The Recipient of the Sacraments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹ Cf. De praeceptis^12, n. 7 s.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹ St. Alphonsus, n. 89.

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

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

¹ Summa, 2-2, q. 10, a. 12.

² Sess. vii, c. 13, de Bapt.

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

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

¹ Sess. vi, c. 7.

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

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

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

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

¹ Sess. vi, c. 6.

² Can. 731.

³ Analecta Ecclesiastica, 1898, p. 387.

⁴ De Syn. vi, c. 5, n. 2.

We must speak first of the person receiving, then of the mode of receiving a sacrament.

The Recipient of Confirmation.—(a) Qualifications.—The subject of this Sacrament is only a baptized person, and in adults intention is necessary. The general custom in the Latin Church is not to confirm before the seventh year, or thereabout, has been attained; but the Sacrament may be given even earlier, if an infant is in danger of death, or if there seems to the minister to be a just and grave reason for confirming one under seven years of age (Canon 788). Those who have the use of reason should not be admitted to Confirmation without previous instruction on the nature of the Sacrament and the requirements for its proper reception.

(b) Duties.—There is an obligation to receive this Sacrament when one has the opportunity (Canon 787); but apart from scandal, contempt, or danger to salvation the obligation seems light. Hence, if a person advanced in years is ashamed to receive Confirmation with the children, he should be advised but not reproved; nor should he be denied absolution as if he were certainly guilty of serious fault. The recipient should be in the state of grace, and it is advisable that he go to confession beforehand if he have serious sin on his conscience. Though not necessary, it is more suitable that the recipient be fasting. A new name may be taken in Confirmation, and it is proper that those whose baptismal name is unsuitable should either have it changed at this time or add the name of a Saint. Those who are being confirmed should be present for the entire ceremony (Canon 789).

Who is the subject of the sacraments? - As the minister of a sacrament is he who performs in the name of Christ the sacramental rite instituted by him, so the subject of a sacrament is called he who receives the sacrament and is capable of the effect of the sacrament. The subject of the sacraments is only man as wayfarer; because, as is clear from Sacred Scriptures and Tradition, the sacraments were instituted for men as wayfarers alone. Yet not all men are capable of all the sacraments. For neither can women receive the sacrament of order, nor can children not yet using reason receive the sacraments of penance and extreme unction.

The reason a priori why only man as wayfarer is capable of the sacraments is the will of Christ the Lord, the institutor of the sacraments. But the reason of fittingness is that, according to the order of present Providence, only man as wayfarer is capable of first grace, or of an increase of grace; but such are not the Blessed, or souls detained in Purgatory, for whom the measure of glory corresponding to the grace which they had merited in mortal life has already been determined. But much less are the damned capable of grace, since they have already been separated from God for eternity. - St. Thomas Suppl. q. 39, a. 1, 2.

What things are required for the valid reception of the sacraments? - For receiving the sacraments validly, no probity is required in adults, nor properly faith in the subject, if you except the sacrament of penance. This is clear from the practice of the Church, which has never permitted heretics and wicked men, duly baptized and ordained, to be baptized or ordained again. - In infants or those perpetually insane, no disposition is required, nor intention, so that they may validly receive the sacraments of which they are capable, namely baptism, confirmation, order, and the Eucharist, which formerly was ministered to them. This is clear from the practice of the Church and the common opinion. L. 80, 782; St.

Thomas Suppl. q. 39, a. 2. - In adults, for the valid reception of the sacraments some intention is required, because it is not fitting that an adult be sanctified unless he wills it. Council of Trent sess. 6, c. 5, 6, 7. But for most sacraments a habitual intention suffices, even sometimes only a confused, or implicit, intention, the nature of each sacrament being considered; because the conferral of the sacraments is a certain giving and benefit, for accepting which habitual intention suffices. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 68, a. 7. Cf. Lugo de Euch. d. 13, n. 23, 26; de Poenit. d. 14, n. 46, 48. If the will of receiving the sacrament is lacking, the sacrament will be invalid, whether someone does not wish to receive it, or does not not wish, having a neutral will. Benedict XIV, Const. Postremo mense § 47, 48, 51; L. 81. - For validly receiving the other sacraments, reception of baptism is presupposed; therefore an unbaptized man is in no way capable of the other sacraments. The reason is that the other sacraments were instituted for the Church alone; moreover through baptism alone men become members of the Church. Therefore. Florence, Decree for the Armenians. - E. M.

Is attention required in an adult subject, so that he may validly receive a sacrament? - Resp. In the negative. For intention suffices, even in the sacraments which require virtual intention; the reason is that a human act proceeds not from attention, but from will or from intention.

Besides, most sacraments do not even require virtual intention; therefore a fortiori they do not require attention on the part of the subject. Moreover, attention is not required in the minister for confecting the sacrament, as is clear from the things said above n. 338; therefore a fortiori it is not required in the subject. - Hence penitents are sometimes troubled in vain by scruples from this, that they suffered distractions while they were being absolved, or that they were absolved without noticing it. Sporer 157.

What intention is required in adults for receiving the individual sacraments? - In baptism and order there is required at least a habitual explicit will. The reason is that sacraments of this kind impose grave obligations to be fulfilled. But no one is judged to receive a grave obligation; rather, his positive will must be altogether clear. Lugo d. 9, n. 119, 127; L. 81, 82. The sacrament of baptism and of order is indeed invalidly conferred on those having only interpretative intention. Nevertheless Coninck, Sporer, Dicastillo, etc., apud Croix l. 6, p. 1, n. 168, and others judge that for receiving baptism an implicit intention contained in contrition or attrition had by the recipient suffices, or, as Lugo d. 9, n. 130 says, in the will of giving one's name to the Christian Religion, or, if he is ignorant of this, of doing whatever things are necessary for salvation, as La Croix has it, l.c. Cf. L. 82. This indeed can have place in urgent necessity, but baptism must then be conferred conditionally, and therefore repeated conditionally if time allows, unless there is certainty concerning a true and explicit intention not retracted. Cf. S. C. de P. F., March 30, 1898.

In confirmation, extreme unction, and the Eucharist, a habitual implicit will suffices, which is less rightly called interpretative, and which consists in this, that someone has had a general intention, and has not retracted it, of applying those things which are necessary and useful for his salvation; or of living and dying in the Catholic religion, with the helps of the same religion; or, a fortiori, of receiving all the sacraments in life and at death. The reason is that these sacraments bring many advantages and no disadvantage. But all are judged to wish to receive advantages. Hence both confirmation and extreme unction can be conferred conditionally on a dying person deprived of his senses. Ritual, de Extr. unct. § 6; L. 82. But if he in reality had never thought of receiving them, they would have to be altogether repeated.

For penance there is required either actual or at least virtual intention; nor therefore does habitual intention suffice. The reason is that in this sacrament the acts of the penitent are required for the matter, and these indeed cannot be had without at least virtual will of receiving the sacrament.

L. 82. - Likewise for matrimony at least virtual intention is required. For "since each spouse is not only receiving, but also minister of the sacrament, in each of them there is certainly required that intention which is demanded in the ministers of the other sacraments." L. 82.

Fr. Lehmkuhl, ed. 11, n. 66, requires for the Eucharist, besides the case of viaticum, an expressed habitual intention. Yet ordinarily it is not only virtual, but even actual. The reason, he says, is that "in the general will of living a Christian life there is in no way contained the will of receiving the sacred Eucharist so many times and at such a time." - But if, besides the case of viaticum, it is a question of the Eucharist to be received from obligation, certainly that general will also implicitly contains this. And if that general will is conceived more determinately, namely of applying all the means constituted by God as necessary and useful for salvation, certainly this will would also implicitly include the Eucharist to be received from mere devotion. Finally, if the general will of dying in a Christian manner includes the will of receiving the sacraments of the Church at the point of death, why does the general will of living a Christian life not include the will of receiving Christ's sacraments during life? "Wherefore," the same Fr. Lehmkuhl concludes, "an adult to whom, besides the case of viaticum, the Holy Eucharist were given without his knowledge, would indeed receive it materially, but not with fruit." - But consequently to the things which have just been noted: if in the case of Viaticum the aforesaid adult would receive the sacred Eucharist sacramentally and with fruit, also outside that case he would receive it sacramentally and with fruit, if namely, as was said, he has its will at least implicitly.

Are sacraments validly conferred on those sleeping, drunk, or fallen into insanity, who previously had the intention of receiving them? - Resp. In the affirmative. Thus most commonly. The reason is that they are a capable subject. - But this would be done illicitly "unless in probable danger of death, or unless when the impediment of the use of reason is judged perpetual; otherwise one must wait for the time in which the one receiving becomes master of reason." L. 81, 139; St. Thomas 4 d. 6, q. 1, a. 2, q. 3 ad 2; 3 p., q. 68, a. 12; Roman Ritual, de Bapt. adult. Wherefore, to the sick who are deprived of their senses, the sacraments are to be given; but only in danger of death, and unless they die impenitent and in manifest mortal sin. Roman Ritual, de Sacr. extr. unct. In doubt they must be given; namely baptism and penance, even with the lowest probability of disposition; but confirmation, the Eucharist, and extreme unction, when it is probable that they are rightly disposed.

Indeed these can also be given if this can only be presumed. Lugo d. 9, n. 122, 126. Cf. 318, 383; E. M.

Can the sacraments be conferred on the deaf and mute from birth who have not been instructed in schools? - Some compare those deaf and mute from birth, not at all instructed in schools, to idiots; others to those using reason. Likewise some hold that they cannot know those things which pertain to the discernment of good and evil and to faith; but others hold that they can, at least in some way. Hence, since it is probable that they are like infants, baptism and confirmation can then be given to them conditionally. Likewise they can be baptized if they show some signs of religion. Collection of S. C. de P. F. n. 585. But since it is not plainly indubitable that they are ignorant of those things which pertain to faith, absolution also can then be given to them conditionally. The Eucharist can also be given to the dying, if it is clear from signs that they have some sort of discernment of it, or, as formerly to infants, if they are idiots, provided every danger of irreverence is absent. Yet extreme unction is not to be given to them, since it is neither necessary nor probably valid, namely if they are probably idiots from birth. But even it can be given if they probably conceive sorrow for their own sins, and do not seem to be ignorant of those things of faith which must necessarily be believed. But they are permitted to contract matrimony. C. Cum apud 23; C. Tuae fraternitati 25, de Spons. - Sanchez de Matr. l. 1, d. 8, n. 13; Kenrick tr. 17, n. 39.

