ST. ALPHONSUS DEI LIGUORI

DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH

WHETHER IT IS LICIT

TO RECEIVE THE SACRAMENTS

FROM AN UNWORTHY MINISTER

Translated from

CHAPTER III

of

TRACT I : ON THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL

in

Vol. III

of

the Critical Latin Edition of the Saint's

Theologia Moralis

Edited by Rev. Leonard Gaudè, C.S.S.R.

88. — Question 2. Whether it is licit to seek the Sacraments from an unworthy minister? — Here it is fitting to distinguish a minister unworthy because of some censure and/or [vel] inability, and one unworthy because of mortal sin.

I respond 1º. If the minister is unworthy by means of censure, etc. and is not [an excommunicate] tolertatus1, nor indeed an exommunicate vitandus, and/or [vel] suspended publicly and by name, and/or irregular [in legal status] by means of [some ecclesiastical] judgement (see Croix2), certainly it is not licit to seek the Sacraments from him, except in extreme and/or grave necessity, in which all say that it is licit to receive Baptism and Penance; as [Francisco] Suarez,3 Tournely's Continuator,4 Antoine,5 Bonacina,6 Croix;7 and the Salamancans8 with Sayro, Granado, Cronejo, etc., [teach] on the basis of the divine St. Augustine.9

Likewise concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist do Navarro,10 [Francisco] Suarez,11 Bonacina,12 Viva13 with Soto,14 the Salamancans15 with Cornejo, Nuñez (against Sayro, Avila16, etc.) say [that it can] probably [be done]. — And Tournely{'s Continuator}17 adhereres to this; on the basis of the chapter Quod in te, de poenitent. et remission., where [Pope] Innocent III, though he denies Extremunction to the dying during a general interdict, does not, nevertheless, deny Penance and Viaticum.

Concernig the Sacrament of Extremunction Escobar, Henricz and Discatilius, as quoted in Croix, think the same; for the reason that such a Sacrament can per accidens cause grace. — But better do [Francisco] Suarez, Bonacina, Elbel not admitt this; likewise Coninck, Filliuccio, Avila and Cornejo, as quoted by the Salamancans, except when an infirm [person] could not receive any other Sacrament.

Equally do [Francisco] Suarez, and Cornejo, as quoted by the Salamancans, say that it is licit to receive the Sacrament of Orders from an excommunicated Bishop, when in some remote region he alone is to be found, and [when] such an ordination would redound to the common good.18

The aforesaid authors say the same concerning the Sacrament of Matrimony, in the case where it would be necessary and/or for the spiritual health of the one dying, and/or for the great temporal utility of the children, and there is not other minister present.

Whether, however, an excommunicate vitandus validly ministers the Sacrament of Penance in extreme necessity? — This must be denied; see what is to be said in n. 560.

I respond 2º. But if the minister is an excommunicate and or suspended toleratus; the question among the divines [is] Whether it is licit to seek the Sacraments from him without grave cause[?]. — Others deny it. — But more truly it must be affirmed; because the Council of Constance absolutely concedes to the faithful communion with tolerati. See what has been said in n. 55, and what is to be said On Censures in n. 139.

89. — I respond 3º. However, when the minister is unworthy because of a mortal sin, the divine St. Thomas sesms to indistinctly concede that it is possible to receive the Sacraments from an secret sinner, saying: As long as (the minister) is tolerated by the Church in the [priestly] ministry, he who receives a Sacrament from him does not communicate in his sin. — And the same is had in the chapter Vestra &, de cohabit. cler. etc., where it is said: Without doubt . . . your are to hold that from clergy and priests, although fornicators, as long as the are tolerated, and there is no evidence of their deed (that is, as the Gloss explains, where they themselves have not been condemned [by authority] and/or have not confessed in court), that they licitly hear the divine mysteries, and receive the other ecclesiastical Sacraments. Nevertheless this must be rightly understood, to be valid only to excuse [them from sin] not that the prohibition of the Church [against clerical concubinage] be contravened.

