The Minister of the Sacraments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article Second. On the Requisites for Valid Administration

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

¹ Cf. Pesch VI, n. 228 ss.

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

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

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

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

¹ Sess. vii, c. 11.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹ 1 Cor. iv 1, 2.

² Sess. vii, c. 13.

³ Matt. vii 6.

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

¹ 1 West., d. 22; can. 1033.

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

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

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

¹ Prop. 29.

The minister of a sacrament is he to whom the administration of the sacraments belongs by legitimate authority. A twofold minister is distinguished, namely principal and secondary, according as the administration of the sacraments belongs to someone by his own authority, or by authority communicated by the primary minister. The principal minister is Christ as man. The secondary minister is only the priest of the first or second order. Except Baptism and Matrimony. Concerning these there will be fuller discussion in the treatise on the individual sacraments.

IV. Ministration or use. 1. In general, the legitimate minister of sacramentals is a cleric to whom power has been granted for this and who has not been prohibited by competent ecclesiastical authority from exercising the same power (can. 1146). In species, with regard to legitimate ministers, the following are established:

a) No one who lacks the episcopal character can validly perform consecrations unless this is permitted to him either by law or by apostolic indult (can. 1147, § 1).¹

b) Any priest can impart blessings, except those which are reserved to the Roman Pontiff or to Bishops or others.² A reserved blessing which is given by a priest without the necessary permission is illicit but valid, unless in the reservation the Apostolic See has expressed otherwise (can. 1147, §§ 2 and 3). Deacons and lectors can validly and licitly give only those blessings which are expressly permitted to them by law (can. 1147, § 4).

c) With regard to exorcisms, see vol. I, n. 700.

2. In confecting or administering sacramentals, the rites approved by the Church are to be accurately observed (can. 1148, § 1). Consecrations,³ and blessings whether constitutive or invocative,⁴ are invalid if the formula prescribed by the Church has not been used (can. 1148, § 2).

3. Blessings, which are chiefly to be imparted to Catholics, can also be given to catechumens, indeed, unless a prohibition of the Church stands in the way, even to non-Catholics, for obtaining the light of faith or, together with it, health of body (can. 1149).

4. Things consecrated or blessed with a constitutive blessing are to be treated reverently and not applied to profane or improper use, even if they are in the ownership of private persons (can. 1150).

Note. Let the ministers of the Church explain to the faithful the nature and efficacy of sacramentals. Moreover, let the ministers of the Church show themselves ready in ministering sacramentals, and prudently accustom the faithful who neglect sacramentals to the use of them. Yet let them beware lest they apply ecclesiastical blessings, under whatever pretext, to ends other than those for which they were instituted by the Church, and lest by an imprudent use of them they expose this most holy institution to contempt, or stain it with the reputation of superstition or of dishonest gain.

¹ That law permits this to Cardinals (can. 239, § 1, n. 20); Vicars and Prefects Apostolic (can. 294, § 2); Pro-vicars and Pro-prefects (can. 310, § 2); Abbots and Prelates nullius (can. 383, § 2), according to the norm of the cited canons.

² Cf. with regard to blessings reserved to the pastor, can. 462, 6 and 7; with regard to sacred furnishings to be blessed, can. 1304; with regard to exorcisms to be pronounced, vol. I, n. 700.

³ Consecrations are made by anointing with chrism or sacred oil.

⁴ A constitutive blessing is one which orders a person or thing to divine worship, and so constitutes it sacred; an invocative blessing regards things, for example a ship, destined for profane use.

IV. A server assisting at Mass is required, and indeed a male. If a man is lacking, a woman can be employed for a just cause, under this law, however, that she answer from a distance and in no way approach the altar (canon 813). Even devotion alone involves a just cause for employing a woman. When the case occurs, however, everything required for the sacrifice should first be conveniently arranged (St. Alphonsus, VI, 392, doubt 2).¹ Moreover:

1. It is mortal to celebrate without any server; nevertheless a grave cause excuses, for example the necessity of ministering Viaticum; likewise, more probably, that the people may hear a Mass of precept. Besides this, rather probably, "once Mass has begun, especially if the oblation has been made, the celebrant is permitted to proceed without a server if the latter has gone away and is not going to return shortly" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 391, doubt 1). Indeed, since nowadays celebration without a server is easily conceded if no one can be found, and this even on a weekday and without a woman answering from afar, therefore, if unexpectedly a priest in a particular case lacks a server, it seems that permission can be presumed even by reason of devotion alone.

2. It is also mortal to employ a woman who ministers immediately; nor does grave necessity excuse, because it is preferable to celebrate without a server than with a woman immediately ministering.

3. It is more easily lawful to celebrate with a server who does not know how to answer than without a server; not, however, so easily as with a woman answering from afar. For the rest, "let the celebrant not make a scruple if the server pronounces badly, nor easily correct errors, lest he disturb himself or those standing around or the order of the Mass, although Croix with Gobat admonishes that the celebrant should supply what has been omitted by the server" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 391).

¹ Cf. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 27 August 1836, n. 2745, ad 8; 18 March 1899, n. 4015, ad 6.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who is the minister of the sacraments? - Christ himself is principally acting in the sacraments; the ministers of the Church are only instrumentally operating in the sacraments. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 64, a. 4, 5. - In matrimony the contracting parties themselves are the ministers. - In the other sacraments, the power of order and jurisdiction is regularly required, excepting the Eucharist, in which no jurisdiction is regularly required. Without the power of order, no sacrament is valid, excepting baptism. Without the power of jurisdiction, the sacrament is valid, excepting the sacrament of penance, which is invalid; but it is conferred illicitly and it is a grave sin if it is conferred without faculty, at least presumed or interpretative, e.g., if a simple priest, not a pastor, administers baptism, viaticum, extreme unction, or a bishop confirms or ordains outside his own diocese. Clement I de Privil.; Trent s. 6, c. 5 de R.; s. 7, c. 10.

Is attention required in the administration of the sacraments? - Attention is the application of the mind to those things which are being done, or it is the act of the intellect by which a man considers that which he does. - For the validity of the conferral of sacraments, no other attention is required except that which is found in every truly human act. Therefore the sacraments can commonly be validly ministered even by a distracted minister, or one thinking at the same time about other business. The reason is that the morality of the act proceeds not from actual attention, but from at least the virtual intention of the one acting. Besides, attention often does not depend on the will of man; but Christ could not require a condition sometime impossible in the minister of the sacraments. - For the licit conferral of the sacraments, such attention is required that every voluntary distraction be absent.

The reason is that the reverence owed to the sacrament requires that it be treated with attention. But voluntary distraction ordinarily does not exceed venial sin, according to the common opinion of theologians, unless someone exposes himself to the danger of gravely erring in the form. Yet more probably and more commonly they except the Eucharist, in whose confection they judge every voluntary distraction a mortal sin because of the greater dignity of the sacrament. But La Croix l. 6, p. 2, n. 443; Mazzotta and others deny this not improbably. Not improbably, namely provided the danger of erring is absent. - St. Thomas 3 p., q. 64, a. 8 ad 3; 4 d. 6, q. 1, a. 2, q. 1 ad 4; L. 14; l. 4, n. 75.

Is intention required in the administration of the sacraments? - Intention is an act of the will tending toward some end, or an act of the will by which someone intends to do or omit something. - For the validity of a sacrament, there is required in the minister some true and serious will at least of doing that which the Church, namely the Catholic Church, does. For those things which are done in the sacraments can be done in diverse ways, and are determined to sacramental action only through the intention of the minister. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 64, a. 8; Trent s. 7, c. 11.

Hence St. Thomas 3 p., q. 83, a. 4 ad 7, says: "The efficacy of sacramental words can be impeded by the intention of the priest." - Yet actual intention is not required, but virtual suffices. The reason is that actual intention, although best and desirable, is sometimes morally impossible; but virtual intention sufficiently flows into the action of the minister, so that this can be called truly human and deliberate. - Habitual intention does not suffice, nor interpretative. The reason is that for a human act some will is required, by force of which the act is placed.

Now neither habitual nor interpretative intention is of this kind: not the first, because it is neither actually elicited by the will, nor, although once elicited, does it persist in some effect or in a series of actions; not the second, because it is neither actually elicited nor ever was actually elicited, but would only be elicited if the mind were thinking about the thing to be done. Suarez d. 16, s. 2; Lugo d. 8, n. 28, 35. "A coerced intention of the minister, or one extorted by fear, also suffices, except in matrimony. Likewise error of the minister about the person of the recipient does not invalidate the sacrament, excepting matrimony." L. 19; E. M.

Note: For casting away scruples in this matter it is to be noted that implicit intention suffices. Hence St. Alphonsus 18 says: "Viva, etc., rightly say that the minister who in the customary way places the actions required for the sacrament, unless he positively excludes the due intention, imprudently doubts about it, because at least he wishes to do what he is otherwise accustomed to do, and what other ministers do. Add that through this, that he recognizes that action to be sacred and not to be placed in vain, he intends in exercise to place it according to its end. Therefore there is no need that the minister by mouth or in heart should say reflectively that he intends to confect the sacrament, but it suffices that he be present in mind and attentively do what he does." And at n. 25 the same holy Doctor says these things: "He ought not repeat the consecration who has brought smaller hosts to the altar, about which, while consecrating the larger, he did not explicitly think, nor uncover them."

If someone intends to do what another schismatic or heretical Church does, if this truly makes a sacrament, it is valid, from Trent sess. 7, de Bapt., c. 4; Sporer n. 121; L. l. 6, n. 21. Hence, the rite of ordination in England having been publicly changed, so that from it there would be excluded the power of consecrating and of offering sacrifice, by defect of intention, indeed by contrary intention, presbyteral and episcopal ordinations performed according to the Anglican rite are invalid. Leo XIII, Const. Apostolicae curae, Sept. 13, 1896.

It is necessary that the intention precede the sacramental action, which takes its force from the intention; i.e., that it be elicited before you begin to apply the matter and to pronounce the form. Therefore, if someone, without the intention of baptizing or confirming, washes or anoints, and immediately after the washing or anointing, having conceived this intention, pronounces the form, he accomplishes nothing. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 64, a. 8; 4 d. 6, q. 1, a. 2, q. 1.

Is internal intention required, or the intention of doing the rite which the Church intends? - Here one intention is internal, another external. Internal intention is had whenever the minister, when he perfects the sacrament, wills to effect that which is to be effected by that sacrament; external intention is had when he seriously performs the whole external rite, and as if as a minister of the Church.

Therefore if he has both wills, the sacrament is valid. If he has neither, it is not valid, as if he baptizes or absolves for the sake of jest, Trent sess. 14, de Poenit., c. 9; or for the sake of example or devotion, as if a pastor washes an infant just born, not in order to baptize him, but in order to teach the midwife the rite of baptizing; or if a nurse, while washing a child in the morning according to custom, says: I wash you in the name of the Father, etc. If he has internal intention only, it is still valid, as if someone washes the head of a dying infant, the child of unbelievers, as if making a cleansing or a medicine for him, and meanwhile says in a low voice: I baptize you, etc. If he has only external intention, the question is not yet entirely settled. The first opinion denies it, that is, denies that internal intention is required. The reason is that from Trent there is not required in the minister the intention of doing what the Church intends, but only of doing what the Church does; and therefore it suffices that the minister seriously apply the due form to the matter, as the Church does. Moreover, it seems difficult to admit that the minister can, by a hidden motion of soul, frustrate a rite which he seems seriously to perform in the name of the Church. Hence, if a newly ordained priest, for the sake of practice, were to go through the whole Mass without the intention of confecting the sacrifice, he certainly would not confect it, because both internal and external intention are lacking, for externally he does not present himself as seriously celebrating in the name of the Church. If, on the contrary, he were to celebrate publicly and pronounce the words of consecration, while within himself not willing to confect the sacrifice, he would still confect it. But the second opinion, common and to be held in practice, affirms it. It is proved from Trent sess. 7, c. 11, where there is required the intention of doing what the Church does; therefore the intention merely of seriously applying the form to the matter, as the Church does, does not suffice, for in reality this intention, while the external action is placed, is inseparable from the action; but beyond this there is required the intention of doing the sacramental rite which the Church does; otherwise both Trent and Florence would have required in vain, besides matter and form, the intention of the minister of doing what the Church does. The Church does not perform only the external rite; and therefore the minister who uses the external action alone does not do what the Church does. Hence if it is his purpose, e.g., while consecrating, to consecrate only this host out of two hosts, and not that one; while ordaining, not to ordain those who perhaps are not his subjects; if he absolves under this tacit condition, if you shall restore; he does not consecrate, does not ordain, does not absolve. Likewise, if someone has eleven hosts before him, and intends to consecrate only ten, not determining which ten he intends, he does not consecrate. Therefore external intention does not suffice, but internal intention is required. Moreover, this is established by the same reason by which the necessity of the minister's intention for confecting the sacrament is proved. This intention is necessary so that the minister act not in his own name, but in the name of Christ, bearing his person. L. 23, 26; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 64, a. 8, 10; Benedict XIV, de Syn. l. 7, c. 4, n. 9; l. 8, c. 11, n. 2; E. M.

Does ignorance or error of the minister invalidate the sacrament? - If the minister has at least an implicit and virtual intention of doing what the true Church does, the sacrament is valid, even if by error he thinks his heterodox Church to be the true Church, even if he does not have an explicit intention of confecting the sacrament, provided he does not exclude this intention, even if he does not understand the form, even if he errs concerning the true meaning of the form, e.g., if he thinks these words: This is my Body, signify only the mystical presence of Christ, even if he falsely thinks that either the matter or the form is not suitable, e.g., if someone, in consecrating bread, judges the words, which shall be given up for you, to be necessary and omits them. The reason is that our ignorance or error does not change the truth of the thing. Therefore if sacraments are perfected by three things and only by three things, namely by things, words, and a minister with the intention of doing what the Church does, the truth of the sacrament stands notwithstanding the ignorance and error of the minister. Moreover, if it were otherwise, it would follow that, since Protestants do not believe that a sacrament is effected by matrimonial consent, their marriage would be null, which is false. L. 21, 22; E. M.

Must the intention of the minister be determined to certain matter and person? - Resp. In the affirmative. The reason is: as regards the matter, because otherwise it would remain in a state of indifference; for it cannot be drawn out of that state and determined to the sacrament except through the intention of the minister. As regards the person, because the effect of the sacrament cannot be applied in general, but to some subject; otherwise no application would be made. Namely, according to the nature of the matter at issue, the object or term of the action must be determined; for if, for example, you were to say, I give, but did not determine what, or to whom, you have an act void of all force. - But the Eucharist is to be excepted, which is not confected in a subject, and consequently determination of the person is not required for the validity of consecration.