What things are required for licit reception of the sacraments? - For the sacraments of the living to be received licitly and fruitfully, besides the intention of receiving them, the state of grace is prerequired. For these from their primary institution by Christ are ordered, not to conferring first grace, but to its increase, since they already suppose first grace in the subject. Hence they sin gravely who knowingly receive the sacraments of the living in the state of mortal sin, and indeed more gravely than those who unworthily minister or confect them. But the state of grace is to be procured through confession, if one is to approach the Eucharist; or at least through perfect contrition, if it concerns the other sacraments. Cf. 568. But it is better, as far as can be done, always to premise Confession even to the reception of the other sacraments. - For the sacraments of the dead to be received licitly by adults, there are required at least implicit acts of faith and hope, according to the words of the Apostle, Heb. 11:6: One who approaches God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder to those seeking him. Nor indeed does it suffice only to know those things which are necessary by necessity of means, but it is also necessary to know those things which are necessary to be known by necessity of precept.

Cf. V. 1, n. 348 ff., 356 ff. Moreover, an act of sorrow for sins is required, because forgiveness of sins is given to no one without retraction or sorrow for committed sins. But these things in the sacrament of penance are necessary also for validity, because they pertain to the disposition of the penitent. Trent sess. 14, c. 4. But attrition suffices, as will be said in its own place. - Likewise it is required that one be bound by no excommunication and no personal interdict. Roman Ritual, de Extr. unct. c. 1, § 8. But if someone cannot abstain from the sacraments without grave inconvenience, he licitly receives them, although for the present he cannot be absolved from the censure. - L. 86, 265, q. 2; E. M.

Is there a case in which it is licit to receive a sacrament of the living with mortal sin? - Resp. In the affirmative; but it is very rare. St. Alphonsus enumerates two. The first is if a host would be profaned unless it is consumed at once; then the host would be taken, not as a sacrament, but so that it may be rescued from that profanation, and therefore irreverence would cease. The other is if a layman already reclining at the communion rail and about to receive Communion at once were to remember a mortal sin and, because of the excessive shortness of time, could not make an act of contrition. But unless the time is altogether extremely short, God's special grace would not be lacking in such cases for conceiving contrition at once. - L. 86, 33; St. Thomas 4 D. 24, q. 1, a. 3, q. 5 ad 4.

Is it licit to ask for a sacrament from a bad minister? - Resp. In the negative, if he is an intruded priest, namely one who, contrary to the rights of the Church, has invaded offices and benefices of the Church relying on secular power, unless extreme necessity is present. Pius VI, Epist. Sollicitudo, Apr. 1, 1794. The same consequently must be said of a notorious schismatic or heretic. Holy Office, July 2, 1864. For there is danger of perversion and scandal. - Resp. Also in the negative, if the minister is an excommunicate to be avoided, or one suspended by name, unless in extreme or very grave necessity. For there is a positive prohibition of the Church. - Resp. In the affirmative, if he is a tolerated excommunicate, and precisely insofar as tolerated; because the Council of Constance absolutely granted to the faithful that they could communicate with tolerated persons. L. 88; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 82, a. 9.

If the minister is simply bad because of mortal sin, it is licit from a reasonable cause of necessity or grave utility to receive the sacraments from him. The reason is that, such a reason standing, the sin of another is licitly permitted, which "nevertheless he could put away, because in an instant a man is amended by divine grace." St. Thomas 4 d. 24, q. 1, a. 3, q. 5 ad 3. Moreover, "he who approaches the sacraments receives the sacraments from a minister of the Church, not insofar as he is such a person, but insofar as he is a minister of the Church; and therefore as long as he is tolerated by the Church in ministry, he who receives the sacrament from him does not communicate in his sin, but communicates with the Church, which presents him as a minister." St. Thomas 3 p., q. 64, a. 6 ad 2; C. Vestra 7, de Cohabit. clericor. From a reasonable cause, because charity requires that we impede the sin of our neighbor which we can easily impede. - But it is certain that any minister is presumed worthy unless the opposite is established. "Hence it is probably inferred that the sacrament can still be asked from him who is known to have sinned a little before, because he himself is to be presumed already to have disposed himself at least through contrition, unless it is established that the minister is habitual in sin, or is in a proximate occasion of sin, understand a voluntary one." L. 89. "Thus likewise I think," says St. Alphonsus ibid., "that it is illicit without grave cause to serve a priest celebrating unworthily." - L. l. 2, n. 47, 79; l. 6, n. 560; q. 19 among recent reforms; Scavini ed. 12, Milan 1874, v. 4, n. 454, 566; Collection of S. C. de P. F. n. 1823, 1845.

227. • The subject of a Sacrament is called he who receives the Sacrament, and is capable of the effect of the Sacrament.

The subject of the Sacraments is only man as wayfarer; because, as is plain from Sacred Scripture and tradition, the Sacraments were instituted for wayfaring men alone. Yet not all men are capable of all the Sacraments. For neither women can receive the Sacrament of Order, nor children not yet using reason can receive the Sacraments of Penance and Extreme Unction.

The reason a priori why only wayfaring man is capable of the Sacraments is the will of Christ the Lord, the institutor of the Sacraments. But the reason of fittingness is that according to the order of present Providence, only wayfaring man is capable of first grace or an increase of grace; but of this kind are not the Blessed or souls detained in purgatory, for whom the measure of glory corresponding to the grace which they had in mortal life has already been determined. But the damned are much less capable of grace, as being already separated from God for eternity. With these things posited, we must treat of the requisites both for the valid and for the licit reception of the Sacraments.

Regarding the moral requisites of worthy reception, a distinction must be drawn between what is necessary for the validity of a Sacrament and what is required for its licit and fruitful reception.

1. The valid reception of a Sacrament requires: a) that the recipient be in the wayfaring state (in statu viatoris); b) that (if he be an adult) he have the wish to employ the Sacrament as a means of grace; c) that he be baptized. Baptism, according to an ancient saying, is the door to the supernatural life. No other Sacrament can be validly received without it.¹

¹ Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Sacratnents, Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 238 sqq.; Chr. Pesch, S.J., Praelect. Dogm., Vol. VI, 3rd ed., pp. 130 sqq.; N. Giehr, Die hi. Sakramente, Vol. I, "5 and ed., pp. 158 sqq.

As regards the necessary intention, this is supplied by the Church for infants, insane and weakminded persons, and adults who lack the full use of reason.² When there is question of adminis- tering Extreme Unction to an unconscious Catholic, it may be presumed that the patient would wish to receive the Sacrament if he were in possession of his faculties. Penance and Extreme Unction require an actual, or at least a virtual, intention; for the other Sacraments (Baptism of adults, Confirmation, Communion, and Holy Orders) a habitual intention is sufficient.

² Cfr. Matth. VIII, 5-10; XV, 22-28; Mark IX, 16-26.

2. For the licit and fruitful reception of Baptism (in the case of adults) and Penance there is required in the subject faith, hope, and imperfect contrition (attritio). One who has lost sanctifying grace after Baptism must regain it by a worthy confession before he can worthily receive Holy Communion.³ The reception of Penance is recommended, though not prescribed, as the best means of preparing for the other Sacraments of the living. To receive any of these Sacraments consciously in the state of mortal sin is a sacrilege and a more grievous sin than would be the administration of a Sacrament in the same condition.

³ Conc. Trident., Sess. VI. c. 5-6; Sess. XIII, c. 7, can. 11 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 797, 798, 880, 893).

Broadly speaking, the faithful are in duty bound to demand the Sacraments only from properly constituted ministers of good character. Every priest is to be regarded as worthy unless his unworthiness is certain and notorious.

READINGS. —P. Schanz, Die Lehre von den hl. Sakramenten, Freiburg 1893, pp. 187 sqq.—Chr. Pesch, S.J., Praelectiones Dogmaticac, Vol. VI, 3rd ed., pp. 130 sqq. —Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. I, pp. 191 sqq. —Sabetti-Barrett, S.J., Com/>. Theol. Mor., 22nd ed., pp. 526 sqq. —H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. III, pp. 42 sqq. —Th. Slater, S.J., A Manual of Moral Theology, Vol. I, pp. 41 sqq—A. Lehmkuhl, S.J., Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 37 sqq.

— Principles. I. For valid reception of a sacrament these three things are commonly required and suffice:

1. radical capacity, which all and only wayfaring men have with respect to baptism; and all baptized by baptism of water have with respect to the remaining sacraments. Nevertheless extreme unction demands dangerous illness, and, like Penance, use of reason by which sins could have been committed; Order demands the male sex; Matrimony demands diversity of sex and habitual use of reason, together with freedom from another bond, and excludes those laboring under perpetual impotence.

2. in adults, reception voluntary at least in this sense, that it is not physically coerced while the interior will resists; and besides, according to the very common opinion, will at least habitual and implicit. For just as an adult is not justified without his own consent, so, without the same consent, he is not initiated and consecrated to God through a sacrament. Yet because one who receives a sacrament, as such, does not act, virtual will which renders the act human is not of itself necessary. But according to the nature of the sacrament, as will be said afterward, habitual expressed will, or even virtual will, must be present.

Yet for little children and those perpetually insane, the intention which the minister has in the name of Christ and of the Church suffices. For these are saved and sanctified without their own consent. Wherefore the defect of consent in them stands in the way only of matrimony, whose essential matter and form are placed in consent itself;

3. the intention of the minister sufficiently determined so that it affects such a person of the recipient.

— What if an adult approaches feignedly or simulatedly to receive a sacrament, that is, if he accepts the external rite voluntarily, while internally he does not will the sacrament?

