin only lightly, because grave irreverence is not evident.

Are faith and probity of the minister required for valid and licit administration of the sacraments? - For the validity of the sacraments neither faith nor probity, or the state of grace, is required in the minister. This is clear 1. from the practice and perpetual tradition of the Church, which never wished those baptized by heretics and wicked men to be rebaptized. It is clear 2. from the definition of the Church. Trent sess. 7, c. 12 de S., c. 4 de B. But for licit administration of the sacraments there is required in the minister faith and probity, at least if he has been consecrated for conferring the sacraments, and confects them solemnly, that is, with the whole rite prescribed by the Church. Therefore he gravely sins who, as a minister of the Church or by force of the order conferred on him, ministers the sacraments in mortal sin. For since of himself and by office he has been constituted for exercising this function, he is bound to exercise it with due disposition and holiness. Wherefore a minister of this kind, lacking faith or wicked, inflicts grave injury upon God and Christ by treating holy things unworthily and, as far as lies in him, by contaminating them. For the minister of the sacraments represents Christ, the primary minister, who is the Holy of holies, and bears his person, and therefore it is necessary that he too be holy.

At least, etc.; for whether this is demanded by the holiness of the office, or also by the holiness of the thing, because the minister of the sacraments represents the person of Christ and holy things are to be treated holily, is not sufficiently clear. - L. 31, 32; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 64, a. 5, 6; q. 82, a. 5; Suppl. q. 36, a. 5; q. 38, a. 2; Lugo d. 8, n. 150; Suarez d. 16, s. 2; E. M.

Does a minister gravely sin who confers in mortal sin a sacrament for which he has not been specially ordained or consecrated? - Resp. Probably in the negative, because the obligation in the minister of having holiness probably does not arise precisely from the holiness itself of Christ and of the sacrament according to itself, but from the consecration of the minister in order to the conferring of sacraments. Billuart Diss. 5, art. 4; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 64, art. 6; 4 d. 5, q. 2, a. 2. Yet others affirm it. St. Liguori 32 admits the probability of both opinions; nevertheless he inclines more to the affirmative. Cf. Sporer n. 176; Roncaglia cap. 3, q. 6; Sanchez de Matr. l. 2, d. 6, n. 4. "This question, as the same St. Alphonsus says, l.c., has place only in baptism and matrimony, for it is evident that the other sacraments cannot be ministered except by consecrated ministers." Hence those contracting matrimony in mortal sin probably sin gravely only by receiving the sacrament, not also by ministering it. L. 30; l. 6, n. 884.

Yet even laymen baptizing in necessity, or those contracting matrimony, sin lightly if they are in the state of grave sin. For certainly it is not fitting to bear the person of Christ in the state of sin, and it is fitting that holy things be treated holily.

Does a priest, or consecrated minister, sin gravely who indeed ministers a sacrament in mortal sin, but not solemnly, e.g., baptism without ceremonies in a case of necessity? - This is controverted, as in the preceding question, and the same authorities and reasons are brought forward for each side. Hence it must probably be said that he does not sin gravely, because although he is of himself consecrated for ministering sacraments, he nevertheless does not act as consecrated or by office, but only as a layman from charity for aiding his neighbor in necessity. - L. 32, 884.

Does a consecrated minister solemnly ministering in mortal sin sin gravely, if grave necessity presses? - Resp. In the negative, strictly speaking, namely if the danger is so pressing that time does not permit him to elicit an act of contrition. For since the sacraments are for men, irreverence seems to be absent if, in that necessity of aiding a man, the sacrament is ministered by a sinner. But this hypothesis generally must be denied. For it is sufficient by an interior act of the will to conceive sorrow and detestation of sin because it is an offense against God, which can be done at once. Moreover, a minister conscious of grave fault is not to be excused from mortal sin if he can foresee a case of necessity, as a pastor and others who by office must minister the sacraments, and therefore by a special obligation are bound habitually to remain in the state of grace. L. 33, 86, 617; Lugo d. 8, n. 151; de Euch. d. 9, n. 8; Sanchez d. 207.