If the minister has two contrary intentions, which one ought to prevail? - If those wills are simultaneous, the predominant one prevails, namely the one which would be chosen if the impossibility were known. - If among contrary wills one succeeds another, the later one is valid, unless the prior one has revoked, at least virtually, every subsequent will; for then the prior will, provided it is not expressly revoked, certainly prevails. But in these matters, if doubt still remains, the validity of the sacrament will be doubtful. - And this also holds for the application of Masses. L. 24, 784; l. 3, n. 700; Lugo d. 8, n. 121, 123. Cf. V. 1, n. 18.

Is the conferral of a sacrament with a conditioned intention valid and licit? - The condition can regard those things which in some way pertain to the validity of the sacrament; the dispositions of the subject licitly and fruitfully receiving the sacrament; or any other matter. - Licitly, in a case of necessity, a condition can and must be added which regards the validity of the sacrament, if it is doubted, e.g., whether it is water with which baptism is given; whether the dying person to be fortified by extreme unction still lives; whether a sacrament was invalidly received, and therefore is to be repeated. The reason is that the reverence due to the sacrament is safeguarded, as far as possible. And here it must be carefully observed that, if besides this reverence due to the sacrament, something else would have to be guarded against which cannot be guarded against by the condition added, it is not licit to use that condition and therefore to confect the sacrament under that condition. And thus it is never licit to confect the Eucharist conditionally with doubtful matter because of the danger of material idolatry; it is never licit to confer orders with the same doubtful matter because of the very grave inconveniences of an invalid ordination. - Outside the aforesaid case of necessity and doubt, to administer a sacrament conditionally would often be grave, because it would not be without trifling in a grave matter.

A condition regarding the dispositions of the recipient, in conferring the sacrament of penance from an urgent cause, can be added and must be added, lest the sacrament be exposed to nullity. But in the other sacraments it is generally not licit; for, if afterward it is clear that the dispositions were lacking, either someone would have to lack them forever, or the sacraments would be repeated not without scandal. If extreme unction, for example, is given to the sick person under the condition: if you are disposed, i.e., in the state of grace; and the sick person is not then disposed, he is deprived of the sacrament, although afterward he may be disposed and remove the obstacle; and thus sufficient provision will not have been made for his salvation. Generally it is not licit; for at the point of death, when matters are desperate, St. Alphonsus n. 82 says: "if perhaps the sick person has been deprived of his senses, in an act of mortal sin, Viva says probably that extreme unction at least conditionally is to be ministered to him, as we shall also say concerning the sacrament of penance n. 483." And the same Doctor has the same at n. 732, concerning extreme unction.

It is not licit to add other conditions, and it would be grave. For, if the condition is about the future, the sacrament is null. For it is not valid when the matter and form are placed, because the intention is lacking, nor is it valid when the condition is verified, because then the matter and form are lacking. Matrimony is excepted, which, after the manner of all other contracts, can be celebrated under a condition concerning the future; when this is fulfilled, they are perfected, no differently than if from the beginning they had been entered into purely and without condition. Nor is the aforesaid inconvenience therefore to be feared. For since the consent is referred to the event of the condition, then in reality the contract is perfected, and therefore then the sacrament is made. But if the condition concerns the present or the past, the sacrament is exposed to the danger of nullity; indeed it is null if the event of a condition of this kind cannot be known in a human manner, since the sacraments certainly must be administered in this way; e.g., if you are predestined. - L. 25, 26, 431; E. M.

Is the conferral of sacraments with a conditioned intention always licit, in doubt whether they have been validly conferred? - As regards the sacraments imprinting a character, it is certain that it is licit. C. De quibus 2, de Bapt., where this form is indicated in doubt concerning conferred baptism: If you are not yet baptized, I baptize you, etc. - As regards the other sacraments, it is also licit if a sufficient cause is present for adding the condition. The reason is that the sacraments are for men, and by conditioned conferral of the sacrament provision is made, insofar as it can be done, both for the good of those who receive the sacrament, if perhaps they are capable of it, and also for the reverence of the sacrament. - L. 27, 28; E. M. "It is licit for a confessor prudently doubting whether he has absolved a penitent, to absolve conditionally.

And Tournely, etc., say the same when a child is to be absolved about whom it is doubted whether he is capable of reason. But if someone, judging the penitent to be disposed, were to absolve him conditionally, saying: I absolve you, if you are disposed, they rightly say that he would not sin mortally, but he would not be excused from venial fault, since this would be contrary to the rite of the Church." L. 28.

"It is certain that in the case in which there is extreme necessity of one's neighbor, and no matter is had except doubtful matter, then the minister not only can, but is bound under grave obligation to minister the sacrament to him conditionally. Lugo nevertheless notes that if afterward certain matter is had, and there is opportunity, the sacrament is to be repeated conditionally, if perhaps the first was invalid. Understand this of sacraments which are not repeatable, such as baptism, confirmation, and order." L. 29. As regards the other sacraments there is no special difficulty, since they of themselves do not prevent repetition. And they are to be repeated when prudent doubt is had concerning their validity, and grave harm would follow if they had truly been conferred invalidly. Cf. n. 345.

Must the condition be expressed in words? - Resp. In the negative. The reason is that, for the reverence of the sacrament, it suffices that it be conceived in the mind. Indeed, there is not even need to have the condition explicitly and formally in mind; but it is enough if it is had implicitly and virtually, as he has it who has willed to hear Confessions according to the institution of Christ or the intention of the Church; because thus the reverence due to the sacrament is still sufficiently preserved. Yet it must be added orally and expressly where the rubric prescribes this, as in conditional baptism, especially if it is conferred publicly, lest bystanders believe that baptism is being repeated absolutely; and in conditional extreme unction. Roman Ritual de Sacr. bapt., de Sacr. extr. unct. - L. 29; H. A. tr. 14, n. 3; La Croix 83; Gobat 272; E. M.

In conferring or receiving the sacraments, is it licit to use a probable opinion? - As regards the conferral of sacraments, where their validity is at issue, generally speaking this is illicit from proposition 1 condemned by Innocent XI. The reason is that irreverence would be done to the sacrament; and for the subject there would be danger of harm, especially in baptism because of its greatest necessity, and in order because of the public harm also of others. Consequently it is licit: 1. If necessity is present, or grave utility on the part of one's neighbor. The reason is that the sacraments are for men; nor indeed is there an obligation of rendering to the sacraments more than probable reverence. Cf. 1031. 2. If there is a probable opinion concerning the jurisdiction of the confessor, or concerning the validity of matrimony. The reason is that the Church then supplies by her authority as regards jurisdiction to be conferred on the confessor, and as regards convalidating the contract, if perhaps that contract is null because of an impediment which the Church removes by supplying.

3. When the administration of the sacrament would otherwise be exposed to excessive scruples or difficulties; for otherwise an infant could not be baptized whom the parents assert not to have been baptized, since such testimony is only probable; nor could a penitent be absolved, concerning whose disposition only a prudent probability can be had. L. 57, 633; l. 1, n. 50, 51.

But as regards the reception of sacraments with a probable opinion, if again the validity of the sacraments is at issue, the same must be said, for the same reasons. But in those things which do not pertain to the validity of the sacraments, in sacraments either to be conferred or to be received, the same rule holds as in other laws. For if, while probability stands, other laws are not contemned, certainly, while the same probability stands, the sacraments are not contemned. This is especially true as regards the dispositions of those ministering and receiving. For in these things grave probability is held as certainty. Moreover, both the administration and the reception of the sacraments would continually be exposed to scruples and anxieties of conscience. Wherefore it is sufficient to approach the sacraments, whether to confer them or to receive them, with probable disposition. Lugo de Poenit. d. 14, n. 109; La Croix 105; L. l. 1, n. 32, 48; l. 6, n. 461, 475, 482, 560, 573.

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.

What about the obligation of ministering the sacraments? - Those having care of souls are bound under grave obligation from justice to minister the sacraments to their subjects reasonably asking for them. For by undertaking the care of souls they have obligated themselves to this, by a tacit contract entered into with their subjects, from whom they receive support or at least honor. - Therefore they are bound if the common precept of receiving them presses, or if the private necessity or utility of the petitioner requires administration, e.g., if the petitioner foresees some danger, or is in temptation and needs the grace of the sacrament, or if he wishes to exercise devotion suitable to his state, or to gain an Indulgence, etc. - Others, not having care of souls, are not bound to minister the sacraments from justice; yet sometimes they are bound from charity, namely in grave necessity of a neighbor; but without grave proportionate inconvenience of their own. - L. 58, 623, 728, 729.

Who are here judged to have care of souls? - All those who by office, or by a special title of spiritual jurisdiction or delegation, must feed or care for some part of Christ's fold. Therefore such are bishops, pastors, and whoever have a subsidiary care of souls by commission or public function, as are coadjutors or vicars of pastors, chaplains of soldiers, hospitals, etc. Likewise with respect to religious, their own prelates or superiors; with respect to nuns, their chaplains or confessors. L. 58.

Which sacraments are to be ministered in necessity, even with danger of death, whether by those having care of souls or by others? - Those who do not bear care of souls are certainly bound only to minister the sacraments absolutely necessary for salvation, namely baptism and penance, or extreme unction when someone can in no way confess. The reason is that they are bound only from charity alone to aid their neighbor in a most grave danger to salvation. But only the aforesaid sacraments are necessary for salvation. Even those bearing care of souls are, much more probably, bound to minister only the aforesaid sacraments with any danger. The reason is that the other sacraments are not of such necessity that anyone is bound to confer them with grave danger to life. Thus L. 233, 729, relying on the Declaration of Gregory XIII, Oct. 12, 1576, and likewise on the Declaration of the Sacred Congregation of the Council approved by the same Pontiff.

Suarez, on the contrary, affirms that by force of their office they are bound also to minister the Eucharist, which, although not absolutely necessary, nevertheless is very profitable; and it would be a great scandal to the people if a pastor allowed his parishioners to die without viaticum. And several synods have embraced this opinion, and most recently also the Plenary Council of Latin America n. 531. But Benedict XIV, de Syn. l. 13, c. 19, n. 7, 10, calls into doubt the Declaration of Gregory XIII and of the Sacred Congregation of the Council. For the rest, those who bear care of souls are bound to expose their life not only in extreme necessity, but also in grave necessity, while other ministers are obligated to this only in extreme necessity. La Croix l. 3, p. 1, n. 755 seq. - L. 58, 624; l. 2, n. 27; l. 3, n. 389; St. Thomas 2.2, q. 26, a. 5. Cf. 90.

Is someone who is not a pastor bound to expose his life for ministering the aforesaid sacraments with only probability of success or necessity? - The first opinion affirms this "from the law of charity, which obliges one, in equal danger, to expose temporal life in order to save the spiritual life of one's neighbor." L. 624. The second opinion denies it, because it is too hard to require so heroic an act for aiding one's neighbor, unless moral certitude is present either of success or of necessity. Hence you are not bound certainly to expose your life in order to baptize or absolve someone, if you probably must perish before you can fulfill it, or if you probably presume that he has been baptized, or is not in the state of mortal sin, or also can easily help himself through an act of perfect contrition. St. Liguori 624 says that the first opinion pleases him more; adding: "yet if the priest does not know that he is in mortal sin, he is not bound to absolve with danger of life." But l. 2, n. 27, he seems to adhere to the later opinion; and l. 6, n. 728, he seems to require a greater probability for the necessity of the neighbor.

You will resolve: Those having care of souls sin gravely, not only if without reason they deny their ministry, but also if they often show themselves slow and difficult; because in this way they deter the faithful from the sacraments, and the matter comes to the same as if they denied the sacraments. - Yet it is not mortal, to one or another or to the same person once or again, asking apart from necessity, to deny the sacrament of penance or the Eucharist; because the harm can easily be repaired, nor is the subject therefore judged to be gravely unwilling. If subjects ask irrationally, there is no sin. Hence a pastor is not bound daily to spend time with a scrupulous person or with devout little persons, since such frequent Confession is not expedient for them, nor do they themselves have a strict right to such frequent absolution.

If the pastor has suitable vicars, he will not be bound so rigorously to receive the Confessions of subjects; nevertheless he must satisfy the faithful expressly requiring him by name, unless either he is impeded, or the penitents are willingly about to approach another confessor. Generally speaking, those bearing care of souls sin gravely who are unwilling to receive the Confession of subjects except on a few determined days within the month; because they are the cause why the faithful remain long in the state of sin and are kept away from receiving the sacraments. - L. 58.

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.

1. Abundius, a priest, in the celebration of Mass, once uttered the words of consecration thus: This is the Body of Christ; This is the chalice of the Blood of Christ, etc. But he contended that this form was altogether legitimate, since it plainly and altogether explicitly signifies Christ’s Body and Blood under the species of bread and wine.

Question. What is to be said to the Case?

R. The form which Abundius pronounced is void. For the principal minister of the sacraments is Christ himself; we are instruments. This is evident from the very form of consecration: This is my Body. Wherefore the instrumental minister of the sacraments confers the sacraments in the person of Christ, and by his power, not by his own. Hence, if from the form it appears that the principal minister is someone other than Christ, the form is invalid. But in the form of Abundius someone other than Christ himself appears to be the principal minister of the sacrament; and therefore that form is void. St. Thomas, part 3, question 64, article 9; Suarez, d. 59, s. 2, at the end; La Croix, book 6, part 1, no. 37; I. M. 337.

2. When Lucillus was about to celebrate Mass, his server offered him a smaller host, asking him afterward to give him holy communion. Lucillus assented, and, receiving the smaller host, placed it on the paten together with the larger one. But in the consecration of the smaller host, which had been placed on the corporal, he was altogether forgetful. When he had come to Communion, however, he was astounded on seeing two smaller hosts, one on the corporal and the other outside the corporal. Doubting whether those two hosts were consecrated, he consumed them after the larger host, and left the server without communion.

Question. What is to be said to the Case?

R. There is no doubt that the smaller host placed on the corporal was later placed by Lucillus himself from the paten, on which it was together with the larger host, onto the corporal together with the same larger host after the Offertory. Nor is there any doubt that it was consecrated, because for confecting any sacrament a virtual intention suffices. But Lucillus had such an intention, who, assenting to the server asking for communion, received the host, placed it on the paten, and carried it to the altar, namely, that he might consecrate it. Since, moreover, that smaller host truly was present on the corporal at the time of consecration, it was certainly consecrated, and Lucillus could give communion to the server with it, notwithstanding the forgetfulness had at the time of consecration. Elbel, 40.