And it is sufficiently certain that nothing is obtained by that sacrilegious reception of sacraments which do not imprint character; indeed, there is plainly no reception of the sacrament of penance and matrimony, where acts of the recipient enter the essence of the sacrament. The more common opinion also denies that baptism, confirmation, and ordination are valid for him who dissents in heart while by mouth or by the very approach he asks for the sacrament. Nevertheless Cardinal Gasparri holds the opposite opinion as truer: both because Innocent III, c. 3 De baptismo (III, 42), approves those who hold that the character of Christianity is received by one who externally indeed does not resist, though he approaches baptism feignedly; and because one so approaching wills that the minister place upon him the matter and form of the sacrament, with the due intention: but in these the sacrament consists; then the interior will of not receiving the sacrament is elided by the opposite will by which the act of approaching is commanded. Indeed an intention expressly terminated to the external rite alone does not suffice in the minister, who must sanctify instrumentally; but it is not proved necessary in him who must merely receive the sacrament. Cf. Gasparri, De sacra ordinatione, c. 3, s. 2, art. 1.

— II. Corollary and Applications. 1. A sacrament which someone coerced by fear wishes to receive is beyond doubt valid. Except matrimony, at least from the positive disposition of the Church. She also does not wish to impose obligations connected with sacred orders upon a cleric who, coerced by grave fear, received sacred order.

— 2. When there is not question of sacraments which of themselves demand a human act of the recipient, the will which is required in the recipient is rather that of one not opposing than that of one positively consenting. For every action is done by the minister; the effect is obtained ex opere operato, unless the contrary will of the recipient stands in the way of that efficacy.

But practically the sacraments which impose a burden must be distinguished from others by which a benefit is conferred without burden. For the former it is certainly required that there have been a positive will which at least implicitly is terminated to that sacrament. When there is question of ordination, a will once expressed and not retracted alone seems able to contain this positive intention. Wherefore for ordination habitual expressed will is necessary in the adult recipient. Many demand the same for the valid reception of baptism.

Yet there are those who are content with the will, which is had in every contrition or attrition, of doing what is necessary for salvation.

Confirmation, viaticum, and extreme unction bring grace without burden. Wherefore whoever wish to live or die Christianly in no way resist reception of these sacraments. Therefore their implicit habitual will amply suffices, not only that these sacraments be validly, but also that they be licitly bestowed on the sick who are destitute of the senses and are not to be presumed indisposed in soul. For the eucharist one must also beware of danger of exterior irreverence; and, since its necessity is less but its dignity greater, a positive presumption of the good state of the soul seems necessary, so that it may be licitly bestowed on a man who is deprived of the use of reason but seems likely to receive it with exterior decency.

He who is by no means alien from receiving a sacrament does not for that reason have the will of receiving the sacrament at any time, without consciousness of himself, at least when the time is not determined by necessity itself. Wherefore one can at least doubt concerning the value of a sacrament which without necessity is conferred on someone outside the present use of reason. Therefore, outside probable danger of death, one must wait until someone has come out of sleep or temporary insanity; and what we were saying just now about viaticum is not valid concerning the dispensation of the eucharist outside danger of death. Cf. Lehmkuhl, II, 65, note, to whom Ballerini, IV, 701, partly contradicts, and deservedly indeed when implicit habitual intention suffices.

He who takes a host which he does not know to be consecrated generally receives materially only, but not sacramentally and with fruit, the thing which is the sacrament, because sufficient will is generally lacking. Thus St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 80, art. 3 ad 3; d'Annibale, III, 257, note 2.

— 3. Matrimony, which has the character of contract, demands habitual expressed will, or will which, formally conceived, afterward has not been retracted. Indeed virtual consent is required when it is celebrated personally and between parties present.

In Penance, virtual will is needed with respect to the acts of penance; for receiving absolution alone, implicit habitual will suffices. Cappello, De Sacramentis, I, 83 and 85, 4°.

— On the Insane. 1. Those who after use of reason have fallen into insanity are to be treated as adults, whose will or disposition is to be estimated from the time before the use of reason was lost. Except matrimony, which requires the present use of reason.

2. As to those who are perpetually half-witted or doubtfully insane, the probable utilities of the subject are to be composed with reverence for the sacred sign, yet in such a way that in an ambiguous matter this prevail: the sacraments are for men.

Hence it is never lawful to give them Order. Matrimony is not permitted to them, just as to the insane in lucid intervals, except for a grave cause, to be proposed to the Ordinary. The eucharist will not be given to them too frequently; Penance and Extreme Unction will be ministered only conditionally. Finally, the sacraments which certainly are valid in children will be conferred absolutely on those who ask according to their manner; conditionally on others.

The deaf and at the same time mute from birth, if they have been suitably instructed, are capable of all sacraments just like adults. Those who have lacked instruction most probably do not have the expeditious use of reason. Wherefore, according as hope of competent instruction is still had or is lacking, they seem to be treated as children or as perpetually almost insane. Therefore to those themselves who in no way ask for the sacraments, baptism and confirmation are to be administered conditionally; and sometimes absolution itself will be given under condition. To those dying, extreme unction will be conceded conditionally, which will be able to profit them more certainly than penance; and, with danger of irreverence excluded, after conditioned absolution, at least viaticum will be able to be given.

— On Error. In matrimony, error about the person, when someone thinks that he gives fidelity to Titius and only Caius is present, is regarded as substantial. In the others it suffices that the will affect that capable individual, even if perhaps you absolve a woman as a man, or promote willing Sempronius, as absent Gracchus, by sacred order.

— II. That baptism and penance may be received licitly and fruitfully, there is required and of itself suffices, besides the will of receiving the sacrament, the disposition of faith, hope, and attrition: because they are sacraments of the dead. The remaining sacraments, which are called of the living, demand the state of grace.

To approach a sacrament of the living with habitual venial sin is of itself not a sin; to approach with actual affection for venial sin will be a venial sin if the present disorder regards the very reception of the sacrament, as if someone presents himself irreverently; if it does not regard the reception, the circumstances are to be considered. It will be no sin if someone seeks in the sacrament a remedy for putting off the disordered affection; it will be sin if he neglects to put off the affection when he can do this easily enough. Cf. Cappello, De Sacramentis, I, n. 88.

The state of grace is to be procured by confession for the eucharist, not for the other sacraments, from a special precept, at least of ecclesiastical law (c. 856).

In what way extreme unction holds, in some manner, a middle place between the sacraments of the living and of the dead will be said in its proper place.

Acts of faith and hope are sufficiently contained in attrition itself or contrition, so that special solicitude is not to be borne concerning the disposition of faith and hope.

Rather, let the minister know this: whether or not the recipient holds those things which are to be believed by necessity of means and which must be known for receiving this sacrament fruitfully. Nevertheless, by an act of faith or hope, a sin contrary to faith or hope, if any has been committed, will have to be retracted.

— In foreign missions those can create difficulty who, doubtfully adult, are not yet sufficiently instructed and ask baptism. If instruction can be completed without notable inconvenience, baptism itself must be deferred. But if delay is subject to serious inconvenience, if, for example, administration by Protestant heretics is to be feared, those seem able to be baptized who, with parents or circumstances attended to, give hope of greater instruction in the Catholic religion, provided they ask according to their measure. Otherwise baptism will have to be deferred, yet in such a way that the salvation of the soul is always employed as the supreme rule.

— On Reviviscence. With the obstacle removed, baptism certainly revives and confers first grace. The same, with divine goodness and the very nature of the sacraments attended to, is commonly admitted concerning the other sacraments which imprint character; and also concerning matrimony and extreme unction, which cannot be repeated in the same marriage or danger. Concerning penance itself, most rather deny that the sacrament can be validly and at the same time fruitlessly received; we shall hold the contrary side. But they commonly deny that the most holy eucharist revives, since it can be repeated frequently, unless perhaps you remove the obstacle before the species have already been consumed.

Nor then, as R. P. Cappello observes, op. c., n. 14, is there properly question of reviviscence, since the sacrament of the most holy eucharist is the very permanent body of Christ under the species. Therefore the question ought to have been posed thus: can the application of the sacrament which previously was fruitless, indeed gravely culpable, be converted into fruitful by a better disposition of the subject for as long as the eucharistic species remain? Cardinal Billot affirms this, consequently to his chosen opinion by which, in the sacrament of the eucharist, he considers the presence of the body of Christ as reality and sacrament and therefore as title of grace to be received (De sacramentis in communi, Thesis 6, p. 107). But those who hold that grace is conferred not insofar as Christ is present in us, but insofar as he is eaten, will deny the same, unless they think that eating is not completed by the very taking within, but perseveres until the species are corrupted.

But the obstacle is removed when that disposition is procured which would have had to be had for receiving the sacrament fruitfully. But if the reception was sacrilegious, or after the sacrament received a mortal sin was committed, these will have to be blotted out before there can be place for reviviscence.

— The required disposition must be morally certain to the recipient himself, lest he expose the sacrament to danger of frustration and thus derogate from due reverence. Wherefore in doubt which cannot be solved by presumption, greater certitude of itself will have to be procured or awaited. Yet you are excused by a prevailing necessity, because sacraments are for men, nor is supreme reverence owed to them as such, though otherwise one must speak of the eucharist insofar as it contains Christ. Therefore moral certitude is not to be taken in such a way that reception becomes subject to scruples and anxieties; but it is judged to be had when a solid reason for affirming is attacked by no positive reason to the contrary.

Yet there are those who are content with probable disposition in the recipient and prohibit only the minister from using a merely probable opinion. Cf. St. Alphonsus, l. 1, n. 51.

If there is danger in delay, the sacraments by which provision is made for the necessity of a dying person will have to be bestowed by the minister himself, while at the same time guarding against scandal and offense of the faithful. If the doubt affects the value, or there is question of extreme unction, administration will be done conditionally. And today, at least in places where many are not baptized, baptism itself seems first to be administered conditionally to an unknown man who is in danger of death and destitute of the senses.

— Licit reception of a sacrament also supposes immunity from a prohibiting censure. Excommunication prohibits reception (cc. 855, §1; 2260, §1), and, as to certain sacraments, interdict. Cf. on censures.