Does one who ministers the Eucharist in mortal sin sin gravely? - Resp. More probably in the affirmative. The reason is that he inflicts grave injury upon the most holy Eucharist. For although he does not act as an efficacious cause in confecting the sacrament, nevertheless he is its dispenser, specially consecrated for this, and he performs a ministry which immediately cooperates in the sanctification of the soul. Hence one celebrating and ministering in mortal sin commits four sacrileges: 1. Because he confects the sacrament. 2. Because he receives it. 3. Because he ministers to himself unworthily. 4. Because he ministers the Eucharist in mortal sin. But it is only one action, and therefore it is enough to say that he celebrated in mortal sin. L. 35 and others commonly. Yet Lugo d. 8, n. 155; Salm. tr. 1, c. 7, n. 11, and others probably judge that he sins only venially; because he neither acts in the name of Christ nor himself sanctifies anyone, but as it were transfers the sacrament from place to place. Diana thinks this opinion probable not only if communion is ministered outside Mass, but also if it is ministered in Mass. Tr. 2, de Praec. div. et eccl. sacr. comm., res. 25. St. Thomas Suppl. q. 36, a. 5 ad 4; L. l. 2, n. 46.

Do those gravely sin who in mortal sin either mediately or immediately touch or carry the Eucharist? - There is a threefold probable opinion. The first, more probable opinion affirms in each case, because they treat a most holy thing or the Body of Christ unworthily. St. Liguori 35 calls this opinion very probable. - The second opinion denies it, because there is no administration of a sacrament here, nor does the matter appear so grave that it induces mortal sin. Thus La Croix n. 101; Salmant. c. 7, n. 1; Busemb.; and St. Liguori says this is not improbable. - The third opinion distinguishes thus: those indeed sin gravely who immediately touch the most holy Eucharist in mortal sin, but not those who touch it mediately. The reason is taken from the very different degree of irreverence between the first case and the second. Thus Billuart. But if the opinion of Cardinal Lugo, of which in n. 353 here, is not without its probability, then every difficulty vanishes. St. Thomas Suppl. q. 36, a. 5 ad 4.

Do those sin gravely who exercise other sacred functions in mortal sin? - Resp. In the negative, because all the other exercises of orders, besides the confection and administration of the sacraments, do not seem to require holiness under grave obligation, since they are not proximately ordered to the sanctification of the soul. Thus commonly and more probably. - Therefore they do not sin gravely: 1. Deacons and subdeacons who, in mortal sin, solemnly minister at the altar. 2. Bishops who, in mortal sin, confect chrism or holy oil. 3. A bishop or priest who in mortal sin consecrates or blesses a church, blesses sacred vestments or corporals, assists at matrimony, blesses ashes, lustral water, etc. 4. A preacher existing in mortal sin. - L. 37-40, 747, 767, 889; Lugo d. 8, n. 152 ff.

Is the minister bound to confess before the confection of a sacrament, if he is guilty of mortal sin? - Resp. In the affirmative, if it concerns the celebration of Mass and he does not lack an opportunity for a confessor; because all the faithful about to communicate must premise Confession from Trent sess. 13, c. 7, c. 11. - But more probably in the negative, if it concerns the other sacraments; because he is bound by no law to Confession; and therefore it suffices that he elicit an act of contrition. Yet except the case if the lack of perfect contrition is clear to him. - L. 34, 617.

Does one who hears Confession in mortal sin, but does not absolve, sin gravely? - Resp. More probably in the negative, because the confessor by hearing confession does not confect the sacrament. L. 36.

How many sins does a confessor commit by absolving several penitents successively in mortal sin? - The first opinion is that he commits as many sins as persons he absolves; the reason is that each absolution constitutes a distinct moral action, just as many complete judgments and just as many sacraments conferred in the state of sin, and therefore just as many sins. Thus L. l. 5, n. 50 with others. The second opinion is that he commits only one sin. Thus Salmant. de Censur. c. 2, n. 72, with others whom they cite, and Lugo de Poenit. d. 16, n. 558 calls that opinion probable. The same must generally be said of one who successively, but continuously, confers several sacraments, e.g., baptizes, confirms, or ordains several persons. And indeed, if the sin is taken from the holiness of the office, it is truer that one sin is committed, because one ministry of baptizing, confirming, etc., is exercised. - Busemb. 617.

How many sins does one commit who ministers the Eucharist to several persons in mortal sin? - Resp. More probably only one; because he places one moral action; for each distribution is held after the manner of one thing, and constitutes one administration and one banquet. L. 30, 35; l. 5, n. 30. Cf. 353, where a twofold opinion concerning the gravity of this fault was presented.

208. Questions. - QUESTION 1º. Does a Minister sin gravely who confers in mortal sin a Sacrament for which he has not been specially ordained or consecrated, for example if a woman ministers Baptism in the state of sin?

