Scotus Academicus, Tomus nonus: De Sacramentis in genere

NOTE 1. Three things come into question here: first, whether sinners can validly confect and administer the Sacraments; second, whether licitly, and without a new sin; third, whether it is licit to ask for and receive the Sacraments from them. As to the first, it must be known that a twofold administration of the Sacraments can be distinguished: one valid indeed but illicit, the other valid and licit. The first is that by which a Sacrament rightly confected—that is, with the matter, form, and requisite intention applied—does confer grace upon the recipient; but its confection and administration brings a new sin upon the one conferring it, because of the unworthy and illegitimate handling and administration of a sacred thing: the second, however, confers grace not only upon the recipient but also upon the one conferring it, because of the due disposition of both. The question, then, is whether a Minister existing in mortal sin can indeed validly, but not licitly, confect and confer the Sacraments. This can be understood both of a consecrated Minister, namely one upon whom the duty of administering the Sacrament falls by office, and of one not consecrated, namely one who can administer the Sacrament only in a case of necessity.

NOTE 2. From the Subtle Doctor, distinction 5, question 2, no. 2. A sinful and wicked Minister is considered such either secretly or manifestly, so that he appears wicked before God, though he is not regarded as such by men, especially by those to whom he ought to administer the Sacrament.

Moreover, a secretly evil Minister can be called such in two ways: either because his sin is secret and unknown to the recipient of the Sacrament; or because, although it is known to the recipient himself, it is nevertheless not notorious and manifest to others.

Similarly, a notoriously evil Minister is either tolerated in the Church and, with the Prelates knowing it and no one objecting, publicly administers the Sacraments; or he is not tolerated, but has been manifestly removed from every ecclesiastical office by excommunication, degradation, or suspension; as Martin V declared in the Council of Constance. For when he noticed that very grave scandals were arising and that many of the faithful were being called back from frequenting the Sacraments because they did not know whether certain sinful Ministers, or those bound by some ecclesiastical sentence, could validly or licitly confer the Sacrament of Penance, in 1418 he issued a constitution in these words: To avoid scandals and many dangers, and to assist fearful consciences, we establish that henceforth no one shall be bound to abstain, separate himself, or avoid association with anyone, in administering or receiving a Sacrament, or in other divine offices or outside them, on account of any sentence or ecclesiastical censure, or suspension, or prohibition promulgated generally by man or by law; nor shall an ecclesiastical interdict be observed, unless such sentence, prohibition, suspension, or censure has been published or specially and expressly denounced by a Judge against or concerning a person, College, University, Church, or definite place, or unless he is a notorious cleric who strikes, etc. This Constitution was indeed renewed in the Council of

Constance, Session 20, and in the Lateran Council under Leo X, Session 11, in the year 1516.

NOTE 3. Besides the ancient heretics mentioned at the beginning of the present Article, who asserted that sinners could not validly confect the Sacraments, certain more recent writers revived the same error, especially the Waldenses, so called from a certain man of Lyons named Waldo, around the year 1106, who, although abounding in very great riches, desired openly to profess evangelical poverty: hence his followers were called the Poor Men of Lyons, as is gathered from Trithemius in the Hirsaugiensian Chronicle. They were also called Albigenses and Toulousans, because their pestilential doctrine especially spread and was disseminated in those provinces. Among the various teachings they promulgated, they are accused of asserting that the Body of Christ could be confected not only by Priests but also by Laymen, provided that they were judged just and upright, because they denied that it could be confected even by wicked Priests, as Roger relates in the English Annals. But no one professed this error more openly and audaciously than Wycliffe: for among the various articles of his condemned in the Council of Constance, Session 8, this was the fourth, namely: A Bishop or priest who is in mortal sin does not ordain, confirm, consecrate, or baptize. Some attributed the same error to John Huss, whose errors were likewise condemned in the same Council of Constance, Session 15. And not without reason, not only because he was publishing and defending Wycliffe's pestilential doctrines in Bohemia—for this reason his twentieth article was that the condemnation of the forty-five articles of John Wycliffe made by the Doctors was irrational, unjust, and badly done—but also because in article 22 he said that the Pope, or Prelate and bishop, is only equivocally a Shepherd, and truly a thief and robber; and consequently he judged that a sinner is not a true Shepherd, and therefore cannot confer the Sacraments, which can be conferred only by true Shepherds and Ministers of the Church.