But what if Lucillus, while placing the host on the paten, had said within himself, “I will afterward make the intention of consecrating”? “Nevertheless, there is no doubt that it was consecrated and therefore to be offered to the layman. The reason is drawn from what has been said, because an explicit formal intention is not required, but an implicit intention suffices, or even one in the act exercised. But he had such an intention when, at the petition of the layman, he carried the host with him to the altar. Indeed, according to Laymann, Gobat, and Sporer, the priest is to be judged to have such an intention by this very fact, that he knows or in a rational manner adverts that hosts to be consecrated by him are brought to the altar by another. Therefore, a fortiori, if he himself knowingly carries it.” Elbel, 41.

But the other host, which was found by Lucillus outside the corporal, with him being altogether unaware, was not consecrated, since no intention of consecrating it was present. I. M. 511. Nevertheless it is not to be put away with the other unconsecrated hosts, because perhaps it was joined with the other not only at the beginning of Mass, but even at the time of consecration, and by some accident, for example by the priest’s maniple, was thrown outside the corporal. G. 160.

Wherefore Lucillus did badly by leaving the server without communion. He also acted badly by at once consuming the consecrated host and the unconsecrated host, or at least doubtfully consecrated host, after the larger host; because this is against the rubrics, where it is established that, if anything is to be consumed, it is to be done after the reception of the Blood. Besides, since the host was either unconsecrated or only doubtfully consecrated, by consuming it before the reception of the Blood he violated the natural fast. G. 161; I. M. 545.

3. Medericus, a priest about to hear confessions, has the intention of not absolving this time Marcus, a habitual sinner, although he seems to him sufficiently disposed, judging that delay of absolution for some brief time will be very useful to him. But Marcus, approaching in the midst of the crowd, is not recognized by Medericus; and since he truly appears disposed to receive absolution, he is absolved by Medericus. But immediately after the absolution has been given, he notices the error, and, in doubt, hesitates whether he ought to absolve him again, or warn him not to approach Communion.

Question. What is to be said to the Case?

R. The absolution in the Case is valid. The reason is that the predominant intention is the intention of absolving. For that is the predominant intention “which would be chosen if the incompatibility were known.” St. Alphonsus, 24. But if this error had been foreseen and known, the intention which would be chosen in the Case would certainly be the intention of absolving; otherwise the penitent, departing unabsolved, could undergo most grave harm, since, not knowing that he had not been absolved, he could not suitably provide for himself. Therefore Medericus can abstain from repeating the absolution, and permit Marcus Communion. Nevertheless, where Medericus seriously doubted about his own intention, because, for example, he had absolutely determined that in no way did he wish to absolve Marcus, then he ought to have repeated the absolution conditionally. I. M. 327, 344, 345; G. 162.

4. Rambertus, a parish priest, suddenly seized by illness, immediately summoned Albert, his vicar, so that he might hear his confession, and among other things said: “For thirty years I baptized all the infants of this place, and thee thyself, but I fear invalidly. For, having been attached to an impious sect from youth, I soon came to this, that in my mind I had utterly said farewell to the Christian faith, holding it as an empty tale. But as often as I was called to administer the sacraments, so often, in order that I might preserve myself in office, I complied with the parishioners; nevertheless I thought that I would do nothing other than a ludicrous and wholly useless thing. Hence I was not so much a minister as rather a mocker of the sacraments.” Having heard these things, Albert shudders, all the more because he had always seen Rambertus administering the sacraments with his face and the whole bearing of his body composed to devotion. But noticing that the same man was already at the point of death, he absolved him under condition.

Question. What is to be said to the Case?

R. There seems to be no doubt that Rambertus validly administered the sacraments. For although he lost the faith, and in administering the sacraments he himself judged that he did nothing except a ludicrous and useless thing, nevertheless for that reason the true intention of administering the sacraments, and of doing in them what the Church does, is not excluded. Otherwise the sacraments administered by infidels and heretics would have to be held invalid. Besides, that Rambertus truly had sufficient intention in the administration of the sacraments of doing what the Church does is proved from this: that not only did he conduct himself externally with devotion in the administration of the sacraments, but also in his own mind he wished to comply with his parishioners, and therefore he wished to administer to them the sacraments which they were asking for. Furthermore, since Rambertus, led by true repentance, sincerely confesses his sins and humbly accuses himself of sin against faith, he says nothing about defect of intention. For that phrase, thinking that I would do nothing other than a ludicrous and useless thing, pertains to the intellect and to defect of faith, but by no means to the will and to the intention of doing even a useless and ludicrous thing. Since the minister of the sacraments bears the person of Christ, nothing harms the sacrament if the minister has neither right faith nor upright morals, provided he applies the sacramental rite instituted by Christ and by it acts, as it were, as a mandatary according to the intention of the one commanding, having either explicitly or implicitly the intention of doing what Christ wills to be done, or at least what the Church does. Nor indeed is it required that even that which the Church intends to do be explicitly intended.

As regards Albert, it does not appear why he gave Rambertus absolution under condition. For Rambertus exhibited signs of sincere repentance. Therefore he could and ought to have been absolved simply. Perhaps Albert, hearing that confession and being greatly disturbed and confused, did not well understand the force of that word thinking, confusing the false opinion of the mind with the intention of the will, and judging that he himself was not baptized, or at least having a doubt about his own baptism and about the validity of his ordination. What then in such a Case would Albert have had to do, if Rambertus truly had not had the intention of administering the sacraments and of doing in them what the Church does?

The question can be raised concerning the Eucharist, extreme unction, penance, marriage, and baptism, which are the sacraments that Rambertus the parish priest administered. As regards the Eucharist, extreme unction, and penance, nothing would have to be done, nor could be done. Those sacraments would all have been invalidly administered, nor is there an evident way of supplying the defect. Yet as regards the Eucharist, it would have been invalidly administered if, namely, Rambertus himself had consecrated the hosts without having the intention of consecrating. As regards marriages, there is no difficulty, and therefore they are valid with respect to baptized parishioners, even in the notion of sacrament; for the parish priest is not the minister in the sacrament of marriage, and it suffices that the marriage be contracted before the parish priest and two witnesses, whatever may be the good or bad intention of the assisting parish priest. As regards baptism also, where the greater harm is if it is administered invalidly, there is also no doubt that in the hypothesis of defect of intention on the part of Rambertus, the parishioners baptized by him and Albert himself would all have been invalidly baptized. But can anything be done, so that parishioners thus invalidly baptized and Albert himself may be baptized again? As regards the other parishioners, it certainly does not appear how in practice this could be done without revealing the sacramental seal. With respect to someone, or even only to some persons in particular, perhaps they can be rebaptized so secretly that no suspicion arises from it. But as regards all, especially adults, when the parish priest had baptized invalidly for many years, and especially if the parish were large, morally speaking, it seems impossible that they could be rebaptized, and the sacramental secret of confession be preserved, and that great scandal would not arise from it. But as regards Albert himself, the matter is easier; he himself can go to another place where he is unknown, and, after the Case has been set forth to the Holy See, so that he may be dispensed from the ordinary formalities, he himself can secretly be rebaptized and initiated into sacred orders. In the meantime, however, under some pretext of illness, journey, etc., he must altogether abstain from the celebration of Mass and from every administration of the sacraments. Nor indeed in this manner of acting is there any revelation of the seal, nor annoyance of the penitent, nor hatred of the sacrament. But, unless time had been altogether lacking, and immediately after confession Rambertus had either been deprived of his senses or had died, before absolution Albert ought to have asked permission from him, that it might be lawful for him to use that knowledge, with his reputation preserved as far as could be done, to avert the common harm of so many souls, namely by procuring baptism for so many persons invalidly baptized, who consequently also invalidly received confirmation, order, and other sacraments. I. M. 858, 860; G. 197.

5. Cunibertus, who was fulfilling the office of vice-parish priest, after committing a most grave sin, approached confession only after three days. Asked by the confessor whether during that time he had performed sacred ministries, he adds these things:

“I did indeed abstain from the celebration of Mass, and I only performed the office of the diaconate in a solemn Mass. At times, when the faithful asked, I ministered the Eucharist. Called to confer baptism on an infant who was being drawn from the womb of his dead mother, I was indeed prepared, because there was no question of the solemn administration of baptism. But I judged it better to entrust that to the surgeon, because, although he was a wicked man, nevertheless he was not a consecrated minister, but rather one of necessity. Nor do I deny that once or twice I conferred baptism and anointed a sick person with holy oil; but this was by order of the parish priest, and without there being time available for eliciting an act of contrition. All these things I indeed performed in the state of lethal sin; but I think that I did not sin gravely, since in each Case there is a probable opinion of theologians excluding grave fault.”

Question. What is to be said to the Case?

R. Cunibertus, having performed the office of deacon in solemn Mass, probably did not sin mortally. For he did not confect the sacrament. I. M. 355. Ministering the Eucharist to the faithful he probably also did not sin, for the same reason. I. M. 353. “That a deacon and subdeacon,” says Lugo, d. 8, nos. 152, 155, “ministering in the state of sin; which same thing holds a fortiori for clerics of minor orders; or a priest solemnly chanting the prayer or the chapter in choir; or a bishop consecrating a church or chalices, or blessing corporals and sacred ornaments; or a preacher preaching even solemnly, do not sin mortally; because, although all these are sacred actions, and therefore there is some irreverence in exercising them in the state of sin, nevertheless it is not so grave that it reaches lethal fault. Some of them, however, seem to contain at least venial fault ... That it is not a mortal sin if a parish priest in the state of sin assists at marriage; for he does not confect that sacrament, but assists as a public witness, essentially required so that the contracting parties can validly confect the sacrament. Thus also it seems not to be a mortal sin if a priest ministers the Eucharist to others ... because then the priest does not confect the sacrament, nor does he sanctify or give grace, but he locally applies the sacrament, which alone gives grace, in exactly the same way in which it would give it if it had been applied by a layman or by an insane person, or if the layman himself were to take it from the altar; and although that action of offering the sacrament is in some way holy, and in some way requires holiness of the minister, nevertheless not so gravely as the action by which the sacrament is confected, through which the minister sanctifies and causes grace.”

But that Cunibertus in a case of necessity of baptism was prepared to minister it even in the state of mortal sin, because there was no question of the solemn administration of baptism, that is, of the confecting of a sacrament by office, can also be excused from mortal sin. I. M. 351. The reason is that it is not sufficiently clear whether the state of grace is required by office, or from the power of order, St. Thomas, part 3, question 64, article 6, ad 3, or from the holiness of the thing, Lugo, d. 8, no. 150; St. Alphonsus, book 6, nos. 32, 884. Likewise, as regards the fact that he committed baptism, in the aforesaid Case, to be ministered by the surgeon, although it is grave of itself, nevertheless Cunibertus seems excusable in that Case by reason of modesty and also of avoiding scandal, which could easily have been present. Roman Ritual, de Min. Bapt., § 2; I. M. 425.

Lastly, that Cunibertus, when necessity was urgent, ministered baptism and extreme unction in the state of mortal sin, without first eliciting an act of contrition, speaking of itself, can also be excused from mortal sin if there was only a very brief delay of time. The reason is “because, since the sacraments were instituted as a remedy of souls, it does not seem to be irreverence if, in that extreme necessity, in order that one’s neighbor may be helped, it is ministered by a sinner. For, just as we were saying above, that in that Case it can be ministered with doubtful matter or power, because present necessity outweighs the precept of not confecting with doubt, so it seems one must say that that necessity outweighs the precept of not confecting except in the state of grace. For thus we see many things done about the person of a King or Prince in a case of necessity which, if they were done outside that necessity, would contain most grave irreverence. But this reason proves not only concerning baptism, but also concerning sacramental absolution, which can sometimes be judged necessary for a man unto salvation; nor can the priest prepare himself in that narrowness of time by an act of contrition; and the case can occur more frequently in absolution than in baptism.” Lugo, d. 8, no. 151; I. M. 352. Speaking of itself; for, as regards the proposed Case, Cunibertus did not lack sufficient time for eliciting an act of contrition. For he could easily elicit it while he was going to minister baptism and extreme unction. Nor indeed is a longer delay of time required for eliciting contrition. For it is enough by the act of the will alone to detest sin as an offense of God, and to grieve over it, saying from the heart: I have sinned against the Lord, 1 Kings 15:24; 2 Kings 12:13. Nor is sensible sadness or grief needed. Nor certainly in such a case of necessity is the necessary help and grace of God lacking. Besides, since Cunibertus, from the office he has undertaken, often finds himself in necessity of ministering the sacraments, and certainly foreknows at least confusedly that this will sometime happen, he cannot be excused from grave sin at least in its cause. Roman Ritual, On Those Things Which Are to Be Observed in the Administration of the Sacraments in General; I. M. 352.

6. “In various regions ... Missals and Breviaries and also Liturgical Books are printed without the license or approval of the Ordinary ... It is supposed that in regions of this kind the Decree of the Council of Trent requiring the approval of books, and the Apostolic Constitutions of Clement VIII and Urban VIII, have not been received by usage, or have lost the force of obligation through contrary usage. Whether it is licit to buy books of this kind, printed without the required license of the Ordinary, to keep them in one’s possession, and to use them in regions where the Decree of the Council of Trent and the above-mentioned Apostolic Constitutions are commonly observed?

“R. It is not licit, unless the Apostolic Constitutions have been observed.” S. R. C., 16 March 1833, Namurcen.

7. Titius, who, when he first obtained the parish, applied himself with great zeal to the salvation of souls, in succeeding years declined not a little from his former fervor. For although he stands fairly assiduously at the tribunal of penance on the more solemn feasts, if on other days he is called to hear confessions, he shows himself morose toward those especially who are accustomed to approach the sacraments frequently, saying that excess even in spiritual things is vicious. But with regard to the sick who are gravely ill in bed, he conducts himself so that he hears their confessions as quickly as possible, offers viaticum and extreme unction to them, with the blessing in the article of death also given, and then commends them to the divine mercy, without returning to them any more.

When a certain contagious disease was raging within the boundaries of his parish, Titius, fearing for his own skin, took flight, yet leaving behind a suitable vicar. But ordered by the bishop, under threat of suspension, to return to the parish, he indeed obeys, but while he reserves for himself the care of the healthy, he leaves the assistance of the sick to the vicar.

Question. What is to be said to the Case?