Otherwise, to receive a Sacrament from a [public] sinner, always requires a reasonable cause: in accord with what has been said in Book II, n. 47, at the sentence "The second ...", and in n. 49; and as the divine St. Thomas likewise teaches in another place, where he says: Besides the necessity of the moment [of death], it would not be safe that he (namely the pastor) induce for the accomplishment of some [sacred duty] of his order, while in such a conscience because he would be in mortal sin. However by the word necessity, Tournely's Continuator rightly explains that moral necessity is to be understood. — Whence it probably suffices to excuse even in case of grave usefulness; as [Francisco] Suarez, Sanchez, Palaus, Viva, Croix, Mazzotta, Toleto, Filliuccio, Escobar, Anacletus, Holzmann, Elbel citing [Bl. John Duns] Scotus, Sporer; Bonacina with Coninck, Valentia, Reginaldo, Henriquez; and the Salamancans with Ledesma, Nuñez and generally others say is common [teaching], as they assert.

To this the divines say that a Sacrament is licitly received from a sinful minister:

1. If the precept of confession and/or communion urges [the reception of the Sacrament], as [Francisco] Suarez, Concina, and Escobar with Vasquez, etc. say.

2. If from a delay of reception the danger of a [moral] relapse is imminent. — Tournely{'s Continuator}.

3. If you ought to fulfill the precept of hearing Mass. — [Francisco] Suarez, with Coninck and Soto, as quoted in Escobar. (See what has been said in Book II, n. 51 and 79).

4. If otherwise you are obliged to remain in mortal [sin], and you do not know of any other confessor to hear [your confession]. Thus Tournely{'s Continuator}. But better do [Francisco] Suarez and Antoine excuse from all fault him who is in mortal [sin], if he does not even know at what hour to expect [a legitimate confessor]; because there is no small measure of usefulness to be liberated from sin as soon as possible.

5. If you are obliged to lack communion (at least for a day); as [Francisco] Suarez and Escobar [teach]. — And [Francisco] Suarez says likewise, if you are obliged to lack the fruit of confession, even if you have no mortal [sin on your soul]. — Whether, however, it suffices in the case of lacking the fruit of other Sacrament[s]? Croix denies it. But [Francisco] Suarez and Escobar affirm it, if the minister is the pastor and/or is prepared [to administer the Sacrament], and there is not other administering it worthily.

6. If you do not know how to otherwise profit from the Jubilee [year]. Tournely{'s Continuator} and Croix.

7. If you are in need of a skilled [spiritual] director, and you do not have another [to go to]. Tournely{'s Continuator}. — So long, adds Sporer, that you are obliged to wait for another.

8. If you want to have a Mass said for a departed friend; as Sporer [teaches].

Cajetan, however, says that it is absolutely licit to seek a Sacrament from one's own pastor without any grave cause; but more truly does Concina, and the Salamancans with Navarro, Soto, Bonacina and Ledesma, deny this, if you can easily hear another [Mass]. —Thus also Concina and Antoine say that it is not licit to seek the Sacraments from a heretic and/or schismatic, except in the case of extreme and/or the most grave necessity. But concerning a heretic see n. 560.

Whether, however, it is a mortal [sin] to seek without grave cause a Sacrament from an unworthy minister prepared [to administer it]? — Soto, Navarro, Sà, Diana, etc. as quoted by the Salamancans, deny it. — But rightly do the Salamancans with Silvestro, Molina, Valentia, Aragon, etc., affirm it (in accord with what has been said in Book II, On Charity, n. 47, at sentence "The second...", and in n. 79). — I would only except him who received the Eucharist from an unworthy minister, who is actually administering it to others: as [Francisco] Suarez and Escobar say, in accord with the opinion brought forward in n. 35, at the sentence "Whether...", namely, that it is only one sin to administer the Eucharist to many [in such a case].