It must therefore be established in the present Question, first, that Ministers, however sinful and wicked, can validly confect the Sacraments; second, that they confer the Sacraments illicitly; third, when it is licit to ask for and receive the Sacraments from them.

First conclusion. — THE SACRAMENTS CAN TRULY AND VALIDLY BE EFFECTED AND CONFERRED BY WICKED AND SINFUL MINISTERS. This has been determined as a matter of faith in various Councils, both universal and particular: most especially in three Roman Councils under Leo IX, in the years 1049, 1050, and 1051, in which it was determined that whoever had been consecrated by a Simoniac, at the very time of his ordination, not being unaware of the Simoniac to whom he had offered himself for promotion, should do penance for 40 days, and thus minister in the office of the order received. These Councils therefore suppose that the order was validly conferred by a Simoniac Bishop. Likewise, it was defined in the Gallican Council celebrated in the year 1106, whose acts are described by Roger in the Annals of England, where it was defined against the Toulouse-men and the Albigenses that, just as a ray of the sun does not contract a stain or filth by passing through sewers, or just as pure and clear water passes to courtyards through channels that are covered, or filthy, or muddy, so the Lord's words are not dirtied, and are uttered no better or more clearly through a good man than through an evil one. — The same was defined in the Council of Constance, Session 8, in which Wycliffe's articles were condemned, and in the Salzburg Council in the year 1420, under the rubric On the Most Holy Trinity, where it is defined: if any cleric or layman should dare to preach, or secretly teach, believe, or hold, that a priest existing in mortal sin cannot effect the Body of Christ, etc., let him be held a heretic and unbeliever. The Council of Trent also plainly defines the same, Session 7, Canon 12. On the sacraments in general: if anyone should say that a minister existing in mortal sin, provided he has carried out all the essentials that pertain to effecting or conferring the Sacrament, does not effect or confer the Sacrament, let him be anathema.

The Subtle Doctor assigns an a priori reason for the Catholic truth, book 4, distinction 1, question 1, no. 1:

The truth of the question, he says, is clear from many authorities: whatever the Minister's wickedness, whether of heresy, schism, or morals, provided the unity of the Church is preserved, if he intends to do what the Church does and observes the Church's manner, he truly confers Baptism, and such Baptism truly has its effect in the baptized person, notwithstanding the Minister's wickedness, unless the wickedness of the recipient stands in the way, in that he receives from such a Minister. The truth of this solution has only one reason why, namely, that it pleased Christ to institute it in such a way that the Minister's wickedness would not impede the Sacrament or its effect.

Moreover, this good pleasure of Christ the Lord is gathered especially from the perpetual and constant tradition of the Church, which Saint Augustine pressed against the authority of Saint Cyprian alleged by the Donatists, book 2 of On Baptism, chapter 7, where he writes:

Do not therefore bring Cyprian's authority against us concerning the reception of Baptism, but hold with us Cyprian's example concerning the preservation of unity. For the question of Baptism had not yet been carefully treated, but nevertheless the Church held a most salutary custom: even among schismatics and heretics, though equivocally, not to repeat what had been given; to heal what had been wounded, not to treat what was sound. I believe this custom came from Apostolic tradition, just as many things are not found in their letters or in the Councils of later times, and yet, because they are observed throughout the Church, they are read as having been delivered and commended by the Apostles themselves, etc.

