Part I Chapter IV §2 and Chapter V: Worthy Administration and the Recipient

§2: Requisites of Worthy Administration

Chapter V: The Recipient of a Sacrament

SECTION 2 THE REQUISITES OF WORTHY ADMINISTRATION As this subject is fully dealt with in moral and pastoral theology, we shall confine ourselves to a few general remarks. i. The State of Grace. — The minister of a Sacrament represents Jesus Christ, who is allholy; he performs a sacred rite endowed with sanctifying power, and therefore should be a man of unblemished character. If he solemnly and officially confers a Sacrament in the state of mortal sin, he commits a sacrilege.1 Both the natural 2 and the positive divine law prescribe that the priest of God be holy. In the Old Testament Yahweh admonished the sons of Aaron : ” Be ye holy, because I the Lord your God am holy,” 8 and demanded of the Levites ” that they shall be holy to their God, and shall not profane his name : for they offer the burnt offering of the Lord, and the bread of their God, and therefore they shall be holy.” 4 With how much greater force does this apply to the Catholic priest, who offers up, not calves and oxen, but the flesh and blood 1 Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 5 : * Est de iure naturali, ut homo 3a, qu. 64, art. 6. soncta sancte pertractet,* 2 Cfr. St. Thomas, Comment, in 8 Lev. XIX, 2. Sent., IV, dist. 24, qu. 1, art. 3, sol. 4 Lev. XXI, 6. 188 of the God-man, and becomes a visible instrument of sanctification in the hands of His invisible Master. Justly does St. Gregory the Great declare : * It is necessary that the hand be pure which is engaged in cleaning away filth, lest it spread contamination by contact.* 5 A priest who habitually lives in the state of mortal sin not only provokes the divine vengeance, but, by his bad example and the scandal he gives, helps the devil to ruin those immortal souls which he has been commissioned to save. The great defection in the West probably would never have come about had the clergy of the sixteenth century lived up to their high calling. 2. The Duty of Administering the Sacraments.— He who possesses the power of validly conferring the Sacraments, is in duty bound to do so when he has charge of souls. This applies to bishops, pastors and their representatives, and religious superiors.6 Besides, m a priest may be bound by charity, under penalty of mortal sin, to administer certain Sacraments in case of urgent necessity. 3. The Duty of Refusing the Sacraments. — Under certain conditions, which it is the business of moral and pastoral theology to determine, a priest is bound to refuse the Sacraments to unworthy applicants.7 If there be danger of sacrilege, he must be ready to suffer martyrdom • Ep., I, 25 : * Necesse est ut esse munda studeat manus, quae diluere sordes curat, ne tacta quaeque deterius inquinet.* 6 Cfr. Concilium Trident., Sess. XXIII, De Reform., c. i. 7 Cfr. Matth. VII. 6; i Tim. V, 22. igo THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL rather than be unfaithful to his charge, for it is never permitted to do evil, not even to save one’s life, and the desecration of a Sacrament is always a great evil. Nor is it licit to escape danger of death by simulation, either by omitting an essential part of a Sacrament where such omission cannot be externally known and the people have a right to the Sacrament, or by secretly harboring the intention not to administer it; for Innocent XI (1679) has solemnly condemned the proposition that “urgent fear furnishes a just cause for simulating the administration of the Sacraments.” 8 To omit an essential part or all of the Sacrament, or substitute for it something else, is permissible for just cause, provided there be no contempt in so acting and no injury done to either Sacrament or recipient. 