Resp. Negatively, probably, because the obligation in the Minister of having sanctity does not arise precisely from the sanctity itself of Christ and of the Sacrament according to itself, but from the consecration of the Minister in Order for conferring Sacraments. - Billuart, diss. 5, art. 4. - St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 64, art. 6; and in 4, Dist. 5, q. 2, art. 2; and many others. Nevertheless not a few others affirm; thus Collet, Lacroix, Lugo, etc. But St. Ligorius, n. 32, admits the probability of both opinions; nevertheless he inclines more toward the affirmative ².

² ** The second opinion affirming, says St. Alphonsus, seems more probable. But learn whether this opinion can be of use to confessors from the opinions of the Doctors which we have elsewhere described from the same St. Alphonsus (Vol. I, in note to n. 152).

** The opinions of the Doctors indicated in this little note, which St. Alphonsus adopts and inculcates (at the end of the moral system), are of this kind: Nothing ought to be condemned as mortal sin concerning which there is not evident reason, or manifest authority of Scripture (Gabriel Biel). And St. Antoninus: Unless for this there be express authority of Scripture or of a Canon of the Church, or evident reason. - And St. Raymond: Do not be prone to judge mortal sins where it is not clear to you through certain Scripture. Hence the argument: St. Alphonsus, after he had elsewhere taught that both opinions were probable, namely the one affirming and the one denying that grave fault is present in the case, later wrote by opining that the affirmative seems more probable. But a certain opinable greater probability does not suffice according to the holy Doctor, so that in practice the conscience of grave sin be imposed. Therefore that opinion cannot be of use to confessors.

VV. object (p. 927, note 2) that St. Alphonsus in the little work Confessore diretto per le genti di campagna absolutely wrote that spouses who contract in the state of sin commit two sacrileges, the one as ministers, the other as unworthily receiving the sacrament.

Resp. It is a canon that the more obscure places of any Writer are to be explained through the clearer ones. But the Moral Work (Lib. 6, n. 32) most clearly teaches us that as to the second sacrilege the holy Doctor affirms this merely opinably, and that he changed nothing in it, nor therefore departed from this opinion of his, although after that little work had been published he published the Moral Work several times over the course of twenty years. But if someone wishes to contend that the words of that little work are to be taken in a strict sense, this alone could be concluded: that those two places of the holy Doctor do not cohere with each other, and that the meanings of the little work are to be put after those of the Moral Work, since they are opposed to the certain principles of the same holy Doctor.

VV. add (l. c.) that St. Alphonsus attributed to the negative opinion only extrinsic probability, perhaps on account of the authority of St. Thomas, whose suffrage, however, they say, does not effect that it is sufficiently solid, since for the affirmative a notable excess and preponderance of intrinsic reason militates.

Resp. 1º I deny that, according to the mind of St. Alphonsus, that notable excess and preponderance of reason is present for the affirmative. For otherwise he would not have written so temperately and in a manner of one somewhat doubting, it seems more probable.

Resp. 2º St. Alphonsus indeed brings forth no new reason; but, no otherwise than others, he seeks reasons from the intrinsic nature of the thing. But that from the considered nature of the thing a reason so evident can be taken which suffices for certainly affirming mortal sin, or at least a reason so convincing that it removes solid probability from the opposite opinion, and nevertheless that concerning an intrinsic reason of this kind St. Thomas, Richardus, Sylvester, Cajetan, Dominic Soto, Suarez, Laymann, Coninck, Henriquez, Filliuccius, Reginaldus, Sa, the Salmanticenses, Dicastillus, Becanus, Valentia, Palaus, Escobar, Sporer, Reiffenstuel, Giribaldi, Roncaglia, Ferraris, Mezger, Illsung, Pettschacher, Babenstuber, Struggl, etc., etc., etc., were in some way blind - this will seem sufficiently difficult, indeed also very hard. Therefore whoever, with so many and such great Doctors preceding him, should doubt entirely concerning so great a solidity of the reason brought by St. Alphonsus, indeed should altogether deny it, certainly will not rightly be convicted of any imprudence or rashness.

QUESTION 2º. Does a Priest, or consecrated Minister, sin gravely, who indeed ministers a Sacrament in mortal sin, but not solemnly, for example Baptism without ceremonies in a case of necessity?

Resp. It is controverted, as in the preceding question, and the same authorities and reasons are brought forward for both sides. Hence it must probably be said that he does not sin gravely, because although he is per se consecrated for ministering sacraments, nevertheless he does not act as one consecrated or from office, but only as a layman from charity for helping a neighbor in necessity ³.