Thus equally I think it is illicit without grave cause to serve an unworthy priest celebrating [Mass]; — against [Francisco] Suarez, Bonacina, and the Salamancans with others, who admit it when the priest can easily find another [acolyte].

It is, however, certain that any minister is presumed worthy, unless the opposite is established; as commonly Concina, Tournely{'s Continuator} teach, on the basis of the Apostle's statement in 1 Cor 13: Charity . . . thinks no evil ; as Elbel, and Croix with Aversa, Dicastillius and others commonly [teach]. — From this it can probably be inferred, that the Sacrament can still be sought from one who is only a little before known to have sinned; because he must be presumed to have already disposed himself at least by means of contrition [to confect the Sacrament worthily]. Thus [Francisco] Suarez, Bonacina, Croix; Mazzotta with Sporer; the Salamancans with Vasquez, Coninck Sayro, Reginald, Discatillius and others commonly [teach]. And Tournely{'s Continuator} thinks the same, saying: Indeed, {it does not suffice} that I know that he has recently and gravely sinned; for still wisely I am to presume, especially if he is readily willing to administer the Sacraments, that he had done that which is his [duty] to be reconciled to God. Certainly, says St. Thomas, in an instant a man is emended by divine grace.

Nevertheless, rightly do the limit this 1º. [Francisco] Suarez and Bonacina with Coninck, Vasquez, Sayro, Reginald and others commonly, if it is established that the minister is customarily and/or in the proximate occasion of sinning (understand voluntarily). They limit this 2º. Gobat, as quoted by Croix, if the minister, after his sin, has not gone to confession before the celebration of Mass.

2. Loc. cit., nn. 209 and 210.

3. De Censuris, disput. 11, sect. 1, n. 5 and 7.

4. De Sacramentis. i. g., ch. 2, art. 1, sect. 2, point 1, § 3.

5. De Sacramentis i. g., ch. 2, q. 13, resp. 1.

6. Disp. 2, On Excommunication, q. 2, point 2, § 4, n. 7; cf. ibid., n. 8.

7. Loc. cit., n. 209.

8. Tr. 1, ch. 8, n. 16 and 18. — Sayro, De Censuris, bk. 2, ch. 2, n. 12 and 18. — Jacob de Granado, in the third part, controversy 3, On the Sacraments i. g., tr. 5, last dispt., n. 3. — Cornejo. tr. 5, On Excommunication, disp. 10, § 1, dub. 2 and 3.

9. St. Augustine, On Baptism against the Donatists, Book I, Chapter 2, n. 3 (where he praises one who in extreme necessity sought to be baptized by a non-Catholic); in Migne, Patrologia Latina, Tome 43, col. 110.

10. Man., ch. 22, n. 4.

11. Loc. cit., n. 17, v. Addo vero.

12. Loc. cit., n. 8.

13. De Sacramentis i.g., q. 1, art. 7, n. 10. — Loc. cit., n. 22. — Cornejo, loc. cit., dub. 4. — Nuρez, in third part, q. 64, art. 6, diff. 3 bis. — Sayro, De Censuris, bk. 2, ch. 2, n. 21.

14. Sotus (here quoted by the Salamancans), in 4, dist. 13, q. 1, art. 9, in each and every case denies that it is licit to receive communion from an excummunicate (vitandus).

15. Loc. cit., § 3, v. An autem.

16. Avila, part. 2, chapter 6, disputation 3, dubium 3, conclusion 4., is only partly contrary, that is in the case when one infirm has already received the sacrament of Penance. But if he does not know if he has received the Sacrament, he can licitly accept the Eucharist from a vitandus. To which limitation the Salamancans also advert.

17.

18. Or when in the said region there would be a great necessity for or [seu] penury of priests and/or clerics, as the mentioned authors note. [trans. - but see n. 89, § 8 below ]