The Holy Fathers likewise teach the same by constant tradition, adducing various examples. Thus Optatus of Milevis, book 3 of Against Parmenian, around the middle: what does it matter, he says, what sort of workers they were, provided that what was worked is known to be good? For wine is both trodden and pressed by sinful workers; and from it a sacrifice is offered to God: oil too is made by filthy men.... and yet the liquid, in taste and brightness, even in the sacred chrism, is simply distributed, etc. Similarly Saint Nazianzen compares a good or evil Minister, in Oration 40, to a golden or earthen seal, which has the same effect whether it is golden or earthen. Saint Augustine also uses examples for this, especially in book 3 of Against Cresconius, chapter 5, where he uses the example of seed, for which it makes no difference whether it is sown by filthy or washed hands: provided it is fruitful of itself, and the soil is suitable and made fertile by the sun's influence, it will sprout and rise abundantly. In Treatise 5 on John: The proud Minister is reckoned with the devil, but Christ's gift is not contaminated, because through him a pure stream passes; and it does not return to fertile earth. Shortly afterward he adds: A stone cannot carry a trunk from water, and if water passes through stone channels to garden beds, nothing is generated in the stone channel, but nevertheless it brings very much fruit to the gardens: for the spiritual power of the Sacrament, like pure light, is received by those to be enlightened, but passing through the unclean it is not polluted. The same author, book 1 of On Baptism, chapter 10, having said: The water is not profane and adulterous: God's name is invoked over the water, even if it is invoked by profane and adulterous people; for neither the creature itself nor the name itself is adulterous: but the true Baptism of Christ, observed according to the Gospel, is holy both through adulterers and in adulterers, although they are impure and unclean, because its holiness cannot be defiled: and divine power attends its Sacrament, whether for the salvation of those living well or for the ruin of those using it badly. He confirms this with an example: the light of the sun or of a lamp, he says, when diffused through sewers, contracts no filth from them: and can Christ's Baptism be polluted by anyone's crimes? For if we turn our attention to the visible things themselves with which the Sacraments are handled, who does not know that they are corruptible? But if we attend to what is done through them, who does not see that it cannot be corrupted, although the men through whom it is done, according to their morals, either receive the promises or suffer the punishments!

The Doctor proves the same truth, number 4 and following, by a threefold fittingness. First he repeats it from the end of the Sacrament, because

it is reasonable that God should assist his practical sign in causing the thing signified, by a determination of his will preceding every condition of the Minister; so that, just as that determination of his by which he gives the sign to be a certain sign is immediately and altogether first from him, so also the assistance consequent upon that determination, for cooperating, should be immediately from him.

By these words the Doctor indicates that, since the Sacrament has all its efficacy from God and from Christ the Lord, its institutor, the Minister's wickedness cannot harm it. Saint Augustine also put forward this reason in many places, but especially in book 2 of Against the Letters of Petilian, chapter 2: we are not defiled by our water, he says, nor are you cleansed by yours, but the water of Baptism, when it is given to someone, is neither ours nor yours, but his of whom it was said: this is he who baptizes. Hence in Treatise 5 on John, around the middle, he says: Baptism is safe; it depends on what sort of one he is in whose power it is given, not on what sort of one he is through whose ministry it is given: so what does an evil Minister do to you where the Lord is good? What does a malicious herald impede you where the Judge is good?

The Doctor draws the second reason from the end of the Sacrament itself, namely from the salvation of men, for whose sake the Sacraments were instituted: for if the Minister's holiness and faith were required for the Sacrament's validity, the faithful would scarcely have any security concerning their salvation; for just as they would always be uncertain about the Minister's goodness, so also about the validity of the Sacrament conferred by him. For, as the Doctor admirably says:

if Baptism could be conferred only by a good man, it would not be a great remedy for the wayfarer, but almost generally a detriment. Since scarcely anyone can be certain of his own goodness, much less can he be certain of another's: therefore, if Baptism depended on the Minister's goodness, no one could ever be certain that he had truly received Baptism, which is unfitting. And if you object that even now he cannot be > certain, because he does not know his own disposition, the objection is blocked, because he can know with certainty, insofar as certainty is required, that he himself intends to receive Baptism through it: and this suffices on his part. If you say that he cannot be certain of the Minister's intention, this does not stand in the way, because it can probably be presumed that Ministers performing such an act intend to do that to which the act in itself is ordered; but certainty about the Minister's goodness or holiness could not be had in the same way. Thus the Doctor.