³ ** To this response of the Author, VV. (p. 929, n. 84) oppose these words from St. Alphonsus: The opinion (more probable) teaches that, speaking per se... a Priest ministering not solemnly sins gravely by ministering in mortal sin. The reason, etc. Lib. 6, n. 32.

Resp. St. Alphonsus did not write absolutely, more probable, but wrote by opining, it seems more probable; and in the same place he expressly writes absolutely concerning the opposite opinion: This opinion is indeed probable. But if, even according to the judgment of St. Alphonsus himself, it is probable that in the case there is no mortal sin, then according to the very firm principles of the same holy Doctor it is unlawful to impose upon penitents the conscience of mortal sin. Does not St. Alphonsus in the same place report that Concina (whom he himself calls very rigid) says the opinion which denies grave fault is true and common? And do not others agree with Concina, who are heard as no less rigid: Natalis Alexander, Contenson, Habert, Juenin, Collet, etc.? Besides, that, with due reverence preserved for the holy Doctor, his judgment in this question can be set aside neither imprudently nor rashly, has already been shown sufficiently and more than sufficiently in the preceding Note.

QUESTION 3º. Does a consecrated Minister, solemnly ministering in mortal sin, sin gravely if grave necessity urges?

Resp. Negatively, rigorously speaking, namely if the danger is so urgent that it is not permitted to him through time to elicit an act of contrition. But this hypothesis generally must be denied. Moreover a Minister is not to be excused from mortal sin who, conscious of grave fault, can foresee the case of necessity, as a Parish Priest and others who by office must minister the Sacraments, and therefore are held by a special obligation habitually to remain in the state of grace. - St. Ligorius, n. 35, and others commonly.

“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.

55. Proposition 1. For the valid administration of the sacraments neither faith nor probity (that is, the state of sanctifying grace) is required in the minister.

The truth of this proposition is already evident from what has been said. For since a man bears not his own person but that of Christ in administering the sacraments, which produce their proper effects ex opere operato (and not ex opere operantis), the minister always administers them validly, provided that without a substantial change he applies the form to the due matter, having the intention of doing what the Church does. Moreover, the greatest incongruity would follow if the validity of the sacraments depended upon the faith and probity of the minister. For then a man receiving the sacraments could not have certain confidence concerning his own salvation; for it would always be in doubt whether the minister administering, for example, the sacrament of penance, was in the state of sanctifying grace. A very great many infants also would lose eternal salvation, namely, all those who were baptized by a bad minister. But these things are absurd and repugnant to divine mercy, which wills all men to be saved. Hence St. Thomas rightly says: "In the form of the sacraments a word uttered by a just man does no more than one uttered by a sinner, because the merit of man does not operate there, but the Passion of Christ and the power of God."²¹¹ The tradition and definitions of the Church teach the same.

Tradition. Therefore, from the most ancient times the Church taught that the false faith of the minister cannot destroy the validity of a sacrament. It is exceedingly well known how St. Stephen I, already in the third century, defended the validity of baptism conferred by heretics against St. Cyprian, Firmilian, and other bishops who held the contrary opinion. Pope St. Stephen wrote to St. Cyprian: "If, therefore, any come to you from any heresy, let nothing be innovated [that is, let no sacrament be repeated], except what has been handed down, namely, that the hand be imposed upon them unto penance.... One ought not ask who it is that baptized, because he who has been baptized could obtain grace.... The name of Christ contributes greatly to faith and the sanctification of baptism, so that whoever and wherever he has been baptized in the name of Christ may immediately obtain the grace of Christ."²¹² Above all others St. Augustine defends the Catholic doctrine in many places, for example: "Those whom a drunkard baptized, those whom a murderer baptized, those whom an adulterer baptized: if it was the baptism of Christ, Christ baptized."²¹³ The same St. Augustine, against St. Cyprian, asserts that the custom of not rebaptizing those who, having been baptized by heretics, return to the true Church "was derived from apostolic tradition."²¹⁴ In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the Waldensians and Albigensians falsely taught that sacraments administered by any bad minister were null. Finally, in the fourteenth century the Wycliffites thought that only those sacraments were valid which were conferred by predestined ministers. But all these errors were proscribed by the Church.