R. Titius, showing himself morose as regards hearing confessions, except on the more solemn feasts, cannot be excused from grave sin. The reason is that he fails in a grave obligation of his office, and this in grave matter. And even if there is question of those who are accustomed to approach the sacraments frequently, whenever they reasonably ask to confess, it is grave to show himself morose very often toward them. For this redounds to the grave harm of the whole parish, and also to the grave harm of private persons, especially since it can easily happen that even those devout persons sometimes fall into grave sin and gravely need sacramental absolution. — I. M. 242, 360; Lugo, de Poenit., d. 8, no. 1 ff.; St. Alphonsus, book 4, no. 127, par. Hinc communiter.

He also sins gravely as regards that practice of ministering the sacraments as quickly as possible to the sick, and then abandoning them. For the sick, once the sacraments have been received, do not always immediately die; rather, ordinarily they continue to live for some time still, and consequently they can still gravely need the ministry of the priest. Wherefore, even prescinding from the obligation of visiting the sick and giving assistance to the dying, according to the Roman Ritual, this practice of not returning any more to the sick who are in danger of death, after they have already once received the sacraments, can in no way be excused from grave sin. La Croix, book 3, part 1, no. 760.

Likewise there is no doubt that Titius also sinned gravely by abandoning his sheep and fleeing like a hireling, and indeed, as is drawn from the Case, without license asked and obtained from the bishop. The reason is that again he acted against his grave obligation, namely, of providing for the salvation of his flock, when it is especially in necessity. I. M. 207. Nor indeed does he satisfy his office by reserving to himself the care of the healthy, and leaving the assistance of the sick to the vicar. For this assistance pertains of itself and principally to the parish priest himself. It belongs to the vicar only to help him, and therefore the parish priest cannot cast off entirely from himself the fulfillment of his own offices, and remit those offices to the vicar to be fulfilled. And although, generally speaking, he is not prohibited from using coadjutors or vicars in those things which bring a greater inconvenience with them, such as going to the sick at night, preaching, teaching boys, hearing confessions, etc., nevertheless he ought to use them as coadjutors and associates; and therefore he himself also, when a just impediment ceases, must necessarily perform these things, especially if he has been requested; otherwise he is not without grave fault. — I. M. 230; La Croix, book 3, part 1, no. 754 ff.; book 6, part 1, no. 133 ff.; St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.; G. 169.

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.

9. Bertha is gravely ill in the house of Caius, a rich and unmarried man, who keeps her at home with great scandal of the neighborhood, not so much as a maidservant, as he asserted, but rather as a concubine. Titius the parish priest, who had several times vainly taken care to separate them from one another, is called so that he may at once bring viaticum to the sick woman. Astonished, he goes to Bertha’s house, and first asks her whether she had already confessed. A certificate of confession made before a priest who did not enjoy the best reputation among the superiors is shown by the man himself, who was standing near the bed at the side of the sick woman. Titius asks those present to withdraw for a little while. The master refuses, and at the same time the sick woman responds that she asks this one thing: that she receive viaticum at once. Then the parish priest, with grave speech, asks them whether the confessor prescribed anything for the reparation of public scandal. The master and the woman, smiling, answer nothing. Titius tries to persuade Bertha to depart from that house, but in vain. He also takes care that Caius, at least during the danger of death, depart from the house, but in vain. Then, turning to Bertha, he begs her to bring the man to that counsel. But she says: “from this the judgments of the crowd will be confirmed.” The parish priest adds indignantly: “and I will not bring viaticum,” and having said these things he departs.

After some hours a servant runs to the parish priest, asking that he quickly bring viaticum to Bertha, who is now at the point of death. While Titius is about to enter Bertha’s house, he is warned that she is already dead. Having heard this, he returns to the church with the Most Holy Sacrament.

The Minister of the Sacraments is he who, in the name of Christ, whose place he holds, performs the sacramental action.

We must treat 1º of the requisites in the Minister for conferring the Sacraments; 2º of the office of the Minister in the administration of the Sacraments.

“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.

“29. Urgent fear is a just cause for simulating the administration of the Sacraments.” Proposition condemned by Innocent XI.

1. The efficacy of the Sacraments depends solely on the will of God, and hence all that is required for their valid administration on the part of the minister is power and jurisdiction, proper application of matter and form, and an actual or at least a virtual intention of doing what the Church does.¹ It is a mortal sin for any one not in the state of sanctifying grace to administer a Sacrament solemnly. Ignorance, of course, is an excuse, and so is urgent necessity, as when the administration of Baptism or Penance cannot be postponed without danger to the salvation of others. In such urgent cases the minister is called minister necessitatis; in all others, minister called minister necessitatis; in all others, minister solemnitatis.

¹ Conc. Trident., Sess. VII, De Sacr., can. 10, 11, 12; Sess. XIV, De Poenit., can. 10 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 853, 854, 855, 920).

Hence the general rule that no Sacrament should be performed or administered by one who is in the state of mortal sin. One who is so unfortunate as to be called upon to administer a Sacrament in that state, should first cleanse himself by the worthy reception of Penance, if he can conveniently find a confessor (habita copia confessarii)² or else by an act of perfect contrition.

² Conc. Trident., Sess. XIII, cap. 7, can. 11; Rit. Rom., De Administr. Sacram., tit. i, n. 4; Codex Iuris Can., can. 807.

Matrimony is the only Sacrament that is not administered by the priest but by the contracting parties to each other, and hence husband and wife are themselves the ministers.³ They should receive this holy Sacrament in the state of grace, which means, ordinarily, that they should go to confession and Communion before plighting their troth.

³ Conc. Trident., Sess. XXIV, De Reform. Matr., c. i; Rit. Rom.t De Sacr. Matr., tit. 7, c. 1, n. 17.

In regard to the other Sacraments the question arises: If a priest who is in the state of mortal sin be called upon to administer a Sacrament, must he go to confession, or is perfect contrition sufficient? We answer: Perfect contrition suffices for all Sacraments except the Holy Eucharist (i. e., saying Mass). The reason is this: Perfect contrition, including the votum sacramenti, restores sanctifying grace, and the administration of all the Sacraments, with the exception of the consecration of the Eucharist, is always, morally speaking, a matter of necessity. When the celebration of Mass is a matter of necessity, as sometimes happens, it will suffice for the priest to make an act of perfect contrition, but he is bound to receive the Sacrament of Penance as soon thereafter as an opportunity offers, i. e., at least within three days, according to the common interpretation of the law.⁴

⁴ Conc. Trident., Sess. VI, c. 5-6.—Missale Rom., De Defect. in Cel. Missae, tit. 8, n. 2 sq.— Prop. Damnat. ab Alexandra VII., 38: "The command of the Council of Trent, given to a priest who celebrates from necessity while in mortal sin, to confess as soon as possible, is a counsel, not a precept."—Prop. 39: "That phrase ‘as soon as possible’ is understood to mean when the priest confesses in his own time." (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1138 sq.).—Cfr. Ferreres, Comp. Theol. M., ed. 8a, Vol. II, n. 431, qu. 5.

It follows that all those who are ex officio entrusted with the administration of the means of grace, are in duty bound to hold themselves in readiness to administer the Sacraments, in other words, to be habitually in the state of grace.⁵

⁵ Cfr. St. Augustine, Enarr. in Ps., CIII, s. i, n. 9: "Let those who use holy things unholily consider what account they will have with God." (Migne, Pat. La*., XXXVII, 1343).

So much for the interior disposition of the minister. Now for the act of administration. As the minister acts in the name and by authority of the Church, the first rule is that he must comply with her directions. Sancta sancte tractanda. Hence it is a mortal sin knowingly to employ the wrong matter or form, or, except in case of necessity, a matter or form of doubtful validity; since this would endanger the Sacrament. In cases of necessity (iusta causa) a doubtful matter or form may be employed, because the Sacraments are instituted for the sake of men (sacramenta propter homines). It is likewise sinful (mortally or venially, according to the circumstances of each case) to alter or mutilate the words of the form, to utter them inarticulately or without devotion, or to omit important rites or ceremonies prescribed by the Church. If this is done out of contempt for Christ or the Church, or if it causes grave scandal, the minister commits a mortal sin, and even when the motive is mere negligence, a mortal sin is committed every time the object is materia gravis.⁶ 2. The faithful have a right to the Sacraments, and hence all duly appointed ministers of the Church are bound in justice to administer the same whenever they are asked, and should always be ready and willing to comply with every reasonable request, nay exhort their people to make frequent use of the divinely appointed means of grace.⁷ It is a mortal sin for a priest entrusted with the care of souls to refuse to administer a Sacrament without good reason, or to administer it with manifest reluctance. Such conduct is apt to deter the faithful from the reception of the Sacraments and easily causes scan- dal. The duty of administering Baptism and Penance, in particular, binds even when there is danger of contracting a contagious disease or incurring grave risk to life or limb.⁸ Of course, all reasonable precautions may and should be taken in such cases. The duty just mentioned does not bind priests who are not officially engaged in pastoral work, though all are bound to respond to urgent calls when there is grave necessity, as, e. g., on the field of battle, or when some one is seriously ill or dying and no other priest can be had. The same rule applies to a pastor in his conduct towards those not under his care. We need hardly add, however, that no true priest will confine himself to what is of strict duty in matters of this kind.

⁶ Cfr. Conc. Trident., Sess. VII, De Sacr., can. 13 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 856); Rit. Rom., De Administr. Sacram., tit. 1, n. 11.

⁷ Cfr. Concilium Trident., Sess. XXIII, De Ref., c. i; Rit. Rom., De Administr. Sacram., n. 5.

⁸ John X, 11-13. —Benedict XIV, De Synodo Dioecesana, XIII, c. 19, n. 8.—Cfr. I. Chapeauville, Tract. de Necessitate et Modo Ministrandi Sacramento, Tempore Pestis, Mayence 1612.

It is forbidden (extra periculum mortis) to administer the Sacraments to persons who are notoriously unworthy (publice indigni), especially if these persons are excommunicated by name, or are under an interdict, or if they lead a life of public infamy, e. g., prostitutes, fortune tellers, concubinarians, and Freemasons publicly known as such, unless indeed they have done penance and repaired the scandal given. The reason for this prohibition is the danger of scandalizing the faithful and Christ's admonition not to give that which is holy to the dogs nor to cast pearls before swine.⁹

⁹ Matth. VII, 6.—Cfr. 1 Tim. V, 22.—Rit. Rom., De S. Eucharist. Sacr., tit. 4, c. 1, n. 8-9. —Chr. Pesch, Praelect. Dogmaticae, Vol. VI, 3rd ed., pp. 126 sqq.

In applying this rule attention must be paid to the distinction between public and private sinners and to the nature of the request made. If the priest knows of the unworthiness of an applicant only by his official position, i. e., through the confessional, he is obliged to administer the Sacrament asked for, e. g., Holy Communion, because the preservation of the seal and the good name of the recipient are more important than regard for the sanctity of the Sacrament. Hence if a person who is guilty of secret sin should publicly demand a Sacrament, his demand must not be refused if there is danger of public defamation or grave scandal. The case is different with public sinners and secret offenders who apply privately to the priest. To such (extra periculum mortis) no Sacrament should be administered except Penance and, under certain conditions, Matrimony.

To simulate a Sacrament, e. g., by administering an unconsecrated host, is never allowed, not even for the purpose of preventing sacrilege or saving one's life.¹⁰ To bless or pray over a penitent not properly disposed, in order to protect the secret of the confessional or the good name of the sinner, is not a simulatio or fictio sacramenti, and therefore permitted.¹¹

¹⁰ The proposition: "Urgent grave fear is a just cause for simulating the administration of the Sacraments." was condemned by Pope Innocent XI (Prop. Damnat., n. 29; Denz.- Bannwart, n. 1179).

¹¹ H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. III, 11th ed., pp. 40 sq.

READINGS. —St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, 3a, qu. 60-90. —St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, 1. VI, tr. 1-5 (ed. Gaudé, Vol. III).—P. Schanz, Die Lehre von den hi Sakramenten, Freiburg 1893, pp. 161 sqq. —N. Gihr, Die hl. Sakramente der kath. Kirche, Vol. I, 2nd ed., Freiburg 1902, pp. 140 sqq.—Chr. Pesch, S.J., Praelectiones Dogmaticae, Vol. VI, 3rd ed., pp. 98 sqq. —P. Pourrat, Theology of the Sacraments, 2nd ed., St. Louis 1914. —Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. I, St. Louis 1915, pp. 161 sqq. —Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology, Vol. II, 2nd ed., London 1901, pp. 366 sqq. —J. E. Pruner, Lehrbuch der Pastoraltheologie, Vol. I, 2nd ed., Paderborn 1904, pp. 94 sqq.—H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. III, 11th ed., pp. 3 sqq. —J. de Lugo, De Sacramentis in Genere, disp. 1-9. —Ballerini-Palmieri, SJ., Opus Theol. Mor., 3rd ed., Vol. IV, n. 642-710.—A. Lehmkuhl, SJ., Theol. Moral, Vol. II, 11th ed., pp. 1-43 —Sabetti-Barrett, SJ., Comp. Theol. Mor., 22nd ed., pp. 515 sqq.—Th. Slater, SJ., A Manual of Moral Theology, Vol. II, pp. 15 sqq.

— Who can be called a Minister of the Sacraments. In the broad sense, anyone who ministers a sacrament at least validly is called a minister of a sacrament: thus a layman baptizing, thus baptized persons contracting matrimony. But properly a minister of a sacrament is one who, having received the power of order, is deputed to confer that sacrament, although perhaps some condition must be added either for the value itself or for liceity. Thus a priest has been ordained for absolving sins; yet he needs jurisdiction in order to confer valid absolution. He has also been ordained for baptizing; yet of itself the license of the Ordinary or pastor is required that he baptize licitly.

Moreover, a minister can be deputed simply, or principally, as though to a proper office, or secondarily and in a supplementary manner. The first is the ordinary minister, the other the extraordinary minister. Thus a deacon is the extraordinary minister of baptism and of the holy eucharist.

— Conditions of Value. On Intention. No faith or probity of the minister is necessary for the value of a sacrament; but, besides the power to be explained afterward, there is required and suffices an intention, or will, at least virtual and absolute, or one equivalent to this, and determined to a certain matter and person, of doing not merely the external ritual act, but the sacrament, or at least that which the Church does or which Christ instituted. Thus holds the common opinion from Trent, session 7, canon 11, against Catharinus, who was content with the will of the external act. No faith or probity is necessary, because the sacraments operate not from the disposition of the minister but from divine power, according to the institution and merit of Christ. - Intention at least virtual is required, because no act human and free in itself proceeds from habitual or interpretative intention, and administration must be done through a human act; virtual intention suffices, because this is referred to free and efficacious will, and because actions done from such a will are imputed as human when they are done by a man who, being master of himself, can impede the efficacy; and, because of easy distractions, indeed the moral impossibility of always having an intention strictly actual, it would have been too hard and full of scruples if actual intention were essential. Concerning the various account of the voluntary, cf. what was said in I, 46. - Absolute intention is required, by which a condition concerning the future is excluded, because, in conditioned administration, there is no will at the moment at which the external sign is placed; but when the condition arrives, the sign or operating cause is no longer had. Nevertheless matrimony must be excepted, because it is made by way of contract and follows the laws of contract. Now contracts can be made conditionally, and, when the condition has been fulfilled, pass into absolute ones. - Finally determined intention is required, lest the will lack an object and, being applicable to no thing or person, be shown vain. Cf. G. Boed, L'intention de faire ce que l'Eglise fait dans le ministre du sacrement (N. R. Th., 1923, pp. 453, 533 ff.).