Saint Augustine also indicates this reason in book 1 of Against the Letters of Petilian, chapter 2, where he says: Therefore they are baptized by good men, so that they may receive faith, not guilt. But how will they be secure even concerning these men, if the conscience of the giver is considered, which is hidden from the eyes of the recipient? Thus, according to their opinion, that spiritual salvation becomes uncertain, while, contrary to the Holy Scriptures, which say: It is good to trust in the Lord rather than to trust in man (Ps. 117), and: Cursed is everyone who places his hope in man (Jer. 17), they take the hope of those to be baptized away from the Lord God and persuade them to place it in man.

The Doctor repeats the third reason from the part of the recipient:

Because, he says, it is altogether unjust for one person to be punished for another's iniquity, when the one in no way shares in the other's iniquity so that it can be imputed to him: but the person to be baptized disposes himself for grace as much as he can: therefore, if the Minister's wickedness impeded it, he would be punished on account of another's fault, in no way imputable to him.

St. Augustine presses this argument in book 2 of Against the Letters of Petilian, chapter 6: Nor is it expected from the innocence of the baptizer, he says, that the baptized person become innocent; the more innocent he will be, the more innocent the one will be whom he finds as his baptizer. But if the minister's innocence raises him up, he will bear his malice; and thus one will run more often to Baptism, not so that one's own sins may be remitted, but rather so that others' may be imposed. Hence, in book On the Unity of the Church, chapter 18: When Paul said: Thanks be to God, because I baptized none of you except Crispus and Caius, it would have to be believed that he mocked men with a better sanctification, if, the better he was, the better those who were baptized by him could be baptized; rather, it was precisely for this that the intention of the watchful, most careful, and most faithful Dispenser was that no one should therefore think himself holy because he had been baptized by a holier Minister.

The Donatists brought forward various things against the present Catholic truth and assertion, not only oracles of Scripture but also very many arguments drawn both from authority and from reason; so that all these may be dissolved in a clearer order, it is pleasing to set them forth and refute them under distinct headings.

THE AUTHORITIES OF SCRIPTURE WHICH THE DONATISTS USED IN THEIR OWN DEFENSE WILL BE PROPOSED AND REFUTED.

They objected 1. The passage of Exodus 19: The Priests who approach the Lord shall be sanctified, lest he strike them. And also that of chapter 30: Having received water, Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and feet in it, whenever they are going to enter the tabernacle of testimony and whenever they are summoned to the altar to offer incense on it to the Lord, lest perhaps they die; and furthermore Leviticus 21: Say to Aaron: A man of your offspring throughout their families who has a blemish shall not offer bread to his God, nor approach his ministry.

— Saint Augustine responds, book 2 of Against the Letter of Parmenian: first, that these divine oracles signify that God's Ministers cannot, without very grave guilt, fulfill the sacred ministry in a state of mortal sin; and consequently that the administration of a sacred thing does much for the minister, but not for the recipient.

Let them tell me, then, says Saint Augustine, which saint has suffered spiritual harm from an evil or blemished Priest, whether placed among Priests or among peoples? Where Moses and Aaron were, there were sacrilegious murmurers whom God always threatened to destroy from before his face; where Caiaphas and others like him were, there were Zachariah, Simeon, and the other good men; where Saul was, there was David; where Jeremiah, Isaiah, Daniel, and Ezekiel were, there were evil Priests and peoples: but each person carried his own burden.

— He responds secondly by turning the argument back against the Donatists:

Did Optatus have no blemish or fault, not to mention Parmenian himself or Donatus himself? But these men are so blinded by love of men, and with an immodest heart one does not hesitate to liken the adulterers of his own mind to the one legitimate husband, that he contends that what could be said only of the Lord Jesus Christ was also perfect in Donatus..... But let him attend again to whether Optatus at least had some blemish or some fault. They are not so blind as to answer that his life was altogether spotless and altogether free from fault. Why, then, did he approach to offer gifts to God, and did the others receive with joined hands what a blemished and faulty man had offered? Those who think most rightly understand that any human being, although in view of fellowship in human society he may not absurdly be called to live most justly, nevertheless cannot be without some fault, when the flesh lusts against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh, etc.