— It is further necessary that you ask the sacraments from a fitting minister. 1. Of itself, such a minister is legitimate and worthy.

2. "From excommunicated persons to be avoided, and also from other excommunicated persons after a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has intervened, the faithful can, in danger of death alone, ask both sacramental absolution... and also, if other ministers are lacking, the other sacraments and sacramentals" (c. 2261, §3). The same must be said, because of prohibited communication in sacred things (c. 1258), concerning those who are ascribed to a non-Catholic sect; and concerning those publicly intruded, because of scandal. Cf. for example, in Lehmkuhl, II, 73, the responses of Pius VI, May 28, 1793, concerning intruded persons at the time of the French disturbance.

3. From other excommunicated persons it is lawful for the faithful "for any just cause to ask the sacraments and sacramentals, especially if other ministers are lacking; and then the excommunicated person requested can minister the same, nor is he held by any obligation to inquire of the requester concerning the cause" (c. 2261, §2).

4. One must not speak otherwise concerning a minister whom you know to be constituted in mortal sin, because a thing good in itself is sought, and it stands through the minister if he does not dispose himself rightly. Therefore, with a special reason of scandal or of danger to be averted excluded, in order that you honestly ask a sacrament from a sinner, some inconvenience in some way notable, which you do not lightly bear, suffices, or "any just cause of necessity or utility" (d'Annibale, III, 261).

But if there is question of a minister who from office must minister the sacraments to you, the inconvenience of going to another church or changing confessor suffices.

5. A legitimate minister is not always a minister of any Catholic rite whatever. Outside necessity, a priest of one's own rite is to be approached for the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, order, and matrimony. Sacramental absolution can be asked from a priest of any rite who has been approved by the local Ordinary. Holy communion can be received by any faithful person out of devotion in the rite of the church where he approaches the holy table. "Yet it is to be advised that each faithful person satisfy the precept of Easter communion in his own rite. Holy viaticum must be received by the dying in their proper rite; but in urgent necessity, let it be lawful to receive it in any rite" (c. 866, §§2 and 3). Observe that a priest must always observe his own proper rite in that ministration. In urgent necessity, if a priest of a different rite is not present, it is lawful for those who are permitted to consecrate only unleavened or leavened bread to minister the eucharist in leavened or unleavened bread, while their own rites are observed in other respects (c. 851, §2).

— Both by divine and human law it happens that use of the sacraments is prescribed, and this of itself, from the account of the sacrament, or per accidens, from the necessity of the subject, according to the rules to be handed down in their proper place.

— I. For valid reception of the sacraments there is need and suffices: 1. radical capacity of the subject, which all and only men have with respect to baptism; but the baptized with respect to the remaining sacraments, except that Extreme Unction also demands dangerous illness, and, like Penance, sins, and therefore use of reason; Order demands the male sex; Matrimony demands diversity of sex and freedom from another bond; and the perpetually impotent are excluded from matrimony;

2. in adults, a will at least not resisting the sacrament, or implicit habitual intention; indeed, because of the special essence of the sacrament or because of annexed burdens, habitual expressed intention for ordination, matrimony, and perhaps baptism. Matrimony contracted personally and between parties present demands consent at least virtual, which is also demanded in the acts of the penitent, while for receiving absolution habitual intention is required and, if expressed intention has preceded, certainly suffices. In children and the perpetually insane, who are saved and sanctified without their own consent, defect of consent stands in the way only of matrimony; but defect of personal sin stands in the way of penance and Extreme Unction. The insane after use of reason are to be estimated from the will which they previously had, with matrimony excepted; the half-witted or doubtfully insane, to whom uninstructed deaf-mutes are to be equated, are to be treated according to probable utilities and reverence for the sacrament. Those not perpetually insane are capable in lucid intervals; outside these, they are to be judged from the will which they had in lucid intervals;

3. the intention of the minister sufficiently determined, so that it definitely affects the person of the recipient: in matrimony alone error concerning the very person, who is thought to be Titius while he is Caius, is regarded as substantial.

II. For licit and fruitful reception: 1. in baptism and penance, sacraments of the dead, faith, hope, and attrition, in which faith and hope are already sufficiently contained, are required and of themselves suffice; in the remaining sacraments, the state of grace is required, which, for the eucharist alone, must be procured by confession, from a special precept, at least ecclesiastical.

The required disposition must be morally certain to the recipient himself; but it is judged to be had when a solid reason for affirming is attacked by no positive contrary reason.

Where there is danger in delay, let the minister bestow the sacraments by which provision may be made for the necessity of the dying person, while at the same time guarding against scandal and offense of the faithful.

2. It is also required that the sacraments be sought from a fitting minister, that is, a legitimate and worthy one. And a priest of one's own rite is to be approached for baptism, confirmation, order, and matrimony.

But any cause of necessity or utility of itself suffices that they be sought from a tolerated excommunicated person or from a sinner. If he is one's own priest, the inconvenience of going to another church or changing confessor suffices. In danger of death alone can both sacramental absolution and also, if other ministers are lacking, the other sacraments and sacramentals be sought from an excommunicated person to be avoided or judicially declared or condemned. To these non-Catholics and publicly intruded persons are to be equated.

86. Notion. The subject of the sacraments is said to be the one who receives a sacrament and its effects.

General principle. The subject of the sacraments is man alone in the wayfaring state; nevertheless, not every man can receive all the sacraments.

Thus it is from the will of Christ. The reason for the first part is that man alone in the wayfaring state is capable of receiving sanctifying grace or its increase. For the angels and the souls of the departed are already at their terminus, and have immutably either acquired or lost eternal salvation. When the Eucharist is called the "bread of angels," it is by no means indicated that the angels receive the Eucharist as men do, but that the same Christ who is our food through the sacrament is, as it were, the sweetest and most efficacious food of the angels through the beatific vision.³²⁰ St. Paul³²¹ speaks of those who are baptized for the dead. These words are somewhat obscure, but no interpreter has judged that, according to St. Paul, those who died without baptism can receive the effect of baptism if someone living on earth were baptized in their place. St. Paul perhaps speaks of some superstitious and false rite then in use, or the sense is that those faithful are baptized so that they may rise with the dead unto eternal beatitude.

The reason for the other part of the principle is that not every man has the qualities required for all the sacraments. Thus a woman cannot validly receive the sacrament of order, nor can a healthy man receive the sacrament of extreme unction.

With these things premised, we treat first the valid and then the licit reception of the sacraments.

³²⁰ Cf. S. theol. 3, q. 80, a. 2 ad 1.

³²¹ 1 Cor. 15:29.

91. The subject of a sacrament is its true cause, but a material cause. - The one receiving is not, as the minister is, the efficient cause which gives power to the sacraments, but the material cause, insofar as, if the one receiving or some disposition in him is lacking, there is not a subject capable of receiving the immediate effect of the sacrament, and consequently the sacrament does not have its signification and is invalid.

The subject is man as wayfarer, who alone is capable of receiving grace through a sensible sign; for Baptism it is every such man; for Confirmation and the Eucharist, one baptized; for Order, a baptized male; for Matrimony, one baptized who has the use of reason; for Penance, one baptized who has sinned; for Extreme Unction, one baptized who has sinned and is sick.

92. Principle I. For the validity of a sacrament there is required in an adult, besides capacity, the intention of receiving the sacrament, or what Christ instituted and the Church does, or what Christians receive. - The reason is that, just as no adult is justified and saved without his own consent, as the Council of Trent says, sess. 6, c. 7, so neither does he receive the means of salvation, nor is he initiated into newness of life or consecrated to God: for these things must be received by an adult in a human manner.

So the Third Council of Carthage (a. 397) and the First of Orange, can. 12 (a. 441); Innocent III, l. 3, t. 42, cap. Mai. de Bapt.; and then all theologians; the Roman Ritual; Instruction of the S.C.P.F., June 23, 1830; and decree of the Holy Office, November 28, 1900. In children this intention is supplied by the intention of Christ and of the Church.

Nor does the Council of Florence stand in the way, urging only three things: matter, form, and the intention of the minister; for the Council 1. wished only to express those things which have themselves actively toward perfecting the sacraments; - 2. it treats of those things which are necessary for all sacraments; but now the one receiving is not required for perfecting the Eucharist; likewise intention is not required in little children.

93. Principle II. The required intention is habitual, i.e., actual and not retracted; and indeed, of itself a habitual implicit intention of receiving the sacrament suffices, or of receiving what Christ instituted and the Church does, or what Christians receive. - In the subject, the intention of receiving the sacrament, or the positive consent of the will, is a condition, required for its validity, that the reception of the sacrament may be voluntary; whence:

A. On the part of the act or of the subject, a lesser intention suffices than in the minister:

1. An actual or virtual intention is not required, which has influence as a cause or active principle, and not as a mere condition: for the one receiving is not the active principle of the sacrament, but only its passive subject; whence in him there is not required an intention which would be the principle of a human action.

2. But there is required, and there suffices, an implicit habitual intention, once had and persisting in the present, as not having been retracted.

3. But a merely interpretative intention does not suffice, which is in no way had, but which would only be had if the thought occurred: namely, by which someone would will, but does not yet will.

But if at times they say that an interpretative intention in some way suffices, there is a dispute about words: they speak thus improperly, and they do not understand a merely interpretative intention concerning the future, but one presumed concerning the present, by which someone, according to his habitual knowledge and present disposition of living in a Christian manner, would explicitly ask for the sacrament if it were asked of him; - but that is an implicit habitual intention, which, on account of present conjectural signs, is presumed to be present.

They say, however, that for Penance and Matrimony a virtual intention is required, because the subject must place human acts; - but that is not required precisely in the subject, for receiving those sacraments, but for placing part of the sacramental sign, namely, the matter which the one receiving must supply, and indeed at the moment at which he supplies it: for the matter consists in human acts, for which at least a virtual intention is required.

The Eucharist, since it is permanent, is valid without the intention of the one receiving: nevertheless this is required for valid sacramental reception.