8 ” Urgens metus gravis est causa of this Section the student may fast a sacrament orum administra- profitably consult Pesch, Praelect. tionem simulandi.” (Dfenzinger- Dogmat,, Vol. VI, 3rd ed„ pp. 124 Bannwart, n. 11 79). On the subject sqq. CHAPTER V THE RECIPIENT OF A SACRAMENT SECTION I THE REQUISITES OF VALID RECEPTION i. The Person of the Recipient. — The only fit subject for the administration of the Sacraments is man in the wayfaring state. The angels cannot receive them because they are pure spirits ; the brutes, because they are irrational ; dead bodies, because they are no human persons ; departed souls, because they are incapable of receiving any rite, and because they have reached the status termini. However, not every living man is a fit subject for all the Sacraments. The only Sacrament which an unbaptized person is capable of receiving is Baptism. Women are excluded from Holy Orders, subdeacons and clerics in major orders cannot receive the Sacrament of Matrimony, persons in good health are debarred from Extreme Unction, infants from Penance, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction. All these points 191 will be more fully explained in connection with the several Sacraments. 2. Orthodoxy Not a Requisite for the Valid Reception of the Sacraments. — With the sole exception of Penance, which demands certain supernatural acts (faith, contrition, etc.) either as quasi-matter, or at least as a necessary condition, the possession of the true faith is not an indispensable requisite for the valid reception of the Sacraments on the part of the subject. a) The proofs of this assertion can be gathered from the controversy that was waged about the question of rebaptizing heretics. St. Augustine says in his famous treatise on Baptism against the Donatists : ” It is immaterial, when we are considering the question of the integrity and holiness of the Sacrament, what the recipient of the Sacrament believes, and with what faith he is imbued. It is of the very highest consequence as regards the entrance into salvation, but it is wholly immaterial as regards the question of the Sacrament. For it is quite possible that a man may be possessed of the genuine Sacrament and a corrupted faith.” 1 If the validity of the Sacraments depended on the faith of the recipients, Protestantism would be quite consistent in denying their objective efficacy and in basing justification solely on personal belief. l De Baptismo contra Donatistas, III, 14, 19: “Nee interest, quutn de sacramenti integritate et sanctitate tractatur, quid credat et quali fide imbutus sit ille, qui accipit sacramentum. Interest quidem plurimum ad salutis viam, sed ad sacramenti quaestionem nihil interest. Fieri enim potest, ut homo integrum habeat sacramentum et perversam {idem** Cf r. the same author’s Contra Lit. Petil, II, 35, 82: * Baptismi puritas a puritate vel immunditia conscientiae sive dantis sive accipientis prorsus distincta est.* THE RECIPIENT 193 If a heretical belief cannot imperil the validity of the Sacraments, neither can the presence or absence of some particular subjective disposition. Hence it is true of recipient and minister alike,2 that personal unworthiness does not render a Sacrament invalid, though, of course, it may rob it of its proper and ultimate effect, viz.: the sanctification of the soul. Absence of the right disposition for the fruitful reception of a Sacrament is called obex gratiae (obex = a bar or obstacle). Hence, according to the Tridentine Council, the non positio obicis (=remotio indispositionis) is an indispensable condition of sacramental grace. ” If anyone saith that the Sacraments of the New Law … do not confer that grace on those who do not place an obstacle thereunto, … let him be anathema.” 8 Hence, if one places an obstacle to sacramental grace,4 he receives the Sacrament unworthily, but the Sacrament itself is not invalid ; it is valid but lacking its proper form (validum et informe). b) Can a Sacrament received validly though unworthily (i. e. if an obstacle prevents the infusion of divine grace at the time of reception), obtain its effects after the obstacle has been removed? This is the famous question regarding the ” reviviscence ” of the Sacraments (reviviscentia sacramentorum) , to which so much attention has been given by theologians.5 In every case of that kind there is a twofold possibility. Either the recipient is unaware of the obstacle (mortal sin) existing in his soul, and therefore receives the Sacrament in good faith (obex 2 V. supra, Thesis I, pp. 166 sqq. 4 The obex gratiae is also called 8 Cfr. Cone. Trident., Sess. VII, simulata dispositio or fictio. can. 6: “Si quis dixerit, sacra- 6 Cfr. the Catholic Encyclopedia, menta Novae Legis … gratiam Vol. XIII, 304 b. ipsam non ponentibus obicetn non conferre, anathema sit.”