They objected 2. The passage of Psalm 49: God said to the sinner: Why do you recount my justice and take up my covenant through your mouth? But you have hated discipline and cast my words behind you, etc. And also that of Psalm 140: May the oil of the sinner not fatten my head. — Saint Augustine responds, in the same place, chapter 9, to the first: that the words which the Minister pronounces with his mouth profit him nothing if he himself does not do what he says; nevertheless they profit others, who hear and do even through evil men. The Lord himself teaches this in the Gospel, saying of the Pharisees: They have sat on the chair of Moses: do what they say, but do not do what they do, for they say and do not do. Then he turns the argument back against the Donatists themselves and shows that all the darts of that divine rebuke turn against the Donatists themselves:

For how do they not cast God's words behind them, he says, who proclaim peace and do not love peace? How do they not hate discipline, who dare to condemn an unheard word? etc.

— To the second text he responds in chapter 10 that by the sinner's oil is not understood sacramental Anointing, as the Donatists wrongly interpreted it, but the flatterer's blandishments; rejecting these, the royal Prophet chooses rather to be corrected and rebuked by a just man; for he says: Let the just man correct me in mercy: but the sinner's oil will not fatten my head.

Hence it is evident, says Saint Augustine, that the flatterer's blandishments are signified by the sinner's oil; rejecting and detesting these, he chooses to be corrected and rebuked by a just man, because when the just man does this not with the deceitful gentleness of flattery but with the truthful harshness of rebuke, he does it much more mercifully; hence there is also that passage in the Apocalypse, chapter 3: Those whom I love, I rebuke and chastise. And that passage in Solomon, Proverbs 27: The wounds of a friend are better than the voluntary kisses of an enemy.

They objected 3. Various oracles drawn from the words of the Book of Wisdom 1: The Holy Spirit will flee from the disguised person and will withdraw from thoughts that are without understanding. And from those of Ecclesiasticus 10: Dying flies ruin the sweetness of the perfume. And chapter 31: Who can be cleansed by the unclean? And in the same place: What does the washing profit one who is baptized by a dead man? — Saint Augustine responds to the first text, book 2 of Against the Letters of Petilian, chapter 25, that the meaning of this oracle is that one who deceitfully administers or receives divine things does not have the Holy Spirit; yet that divine Spirit flees from the Minister's deception, if he nevertheless supplies what is necessary for the confection of the Sacrament, while the Holy Spirit will be present to the recipient, who believes truly, doing both at once, namely fleeing the minister and saving the recipient; hence it follows that the Holy Spirit flees man's deception, but not the power of the Sacrament. In book 2 of Against the Letter of Parmenian, chapter 10, he turns it back against the Donatists, who boasted that none of their own were openly sinners:

It is enough for the necessary point of this case that they cannot deny that there are disguised good men among them, that is, secretly evil men. For many expose them, men who, although they lived there with ruined and wicked morals and had long been hidden by that very disguise, were eventually betrayed and expelled. Let us say, then: if they do not want any such men still to be there, those certainly who were expelled, if they were hiding in the same disguise and the Holy Spirit fled from them, of whom it is written: The Holy Spirit will flee from the disguised person; how can they baptize? Why are at least those who are living not listed, so that they may receive the Baptism which they could not have received from the disguised men whom the Holy Spirit abandoned? But if they say that the Holy Spirit was lacking for those who feigned in order to justify the recipients, but was present for the believing recipients, cleansing them through the ineffable efficacy of his power, able both to flee from the former and save the latter, to condemn the former and cleanse the latter: let them see that, in solving this question for themselves, they have at the same time solved it for us.