B. On the part of the object, the same intention is required as in the minister: for the subject must voluntarily receive the same thing which he ministers. It is, namely, the will of receiving the sacrament or rite as sacred, at least implicitly, for example, of receiving what Christ instituted, or what the Church does, or as Christians or Catholics receive, or of living or dying according to Christian custom; - but the sole intention of saving oneself contained in contrition does not suffice, whatever some have said.

1. For this intention is not sufficiently determined; for it is not more determined to one means of salvation, for example, Baptism or Penance, than to others, for example, ex opere operantis; indeed, if it sufficed, almost every man would have the intention of receiving Baptism: for everyone, even a Mohammedan or a Jew, even one who has never heard of Baptism, can have such an intention, and yet who can say that he has the will of embracing the Christian religion? Namely, that one has the will of saving himself, but through the Jewish or Mohammedan religion, not through the Church and the sacraments of Christ. For one who adheres to another opposed religion cannot be judged to have the implicit will of embracing the religion of Christ through Baptism. Whence through the centuries there was no custom of baptizing such persons in their last moments, as now some attempt to introduce.

Similarly, a heretic who does not admit the sacrament of Penance, indeed positively refuses to receive it, has the will of saving himself; how could it be said with any probability that by this very fact he wills to receive Penance?

2. Such an intention is not absolute, but merely conditioned concerning the future: for the will of receiving a sacrament, say Baptism, is contained in contrition only conditionally. This is only the will of observing the precepts, but is not immediately the will of Baptism; immediately it is the will of examining the religion of Christ if it is proposed, and, if it is known to be true, of receiving Baptism; whence one who has this will immediately intends to fulfill the known precepts, and would will Baptism if its obligation were known, but he does not know this and does not will it. Therefore one who has only the will of salvation cannot validly receive the sacraments.¹ With this will, indeed, one can belong to the soul of the Church through grace and charity, but not to the social body of the Church, and consequently cannot receive Baptism and, a fortiori, the other sacraments: for these are social bonds by which we are joined to the body.

¹ Hence it cannot be said with Génicot that by the Holy Office only a certain mode of acting is recommended.

Therefore, just as for conferring a sacrament a certain general intention of saving or sanctifying does not suffice, but a determined intention of sanctifying through such a determined means or sacrament is required, so for receiving a sacrament the general will of salvation does not suffice, but a determined intention of saving oneself through a determined sacrament is demanded.

3. Hence in all ecclesiastical documents there is constantly presupposed in the one receiving not only the will of salvation, but the intention of receiving the sacrament. Thus the Ritual, t. 2, c. 3, n. 1: "let him be baptized only knowingly and willingly; and in danger of death, if he is unable to ask for Baptism, it is required that he have manifested in some probable way the intention of receiving Baptism"; which words the Code repeats, can. 752, and it also requires that an adult "ask for Baptism, each one by his own movement of soul" (can. 745). In the same way the Ritual prescribes, t. 5, c. 1, n. 8: "Extreme Unction cannot be given except to a faithful person" (can. 940), and n. 11: "to the sick who, when they were in possession of their mind, asked for it at least implicitly or would probably have asked for it" (can. 943). And the Holy Office, to the question "whether a missionary can confer Baptism in the article of death upon a Mohammedan adult who in his errors is supposed to be in good faith (and therefore has the will of saving himself), if he has already lost advertence...," answered, March 30, 1898: "Concerning Mohammedans dying and already deprived of their senses, one must answer as in the decree of the Holy Office, September 18, 1850: If previously they have given signs of willing to be baptized, or in the present state by a nod or in another way have shown the same disposition, they can be baptized under condition, insofar, however, as the missionary, after considering all the circumstances of things, has thus prudently judged." From this response it is clear that the Holy Office does not esteem the contrary opinion as probable, since it is held as not to be attended to in practice.²

² So Suarez, Lugo, Noldin, Marc, Prümmer, Umberg.

94. Practical conclusions. - In practice, an implicit habitual will of receiving the sacrament is had:

1. for Baptism, in the will of receiving the Christian religion or of being a Christian and living as a Christian;

2. for Confirmation, in the will of being a perfect Christian or of living or acting as a good Christian;

3. for Viaticum and Extreme Unction, in the will of dying according to Christian custom or of not dying without the sacraments; and this also suffices for Penance, in the article of death, provided some confession of sins or manifestation of contrition has preceded.

But such a will does not suffice, and an explicit one is required:

a) for receiving Holy Communion in other circumstances, because the will of living as a Christian does not contain the will of receiving the sacrament of the Eucharist so often and at such a time;

b) for Order and Matrimony, in which a new state with new offices must be undertaken.

95. Corollaries. - From what has been said it follows that the sacrament is invalid:

1. which someone receives with a neutral intention, neither consenting nor dissenting but conducting himself negatively;

2. which someone receives in simulation, with essential fiction, for example, playfully and mockingly;

3. which is received through mere force, with the soul resisting.

On the contrary, it is validly conferred upon those sleeping, drunk, fallen into madness, deprived of the senses, who previously had the intention of receiving those things; but it is illicit unless in probable danger of death, or unless the impediment of the use of reason is perpetual.

I say. Besides the Sacrament of Baptism, which, since it is the gate of the Church, is prerequired essentially and in all things for the validity of the other sacraments, it must be held that for receiving the sacraments validly some intention is certainly necessary in adults, but that no probity or faith properly so called is required, excepting the Sacrament of Penance. The reason for the first is that it is repugnant for some adult to be sanctified unless in some way he wills it; but whoever validly receives a sacrament is sanctified, at least by right. But the reason for the second is taken from the practice of the Church, which never permitted heretics or wicked men duly baptized and ordained to be baptized or ordained again. Yet I said 1st. in adults, because in infants or those perpetually without the use of reason no intention is required, so that they may validly receive the sacraments of which they are capable, namely Baptism, Confirmation, Order, and the Eucharist, which was formerly ministered to them. The reason is that, on the one hand, they cannot have any intention, and, on the other, it would be unlawful to assert that the Church permits or has permitted an invalid reception of a sacrament. - I said 2nd. some intention, because for most sacraments habitual intention suffices, even sometimes only confused or implicit, considering the nature of each sacrament; for the conferral of the sacraments is a certain donation and benefit, for accepting which habitual intention suffices. - I said 3rd. excepting the Sacrament of Penance, because the matter of this sacrament is the acts themselves of the penitent. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 80 and seq.

Question 1. What intention is required in adults for receiving each of the sacraments?

Resp. For validly receiving Baptism in adults, an intention at least habitual is required, which was previously expressed and never retracted. Some, however, say that an implicit will of Baptism suffices, such as would be in him who had the will of doing all things necessary for salvation and nevertheless expressly refused Baptism because through error he thought it not necessary. - For Confirmation, a habitual will suffices, even implicit, or, as St. Alphonsus says, interpretative; wherefore it can be conferred on a dying person deprived of his senses. - For Penance, intention either actual or at least virtual is required; and therefore habitual intention does not suffice. - For Extreme Unction, habitual or implicit, or interpretative, intention suffices, as theologians commonly say, and as is clear from the Roman Ritual, where it is said concerning it: "This sacrament is to be furnished to those deprived of their senses, who previously asked for it or likely would have asked for it." - For Order, certainly in an adult interpretative intention does not suffice, because without explicit will no adult can undertake the most grave obligation of the clerical state. Yet habitual intention seems to suffice. In practice, however, actual or at least virtual intention must be required. - For Matrimony, intention at least virtual is required, because Matrimony is perfected by a contract, for which deliberation and full will are necessary. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 82. - Ballerini, note (a) p. 148.

But no intention is required for the Eucharist, which, since it is a permanent sacrament, is always validly received.

Question 2. Is internal attention required in an adult subject, so that the sacrament may be validly received?

Resp. Negatively, for if attention is not required in the Minister for confecting a sacrament, as is clear from what has been said, a fortiori it is not required in the subject, for less is always required for receiving than for making something. - Hence penitents are sometimes troubled in vain by scruples from the fact that they have suffered distractions while they were being absolved, or that they have been absolved without noticing it. - Cf. Sporer, n. 157.

For the licit and fruitful reception of the sacraments, besides the intention of receiving them, the state of grace is prerequired if there is question of sacraments of the living; and if there is question of sacraments of the dead, acts of faith, hope, and sorrow concerning sins are required. - The reason for the first is that the sacraments of the living, from their primary institution by Christ, are ordered not to conferring first grace but second grace, and therefore those who knowingly receive the aforesaid sacraments in the state of mortal sin sin gravely, and indeed more gravely than those who unworthily minister and confect them. But the reason for the second is taken both from the Apostle saying, Hebr. xi, 6: "It is necessary that one approaching God believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder to those seeking Him"; and from the fact that it is repugnant for remission of sins to be given without retraction of them and sorrow. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 86.

Question 1. Do sacraments received validly but with an obstacle, when this has been removed, revive or produce the graces proper to themselves?

Resp. Affirmatively, although not with the same certainty for all the sacraments. The reason is that it happens only accidentally that they do not produce their proper effects, namely because of the obstacle, and therefore those effects remain as though suspended while the obstacle remains; yet when this has been removed, they must be applied to the soul. This is admitted as certain for the sacraments imprinting a character. According to some, the same probably seems to have to be said of the Sacrament of Penance, and by a stronger reason of the sacraments of Extreme Unction and Matrimony, which cannot be repeated during the same illness or the same marriage. But concerning the Eucharist, this is more probably to be denied. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 6 and 87.

Question 2. What disposition is required in the subject, so that an unformed sacrament may revive?

Resp. This general rule is commonly established: that disposition is required which was lacking and whose absence caused the obstacle to the effect of the sacrament, or precisely that must be placed which was necessarily required in the reception of the sacrament. Hence, in itself, attrition suffices for the reviviscence of Baptism, and likewise it must be said for Penance, according to those who hold that this sacrament can be given validly but unformed. But perfect contrition is required, or attrition with confession, for the other sacraments, namely for Confirmation, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony. - Cf. Lugo, disp. 9, nn. 50 and seq. - Lacroix, n. 207.

Question 3. Does attrition suffice for unformed Baptism to revive, if the one receiving has afterward committed other grave sins?