negativus sive inculpabilis) ; or the obstacle is known and voluntary, and then the Sacrament is received sacrilegiously (obex positivus sive culpabilis). The first-mentioned possibility has already been considered in a previous part of this treatise.6 It remains to inquire whether a person who has received a Sacrament sacrilegiously can recover its effects. Theologians are agreed 7 that if Baptism be received by an adult in the state of mortal sin, he can obtain the graces of the Sacrament later, when the obstacle has been removed by contrition or by the worthy reception of Penance. * In the case of him who has approached the Sacrament in deceit/’ says St. Augustine, * there is no second Baptism, but he is purged by faithful discipline and truthful confession, which he could not be without Baptism, so that what was given before, becomes then powerful to work his salvation, when the former deceit is done away by the truthful confession.” 8 It is to be remarked, however, that cases of this kind are sometimes quite complicated in practice. If one who has received Baptism ficte, as it is technically termed, commits no additional mortal sin after his sacrilegious Baptism, the Sacrament may recover its effects as soon as he has the disposition he ought to have had when he received it, i. e. imperfect contrition (attritio). But if he renders himself guilty of new mortal sins after Baptism, attrition will not suffice ; he must have perfect contrition (contritio) with a firm 6 V. supra, pp. 68 sqq. fit ut non denuo baptisetur, sed 7 Some have excepted Vasquez ipsa pi& correctione et veraci con(JDisp., 159, sect, i), but that fessione purgetur, quod non posset author’s teaching on this head is sine baptismo, ut quod ante datum really in accord with the common est, tunc valere incipiat ad salutem, doctrine. quum ilia fictio veraci confessione 8 De Baptismo c, Donat., I, 12, recesserat,” 18: “In Mo, qui fictus accesserat,

THE RECIPIENT 195 purpose of going to confession, because grievous sins committed after Baptism can be remitted only by the power of the keys.9 If his contrition is not perfect, the unworthily received Sacrament of Baptism can recover its effects only in connection with Penance, which blots out mortal sin ex opere operato, and removes the obstacle that prevented the infusion of grace. The same is true of one who, being deceived as to his own disposition, has received Baptism without imperfect contrition, (which, in the adult, is an indispensable requisite for the valid reception of that Sacrament), and then commits additional mortal sins. The reviviscence is not so certain in the case of the other Sacraments. Theologians unanimously hold that Confirmation and Holy Orders can recover their effects on account of the permanent character which they imprint on the soul. The contrary assumption would lead to the untenable and intolerable conclusion that the sacrilegious reception of Sacraments that cannot be repeated would deprive the recipient forever both of sanctifying grace and the sacramental (actual) graces proper to these Sacraments. In other words, one who has received Confirmation unworthily, even if he repent, could never receive the grace of that Sacrament, which is so necessary for the preservation of the faith, and a priest who had received Holy Orders unworthily, though validly, would never, according to that theory, receive the special graces peculiar to ordination, without which it is impossible to administer the sacerdotal office properly.10 9 On this point see the treatise on Apud vos quidem aliena sunt; sed the Sacrament of Penance. quum vos correctos recipit, cuius 10 Cfr. St. Augustine, Contra sunt, fiunt ea salubriter vestra, quag Crescon., II, 10: “Christiana sane perniciose habebatis aliena,” sacramenta in vobis agnosco . .