Therefore one drunk or dreaming does not confect a sacrament, although he previously intended the confection, because the act is not in itself human; nor does the priest who, having bread before him, merely recites the deed and words of Christ consecrating, because he has no intention of the sacrament. Concerning the deed of Athanasius as a boy and of Genesius the mime to whom baptism is said to have been conferred in a play or comedy, it is not sufficiently established historically; but manifestly he effects nothing who intends merely to play. A pagan baptizing must have the intention of performing a rite which, not indeed from his persuasion but from that of Christians, is sacred. But the will of a matrimonial contract suffices in a heretic, even if he stubbornly denies the sacrament of matrimony, because the contract itself is the sacred rite of baptized persons who marry. Indeed, if he does not wish to do what the Roman Church does, or does not wish to confer or receive grace, falsely thinking Catholics to be deceived, the sacrament will be valid, because the will of making a true contract is judged the more powerful; and the general intention of doing those things which Christ instituted prevails over an intention which proceeds from error. If by a prevailing will he did not wish to do what the Roman Church does, the administration would not be valid. Also, because of positive exclusion of the will of doing what the Catholic Church does, Anglican ordinations were null. Cf. Leo XIII, Constitution Apostolicae curae, September 13, 1896. - One distracted while he consecrates or absolves must repeat nothing under condition: the act remains human.

— "He who in the usual way places the actions required for a sacrament cannot prudently doubt concerning the required intention, unless he positively excludes it. The reason: because he wishes to do what he sees others doing, and others are accustomed to similar things" (Lacroix, p. 2, n. 58). Omission of the required intention in a Catholic man "is an almost impossible case" (Ballerini-Palmieri, Op. theol., tr. 10, s. 1, c. 2).

— If someone has had several contrary intentions, the matter is to be decided from the intention which, after examination has been made, must be judged principal and prevailing.

This is especially to be considered in weighing the force of conditions or clauses which are repugnant to the nature of matrimony.

— Voluntary distraction in the sacramental action itself, although it does not harm the value, is nevertheless a much graver fault than distraction which is admitted during prayer. Nonetheless, with grave danger of notable error excluded, it is only venial. Many, with St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 410, but with others contradicting, except the consecration of the eucharist.

— On Conditioned Administration. 1. Equivalent to absolute, as to the effect, is the placing of a condition which regards an essential element: if you are not baptized, if you are capable, I baptize you; if you truly are sorry, I absolve you. - Wherefore he sins only venially who irrationally places a condition of this kind; but as often as a reasonable doubt, according to the nature of the sacrament, is present concerning such an element, reverence for the sacrament requires that, if it is conferred, it be conferred in no other way than under such a condition.

2. If a sacrament is to be conferred, it is generally gravely illicit, because of connected inconveniences, to place a condition which does not regard an essential element, especially if it is not easily certain. Thus it would be grave for one ordaining to place the condition, "if the one to be ordained is worthy, impeded by no censure or irregularity"; for the consequences of a vain or doubtful ordination are most grave. Canon 942 itself excepts the case of extreme unction to be administered to a sick person concerning whose contumacy in manifest mortal sin there is doubt. For this conditioned administration, by which reverence for the sacrament is cared for, is without inconvenience. Matrimony also is excepted, which, for a just cause, can be contracted under a condition concerning the present or suspensive concerning the future, but not under a resolutory condition.

3. The placing of a condition which regards an essential element does not always suffice to make the administration of the sacrament licit. Thus it is scarcely ever lawful, unless perhaps when better matter is not found for completing the sacrifice, and it is not to be proposed for adoration, to confect the sacrament of the eucharist with doubtful bread or wine.

4. Conditioned administration is to be done, however, with the case just mentioned excluded, if denial of the sacrament exposes a man to danger of grave harm, or deprives him of a great good. And this is especially valid when it does not stand through him that he does not avert the danger or remove the doubt: as if there is question of baptizing a man who is destitute of the senses; of anointing a man who perhaps is dead. But the more necessary a sacrament is to salvation, the more easily conditioned administration will be prescribed, or at least permitted.

5. Of itself it suffices that the condition be conceived mentally. Before the Code, the heresy of rebaptizers caused that, by positive law, pronunciation of the condition was prescribed in baptism. This law is indeed confirmed by no canon, but since it seems to be contained in the Ritual itself, concerning the sacrament of baptism, and liturgical laws are not revoked by the Code unless expressly (cf. c. 2), this obligation must be said to remain.

— On Conditioned Repetition of a Sacrament. 1. Unless the minister is excused by scruples, especially since time for deliberating scarcely suffices for one anxious, it is grave, because of the joined irreverence, to repeat a sacrament under condition when no reasonable doubt concerning the value of the conferred sacrament subsists. - Yet to repeat one word of the form in vain is not judged grave. - But one who is conscious to himself of a depraved custom of uselessly repeating the form or part of the form must strive, under grave sin, which rarely will be committed because of excusing scruples, to amend it.

2. The more necessary the sacrament is, say baptism, or the more harmful its nullity is, say presbyteral or episcopal ordination, the lesser cause suffices for it to be repeated licitly.

3. But when a reasonable doubt stands, the necessity of the recipient or harms to others to be guarded against, for example, when there is question of ordination, impose the obligation of repeating the sacrament. But where there is question of baptism or of ordination, repetition will be licit, although not prescribed, if some apparent reason or authority of Doctors troubles the mind, although the doubt is supported by no intrinsic reason or suitable authority. Cf. Lugo, Resp. mor., l. 1, d. 33, n. 3. Hence c. 732, §2: "But if a prudent doubt exists whether they truly or whether they validly have been conferred," namely the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and order, "let them be conferred again under condition."

— That he may administer the sacraments licitly, it is necessary that the Minister:

1. be immune from censure. This is required under grave sin in him who offers himself spontaneously. Insofar as one excommunicated or suspended can administer the sacraments when asked by others because of utility, cf. below, n. 211.

But insofar as by a canonical penalty they are prohibited from exercising order, those become irregular who place an act of it (c. 985, 7°);

2. be immune from irregularity, if there is question of exercising the power of order, unless grave harm excuses;

3. be immune from mortal sin. Some demand the state of grace because of the gravity and sanctity of sacramental action, which is done in the person of Christ and operates sanctity, so that it is most gravely unbecoming to exercise the same in the state of mortal sin. Thus Lugo, De sacramentis in genere, d. 8, n. 150. But others, as Suarez, De Sacramentis, p. 1, d. 10, sect. 4, and St. Thomas himself, as Ballerini-Palmieri think, tr. 10, s. 1, c. 2, locate the grave unbecomingness in this: that a "person specially deputed and consecrated from office to that function," and therefore furnished with special graces and bound by a special obligation to minister the sacraments worthily, without due sanctity acts as public minister of Christ and of the Church in a holy action, such as a sacrament is.

Therefore the latter, contrary to the former, do not condemn every administration in mortal sin as of grave fault, but only the confection and solemn administration of a sacrament for conferring which the minister has been deputed by the very order received.

Hence, according to a probable opinion, they do not sin gravely who, in the state of mortal sin: a) do not confect the eucharist but merely minister it, which Lugo, n. 155, holds against Suarez; b) exercise sacramentals, bless water or nuptials, consecrate altars, churches, vessels, and preach: these actions do not tend proximately to the sanctification of the soul. Yet it would be mortal to consecrate chrism or bless the oil of the sick in mortal sin, because he who constitutes valid matter of a sacrament begins to sanctify; c) a deacon and subdeacon ministering in their own order in the sacrifice, because they confect no sacrament; d) laypersons baptizing in necessity, or conferring matrimony upon themselves: but as recipients, they must be in the state of grace; e) a priest baptizing not solemnly; f) a deacon baptizing solemnly but without commission at least legitimately presumed; with commission, he is in the condition of a minister consecrated for that; h) a bishop conferring minor orders or even the subdiaconate, because it is not certain that these are sacraments.

In this opinion it is more easily explained why he probably sins only by one sin who in one course baptizes, confirms, or absolves several while entangled in mortal sin.

But the state of grace, unless there is question of confecting the eucharist in the celebration of Mass, must not be procured through use of the sacrament of penance: it is enough that with sincere persuasion the minister judge himself contrite. And if there is danger in delay, and he cannot confess or become contrite so quickly, administration will be done without irreverence (cf. Lugo, d. 8, n. 151); but he who foresaw the case and neglected to fortify himself will be culpable in the cause (d'Annibale, III, 248 [6]).

— The minister sins mortally who, in the administration of a sacrament, with danger to its value, abandons the safer opinion (St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 57); or, outside necessity, uses doubtful matter or form. For he treats the sacraments unworthily.

— The minister sins gravely who does not merely dissimulate the administration of a sacrament, which sometimes can be done laudably, but falsely simulates it. Hence proposition 29 among those reproved by Innocent XI: "Urgent grave fear is a just cause for simulating the administration of a sacrament." But here simulation strictly so called must be distinguished from the other, more broadly so called.

Simulation strictly so called consists in a feigned utterance of the form over matter of itself apt. This, unless the circumstances betray that nothing is being done seriously, in which case not even simulation is had, is "a sacrilegious lie, since the minister abuses the sacred thing itself, namely a sacred rite instituted by Christ, as a means of uttering a lie" (Lehmkuhl, II, De Sac. in genere). Proposition 29 must be understood of this simulation alone. Cf. Palmieri, Op. theol., IV, 694.

Simulation more broadly so called is had when, in place of the due form or matter, something else representing the appearance of them is employed. And it is formal or material, according as the deception of another is intended or this merely follows and is permitted. And of itself that deception in religious matters is illicit.

Thus it is certain that it is wicked for a non-consecrated host to be offered as consecrated to someone ignorant; or for someone to celebrate Mass while omitting the form of consecration. Certain other things are permitted for a grave cause: a) lest he manifest to others an indisposed penitent, a priest could pray something and make the sign of the cross, which bystanders will take as absolution: here the denial of absolution is merely dissimulated. Nor does he lie who stands before a confessor to speak about another's business; for he himself has properly spoken nothing with others; b) for avoiding scandal or infamy, in a most rare case, a priest could pronounce the words "The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ" and not offer the host to someone sitting at the sacred table; c) for a grave cause, they permit that a feigned consent be given in Matrimony. If a lie is absent, not even the sacrament is simulated, since the matter and form are contained in true consent.

— He sins gravely or lightly, according to the moment of the matter: a) who pronounces the words of the form corruptly, inarticulately, indevoutly; b) who accidentally changes the matter or form; c) who, contrary to the custom of the Church, without cause changes or omits ceremonies. If this happens from contempt, it will be mortal; if from negligence, it is often mortal when, in a grave matter, it is opposed to a precept strictly such. "In confecting, administering, and receiving the sacraments, the rites and ceremonies which are prescribed in the ritual books approved by the Church are to be accurately observed." Thus c. 733, §1. The words and received usages teach us which dispositions of the Ritual oblige under grave sin, or under light sin; which are merely directive. Thus the rubrics of the Missal within Mass are judged almost all preceptive; outside Mass, the more common opinion holds them as merely directive. Cf. St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 399.

— The obligation of ministering the sacraments can flow from justice or charity.

1. Those who are engaged in a pastoral office, from ordinary or delegated jurisdiction, must, under grave sin and from justice, minister the sacraments to their subjects reasonably asking. For they must from office provide not only for necessity but also for the fitting progress of their subjects. And besides the great detriment which subjects may suffer, the very danger already of turning them away from frequent use of the sacraments makes the sin grave.

The same are bound, in common necessity, such as sinners in general suffer, with grave inconvenience to themselves; but in grave and in extreme necessity of their subjects, even with evident danger of life, since the execution of the office undertaken extends to that point. The degrees of necessity were declared in volume II. Yet it is enough to administer the necessary sacraments with danger of life when, without new danger, other aids cannot be supplied. But the necessary sacraments are: baptism, penance, and, in defect of this or for those who, not yet absolved, are destitute of the senses, extreme unction. If success or necessity is only probable, the obligation for the pastor indeed remains with probable danger of life; it does not seem to stand with morally certain death: as if you seem likely to perish before you reach the infant to be baptized, or you probably presume him to have been baptized, or if an adult can easily elicit perfect contrition, or another is present who can and wishes to furnish that. Cf. Cappello, op. c., n. 67, 3. Wherefore Benedict XIV (Syn., l. 13, c. 19, nn. 2, 6) does not condemn the pastor who, if a suitable vicar assists the sick, reserves for himself the care of the healthy; for it is expedient that someone be at hand whom they will not flee from fear of contagion. A prevailing reason of the common good, as if, with you perishing, the salvation of many would be endangered, can excuse a pastor.

Hatreds also to be avoided against the Catholic Church can prevent you from being obliged or able to provide even for someone's extreme necessity, for instance that of an infant dying without baptism. Cf. d'Annibale, II, 82 (3).

When there is question not of public attack upon the faith, but of sacraments, such as Penance, which are customarily administered by priests with care of souls rather than by prelates, the obligation of mediate prelates is less personal and is regularly fulfilled through others.

Corollaries. a) They sin gravely who often show themselves morose and difficult; who wish to hear confessions of subjects only on a few days within the month, much more those who wish to hear them only in Easter time; who establish inopportune times for the distribution of the most holy eucharist. Once or twice to deny the sacrament to one who is in no necessity is not judged grave.

b) A pastor requested by name must himself minister to the subject, unless he has been impeded, or the subject would willingly go to another. Yet he must not comply with an irrational petition; wherefore, with the sacramental seal saved, he must by no means waste time with a scrupulous person or a little devotee.

2. Other ministers are bound according to the laws of charity alone: therefore under grave sin in grave necessity of neighbor, but they will be excused by grave inconvenience of their own. With probable danger of life they must administer sacraments absolutely necessary only in extreme or quasi-extreme necessity and insofar as success is morally certain.