Resp. Negatively, because sins committed after Baptism are the necessary matter of the Sacrament of Penance, and therefore they cannot be remitted except through that sacrament, or through perfect contrition with the vow of the Sacrament of Penance included in it. - Cf. Lugo, disp. cit. n. 55. - Lacroix, loc. cit.

Question 4. Is it licit to ask a sacrament from an unworthy Minister?

Resp. It is not licit without cause, because thus without reason an unworthy Minister would be induced to sin gravely. But this is illicit in itself, because charity requires that we impede the sin of a neighbor which we can easily impede. But it is licit if the sacrament cannot easily be asked from another priest, nor can its reception easily be deferred; for no one is bound with great inconvenience to yield from his own right for impeding the free sin of another. Then the one asking the sacrament simply permits the sin, but is not the cause of the sin. But a sufficient cause would be, for example, the Paschal precept to be fulfilled, or if someone otherwise would have to remain long in the state of mortal sin or be deprived of Communion, etc. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 89.

Question 5. Is it licit to ask a sacrament from an excommunicated Minister?

Resp. If the Minister is excommunicated as one to be avoided, it is not licit except in extreme necessity; but if he is tolerated, it will be licit even without grave cause, because the Council of Constance granted absolutely to the faithful that they can communicate with tolerated persons. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 88.

The administration of the sacraments could not be committed to the judgment or devotion of each individual priest; for otherwise both uniformity would be lacking and the very validity of the sacramental action would be exposed to great danger. Wherefore from the time of the Apostles the Church established laws and always willed them to be observed. Paul V willed that these laws, rites, and ceremonies, called customary, be collected in one volume, and he again sanctioned and promulgated them by the Constitution Apostolicae Sedi, where he speaks thus: "In which (volume), since we have beheld the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church arranged in their order, we have judged that it should deservedly be published under the name of the Roman Ritual for the public good of the Church of God."

§ 1. 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.

§ 2. But each one is to follow his own rite, with the prescription of can. 851, § 2, 866, being saved (Can. 733).

Question 1. Whether in administering the sacraments there is given a true obligation, especially for this region, of observing the ceremonies prescribed in the Roman Ritual?

Resp. Affirmatively, and the reason is that, on the one hand, the laws of the Roman Ritual oblige in conscience, and, on the other, no custom to the contrary can be invoked among us.

The first, namely that the laws of the Roman Ritual oblige in conscience and are not only certain norms usefully to be followed, is proved from the fact that according to the Council of Trent, sess. 7, can. 13, the approved and received rites of the Church, customarily employed in the solemn administration of the sacraments, cannot be omitted without sin. But the Roman Ritual, as Paul V himself bears witness, is nothing other than the collection of the approved and received rites of the Church. Therefore . . . - This argument is set forth at the front of the Roman Ritual as a preface in this way: "That those things which in this book are prescribed from the ancient institutes of the Catholic Church and from the sacred Canons and Decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs, concerning the rites and ceremonies of the sacraments, may be kept with fitting diligence and religion, and faithfully observed everywhere; it is fitting before all things to know and observe that which the Most Holy Tridentine Synod, sess. 7, can. 13, decreed concerning these rites in these words: 'If anyone shall have said that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church customarily employed in the solemn administration of the sacraments can either be contemned, or be omitted without sin by the Ministers at pleasure, or be changed into other new rites by any Pastor whatsoever of the Churches: let him be anathema.'"

But the other, namely that no custom can be invoked among us against the laws of the Roman Ritual, is clear from the Fathers of Baltimore, Second Plenary Council, who at n. 209 speak thus: "With how great diligence our predecessors labored that the Roman Ritual would be accurately observed everywhere among us, and with how great zeal they took care lest new rites, or rites foreign to the custom of the Holy Roman Church, be introduced, is plain from their several decrees, which we add here and, insofar as there is need, confirm again." - Consult by all means the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, nn. 209 and seq.

Question 2. What kind of sin is it to omit the ceremonies prescribed in the Roman Ritual for the administration of the sacraments?

Resp. A distinction must be made, for if grave scandal arises and great contempt of religion, the omission will certainly be grave sin. But setting aside this hypothesis, again a distinction must be made: omission in grave matter will be grave, and light in light matter. But what must be judged grave matter and what light should be left rather to the judgment of prudent persons than defined by a certain rule. Nevertheless, it can be said generally that ceremonies instituted on account of sacred signification are graver and are omitted more culpably than those which are for ornament and decorum alone; and in the same proportion, those whose signification is higher are judged graver, especially if with the signification they have some spiritual effect. But from those things which pertain to decorum, the circumstances of prescribed place and time, speaking in itself, are customarily considered grave, because these circumstances greatly regard external ornament and public solemnity and esteem.

Question 3. Who must bless the sacred oils? Can old ones be used? From whom must the parish priest ask for them?

Resp. § 1. The sacred oils which serve for administering certain Sacraments must have been blessed by the Bishop on Thursday in the Lord's Supper next preceding; nor are old ones to be used unless necessity urges.

§ 2. To blessed oil soon to be deficient let other non-blessed oil of olives be added, even repeatedly, yet in lesser quantity (Can. 734).

The Parish Priest must ask for the sacred oils from his Ordinary and in the church must diligently preserve them under key in safe and decent custody; nor may he keep them at home, unless because of necessity or another reasonable cause, with the permission of the Ordinary being added (Can. 735).

Julius, recently appointed a missionary in a certain district in England, was visiting Catherine, a widow of rather advanced age. When Julius asked whether she was a Catholic, she affirmed that she was, but at the same time said that she had once been an Anglican. “By whom were you received into the Church?” Julius asks. “By no one, but I came,” the other replied, “for while an Anglican I always heard that each was essentially the same Church of Christ; hence I began to go to your church, where I receive the sacraments every month. For now I am a true Catholic, and I know that Anglicanism is infected with heresy and schism.” Asked further whether she had been baptized, she said that she supposed this had been done to her as an infant in the neighboring Protestant church to which she would have belonged, but that her parents had almost entirely neglected religion. Julius said nothing else to Catherine, but inquired of the minister whether her name was in the register of those baptized in that Protestant church. When no indication of it was found, he proceeded to Catherine’s house, where he found her stricken by a sudden illness and deprived of her senses. He wished to know what he should do in the case, and what he should do if Catherine recovered. Hence it is asked:

1. Who can validly and lawfully receive the sacraments?

2. What is the relation of

Baptism to the other sacraments?

3. What must be done when someone is received into the Church?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. Who can receive the sacraments validly and lawfully?

In adults the intention to receive the sacraments is necessary for their validity. For the lawful reception of the sacraments of the living the state of grace is necessary, and for the lawful reception of the sacraments of the dead faith, hope, and attrition. No intention or disposition is necessary in those who have not the use of reason for the reception of the sacraments of which they are capable.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, p. 41 ff.

2. What is the relation of Baptism to the other sacraments?

The valid reception of Baptism is necessary for the valid reception of the other sacraments.²

3. What is to be done when a convert is received into the Church?

Inquiry must first be made about the baptism of the new convert. If it is certain that he has never been baptized, after a profession of faith he should be baptized absolutely. If it be doubtful whether he was ever baptized he must make a profession of faith, be baptized conditionally in private with holy water without the ceremonies in England, be conditionally absolved from censures, and then from sin after a full confession of his whole life. If he has been validly baptized already, he should make a profession of faith and be absolved from censures.³

4. The case. One may seriously doubt whether

‘Ibid., p. 41.

' Form for the Reception of a Convert, edited by the Bishop of Newport.

Catherine had ever been baptized. She herself supposed that she had been, but she had no positive information on the point; her parents were careless about religion, and her name was not to be found in the parish register. She should therefore be baptized conditionally again. If she is in danger of death, this should be done at once, though she is not conscious, and then she should be absolved conditionally and anointed. If she is not in danger of death, the priest should do nothing till she recovers. After recovery in any case she should be formally received into the Church according to the method described above, for as she had not formed an express intention of receiving Baptism, the validity of the Baptism administered while she was unconscious would be doubtful, even if she had not been baptized in infancy. Whether the sacraments which she had been in the habit of receiving every month were valid or not would depend on whether she had been validly baptized. Her reception of them was not lawful, but her good faith excused her.

Especially in parts of the country where Catholics are as yet sparsely settled, it often happens that by contact with irreligious people Catholics grow cold in their faith and neglect its practices. If they fall into sickness, such people are not likely to care much for the consolations of the church, and the priest usually meets with a cold reception, if he is called in at all. But even if received in a friendly way, he is likely to meet with a polite refusal as soon as he mentions Confession, etc. What can be done under such conditions to induce Catholics, weak and indifferent in faith, to the reception of the sacraments?

Above all, the worthy, virtuous priest will seek assistance from heaven, and will offer up his pious prayers for divine guidance and help for a task that seems beyond human power. Then he will proceed in confidence, straining at the same time all his faculties of mind to discover the means best suited to the needs of each particular instance. A safe key to the human heart is the genuine priestly love. Diplomacy may often be resorted to with good result. The former general of the Society of Jesus, P. Beckx, accomplished the conversion of an obstinate murderer, condemned to death, by first playing chess with the man and thus gradually gaining his friendship and confidence. Sick people in general greatly appreciate expressions of courtesy and sympathy; the priest may with advantage facilitate his task by inquiring of children about their sick father and sending him sympathy and good wishes, also paying a preliminary friendly call without mentioning anything about religion, thus gradually getting the patient at ease with the thought of receiving the sacraments. The priest who goes about his task in this manner will have the gratification of greatly lessening in his parish the number of those who die without making their peace with God. A thing of the greatest importance in this connection is that frequent exhortations be made from the pulpit to the people to look out not only for the body, but also for the soul of their sick at home, to send for the priest before the sickness gains too much headway, reminding them of the difference it will make for the peace of those left behind, if they can think of their deceased relatives as having died consoled and fortified by the reception of the sacraments.

Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God (Mark x, 14).