— Saint Jerome responds to the second in the same way: by dying flies are understood sinners who, through the folly of one sin lasting a short time, become foul and lose the sweetness of grace and reputation. Or, as Saint Augustine explains, book 2 of Against the Letter of Parmenian, chapter 10, those are understood who, returning to their vomit, lose the sweetness of sanctifying grace and destroy the good reputation of Christians by their wicked examples; they are the cause that God's name is blasphemed and that men are dragged from the path of piety to the slopes of sin:

*He says, the oil of sweetness, namely a good fragrance—that is, the good reputation of Christians—is destroyed by those who, intending to live badly and return to the death of their sins, correct a great multitude so that their sins may be forgiven them through Baptism, and then return to them again: for, because of their number, I think they are compared to flies: but these destroy the oil > of sweetness, because they look not to God's grace itself, but to human conduct.

— To the third oracle I say that its meaning is that attention should not be given to the vanity of dreams; for Ecclesiasticus says in the same place: Who will be cleansed by the unclean, and what truth will be spoken by a liar? Divination of error, omens, lies, and the dream of evildoers are vanity. By these words he signifies that, just as an unclean person cannot of himself cleanse another, so truth is not to be expected from a liar, diviner, or interpreter of dreams. Now it is certain that an unclean thing can be cleansed accidentally and through something else, for example if an unclean hand, broom, or lye is applied for cleansing: therefore unclean Ministers too can cleanse the recipient, not through their own power but through the Sacraments which they apply. — To the fourth Saint Augustine responds, in the place just cited, that by the words, what does the washing profit one who is baptized by a dead man? the Baptisms of pagans are meant:

They worship men who are dead both to justice and to this life, in whose name they are baptized. For although Priests themselves are also called dead through impiety, it is nevertheless not understood in this way because of them, but because of their dead gods, in whose sign it is said: The Lord our God is the living God. Therefore, even if among Christians there are some Prelates or Ministers who are dead through their impiety and iniquity, nevertheless he lives of whom it was said in the Gospel: This is he who baptizes; because, as the Apostle says: Christ rising from the dead now dies no more; death shall no longer have dominion over him.

— He gives the same solution in book 1 of Against the Letters of Petilian, chapter 9; hence in chapter 15 he turns the argument back against the Donatists:

If the Maximianists are not dead, why do the Donatists say in their plenary council concerning the Maximianists that the shore is full, after the manner and example of the Egyptians, of the funerals of those perishing, for whom in death itself the punishment is greater because, after their life has been forced out by avenging waters, they do not even find burial? But if they are dead, from where did the Baptism they gave come?

They objected 4. The passage of Jeremiah 15: My people have become to me like deceitful water, which has no faith. And that of Ezekiel 36: I will sprinkle clean water upon you: but, they said, water cleanses and sanctifies a murderer; how will darkness, namely sinners, bless oil, when the Lord has said in Numbers 19: Whatever the unclean person touches shall be unclean? — To the first Saint Augustine responds, book 2 of Against the Letter of Parmenian, around the middle:

Deceitful water that has no faith can be understood not as false Baptism, but as a deceitful and faithless people, not numbered among the truthful and faithful, but among those alone who are faithless and deceitful.... For thus it is said in John, Apocalypse 17: The waters which you saw, where the harlot sits, are peoples, tribes, nations, and tongues.

— To the second he responds, book 5 of On Baptism, chapter 20, that by that clean water is signified the grace of the New Testament and the spiritual abundance which is possessed through the Sacraments. Yet the Minister himself does not give this blessing from himself through baptismal water, to which he has imparted the power of cleansing: God, he says, is present with his Sacraments and words, whoever administers them, and God's Sacraments are sound everywhere, while many men, for whom they are of no benefit, are perverse everywhere.