N.B. Grave common necessity is deservedly equated to extreme necessity: both because common harm prevails over private harm, and because grave common necessity brings with itself the extreme necessity of many.

— The obligation of denying the sacraments to one asking unworthily also presses the minister, according to the following rules.

1. Religion, lest the sacred thing be profaned; charity, which forbids scandal and participation in another's sin; and fidelity in the entrusted function of dispensation compel the minister prudently to have regard to the worthiness of the one receiving the sacrament.

2. The rules are reduced to two chief heads: a) where the petition is made in secret, the sacraments are to be given to the worthy and denied to the unworthy. For no other reason here occurs of itself to be considered. Except the prohibited use of sacramental secrecy; b) where the petition is made publicly, the publicly unworthy and the manifestly infamous are to be kept away, but not occult sinners. For nothing prevents a public sinner from being treated according to his merit. And it is easily understood why, even after grace has been recovered, the same man cannot ask for the sacrament with detriment to the public good, or before scandal has ceased. Reasons again drawn from the public good, besides the right not to have reputation injured, are most powerful for declaring why occult sinners who ask publicly are not to be repelled. For to bestow the sacrament on one merely unworthy, who of himself, up to the last moment, can make himself worthy by an act of contrition, is not intrinsically illicit, but is material cooperation in another's sin, which reasons drawn from the good of men, for whose sake the sacraments exist, are able to excuse. Now it seems wicked that, from private and fallible knowledge of unworthiness, any minister could afflict the faithful with public disgrace, with danger of hallucination and error from ignorance, levity, or passion of soul. And even if he acted according to the merit of the cause, the minister nevertheless would seem to give and deny the sacraments according to his pleasure, which would furnish occasion for many offenses and disturbances, and would give rise to the gravest scandal of turning the faithful away from frequenting the sacraments themselves.

An insufficient reason for the concession of a sacrament would be sought from preserving the reputation of the one asking. For the unworthy man who dares to approach the sacrament ought to ascribe to himself the harm of reputation arising from repulse. Cf. Cappello, De Sacramentis, I, nn. 72, 76.

Therefore if only a few are present who would not wonder at the matter, the benign rule itself already seems to cease.

Nor should you confuse denial of a sacrament with delay commanded for a just and public cause, as if someone approaches irreverently, or is ordered first to care for cleanliness or decency itself in clothing.

— It remains that we briefly explain the rules themselves.

1. What inquiry into the qualities of the subject is permitted or prescribed to the minister?

a) He who asks entrance into the Church possesses no special right; but the approach to the Church is not open except to those who approach spontaneously and give a founded hope of Christian life. Wherefore before the baptism of an adult, inquiry must be made concerning his consent, knowledge, and competent disposition;

b) Once baptism has been received, a Christian has the right of receiving the sacraments which regard his own sanctification; and the presumption of probity favors him. Wherefore where the minister is not a judge but merely a dispenser, the sacraments are of themselves to be denied to no one living as a Catholic, unless unworthiness is certain. In Penance, on the contrary, the minister, because of the office of judge, must prudently be made more certain concerning the disposition of the penitent.

The case of Order and Matrimony is special. For it belongs to the public good that Order not be conferred on one who is feared likely to be an unworthy minister; nor is every cause of unworthiness infamous; nor is repulse made openly, at the altar. Wherefore a candidate who asks for order is judged to permit that a special inquiry be made concerning him, which the conferrer of the function prudently institutes concerning every candidate, and the bishop can, from informed conscience, or because of causes known to himself, even secret ones, deny him ascent. But observe that here worthy reception of the sacrament is not considered, but the worthy exercise of sacred functions. The right conclusion of matrimony contributes very much to the common good of the city and of the Church. Wherefore, besides impediments of divine law, the Church prudently orders the matrimony of the faithful through other impediments and laws, and commits to the pastor, to whom belongs the right of assisting at matrimony, that he diligently investigate, both by the public pronouncement of banns and by private investigation, whether perhaps something stands in the way of the matrimony. He prudently questions the spouses themselves concerning impediments, concerning free consent, especially that of the woman, and concerning sufficient doctrine. But where nothing stands in the way, he is forbidden to deny his presence, which is not that of a minister but of an authorizable witness; indeed, for avoiding greater evils, he must sometimes assist at marriages little to be approved. But the spouses themselves, although they confer the sacrament one on the other, are not ministers of the Church. From charity indeed one must impede the sin of the other, but grave inconvenience excuses them so that they can enter a matrimonial covenant with an unworthy person. Therefore no investigation is made concerning the worthy reception itself of the sacrament except for baptism and penance.

— 2. Who are the publicly unworthy who must be repelled? And how long are they to be kept away?

a) Strictly, publicly unworthy is only he whose present sin or unworthiness is already commonly known; less strictly, he who is not yet infamous, but whose iniquity has notoriety of law because of the sentence of a judge or confession of a delict in judgment (c. 2197, 2°), or can no longer be hidden by any subterfuge. Otherwise he is occult. But he asks a sacrament occultly who asks before the minister alone, or before a few others of whom no account is to be taken.

Therefore publicly unworthy are no longer all, in our regions, who are alleged in the Ritual by way of example, money-lenders, blasphemers, etc.; for, at least from presumed confession, their unworthiness regularly has ceased when they ask for the sacraments. Nor, of themselves, are those publicly unworthy who follow the parties of liberals or socialists: for the account of liberalism and socialism is equivocal, and in some good faith can be admitted. But publicly unworthy will almost always be the notoriously excommunicated, interdicted, prostitutes, concubinarians, those exercising a notoriously illicit profession, or an office prohibited by public decree. Such also are those liberals or socialists who glory in the sacraments received, as though in a motive of impenitence and perseverance in error. Code c. 855 calls publicly unworthy "the excommunicated, the interdicted, and the manifestly infamous."

b) Lest what is holy seem to be given to dogs, the Roman Ritual keeps the publicly unworthy from the eucharistic table "unless their penance and amendment are certain, and they have first satisfied for public scandal." Canon 855 repeats this in almost the same words. Therefore those from whom only amendment must be demanded are to be distinguished from those who besides must give public satisfaction or reparation. Public approach to the sacrament of penance of itself suffices for proving amendment. And that approach can easily be presumed. Others must separate from a concubine, leave a brothel, dismiss an office, or repair public scandal. And if it is commonly certain that someone, notwithstanding confession, has often relapsed, generally he will have to be proved for some time before he is admitted to the holy table. But it will belong to the confessor to warn such persons concerning their obligation, lest they expose themselves to repulse.

c) Indeed, in doubt concerning amendment and satisfaction furnished, it is judged that the eucharist should rather be denied to a public sinner of this kind. Thus from St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 48; d'Annibale, III, 262, and Lehmkuhl, II, 56. On the contrary, where a greater evil is to be feared from denial, all the circumstances are to be weighed, and, if there is opportunity, recourse should be had to the local Ordinary. No one fails to see that the greatest prudence is needed today in our regions.

d) In the article of death, it will be enough that the confessor take care, after a faculty has been sought from the sick person insofar as there is need, that the faithful know the dying man has satisfied, as he could, the obligations present. Yet the sick person's own retraction before two witnesses will be preferable. And if a concubine, or an adulterous party, for example one who after merely civil divorce married another, is staying in the very house of the sick person, the eucharist certainly cannot be brought to him openly.

N.B. The stricter indications of the Ritual, which in our regions are outside use, can be very useful in foreign missions, so that missionaries may know what they can opportunely demand, without excess, from neophytes of little cultivation.

What if one asks publicly whose delict is not yet strictly public, or is public in another place but not in the place where he asks for the sacrament?

Because of the scandal of the faithful to be feared, probably the sacrament is not to be denied unless, because of divulgation soon to happen, a greater offense of the people would arise from the sacrament conceded.

— Can the minister because of fear of death give the sacrament to an unworthy person?

By no means, if the sacrament is sought in contempt of religion. With contempt excluded, the matter is disputed. Palmieri, t. 4, n. 689, and d'Annibale, III, 264, permit the conferral, because it is not intrinsically illicit; Lehmkuhl, II, 53, denies it, because the good effect, or the life preserved for the minister, follows not equally immediately, but by means of the profanation of the sacrament. But since the very conferral of the sacrament is not yet its profanation, for the recipient could dispose himself by interior contrition, and since profanation has for its cause not indeed the action of the minister but the disposition of the recipient, Palmieri seems to have resolved the case rightly. Thus also Cappello, I, 71. St. Alphonsus adhered first to the benign opinion, then to the stricter.

— Exclusion of Heretics and Schismatics. Not indeed from the general rule by which sacraments are to be denied to the unworthy, but from the proper account of their separation from the Church, which possesses the sacraments as its own good, "it is forbidden to minister the sacraments of the Church to heretics or schismatics even erring in good faith, unless first, their errors rejected, they have been reconciled to the Church" (c. 731, §2).

This rule gives place to no exception when there is question of persons in good health. It is indeed circumscribed, with the text itself attended to, to those who have the age at which formal reconciliation is demanded by the Church, that is, who have completed 14 years of age (Holy Office, November 1878 and March 8, 1882, in Coll. de P.F., ed. 1, nn. 660 and 1680; ed. 2, n. 1566). But reverence owed to our sacraments will command that even adolescents of a lesser age be kept away if they are foreseen afterward to be going to adhere to a non-Catholic sect.

Nevertheless the necessity of consulting, in danger of death, the salvation of a soul permits that the sacraments of necessity, strictly or broadly so called, namely penance and extreme unction, be administered to dying non-Catholics, at least conditionally, if they are destitute of the senses, or, if present to their senses, if they seem prudently to be left in good faith. And one destitute of the senses will be helped more certainly by extreme unction than by sacramental absolution, because it does not require acts of the subject as the quasi-matter of the sacrament. Yet scandal or wonder of the people must be guarded against, if extreme unction cannot be ministered sufficiently secretly.

Nor does there stand in the way a particular response of the Holy Office, May 17-20, 1916, and published only in a diocesan periodical, by which it was denied that these sacraments could be conferred on material schismatics constituted in the article of death and in good faith asking either absolution or Extreme Unction, but it was required "that, in the better way in which it can be done, they reject errors and make profession of faith." For that response gives a general rule concerning schismatics alone, with whom one can more easily sin by a certain indifferentism, and who, because of the very petition, seem able rather conveniently to be brought to abjuration of errors; nor does it contemplate the case in which, dangerously for the eternal salvation of the soul, good faith would be disturbed.

— In the administration of the sacraments, the proper vestments to be used are stole and surplice, but not the rochet, which is an insignia of canons and is distinguished from the surplice by lesser breadth and narrow sleeves.

The stole is not to be used except in the confection of sacraments and sacramentals, and in functions for which its use is prescribed by the Roman Ritual. In the act of preaching it is not used except in places where such use is in force.

— Canon 736 also prescribes gratuitous administration of the Sacraments, forbidding that for any cause or occasion, whether directly or indirectly, the minister ask anything for the administration of sacraments except the offerings defined by the provincial Council or by a meeting of the bishops of the province and approved by the Holy See.

Nevertheless offerings admitted by custom seem able to be received. Thus Cappello, I, 96, arguing from c. 463, §1, concerning Pastors, which, because of parity of reason, he extends to others.

— I. Valid administration of the sacraments. 1. Besides power, in the minister there is required and suffices an intention at least virtual, absolute or without a future condition, with matrimony excepted, of doing not only the external rite, but also the sacrament, or at least that which the Church does or which Christ instituted.

From several contrary intentions the prevailing one resolves the matter. Voluntary distraction of the minister does not harm the value, but is a venial sin among the graver ones, especially if there is question of consecration.

2. No faith or probity of the minister is necessary.

3. If an added condition concerns an essential element, it brings in no doubt concerning the value; and it must be added when, notwithstanding the danger of nullity, the spiritual necessity or utility of the recipient counsels administration of the sacrament. Of itself it is enough that the condition be conceived mentally; nevertheless in baptism it must be expressed. But it is never lawful to confect the eucharist with doubtful bread or wine, with the case indicated in n. 184 excepted.

It is generally gravely illicit, because of connected inconveniences, to administer a sacrament under a condition which regards a non-essential element, especially if it is not easily certain. Except matrimony and extreme unction conferred on a sick person concerning whose contumacy in manifest mortal sin there is doubt, because reverence for the sacrament is thus cared for without inconvenience.

4. Conditioned repetition of a sacrament without reasonable doubt concerning the value of the conferred sacrament is objectively gravely illicit because of the joined irreverence; but the more necessary the sacrament is, the more harmful the nullity, the lesser cause permits repetition. But when reasonable doubt stands, the necessity of the recipient or harms to others to be guarded against impose the obligation of repeating the sacrament.

II. Licit administration. - 1. It requires a minister: a) immune from censure. Nevertheless, unless he is one to be avoided or judicially condemned or declared, one excommunicated or suspended can accede to one asking for a sacrament. In danger of death the faithful can ask absolution from any excommunicated person; and, if other ministers are lacking, also the other sacraments and sacramentals; b) immune from irregularity, if there is question of exercising the power of order, unless grave harm excuses; c) immune from mortal sin, and this under grave sin, at least when there is question of the confection and solemn administration of a sacrament, for conferring which the minister has been deputed by the very order received.

2. It forbids under grave sin that, without necessity of the faithful, a sacrament be exposed to danger of nullity: it is an unworthy treatment of the sacrament.

3. It forbids under grave sin simulation of a sacrament, which is had strictly when the form is feignedly uttered over matter of itself apt: it is a sacrilegious lie. Simulation broadly so called, by which, in place of the due form or matter, another thing representing the appearance of them is employed, of itself indeed is illicit in religious matters, even if the deception of another is merely permitted. Nevertheless it is lawful for a grave cause to give consent feignedly in matrimony.

III. Administration is owed from justice, to subjects reasonably asking, by those who from ordinary or delegated jurisdiction are engaged in pastoral office. And those who often show themselves morose and difficult would sin gravely. In common necessity, they are bound with grave inconvenience to themselves; in grave and extreme necessity of their subjects, they must, even with evident danger of life, administer the necessary sacraments, unless they are excused by a prevailing common good.

The obligation of a mediate prelate to minister parochial sacraments is less personal, and regularly is fulfilled through others.

Other ministers are bound according to the laws of charity.

IV. Administration is prudently to be denied to the unworthy, because of religion, charity, and fidelity in the entrusted function of dispensation. Wherefore, where the petition is secret, the sacraments are to be given to the worthy and denied to the unworthy, with sacramental secrecy saved. But where the petition is made publicly, only the publicly unworthy and infamous are to be kept away. For the occult unworthy person, with whose sin the minister merely materially cooperates, cannot be repelled without danger of error and of public offense, which would turn the faithful away from the sacraments.