There can be no doubt that the parish priest, after the example of his Lord and Master, must in a special manner concern himself about children. Of an especial truth are the words: He who has a hold on youth, to him belongs the future. We may go farther and say: To him belongs also the present. For he who wins the children over to his sacred cause and arouses them for it, has in many cases also the parents; with and through the children he gains influence upon the family. A chief part of the priest’s effort must, therefore, be directed to the care of the children. But if the priest has to bestow special attention upon children in the normal state, it is befitting and right that he should do the same for those in sickness. How could he refuse his assistance to a child at the very moment when it needs him most? Why should he not make it his special concern to clear the way to heaven for a child? Let us inquire then what form this spiritual care should take in the case of dangerously sick children over the age of six years; what is to be said of the administration of the last Sacraments in such cases?

The Rit. Rom. (tit. V, ep. 4, n. 1) prescribes: The parish priest should exhort his parishioners to notify him whenever anyone in his parish happens to fall sick, especially if the illness should be more serious. This precept is quite general (aliquem). It has reference not only to those who have already been admitted to Confession and Holy Communion, but to all the faithful who have attained the use of reason, all those, therefore, capable of an actual sin, whether of modo perfecto or imperfecto, whether mortal or venial. This, however, can, according to the sententia communissima of theologians, not be doubted of children who have passed their sixth, or at most their seventh year, under generally normal conditions.

Such child may, therefore, receive Extreme Unction, and the priest is bound to administer it to him. Hence the Provincial Synod of Prague in 1860 proclaimed: The sacrament of extreme unction is to be administered to sick children when they have reached that age at which they could have sinned, although they have not yet received Communion. Since, however, this Sacrament is a Sacrament of the living, it must, as the rule, be preceded by the Sacrament of Penance, or at least by sacramental absolution.

In this sense the Provincial Synod of Cologne of the same year expresses itself: Since extreme unction is a sacrament of the living, sanctifying grace is ordinarily required in the recipient; hence, if it can be done, confession of sins should precede; if this can no longer be made in the proper manner, at least absolution. All the faithful who lie seriously ill, provided they were once possessed of reason so that they could have committed sins, are capable of this sacrament; hence even those younger in age, although they have not yet received their first Communion. The decrees of both these Provincial Synods have been approved by the Holy See; therefore they are not merely diocesan precepts but rather moral dogmatic decisions in concerning what should take place in the case of dangerously sick children capable of actual sin (children, therefore, above their sixth year). Attention should here be given also to the ecclesiastical regulations anent the reception of the Sacrament of Penance when in good health. The Conc. Later. IV says: Every faithful person of either sex, after reaching the years of discretion, shall faithfully confess all his sins at least once a year. Moreover the Catech. Rom. (De Poenit. 48) directs: Confession is enjoined upon a child at that time when he has the power to distinguish between good and evil and deceit can enter his mind. Though this is not to be applied to well children above their seventh year, it must be held that to children, in danger of death, it is certainly a priest’s sacred duty to administer this Sacrament. Children above their sixth, at any rate above their seventh, year may, therefore, receive both these Sacraments, if they are in danger of death, and the priest is obliged to administer them. As a matter of course general absolution can be given to them.

Objection should not be made here that these Sacraments when administered to such young children might be exposed to irreverence. It should rather be remembered that the Sacraments were instituted by Christ for us men and for our salvation. No doubt, with the duty of administering these Sacraments is joined the other of preparing young children as well as possible.

Even less valid is the objection that children at this age have, at most, venial sins upon their conscience, and that even these on account of imperfect knowledge are only to be viewed as incomplete. Even admitting this to be a fact, which it is probably not in all cases, in God’s sight even the least venial sin is by no means a trifling matter and it must be wiped out. Why then should not a priest come to the sick child’s assistance? Why should he not help to free the child from his small faults and open to him the door of heaven? And, in conclusion, can we not be mistaken in a child’s mental capacity? Even of young children it is often true: Malitia supplet aetatem. The case may even occur that such a child may have committed a mortal sin, or at least is capable of committing one. Therefore it would be inexcusable to refuse to a child these Sacraments. At all events a zealous priest ought, and should, even with not very bright children, choose the safer way and in danger of death administer these two Sacraments (conditionally if necessary). St. Alphonsus also holds so. To the question: Can this sacrament be conferred upon children concerning whose use of reason there is doubt? he replies:

The more probable opinion says that such children are to be anointed conditionally, because reverence for the sacrament is safeguarded by the condition, and, moreover, there is a just cause for administering it conditionally, lest the children be deprived of so salutary a fruit of this sacrament (S. ALPH., I. 6, n. 718).

Vicar Lebherz.

In the preceding paper there is discussed the question whether the last Sacraments may be administered to dangerously sick children over six years of age. Of course it was not intended to say that the Sacraments there mentioned may not even be administered to children of five (or four) years of age, at least conditionally.

Let us pass, therefore, to the question: May the Viaticum be given to such children? and, if so, is the priest obliged to do so?

We must here observe first of all, that for the reception of Holy Communion a greater maturity of mind is required than for the reception of Extreme Unction and the Sacrament of Penance. On the other hand it should not be forgotten that there is not requisite for the reception of the Holy Eucharist modo Viatice the same maturity of mind as for the Communion ex devotione. Suarez states—and in this opinion he is supported by other theologians: “The same principle does not apply to Communion to be made at the point of death.” At any rate it suffices here that the child is able to distinguish the Sacrament from ordinary food, to adore it and receive it reverently. In this sense BENEDICT XIV expresses himself:

“By a synodal constitution the bishop will be able to compel parish priests to administer the Most Holy Viaticum to children soon to die, if they find that the children have attained such maturity of judgment that they distinguish this heavenly and supernal food from common and material food; for we believe that those do not sin lightly who allow children even twelve years old and of keen intelligence to depart this life without Viaticum for this one reason, namely that through the negligence and indifference of parish priests they had never before tasted the Eucharistic bread.” (De Synod. dioec. 1. VII, c. 12, n. 1 et 3).

Under this supposition St. ALPHONSUS regards it a sententia communissima, that the Viaticum not merely may, but should be administered. “To children who are now possessed of reason, at the point of death Communion not only can be given, but even ought to be given” (S. ALPH. 6, n. 301). BENEDICT XIV denotes the contrary practise of parish priests as a gravem abusum radicitus extirpandum. According to BENEDICT XIV, and to St. Alphonsus, it is therefore a strict duty to administer the Viaticum pueris, qui rationis compotes sunt. GURY expresses himself still more positively. He replies to the question:

“Whether in danger of death Communion is to be given to children who have not yet been admitted to the sacred banquet? I answer affirmatively, as regards children who are possessed of reason. Indeed, it not only can be given to them, but even ought to be given. The reason is that, on the one hand, children placed in such danger are bound by divine precept to receive Communion; on the other hand, the usefulness of the Eucharist then does not demand a greater disposition. Therefore parish priests who refuse to administer Viaticum to children of this kind err gravely” (Gury II, n. 320).

These are probably the most important ecclesiastical precepts and utterances of theologians about the administration of the Viaticum to dangerously sick children. However, for our question whether to children before their sixth year the Viaticum may be administered,: there is nothing gained from these quotations, as none of the passages quoted speak of children of six years of age. Indeed the above words of BENEDICT XIV appear to me as denying our question. He censures only parish priests who refused the Viaticum to children of twelve years on the ground that they had not before received Holy Communion, He would without doubt have censured also those who refused the Viaticum to six-year-old children were they to be censured. These children have not only never received Holy Communion, but have not even received the Sacrament of Penance. It appears to me also that the passages, given before, in proof that Extreme Unction and the Sacrament of Penance are to be given to six-year-old children, speak against the administration of Viaticum. It is said there repeatedly: although they have not yet received Communion, or although they have not yet received their first Communion. There is, therefore, a distinction made here between the capability to receive the two first Sacraments, and the capability to receive the Viaticum. In Suarez there is, however, a passage which does not make this distinction. He says: “I judge that at the point of death Communion is to be given to every person who has the use of reason sufficient for sinning and is capable of confession and extreme unction.” He also adds that the child is obliged to receive, and the priest obliged to administer. Suarez, however, stands alone in this opinion. All others make use of the universal expression: Those who are possessed of reason. To these belong under normal conditions six-year-old children. But as I have already pointed out there is a distinction to be made between children who have sufficiently attained the use of reason to be capable of actual sin, and those who are so advanced even that they can reverently adore the Eucharist, and who are aware of what they are partaking. This is rarely the case with six-year-old children, and yet we must require this at least. It must be admitted that there may be six-year-old children who, after previous instruction, are capable of receiving the Viaticum. But even in such cases I believe the administering of the Viaticum should be omitted for reasons of prudence. In some cases of grave illness it will be impossible to prepare children sufficiently. If the priest administers Holy Communion to a certain capable and sufficiently instructed child, and not to others, it is easy to see that unpleasantness will arise, on part of parents, etc. That such cases where the Sacrament can properly be administered will be rare, experience teaches. Experienced and zealous priests therefore observe this practise.

My opinion is that children before their sixth year may receive Extreme Unction and the Sacrament of Penance, and that the priest is obliged to administer them (sometimes conditionally). The Viaticum, however, can only be given in rare cases, and even then there is no obligation to administer it.

N. B.—It is evident that such children must be interred according to the ordo sepeliendi adultos. The ordo sepeliendi parvulos applies, as its wording demonstrates and as also the Rit. Rom. expressly declares, only to children who are taken away before the use of reason and do not need the prayer of the Church. This is not the case of six-year-old children,

Vicar LEBHERZ.

In the parish of N. one Remigius, an aged man, lies at the point of death. He has been a hopeless imbecile since his twentieth year, in consequence of a fall from a tree. One of the two priests stationed in this parish remarks: “To such persons in their last moments Extreme Unction is given, but nothing more.” But the other does not share this view, and administers to this sick man conditional absolution, also Viaticum and Extreme Unction.

Question: Which of these two priests is right?

If we examine the view of the latter, we shall at the same time arrive at a correct opinion of the other priest’s reasoning. We ask: I. Can and may this Remigius be absolved?