Applying what we have said to Extreme Unction and Matrimony, we may go a step further and affirm that these two Sacraments are likewise capable of being ” revived.” Matrimony cannot be received twice by the same parties, and Extreme Unction may not be repeated whilst the same danger of death lasts. Hence these two Sacraments may be said to be at least relatively incapable of repetition, and therefore capable of reviviscence. The case is different with Penance and the Holy Eucharist. These two Sacraments, if sacrilegiously received, do not recover their effects when the obstacle is removed. There can be no ” reviviscence ” of Penance, because if the penitent is not sufficiently disposed to receive grace at the time he confesses his sins, the Sacrament is not validly received, since the acts of the penitent are a necessary part of the matter of this Sacrament.11 There can be no ” reviviscence ” of the Holy Eucharist after the sacred species are consumed, because the fruits of this Sacrament may be supplied through other channels.12 To these particular reasons must be added a general one, viz.: that Catholics can receive these two Sacraments as often as they please.18 3. The Right Intention a Necessary Requisite for the Valid Reception of the Sacraments on the Part of the Recipient. — In adults, according to the teaching of the Council of Trent, justification always takes place “through the voluntary reception of grace and the gifts.” 14 13 On the whole subject of this tionem gratiae et donorum.1 subdivision cfr. De Lugo, De Sa11 See the treatise on Penance. 12 See the treatise on the Holy Eucharist. cramentis in Genere, disp. 9, sect. 6. 14 Cone. Trident., Sess. VI, cap. 7: ”… per voluntariam suscep 

THE RIGHT’INTENTION 197 Consequently, justification, if effected through the Sacraments, must be voluntary and requires a corresponding intention in the recipient. We have learned in a previous treatise,15 that the entire process of justification, no matter whether it terminate in the reception of a Sacrament or not, consists of a long chain of preparatory acts performed with the help of grace. Hence every adult who desires to be justified, must have a positive intention to receive the Sacrament. Pace Cardinal Cajetan, who stands alone in his opposition to this theory, interior repugnance, or even neutrality, renders the Sacrament invalid. a) The teaching of Tradition is unanimous on this point. St. Augustine says : ” From insufficiency of age they [infants] can neither believe with the heart unto righteousness, nor make confession with the mouth unto salvation. Therefore, when others take the vows for them, that the celebration of the Sacrament may be complete in their behalf, it is unquestionably of avail for their dedication to God, because they cannot answer for themselves. But if another were to answer for one who could answer for himself, it would not be of the same avail. In accordance with this rule we find in the Gospel what strikes every one as natural when he reads it : ‘He is of age, he shall speak for himself.’ * 16 Several ancient councils 15 Grace, Actual and Habitual, pp. 272 sqq. 16 De Bapt. c. Donat., IV, 24: * Ex aetatis indigenfia [parvult] nec corde credere ad iustitiam possunt nec ore confiteri ad salutem, Ideo quum alii pro eis respondent, ut impleatur erga eos celebratio sacramenti, valet utique ad eorum consecrationem, quia ipsi respondere forbade the administration of the Sacraments, including those that are indispensable for salvation, to subjects indisposed for their worthy reception.17 Pope Innocent III, in his decree against the adherents of Pierre de Bruys and other sectaries, emphatically insists upon the necessity of a right intention. He says: “He who never consents, but contradicts with all his might, receives neither the grace nor the character of the Sacrament.” 18 The Roman Ritual and the ordinary practice of the Church are in perfect conformity with this teaching, which St. Thomas, and the Scholastics generally, base (i) on the positive will of Christ, who does not force His benefits upon any one, and (2) on the essential character of the Sacraments as acts of religious worship, which can only be performed deliberately and with a free will.19 b) What kind of an intention must the recipient have to receive a Sacrament validly?20 The majority of theologians hold that the Holy Eucharist requires for its valid reception no intention whatever. This is a strange opinion, which we cannot share. A Catholic forced to take the Sacred Host against his will could no more be said to receive Holy Communion validly than an unbelieving Jew. True, he would receive a pernon possunt. At si pro eo qui respondere potest, alius respondeat, non itidem valet. Ex qua regula illud in evangelio dictum est, quod omnes, quum legitur, naturaliter movet (lo a. IX, 21): Aetatem habet, ipse pro se loquatur.