Is the one asking worthy: this is to be inquired into before baptism and sacramental absolution. Is he fit: this is examined before ordination, just as before matrimony investigation is made lest something stand in the way. For the other sacraments, the baptized person asking is presumed worthy.

Today the publicly unworthy are the notoriously excommunicated, the interdicted, and the manifestly infamous. But they are to be kept away until their penance and amendment are certain, and they have first satisfied for public scandal. In the article of death, the retraction of the sick person before two witnesses is preferable, although it is enough that the faithful know the dying man has satisfied the present obligations as he could.

Heretics and schismatics also are to be repelled, even those erring and asking in good faith (c. 731, §2), except in the necessity of danger of death.

Can the minister because of fear of death give the sacrament to an unworthy person? This is controverted, but seems to be admitted when it is not asked in contempt of religion.

V. Sacraments are to be administered gratuitously, except for offerings duly defined.

VI. The vestments to be used in the administration of sacraments and confection of sacramentals are of themselves stole and surplice.

For the sake of clarity we divide this chapter into seven articles: 1. on the person of the minister; 2. on his faith and probity; 3. on his attention; 4. on his intention; 5. on the manner and rite of conferring the sacraments; 6. on sacraments to be given or denied; 7. on the simulation and dissimulation of the sacraments.

Since it has been demonstrated that Christ as God is the principal cause and the minister by authority of the sacraments, we must now discuss the ministerial cause, or the human minister. For although God is the author of the sacraments, He nevertheless wills to administer them in the Church neither by Himself nor by angels, but through man.

53. Proposition. Only a wayfaring man who is consecrated or at least legitimately deputed is a minister of the sacraments.

We speak of ordinary cases, for in a miraculous manner God can administer sacraments through angels or through the souls of the departed. In ecclesiastical history sacraments administered by angels are recounted, for example, according to the testimony of Nicephorus,²⁰⁵ St. Amphilochius was consecrated a bishop by angels, and the other bishops ratified this consecration; according to the testimony of the bull of canonization of St. Agnes of Montepulciano, an angel often gave her Communion. Likewise, if a dead priest returned to life, he could duly celebrate Mass, since the priestly character remains forever; yet God would certainly prevent a damned priest from consecrating the body of Christ. But we do not speak here of these extraordinary cases. It is also evident in itself that the greatest prudence must be employed before a narrative of miraculous deeds of this kind is believed.

The reason why wayfaring men alone are ministers of the sacraments is first of all the will of God. Hence St. Paul says: "For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in the things that pertain to God."²⁰⁶ Then it is very fitting that, just as Christ as man was the primary minister of the sacraments, so also other men deputed by Christ should be secondary ministers.²⁰⁷ But that not every man is a minister of every sacrament was defined against Luther and the Reformers by the Council of Trent: "If anyone says that all Christians have power in the word and in administering all the sacraments, let him be anathema."²⁰⁸ The same is evident from Sacred Scripture, in which Christ is said to have constituted in the Church some apostles, some pastors, and some teachers for the work of the ministry, unto the edification of the body of Christ.²⁰⁹ Especially concerning the sacrament of order St. Paul warns: "Neither does any man take the honor to himself, but he who is called by God, as Aaron was."²¹⁰ Therefore, if not everyone can receive the sacrament of order, a fortiori it cannot be administered by just anyone.

Finally, reasons of congruity can be adduced: a) In the Old Law God gravely commanded that no one involve himself in sacred ministries except those consecrated from the stock of Aaron; hence King Uzziah was gravely punished because he usurped the priestly office. Therefore, a fortiori, in the New Law, where the ministries and sacraments are much more sacred, not all can administer the sacraments. b) In every ordered kingdom not all can fulfill every office by the authority of the king. Therefore, it is fitting that this diversity of offices also be found in the Church.

Corollary. Since Christ is the principal minister of all the sacraments, the human minister is only a mandatory of Christ, and therefore he must conform himself to the intention of Christ as regards the matter, form, and necessary power. Accordingly, the things required on the part of the minister for the valid administration of the sacraments are the following:

1. due power, for not all can administer every sacrament, as was said above;
2. due intention, namely, of doing what the Church does, as will be said below;
3. the right application of the form to the matter, as was explained above, n. 19.

All other things required on the part of the minister pertain indeed to the liceity, but not to the validity, of the administration.

²⁰⁵ Callistus, l. 11, c. 20 (Migne, Patr. graec. 146, 630).

²⁰⁶ Heb. 5:1.

²⁰⁷ Cf. S. theol. 3, q. 64, a. 7.

²⁰⁸ Sess. 7, can. 10 on the sacraments in general (Denz., n. 853).

²⁰⁹ Cf. Eph. 4:11 sq.

²¹⁰ Heb. 5:4.

54. Distinctions. The minister of the sacraments is customarily distinguished in diverse ways:

1. A consecrated and a nonconsecrated minister.

A consecrated minister, as the word itself already indicates, received a special consecration for ministering the sacraments. Such a minister is required in five sacraments, namely, in confirmation, the Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, and order. A nonconsecrated minister lacks such a consecration. A nonconsecrated minister, however, suffices in the sacraments of baptism and matrimony. For the sacrament of baptism, which is so necessary for eternal salvation, God deputed all men as ministers, at least in a case of necessity. But for matrimony, on account of the peculiar nature of this sacrament, which cannot be separated from the matrimonial contract, the spouses themselves were deputed as ministers.

2. An ordinary and an extraordinary minister.

He is called ordinary upon whom it devolves by office to administer such sacraments. Thus, for example, a bishop is the ordinary minister of confirmation and order. He is extraordinary who can administer a sacrament only in a case of necessity and by special delegation; for example, a priest is an extraordinary minister of confirmation, and a deacon can administer Communion extraordinarily.

3. Certain authors further distinguish a public and a private minister. The former is he who, employing all the ceremonies prescribed in the Ritual, solemnly administers a sacrament. The latter is he who, in a case of necessity, with all other things omitted, applies only the form to the matter of the sacrament; for example, if someone, even if he is a priest, baptizes under the compulsion of necessity with all things omitted except the matter and essential form, he is a private minister of baptism.

81. Notion of simulation. Simulation or fiction of the sacraments is an illicit change of the matter, form, or necessary intention, secretly made by the minister, such that the sacrament is null and the recipient is led into error.

Although all theologians agree that the fiction of a sacrament is never lawful, nevertheless they labor greatly in defining it. The definition adduced seems to be good and complete. For just as that act is called fictitious which is outwardly posited as though all things required for validity were present, while in reality it is null on account of an essential internal and hidden defect, so also the administration of a sacrament is fictitious if outwardly all things necessary for the validity of the sacrament are posited in appearance, but secretly the minister introduces an essential defect, such that the sacrament is null and the recipient is led into error. In the definition adduced, however, it is called an illicit change because of the sacrament of matrimony, in which it is sometimes lawful to change the matter, form, or intention. For if someone is compelled by grave and unjust fear to contract matrimony, he can lawfully express consent outwardly while withholding it inwardly. For although from such fictitious consent the spouse, who thinks that he is entering a true contract of matrimony, is led into error, nevertheless there is not present a fiction of the sacrament properly so called, but a fiction of the matrimonial contract. This manner of fictitiously consenting is lawful in the case, both because it primarily concerns the contract and not the sacrament, and because it is a legitimate defense against the atrocious injury of fear unjustly inflicted, as will be said more broadly below in the tract on matrimony.

82. Modes. Simulation or fiction can be performed by the minister in three ways: a) if he secretly employs matter unfit for the sacrament, for example, if in place of the wine to be consecrated he were to place in the chalice another liquid altogether similar to it; b) if he secretly changes the form essentially, for example, if a confessor, in pronouncing the form of sacramental absolution, were to say in an intelligible voice, "I absolve you from your sins," but in a very low voice were to insert the little word "not";³¹¹ c) if he inwardly withholds the intention of administering the sacrament.

³¹¹ St. Alphonsus (Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 59) thinks this mode not altogether illicit, but Gury, Bucceroni, and others call this case chimerical.

83. Principle. Simulation or fiction of a sacrament is never lawful.

This is evident:

1. From proposition 29 condemned by Innocent XI: "Urgent grave fear is a just cause for simulating the administration of the sacraments."³¹²

2. The fiction or simulation of a sacrament is a very harmful lie and a detestable sacrilege. It is a lie because it leads into error one who justly thinks that he is receiving a sacrament; it is a sacrilege because it is an abuse of a sacred thing, for the minister abuses the sacrament in order to lie, if not by words, nevertheless by deeds.

³¹² Denz., n. 1179.

84. Notion of dissimulation. The fiction or simulation of a sacrament differs as heaven from earth from the dissimulation of a sacrament, or rather from the dissimulation of a denied sacrament. Such dissimulation is the positing of a non-sacramental action from which others, not the recipient, erroneously judge that a sacrament has been conferred; for example, a confessor gives a blessing to a penitent to whom he was obliged to deny absolution, and recites certain prayers for the purpose that those standing about may not perceive that absolution was denied; or a priest, according to an arrangement made beforehand, might make the sign of the cross before the mouth of a man kneeling at the Communion rail, who for a grave reason can neither receive Communion nor withdraw from the public Communion table, and would then replace the sacred host in the ciborium.³¹³

In this latter case, however, a very grave cause is required, because the Most Holy Eucharist itself is employed for an end that is indeed good but also for the deception of others; and this seems to include some irreverence. But it would be plainly illicit in this case to give that man, although knowing and consenting, an unconsecrated host, since such a manner of acting would be at least material idolatry, because then this man would at least outwardly adore something which is a vile creature. "For just as he would sin by outwardly adoring an idol, even from fear of death, so also he would always sin by outwardly adoring an unconsecrated host. And he would sin more gravely than if he were to communicate unworthily; as is evident from chapter De homine 7, de celebr. miss., where it is said that the priest who did not consecrate in the Mass would sin more gravely than one who sacrilegiously consecrated and communicated."³¹⁴ St. Thomas³¹⁵ teaches concerning this matter: "An unconsecrated host must in no way be given in place of a consecrated one, because the priest doing this, insofar as it lies in him, causes those who believe it to be a consecrated host to commit idolatry, whether others present or even the one receiving it; because, as Augustine³¹⁶ says: 'Let no one eat the flesh of Christ unless he first adores it.'"

Principle. The dissimulation of a denied sacrament is lawful for a reasonable cause. For it is nothing other than permitting others, who in the case have no right to know the objective truth, to fall into a harmless error.³¹⁷

³¹³ St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 59.

³¹⁴ St. Alphonsus, ibid., n. 61.

³¹⁵ S. theol. 3, q. 80, a. 6 ad 2; cf. Quodlibet V, a. 12.

³¹⁶ In Ps. 158, circa med.

³¹⁷ Cf. St. Alphonsus, l.c., n. 59.

85. Scholion. On probabilism in administering the sacraments. Outside a case of grave necessity it is not lawful to follow a probable opinion, leaving aside the safer one, when the validity of the sacraments is at issue, as is evident from proposition 1 condemned by Innocent XI: "It is not illicit in conferring the sacraments to follow a probable opinion concerning the validity of the sacrament, leaving aside the safer one...."³¹⁸

But I say, first: outside a case of grave necessity. For the sacraments are for men, and therefore whenever the spiritual salvation of a man is gravely endangered, the minister not only can but must administer the sacrament, at least conditionally; for example, he must absolve a man deprived of his senses, although perhaps he is already dead or otherwise indisposed.

I say, second: when the validity of the sacraments is at issue, for if the Church is rightly presumed to supply those things which are required for the validity of a sacrament, the matter stands otherwise. Therefore, for example, in the sacrament of penance it is sometimes lawful to give absolution with probable jurisdiction, which, if it did not suffice, the Church would supply. Likewise, if there is question of a diriment impediment to matrimony introduced by ecclesiastical law, which the Church is able to relax for a legitimate cause, it is sometimes lawful to employ a solidly probable opinion, because then the sacraments are not treated irreverently nor exposed to the danger of nullity. For the whole reason why it is not lawful in conferring the sacraments to employ a probable opinion while leaving aside the safer one is the reverence owed to the sacraments, lest, namely, they be exposed to the danger of nullity without a most grave cause.³¹⁹

³¹⁸ Denz., n. 1151.

³¹⁹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 1, nn. 49-50 and l. 6, n. 57.

St. Thomas III, q. 64, a. 3 and 7.

73. Christ as man is the principal minister confecting and dispensing the sacraments, not indeed by Himself, but through visible legates who, by power received from Him, perform the visible sacraments in His name. This is evident from various places of Scripture (John I, 33; Eph. V, 25; I Cor. I, 12; Mt. XXVIII, 19) and from the very form of the Eucharist.

Hence not only Christ and the sacraments themselves, but also the ministers are true instrumental causes of sanctification. And therefore, just as He could determine the sacramental signs themselves, so also Christ could determine the person or minister by whom the signs would be effected, and indeed in such a way that, if this person of the minister were lacking, the sign would not be valid nor would it produce its effects. Whence those are secondary ministers who are determined by Christ the institutor.

74. The secondary ministers in fact are:

1. By ordinary law, wayfaring men, as being similar at once to Christ and to the recipients, using reason, whom alone Christ addresses when in the Gospel He treats of ministers (cf. Mt. XXVIII, 19 for Baptism; Luke XXII, 19 for the Eucharist; John XX, 23 for Penance; Jas. V, 14 for Extreme Unction; I Cor. IV, 1 sq. and Eph. IV, 8 sq. generally); - but not Angels or separated souls, although extraordinarily Christ could assign this power to them: for He has not bound His power to ministers or signs.

2. Yet not all wayfarers; rather the ordinary ministers and ministers of solemnity, acting from office, are those who are specially consecrated for this through the sacrament of Order, as the Council of Trent defines, sess. 7, can. 10 against the Protestants (Eph. IV, 11). Matrimony is excepted, in which the contracting parties are the ministers.

3. The extraordinary minister and minister of necessity can be a layperson in Baptism and in the distribution of the Eucharist.

Let it be noted that no one can minister a sacrament to himself, except the Eucharist.

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. Priests having the care of souls are bound under grave obligation from justice to minister the sacraments to their subjects reasonably asking. For by undertaking the care of souls, they have bound themselves to this by a tacit contract entered into with their subjects, from whom they receive sustenance or at least honor. But others not having the care of souls are not bound from justice to minister the sacraments; sometimes, however, they are bound from charity, namely in a grave necessity of the neighbor. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 58. Cf. Can. 467.