Definitions of the Church. The First Council of Nicaea (a. 325) decreed that the Paulianists returning to the Church should be entirely rebaptized, because they had not at all been baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; on the contrary, the same synod prohibited the Novatians and Cathari from being rebaptized, because their baptism was valid.²¹⁵ The Council of Constance condemns proposition 4 of Wyclif: "If a bishop or priest is in mortal sin, he does not ordain, does not consecrate, does not confect, does not baptize."²¹⁶ The Council of Trent defined: "If anyone says that baptism, which is even given by heretics in the name of the Father ... with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true baptism, let him be anathema"; and: "If anyone says that a minister existing in mortal sin, provided that he has observed all the essentials which pertain to confecting or conferring a sacrament, does not confect or confer a sacrament, let him be anathema."²¹⁷

²¹¹ Opusc. 18, De forma absolut., c. 3. The Angelic Doctor discusses this matter more broadly in S. theol. 3, q. 64, a. 5, and Contra gent. 4, 77.

²¹² Denz., nn. 46 and 47 (Migne, Patr. lat. 3, 1174 sq.).

²¹³ On John, tract. 5, n. 18 (Migne, l.c. 35, 1424).

²¹⁴ De bapt., l. 2, c. 7 (Migne, l.c. 33, 133).

²¹⁵ Denz., nn. 55 and 56; cf. n. 97.

²¹⁶ Denz., n. 584.

²¹⁷ Sess. 7, can. 4 on baptism and can. 12 on the sacraments in general (Denz., nn. 860 and 855).

56. Proposition 2. For the licit confecting of the sacraments, the state of sanctifying grace is required under grave sin (at least if a consecrated minister solemnly administers sacraments outside a case of necessity).

Hence it is a grave sin to confect sacraments in the state of grave sin, except in the cases just indicated and to be explained below. Thus teach nearly all theologians. The reason, however, is manifold:

It is proved: 1. Not less, but much greater purity is required in the ministers of the New Testament than in the Levites of the Old Law. But the latter were gravely bound to legal purity: "Every man of your stock [namely, Aaron] who shall approach those things which are consecrated ... in whom there is uncleanness, shall perish before the Lord."²¹⁸ Therefore, spiritual purity from grave sin is most fittingly required of the ministers of the New Testament.

2. The Roman Ritual says: "Although the sacraments cannot be defiled by the impure, nor can their effects be impeded by wicked ministers, nevertheless those who minister them impurely and unworthily incur the guilt of eternal death."²¹⁹

3. St. Thomas²²⁰ teaches: "There is no doubt that evil men who present themselves as ministers of God and of the Church in the dispensing of the sacraments sin. And because this sin pertains to irreverence toward God and the contamination of the sacraments, insofar as this lies on the part of the sinner himself, although the sacraments in themselves are incapable of contamination, it follows that such a sin is mortal from its genus."

4. It is in truth most gravely unbecoming that a minister who was solemnly consecrated for worthily confecting the sacraments, but who is now stained with the filth of sin and therefore placed under the power of the devil, nevertheless wishes solemnly to bear the person of the most holy and most pure Christ in confecting the sacraments, and to produce or increase in the soul of the one receiving the sacrament the most excellent gift of sanctifying grace. Yet the minister himself has subordinated that grace to a filthy sin. For such arrogance is worse than if a servant were to present a vessel outwardly dirty for offering precious wine to the friends of the king.

²¹⁸ Lev. 22:3.

²¹⁹ Tit. I, on the sacraments in general, n. 4.

²²⁰ S. theol. 3, q. 64, a. 6.

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

a) If he is not a consecrated minister.

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

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

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

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

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

²²¹ Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 32.

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

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

²²⁴ S. theol. 3, q. 64, a. 6 ad 3.

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

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

²²⁷ L.c., n. 35.

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

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

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

²²⁹ De sacr. in gen., n. 32.

²³⁰ Theol. mor. II, n. 47.

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

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

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

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

²³¹ L.c., n. 35.

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

²³³ P. 2, c. 1, q. 17.

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

²³⁵ Theol. mor., P. 1, c. 3, n. 172.

²³⁶ L.c.

²³⁷ Theol. mor. II, n. 43.

²³⁸ De sacr. in gen., n. 33.

²³⁹ De sacr. in gen., q. 25.

²⁴⁰ Theol. mor. II, n. 115.

²⁴¹ Moraltheol. III, 14.

²⁴² IV Sent., dist. 24, a. 3, sol. 5.