* 17 E. g., the First Council of Orange; cfr. Labte, ConcU., t. Ill, p. 1449 1 * Subito obmutescens, prout status eius est, baptizari out poenitentiatn accipere potest, si voluntatis out praeteritae testimonium aliorum verbis habet out praesentis in suo nutu.” is Cap. ” Maiores:” * Ille veto, qui nunquam consentit, sed penitus contradicit, nec rem nec character em suscipit sacramenti.* (DenzingerBannwart, n. 411). 19 On some alleged instances of compulsory ordination see Billuart, De Sacram. in Communi, diss. 6, art. 1. 20 On the intention required of the minister, see supra, pp. 175 sqq. THE RIGHT INTENTION 199 manent Sacrament, but his reception of it would be a merely physical act, and consequently devoid of the true sacramental character and unproductive of grace. Matrimony requires for its valid reception not merely an habitual or interpretative, but a virtual intention, because the contracting parties mutually administer the Sacrament to each other.21 Some theologians demand a virtual intention also for the valid reception of Holy Orders, claiming that such onerous duties as celibacy and the recitation of the Divine Office demand mature deliberation and a deep selfknowledge. In all other cases it may safely be affirmed that the habitual intention is sufficient, because the Church regards the reception of the Sacraments by insane or unconscious persons as valid if it can be shown that the recipient had previously expressed, and never formally revoked, the intention of receiving them.22 In the case of Extreme Unction it is customary to administer the Sacrament on the strength of a purely interpretative intention, because every Catholic may reasonably be presumed to have the wish of dying in conformity with the teaching and practice of the Church. 21 See the treatise on Matrimony intelligitur contradictionis proposiin Vol. XI of this series. turn perdurare, etsi fuerint immersi, 22 Cfr. Pope Innocent III, Cap. characterem non suscipiunt sacra” Maiores ” : ” Dormientes autem et menti; secus autem si prius catechuamentes, si priusquam amentiatn in- meni exstitissent et habuissent procurr.erent aut dormirent, in con- positum baptizandi” tradictione persisterent, quia in eis

SECTION 2 THE REQUISITES OF WORTHY RECEPTION i. Preliminary Remarks. — A Sacrament, though validly administered, is not received worthily, i. e. does not confer grace, unless the recipient has the right disposition. A Sacrament (sacramentum tantum) and the sacramental grace which it confers (res tantum, effectus) are two separate and distinct things. A Sacrament does not fulfil the whole purpose for which it was instituted unless it actually confers grace. (The sacramental characters imprinted by Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders are also interior effects; but they are merely gratiae gratis datae, not gratiae gratum facientes, and therefore have nothing to do with the disposition of the recipient.) 1 It follows that the worthy reception of a Sacrament requires something more on the part of the recipient than mere valid reception.2 In determining the requisites of a worthy reception of the Sacraments the Church shows how exalted her moral ideals are.8 She declares that whoever consciously receives a Sacrament in an unworthy manner, i. e. without due preparation, is guilty of a sacrilege.4 The unworthy recipient commits a greater 1 V, supra, pp. 79 sqq. 4 Cfr. St. Thomas, Sumtna TheoL, 2 V. supra, Section i. 2a 2ae, qu. 90, art. 3. 8 Cfr. Cone. Trident., Sess. XIII, cap. 7, 200