We preface our answer by stating a general rule, according to Lehmkuhl: For when it is certain that something essential is lacking, it is not lawful to give absolution, since it would be given wholly in vain and therefore sacrilegiously; but when it is in some way, even slightly, probable^* that all the essentials are present, absolution not only may but must be given. Yet understand this in such a way that cases can exist in which absolution may be given, but need not be given under pain of sin, namely when most theologians deny that absolution may lawfully be given and only some teach that it may be given. P. II. n. 510. From this general rule there follows for our case:

^* Marc. Inst. Mor. n. 1855 (3) remarks, supported by the teaching of St. Alphonsus: “In a case of extreme necessity, in the administration of the Sacraments it is lawful to use a probability that is slight and weakly founded.”

1. Has Remigius been a total imbecile since infancy, not having had a single lucid moment, then under no circumstances could he nor might he be absolved, propter defectum materiae Sacramenti, tum remotae (i. e. peccatorum), tum proximae (actuum poenitentis). 2. If, on the contrary, Remigius is only partly imbecile, if there be even only slight reason to suppose that he at the present time has lucid moments and, even though unnoticed, manifests the desire to confess, then, after proper effort to dispose him if necessary, at least conditional absolution must be given him in danger of death. 3. If it is morally certain that the sick man, a total imbecile for years, has no lucid moments even now, no more than ever before during his affliction, absolution cannot be given him even in danger of death, not even conditionally, because in the case of a person who for so many years has been incapable of any intelligent act, it is impossible to presume the actus poenitentis (contrition, confession and satisfaction) or in case of necessity, at least perceptible expression of the inward disposition, which, according to the doctrine of the Council of Trent (sess. 14. cap. 3), and according to the Rituale Rom., constitutes the proximate matter (materia proxima) of the Sacrament of Penance, and as such belongs to the essence of the Sacrament, also because such a person can have no actual or virtual intention of receiving the Sacrament, such as is necessary, according to the universal teaching of theologians, for the validity of the Sacrament of Penance. (St. Alph. Theolog. mor. I, VI. n. 82.) 4. As opposed to these reasons, the following rule of theologians seems to supply that probability which is necessary in order to make possible the absolution of Remigius, conditionally, upon his deathbed, in the state just described of many years of total loss of reason. This rule states: All dying persons deprived of their senses who, before losing their senses, expressly manifested a desire for confession—for example, by ordering a priest to be summoned—should be absolved. The reason is that the confession becomes sufficiently perceptible to the confessor in this case through the testimony of another and is, as it were, a confession through an interpreter. This is established from the Roman Ritual, On the Sacrament of Penance. Compare Father Marc, Moral Institutions, number 1855.

If we consider this rule in the light of the various explanations by authorities, we see that they in principle permit even the absolute granting of absolution (sine conditione: si capax es), even though some, for greater security, advise conditional absolution. (S. Alph. Theol. Moral. 1. VI. n. 481: Utrum vero, etc.), and that they allow unconditional absolution even if the patient not merely has exteriorly lost use of his senses, but also the interior use of reason. Lehmkuhl states: Hence it is clear that if a dying person has shown through witnesses a desire to confess and meanwhile has lost speech and the use of reason, there must be no doubt about giving absolution; indeed, no issue should be made of adding the condition, ‘if you are capable.’ P. II. n. 510 (2).

Furthermore, the authorities make no mention here of a requirement that between such personal expression of contrition of the penitent, and the absolution of the priest, at most only a period of an hour may elapse between Confession and Absolution, as under other circumstances (comp. S. Alph. Theol. Mor. 1. VI.n.9). The completion of the act of confession therefore must here be furnished in the deposition by witnesses, made in the presence of the priest, hence a longer or lesser interval of time between the penitent’s manifestation of contrition and the absolution of the priest does not come into consideration at all. It follows: The proximate matter (materia proxima) of the Sacrament is, in a confession through witnesses, found in former acts of the penitent, noticed by witnesses, which are now from their disposition accepted by the priest judicialiter et sacramentaliter, and which by means of this testimony and the sacramental verdict of the priest still continue to exist as materia, and which with the now supplied form of absolution join in constituting the Sacrament. In regard to the intention Lehmkuhl writes: P. II. n. 49: Pro poenitentia requiritur virtualis intentio, si actus poenitentis respicis; habitualis suffictt, si respicis solam absolutionem accipiendam.

In such confession through witnesses the proceedings are similar to those in a confession through an interpreter (Confessio per interpretem).

5. As regards the testimony and witnesses in favor of Remigius, we can at least say for him that which Pope Benedict XIV. in such a case values so highly, namely: If it is now received and settled that one who exhibits no sign of repentance before the priest is granted absolution whenever bystanders testify to the priest that he asked for confession, then with all the more reason can, or rather ought, one be absolved for whom, although no person bears testimony, there are nevertheless as many witnesses to his purpose of receiving the Sacraments in the final danger of life as there are acts of Christian virtues, sacramental confessions and Communions, and finally works of religion and piety by which throughout the whole course of his life he gave manifest proof of uprightness (De Syn. dioec. 1. VII. cap. XV. n. X).

Lehmkuhl adds to this: Nor is some manifestation of such a desire lacking in one who has lived in a scarcely Christian manner, for by the fact that he remained in the Church he shows that he hopes and desires to be reconciled with God through the Church at the final time of his life (P. II. n. 514).

Beyond all doubt the absolution in all such cases is, and remains, invalid and ineffectual if the penitent after committing his last mortal sin did not make an act of contrition (saltem atiritionis), because without this act of penitence he is incapable of justification.

With this disposition for attaining the state of grace presupposed, the reasons quoted for the presence of the necessary matter and intention in our case seem to prove the validity of the absolution at least with the requisite probabilitas in order to lawfully absolve Remigius in danger of death conditionate, and we would urge the absolution under such conditions so much more, as the dying man in this state can no longer receive any other Sacrament.

II. May in our case the Viaticum also be given to the dying man? The Rituale Rom. answers: 1. It ought not to be administered to those who, because of the weakness of age, do not yet possess knowledge and appreciation of this Sacrament. To children who have not attained the use of reason, and to those who since birth have been hopeless imbeciles, and have also at present no lucid moments, according to the present practise of the Church, the Viaticum cannot be given even in danger of death. 2. It is not lawful to give Communion to the insane or delirious; yet it will be lawful if at some time they have lucid intervals and show devotion while they remain in that state, provided no danger of indignity is present. From this it follows: (a) Except in danger of death, holy Communion cannot be administered to any one, who, when receiving it, is not conscious, or has not the use of reason. (b) To children of weak mind who are of the right age, to persons partly imbeciles, to the aged of weak mind, and persons of this kind holy Communion must be given, if they are capable to distinguish the same from ordinary food, at least at Eastertime, and in danger of death. If there is well-founded apprehension, or even danger, of desecration, the Most Blessed Sacrament must never be given, not even as Viaticum: provided no danger of indignity is present. As specially concerning our case, St. Alphonsus speaks of those insane persons ‘who did not always lack the use of reason, but now lack it’; here the teaching of St. Thomas in the place cited must be followed, where he says: ‘If previously, when they were in possession of their mind, devotion toward this Sacrament appeared in them, this Sacrament ought to be administered to them at the point of death, unless perhaps danger of vomiting or spitting it out is feared.’

St. Alphonsus states as reason that such a sick man desires the holy Viaticum interpretative, and that the reception of the same is necessary for his salvation if he fell into this state of total obscurity of mind while in a state of mortal sin, about which, however, he had yet made an act of imperfect contrition. That holy Communion in this case would effect justification the holy Teacher holds for morally certain in practise, as is evident from his solution of another question (1. VI. n. 619 in fine). Hence it is evident: The priest may and should give to Remigius the Viaticum, if this may be done without probable danger of irreverence to the sacred species, and if he cannot ascertain that the patient has lost consciousness in the state of complete impenitence. Excipiunt D.D. si certo prae-sumatur talis in amentiam incidisse penitus impoenitens (S. Alph. 1. c.). Hence Lehmkuhl states (P. II. n. 146, 6), that to those who in the commission of a mortal sin (i actu peccati) lost consciousness, the Viaticum can only be given when it is the sole means by which they can probably still be helped, or if they, by a positively probable sign, give evidence of their conversion and change of mind. When in doubt, finally, as to whether the patient in his unconscious state can take the holy Eucharist sine periculo vomitus vel exspuitionis, a trial should be made with an unconsecrated host, or with part of one.

III. Respecting Extreme Unction we remark briefly that the same is to be administered to our patient all the more than holy Viaticum, partly because in such cases, according to the teaching of theologians, it remits mortal sin per se etsi consequenter (S. Alph. 1. VI. n. 731) partly because of all the Sacraments which such a dying man may receive, Extreme Unction is the one most certain to help him, because it not merely effects justification, when the patient previously has made an act of imperfect contrition and after that has committed no mortal sin, but, according to the opinion of theologians, even then if he makes this act of contrition, if not made before, after the reception of this Sacrament, in a lucid moment. Marc (Jmst. moral. 1397) puts the question: Whether Sacraments received with an obstacle revive when it is removed? And he answers in the sense of St. Alphonsus: The Sacrament of Baptism revives when the obstacle is removed by a subsequent disposition. Thus authors commonly teach.—Many probably teach the same of Confirmation, etc., and of Extreme Unction. The reason is that Extreme Unction cannot be repeated in the same danger of death; yet it appears consonant with the divine goodness that such recipients should not remain deprived of the sacramental grace which they need.

He who administers this Sacrament should be very careful never to make the condition: Si dignus es, subintelligens: si es in statu gratiae—for by this condition he would himself prevent the effect of this Sacrament most necessary for salvation. Only in case the priest cannot learn for certain whether the patient had even in his life a sufficient use of reason, he ought to give Extreme Unction with the condition: si capax es; for he who from birth has been of insane mind is incapable of receiving this Sacrament validly.

From these remarks about administering the last Sacraments to imbeciles it is plain that the priest who gave Remigius the Sacraments under the conditions mentioned, acted correctly and dutifully, that on the contrary the principle of the other, if carried out without discrimination, is theoretically false, and in practise may do great injury to the spiritual welfare of such unfortunate people.

John Schwienbacher, C.SS.R.