They objected 5. The passage of Matthew 7: Do they gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles? And in the same place: A good tree cannot produce evil fruits, nor can an evil tree produce good fruits: therefore sinners cannot contribute anything to another's justification. — I deny the consequence; for, as Saint Augustine admirably responds, book 2 of Against the Letter of Petilian, chapter 6:

Every man, even if he is not guilty of his own crimes, does not make another innocent, because he is not God; and otherwise, if the innocence of the baptizer is expected to produce the innocence of the baptized, each person would be the more innocent the more innocent he found the one by whom he was baptized, and he himself would be the less innocent the more so was the one by whom he was baptized. And if perhaps he holds hatred against someone who baptizes, this too will be imputed to the one who is baptized. Why then does the wretched man run to Baptism? So that his own sins may be forgiven, or so that others' may be imposed? Is it as though a merchant's ship should take on another cargo? We customarily understand the good tree and its good fruit, and the evil tree and its evil fruit, as men and their works, as is shown consequently in the words which you too recalled: the good man brings forth good from the good treasure of his heart, and the evil man brings forth evil from the evil treasure of his heart. But when he preaches God's word, if he is evil he preaches or administers not from his own, etc.

Hence in book 1, chapter 8, he turns the argument back against the Donatists, who contended that Baptism conferred by a secret sinner was valid, but not that conferred by a manifest one:

If the good tree is a good baptizer, so that his fruit is good, namely the person whom he baptizes, whoever has been baptized by an evil man, even if he is not manifestly evil, cannot be good: for he has sprung from an evil tree; but a good tree is one thing, and a secret tree, though evil, is another. Or if, when the tree is secretly evil, whoever has been baptized by it is born not from it but from Christ, then those baptized by secretly evil men are justified more holily than those baptized by manifestly good men.

They objected 6. The passage of John 9: God does not hear sinners; but if anyone worships God and does his will, him he hears. Likewise that of Matthew 12: He who is not with me is against me; and he who does not gather with me scatters. — Saint Augustine responds, book 2 of Against the Letter of Parmenian, chapter 8, that the words:

God does not hear sinners, were not spoken by the Lord but by the man who already had the eyes of his body restored, while the eyes of his heart were not yet open; hence he still thought the Lord a Prophet, for later, having recognized him as the Son of God, he adored him. But the Lord himself, when the Pharisee and the Publican were praying in one temple, says that the Publican confessing his sins was more justified than the Pharisee boasting of his merits.... For although the justified man ceased to be a sinner, yet in order to be justified he prayed as a sinner and confessed as a sinner, and he was heard and justified so that he might cease to be a sinner; he would certainly not have ceased to be a sinner unless the sinner had first been heard. Therefore it is true not that every sinner is heard, but nevertheless not that every sinner is not heard. Add to this that the efficacy of Baptism does not depend on the merit of the baptizer but on the merits of the one in whose name Baptism is conferred. — To the second he responds, book 6 of On Baptism, chapter 31, that those words of Christ the Lord can be turned against the Donatists rather than against Catholics: For they scatter Christ's sheep, he says, who lead them by wicked imitation to the ruin of their morals; hence it is clear that they are over foreign children, since all the wicked are called so, and the offspring of Antichrist, since all who oppose Christ are such. The Holy Spirit cannot descend by the laying on of hands alone if true conversion of heart is absent, since it is manifest that the wicked, as long as they are wicked, can indeed have Baptism, but cannot have the salvation of which Baptism is the Sacrament.

They objected 7. The oracle of Christ the Lord, John 20: Receive the Holy Spirit: whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them. Thus they argued: whoever ought to forgive sin through the conferral of a Sacrament must first himself be free from every sin and have the Holy Spirit in himself, so as to confer him on others; but a sinner does not have the Holy Spirit: therefore he can neither confer him on another through a Sacrament nor do anything toward the remission of another's sin. — Saint Augustine responds, book 2 of Against the Letter of Parmenian, chapter 11.

The Holy Spirit is so present in the Prelate or Minister in the Church that, if he is not feigned, the Holy Spirit works through him, both for his reward unto eternal salvation and for the regeneration or edification of those who through him are either consecrated or evangelized. But if he is feigned, since it is most truly written: For the Spirit of discipline will flee from the feigned person, he is deprived of his own salvation, since the Spirit withdraws from thoughts that are without understanding; nevertheless it does not abandon his ministry, through which it works the salvation of others.