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

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

60. Scholion. On immunity from censures and irregularity. For the licit administration of the sacraments there are further required: a) due jurisdiction or license; b) immunity from censures and irregularity. Sacraments administered without these conditions are nevertheless valid (except penance in certain cases and matrimony). A fuller doctrine concerning all these things will be given below in the tract on the individual sacraments, censures, and irregularities.

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

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

It is proved:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is proved:

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

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

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

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

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

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

77. Corollaries. - From the foregoing it follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I say. Although neither faith nor probity, or the state of grace, is required in the Minister for the valid conferral of the sacraments, nevertheless it is required, and indeed under grave obligation, for their licit administration, at least if the Minister has been consecrated for conferring them, and confects them solemnly, namely with the whole rite prescribed by the Church. The reason for the first is taken both from the practice and perpetual tradition of the Church, which never willed those baptized by heretics and wicked Ministers to be rebaptized, and from the Council of Trent, sess. 7, can. 12, de Sacram. in Genere, and can. 4, de Baptismo. But the reason for the second is that a Minister destitute of faith or stained by mortal sin inflicts grave injury upon God and Christ by treating holy things unworthily and, as much as is in him, contaminating them. - Cf. De Augustinis, Thesis 16, p. 201.

Question 1. Does a Minister sin gravely who, necessity urging, confers a sacrament in mortal sin, for which he has not been specially ordained or consecrated, or, if indeed he is consecrated, does not act as such or does not minister solemnly?

Resp. Negatively, probably, because the obligation in the Minister of having sanctity does not arise precisely from the very sanctity of Christ and of the sacrament considered in itself, but from the Minister's consecration or deputation for conferring the sacraments. But in the aforesaid cases one acts rather from charity for aiding the necessity of a neighbor than as a deputed Minister. - Cf. St. Thomas, 3, q. 64, art. 6; and in 4, dist. 5, q. 2, art. 2. - Billuart, dissert. 5, art. 4. - St. Alphonsus had taught the negative opinion under n. 34, but afterward in QQ. Reform. turned aside to the affirmative. - Cf. Ballerini, note (a) p. 137; and note (a) p. 138.

Question 2. Does a priest or Deacon sin gravely by ministering the Eucharist in mortal sin?

Resp. Affirmatively, according to the more probable opinion which St. Alphonsus holds. The reason is that he inflicts grave injury upon the most holy Eucharist; for although he himself does not act as an efficient cause in confecting the sacrament, nevertheless he is its dispenser, specially consecrated for this, and he performs a ministry which immediately cooperates with the sanctification of the soul. Yet the opinion of Lugo and the Salmanticenses, asserting that in this case only venial sin is committed, seems probable. But a fortiori the opinion of those who hold that to touch or carry the Most Holy Eucharist in mortal sin is not mortal must be judged probable. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 35. - Lugo, disp. 8, n. 155. - Salmant., tract. 1, cap. 7, n. 100. - Lacroix, lib. 6, part 1, n. 101. - Ballerini, note (b) p. 138.

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

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

XVIII. QUESTION X. Whether a minister conscious to himself of mortal sin is bound to confess sacramentally before he administer a sacrament, if there be opportunity of a confessor and no necessity urge of succouring one in peril? ANSWER. Many deny it, especially Fr. Viva, question 1, article 4, no. 4, where he says that it is enough if he be contrite, and that there is no precept of confessing. Is there no precept? Is not this a precept: Holy things must be holily handled? By contrition he is made holy. But perfect contrition is needed. That this perfect contrition is most difficult to a sinner all teach, and especially the Tridentine Catechism, part 2, § 36. And Fr. Viva himself, tract 5, reputes imperfect contrition itself so difficult that he excludes it from the sacrament of Penance. The aforesaid opinion therefore I repute false and adverse to the Tridentine Catechism and to the graver theologians. There is added that contrition does not abolish sin save with the desire of the sacrament. Can this desire be presumed in a minister who, having both opportune time and the opportunity of a confessor, deliberately omits the sacrament? The Council of Trent, session 13, chapter 7, plainly defines that sacramental confession is to be sent before by a priest conscious to himself of mortal sin, however contrite he may seem to himself; and it adds that if opportunity of a confessor be lacking, let him confess as soon as possible. And this is not a counsel, but a precept to be fulfilled at the first opportunity. The opposite Alexander VII condemned, proposition 38. And the Catechism of the Council of Trent, part 2, chapter 4, § 45, in set words asserts this same thing of a priest conscious to himself of grave fault: When we administer or receive the sacraments, sacramental confession is not to be omitted. The same the Roman Ritual made plain, whose words I gave above.