You Will Resolve. 1st. Those having the care of souls sin gravely not only if they deny their ministry without reason, but also if they often show themselves morose and difficult; because thus they deter the faithful from the sacraments, which is the same as if they denied the sacraments.

2nd. Nevertheless, mortal sin is not present, setting aside the case of grave scandal, if they deny the Sacrament of Penance or of the Eucharist to one or another, or to the same one once or again, asking apart from necessity; because the harm can easily be repaired, nor is the subject thereby judged to be gravely unwilling.

3rd. If subjects ask irrationally, there is no sin. Hence the Parish Priest is not bound to spend time every day with a scrupulous person or with little devout persons, since so frequent confession is not expedient for them, nor do they themselves have a strict right to such frequent absolution.

4th. If the Parish Priest has suitable Vicars, he will not be bound so rigorously to hear the confessions of his subjects; yet he must satisfy the faithful who expressly require him by name, unless either he is impeded or the penitents would willingly approach another confessor.

5th. Generally speaking, those who have charge of souls sin gravely who are unwilling to hear the confessions of their subjects except on a few determined days within the month; because they are the cause why the faithful remain long in the state of sin and are kept from receiving the sacraments. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 58 and elsewhere passim.

Question. Are any sacraments, and which ones, to be ministered even with danger of death, whether by those having the care of souls or by others?

Resp. Only two, namely Baptism and Penance. For, on the one hand, the eternal life of the neighbor must be valued more highly than the temporal life of the Minister of the sacraments, and, on the other, only the two aforesaid sacraments are necessary for salvation.

Observe, however, 1st. that those who have the care of souls are bound to expose life not only in extreme necessity, but also in grave necessity, while other Ministers are bound to this only in extreme necessity; 2nd. that this obligation ceases when only a probability of success or necessity is present. - Hence you are not bound to expose your life for baptizing or absolving someone if you probably must perish before you can fulfill it, or if you probably presume that he has been baptized, or is not living in the state of mortal sin, or even can easily provide for himself through an act of perfect contrition. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 58; and de praec. caritatis, n. 27.

I. QUESTION I. Who are the lawful ministers of the sacraments? ANSWER. Man alone, a wayfarer, is a fit minister of the sacraments. Not all, however, but only those who, lawfully ordained in the Church, have the power of administering the sacraments, as all Catholics teach against the Lutherans.

II. QUESTION II. Whether in performing the sacraments an intention is required in the minister? ANSWER. Intention is a purpose of the will by which the minister deliberates to confer the sacrament. Theologians distinguish a threefold intention. One is called habitual, which is a certain prompt facility of operating. Another actual, which is a present application of mind and attention to the work which is in fact being done; for example, a priest while he confers a sacrament actually thinks of conferring it, and in fact intends to administer it. The third at last is virtual, which flows from a preceding act and which has not been retracted by a contrary intention, nor interrupted for a long time.

III. It is agreed among all Catholics that a habitual intention does not suffice for performing a sacrament, nor is an actual one necessary, but a virtual one suffices. Luther taught that ministers confer the sacraments even if they baptize in jest and in play, and betray themselves as buffoons and mimes. This error Leo X proscribed, and at last Trent, session 7, canon 11, defined: If anyone shall say that in ministers, while they confect and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does, let him be anathema.

IV. Theologians dispute whether, besides the intention which they call exterior, which arises from words seriously uttered, an interior intention of mind is necessary. Some denied it, contending that a minister validly performs a sacrament while he seriously utters the necessary words, although interiorly he say: I will not perform the sacrament.

V. This opinion I reject. Since either the exterior administration of a sacrament performed according to the rite instituted by Christ makes the sacrament valid by its own nature, every internal intention of the minister being altogether excluded, or not. If the first, then in no way does the administration of the sacraments depend upon the interior intention of the minister. But this is condemned by Trent. If the second, then the minister's intention is necessary. Again, either a minister seriously uttering the form and applying the sacramental matter according to the lawful rite can intend the opposite of that which the Church does, or not. If he cannot, but, the external serious administration being posited, is compelled to will to do that which the Church does, the Tridentine canon is altogether superfluous. For it is in vain enjoined that something be posited which the minister cannot omit. According to the opposite opinion, the external serious administration being posited, the minister necessarily intends to do what the Church does: because this exterior serious administration collides with and routs the contrary internal intention. Therefore in vain does Trent require the minister's intention. But it does require it. Therefore the opposite opinion is false. According to the system of our adversaries the Tridentine canon should have been framed thus: If anyone shall say that in ministers, while they confect the sacraments, a jesting administration suffices and a serious one is not required, let him be anathema. What of this, that Trent, session 14, canon 9, condemned a jesting administration, and by another canon already transcribed requires the minister's intention? Two things therefore the Council necessarily asserts: a serious administration and an interior intention of the minister.

VI. Alexander VIII proscribed the following thesis, no. 30: Baptism is valid conferred by a minister who observes the whole external rite and form of baptizing; but within, in his heart, resolves with himself: I do not intend to do what the Church does. Some answer that the French canonists do not hold as ratified Roman decrees which do not proximately emanate from the Supreme Pontiff. But this answer is futile. Sery, Milante, and Le Drou reply that the thesis is deservedly proscribed, because it is absolute and comprehends every rite, whether jesting or serious. But this answer seems false. There is condemned in this thesis the doctrine by which it is taught that the intention is not required. What then? Do you cavil childishly about the external serious administration, if the proscribed thesis plainly excludes the interior intention of the mind? I should be inept if I drew out this question further. Read Vol. VIII, sole dissertation, chapter 11, where you will find all the sophisms of our adversaries overthrown.

VII. QUESTION III. That a sacrament may be valid, is there required in the minister faith, or the intention of producing the sacramental effect? ANSWER. The opinion of the Church has always been that faith is not required in the minister for the valid conferring of a sacrament, and that it is validly conferred by a heretic and an unbeliever, provided the evangelical rite be observed. In the time of St. Cyprian this truth had not been defined: therefore the holy Martyr refuted the letters of Pope St. Stephen. All likewise confess that the intention of producing the sacramental effects is not necessary in the minister.

VIII. QUESTION IV. Whether for the integrity of a sacrament it is required that the minister intend to do what the Roman Church does? ANSWER. The common and true opinion denies it: for it is enough that the minister will in general to do what the Church of Christ does: because this general intention is not impeded by a private error, by which a man believes the Lutheran or Calvinist Church to be orthodox, since the minister acts not as a private person but as a public one, nor can his private error infect the work of God.

IX. QUESTION V. Whether an actual intention is necessary, or a virtual one suffices? ANSWER. It has been said above that a habitual intention does not suffice, nor is an actual one required, but a virtual one suffices and is necessary. How this virtual intention perseveres, and how long it lasts unretracted, can scarcely be explained; but it can be gathered from circumstances at the judgment of prudent men. He who, seized by sleep, drunkenness, or madness, baptizes or consecrates, and so forth, although before he fell into drunkenness he deliberately determined to baptize, does not baptize, does not consecrate: because a sacramental action must necessarily be human; but the action of a drunken or demented man is the action of a man, but not human, as the common and true opinion teaches.

X. QUESTION VI. Is a sacrament valid administered under a conditional form? ANSWER. Either the condition is concerning a past thing, as if thou art not baptized, I baptize thee; or concerning a present thing, as if thou art capable, I baptize thee; or concerning a future thing, as if tomorrow thou shalt have restored another's property, I absolve thee. That the sacrament is valid under a condition concerning a past or present thing, if the condition be true, but not if false, all teach. Under a future condition a sacrament cannot be performed. Since while the matter is applied and the form uttered, the present intention is suspended: if at a future time the condition shall be, then the matter and the form will not be present.

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

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

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

XIV. What then do Frs. La Croix and Viva obtrude — grave authors? Who are these grave authors? Are they to be preferred to the Roman Ritual and to the Roman or Tridentine Catechism? These are the grave authors whom we ought to follow, as the Church admonishes us. By right therefore the aforesaid opinion is to be rejected as false. I reckon false also the other opinion of the same Fr. La Croix, who in the place cited, no. 96, asserts that a bishop does not sin mortally who consecrates chrism in mortal sin.

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

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

XVII. Cajetan, Merbesius, Farvacques, Tournely, Bouchat, and Henry of St. Ignatius teach that preachers stained with mortal sin sin mortally while preaching the word of God. This same opinion St. Thomas seems to teach in Book 4, distinction 19, question 2, article 1, reply 2. See Vol. VIII, Book 1, sole dissertation, chapter 11, no. 4.

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.

XIX. QUESTION XI. When and to whom ought the sacraments to be administered? ANSWER. Parish priests are bound by divine law to administer the sacraments to their own parishioners, as Trent declares, session 23, chapter 1. In time of plague they are bound to exercise this office with danger of life. Many limit this to two sacraments, Baptism and Penance; but the restriction is unjust. Why ought they not to administer the sacred viaticum and extreme unction? Not only in time of plague, but also of persecution, parish priests are bound to assist their own sheep. Parish priests failing in time of plague, private priests ought, even with danger of life, to administer the sacraments to those in extreme need. And to this above all are the mendicant priests bound, since they are the co-operators of bishops and parish priests, and their auxiliary forces. For to this pertains their institute, and to this end are they fed by the alms of the faithful.

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

XXI. Some contend that this doctrine is true ordinarily, but not if fear of death should threaten: for then, they say, the sacraments are to be administered, unless they be asked in hatred of the faith or in contempt of religion: because, say the cited authors, the precept of which we treat is not merely negative, but resolves into an affirmative one of prudently dispensing the sacraments. Good heavens! Does prudent zeal for preserving life therefore prescribe that the sacraments be administered to public sinners who seek the priest's throat unless he administer? Is that not a merely negative precept — Give not that which is holy to dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine? All things therefore being regarded, the opinion recounted is to me false.

XXII. QUESTION XIII. Is it lawful to simulate the administration of the sacraments? ANSWER. Simulation is twofold. One express and formal, by which another's deception is directly intended; the other material, which is made for a just cause, by permitting another's deception. Formal simulation all condemn. Concerning material simulation some formerly disputed, whose opinion Innocent XI condemned, who condemned this thesis 29: Urgent grave fear is a just cause of simulating the administration of the sacraments.

XXIII. Fr. Claude La Croix, Book 6, part 1, no. 133, teaches that the thesis was justly condemned as being indefinite and abstracting from formal or material simulation: for he says: But whether the condemnation ought to be extended to material simulation cannot be gathered from the words of the decree. Hence the authors are divided: for some hold that it ought not to be extended to it; on the contrary, that it ought to be extended, Gormaz contends at length. Behold how true it is that pontifical decrees are not rarely eluded by the benefit of a single little distinction. Was it ever disputed among the casuists concerning formal simulation? If you say yes, then such casuists maintained that formal deception is lawful, which no one even of the heathen philosophers asserted. If you deny it, then it is beyond dispute that the condemnation of the thesis comprehends material simulation, concerning which alone the casuists disputed. Therefore from the words of the pontifical decree, whether Fr. La Croix will or no, material simulation is expressly condemned.

XXIV. QUESTION XIV. Is it lawful to seek the sacraments from an unworthy minister? ANSWER. When it is certainly established that a minister is unworthy, it is not lawful outside the case of necessity to seek the sacraments from him, when he is not the parish priest or one appointed to administer the sacraments. If he be the parish priest, or one bearing his place, it is lawful for parishioners to seek the sacraments from him, even though he be known as evil. If nevertheless an upright minister were at hand, by title of charity the sacraments would have to be sought from this one, not from that.

XXV. In a case of extreme necessity, namely in the article of death, it is lawful to seek from heretics, schismatics, and those cut off from the Church the two sacraments of Baptism and Penance, as was declared by Trent, session 14, chapter 7. That the sacraments may lawfully be sought from an evil but tolerated minister, grave necessity suffices — say, of fulfilling the paschal precept, when nevertheless no upright priest is at hand. For in such a case the petitioner affords no occasion of sinning, but only consults his own eternal salvation.

XXVI. Concerning the ceremonies of the sacraments, and of those things which are called sacramentals, see Vol. VIII, sole dissertation, Book 1, chapter 14, where you will find all these things explained at length; and here for brevity's sake I omit them, because graver matters press to be explained, and I fear prolixity.

Caius, a missionary priest and a religious, heard at his own home the confession of his sick friend Titius, who was not, however, dangerously ill and who lived in the district of Julius, a secular priest, and refreshed him with Holy Communion. When Julius heard this, he wrote the following to Caius: Unless he had been ignorant of the ecclesiastical law which prescribes that the sacraments are to be received from one’s own priest, he would not have administered the sacraments outside the district assigned to him. Caius denied that he had done anything contrary to any ecclesiastical law, and affirmed that, if some common ecclesiastical law were in force which prescribed that the sacraments are to be sought from the parish priest, it did not affect missionaries such as we have in England. Hence it is asked:

1. By common law are the sacraments to be administered by one’s own parish priest, and by the quasi-parish priest in this region?

2. Is there a special law that prohibits religious from administering the Eucharist?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. Are the sacraments to be administered by one’s own parish priest according to the common law, and by the priest who has charge of the district in England and America?

The parochial sacraments of Baptism, Extreme Unction, Marriage, the Easter Communion, and Viaticum must be so administered according to the common law. Penance may be administered by any priest who has faculties in the place where the confession is heard. In England and in the United States the Easter Communion according to present discipline may be made in any church or public oratory.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. i, p. 627.

2. Is there a special law which forbids Religious to administer the Eucharist?

Religious strictly so called are forbidden under pain of excommunication reserved to the Pope from administering Extreme Unction or the Eucharist as Viaticum to the clergy or laity except in case of necessity without leave of the parish priest.²

2 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, p. 406.

3. The case. No objection could lawfully be made to Caius hearing the confession of Titius, his sick friend. The faithful have a perfect right to go to confession to any priest who has faculties in the place. With regard to Holy Communion there is more difficulty. Whenever Holy Communion is of precept, as is the Easter Communion and the Viaticum, it is per se a parochial sacrament, and Religious are specially forbidden to administer it. However, in the case, communion was not of precept, but of devotion. To carry the Blessed Sacrament publicly to the sick is reserved to the parish priest. In English-speaking countries it is not carried publicly to the sick, and some authors maintain that in such places Regulars may carry Holy Communion to the sick in secret unless the Bishop prohibits it. In England the Bishops make

Digith I by LiOOQie known their wish that Holy Communion should not be carried to the sick by Regulars or others without the permission of the priest of the district. The Society of Jesus has a special privilege in this matter for use in the Missions under Propaganda.