REQUISITES OF sin than the unworthy minister, because he prevents the Sacrament from taking effect. What St. Paul says of the unworthy reception of the Eucharist,8 applies in a manner to all the Sacraments, inasmuch as the sacrilegious recipient manifests contempt for the Precious Blood of Christ and compels our Lord, who is the principal minister, to perform a useless act, at least in as far as the object of immediate sanctification is concerned. St. Augustine draws a distinction between habere and utiliter habere9 and asks: “What does it avail a man to be baptized if he is not justified?” 7 The Church has always insisted on the necessity of due preparation for the reception of the Sacraments. 2. Sacraments of the Living and Sacraments of the Dead. — The requisites of worthy reception are not the same for all the Sacraments. The so-called Sacraments of the dead require for their worthy reception attrition along with its various dispositive acts (faith, fear, hope, etc.), whereas the Sacraments of the living demand nothing less than the state of grace. a) Sacraments of the dead are those instituted for the remission of sin or the production of the state of grace (iustificatio prima). There are two — Baptism and Penance. Their worthy reception depends upon the same requisites as justification itself, viz.: faith, fear, hope of forgiveness, contrition and a firm purpose of amend6 1 Cor. XI, 27 sq. 9De BapU c. Donot., IV, 17, 24. tDe Civitate Dei, XXI, 27, 3: * Quid cuiquam prodest quod baptisatur, si tion iustificatur f * 202 THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL ment Cfr. Mark XVI, 16: “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved.” Acts II, 38: “Do penance and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ/’ 8 The contrition required for Baptism and Penance need not be perfect. Perfect contrition (contritio), which is a true supernatural sorrow from a motive of perfect charity, justifies a man independently of the Sacraments. Baptism and Penance can be worthily received by one who has an imperfect contrition. Imperfect contrition (attritio) is a true supernatural sorrow from a motive of incipient charity or fear, coupled with a firm purpose of amendment.9 It removes moral indisposition (remotio obicis) and renders the sinner worthy of receiving either Baptism or Penance, thereby enabling these Sacraments to effect his justification ex opere operato. b) The case is somewhat different with the Sacraments of the living. Confirmation, the Holy Eucharist, Extreme Unction, Matrimony, and Holy Orders presuppose the state of sanctifying grace, which they merely increase (iustificatio secunda). Hence the only requisite of a worthy reception of these Sacraments is the state of grace. He who is in the state of grace places no obstacle (obex) to the efficacy of these Sacra8 On justification, cfr. Pohle- 9 Cfr. Cone. Trident., Sess. VI, Preuss, Grace, Actual and Habitual, cap. 7; Sess. XIV, cap. 3. pp. 374 sqq. REQUISITES OF ments, because he is not guilty of mortal sin. Venial sin may diminish but cannot prevent the effect of these Sacraments. The sanctifying grace required for these Sacraments can be obtained either by making an act of perfect contrition or by worthily receiving the Sacrament of Penance.10 Confession, moreover, is prescribed by a law of the Church for the worthy reception of Communion.11 Though no such positive precept exists with regard to the other Sacraments, still confession as a fitting preparation for every one of them cannot be too urgently recommended. Readings : — Besides the current text-books consult St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 64, and the commentators, especially *Billuart, De Sacramentis in Genere, diss. 1, art. 2 sqq. Likewise Ambrosius Catharinus, De Necessaria Intentione in Perficiendis Sacramentis, Rome 1552; Serry, De Necessaria Intentione in Sacramentis Conficiendis, Padua 1727; L. Haas, Die notwendige Intention des Ministers zur gultigen Verwaltung der hi. Sakramente, Bamberg 1869; *Franzelin, De Sacramentis in Genere, thes. 15 sqq. ; P. Schanz, Die Lehre von den hi. Sakramenten, § 11, Freiburg 1893. Additional bibliographical information in *Fr. Morgott, Der Spender der hi. Sakramente nach der Lehre des hi. Thomas, Freiburg 1886. Concerning the requisites of worthy reception cfr. Suarez, Comment, in S. TheoL, III, disp. 14 sqq.; *De Lugo, De Sacramentis in Genere, disp. 9; Tournely, De Sacramentis in Genere, qu. 8; Schanz, op. cit., § 12; N. Gihr, Die hi. Sakramente der kath. Kirche, Vol. 1, 2nd ed., § 23, Freiburg 1902. 10 Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol, 3a, qu. 70, art. 8. 11 Cfr. Cone. Trident., Sess. XIII, cap. 7: Of course this law ” only affects those who have fallen into mortal sin, so that, although- venial sin may be confessed and affords sufficient matter for sacramental absolution, yet there is no law, human or divine, which imposes any obligation on the faithful in general to confess venial sins. The divine law does not do this, as the Council of Trent explains (Sess. XIV, c. 5), and the Lateran law only determines the divine law.” (Slater, A Manual of Moral Theology, Vol. I, p. 566).