THE OBJECTIONS WHICH THE DONATISTS COULD BRING EITHER FROM THE HOLY FATHERS OR FROM THEOLOGICAL REASON ARE PROPOSED.

They objected 2. If the due form, matter, or intention is lacking, the Sacrament cannot be validly confected: therefore, by similarity, if the due Minister is lacking, it likewise cannot be perfected; but that Minister is judged due and legitimate who is clean from every sin, according to Leviticus 21: A man who has a blemish shall not offer bread to his God, nor approach his ministry: therefore, etc. — I distinguish the major: if something essential is lacking in the matter, form, intention, or Minister, I concede; if something merely accidental, required only for decorum and greater fittingness, I deny. The Minister's probity is required only in this latter way, not in the former; hence Saint Augustine admirably, in a Treatise on John:

*We all say that the ministers of so great a Judge ought to be just; but if they who sit in Moses' chair are unwilling to be just, my Teacher makes me secure, of whom the Spirit said: he is the one who baptizes.... I do not fear the adulterer, the drunkard, or the murderer, because I look to the dove, through which it is said to me: he is the one who baptizes.... Judas gave Baptism, and there was no baptism after Judas; John gave it, and there was baptism after John; because what was given by Judas was Christ's Baptism: what was given by John was John's: we prefer not John's Baptism to Christ's, but Christ's Baptism, even when given through Judas's hands, to John's Baptism. Those whom John baptized, John baptized; those whom Judas baptized, Christ baptized: therefore, those whom the drunkard, adulterer, or murderer baptizes, if the Baptism is Christ's by grace, Christ baptized them, for that Sacrament is so holy that it is not defiled even when a murderer ministers it.

You will object: Saint Augustine himself, book 3 of On Baptism, chapter 18: Wicked Ministers do not give remission of sins: therefore neither do they give grace. — I distinguish the antecedent: wicked Ministers do not give remission of sins impetratorily, namely that remission which is given through the prayers of the Saints and of the dove, that is, the groaning and prayers of the Church, I concede: for that remission is given from the work of the worker, insofar as pious Ministers of the Sacraments obtain from God through holy works or prayers good movements of sanctifying and assisting grace, by which the recipients are turned toward God; they do not give the remission of sins which is conferred by the power of the Sacraments and from the work performed, I deny: for, as Saint Augustine himself teaches in book 2 of Against the Letter of Parmenian: All the Sacraments, although they harm those handling them unworthily, nevertheless profit those who worthily receive them through them, whence it was said in Matthew 23: Do what they say, but do not do what they do.

You will press: The remission of sins occurs through the conferral of grace, which is conferred through the Sacraments: but that remission and grace are given only through holy Ministers, not through wicked ones, as Saint Augustine himself teaches in many places, especially book 3 of On Baptism, chapter 18, affirming that the words of Christ the Lord, Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them, were not spoken to robbers and undertakers. And in book 5, chapter 21: God gives the Sacrament of grace even through evil men; grace itself, however, only through himself or his Saints. — I distinguish the minor: the remission of sins and the conferral of grace do not occur through wicked and evil men decently and duly, I concede; they do not occur validly and absolutely, I deny: for, as Saint Augustine himself teaches in book 6 of On Baptism, chapter 5: It contributes nothing to the holiness of Baptism how much worse a person is who has it, or how much worse the person who gives it; he can give it while separated, just as he can have it while separated; but as harmful as it is to have it, so harmful is it to give it; yet the one to whom he gives it can receive it beneficially, etc.

You will object 3. Saint Ambrose, book 1 of On Initiation, chapter 1, where he says: In some there is deceitful water; the Baptism of the faithless does not heal or cleanse, but pollutes. And Innocent I, as reported in question 1, canon Who has perfection, where we read: Those who have lost the perfection of the spirit which they had seized cannot give its fullness, since they lost it through their faithlessness; he who did not have the honor could not give honor, nor seize anything, because there was nothing in the giver; but he gave the damnation which he had through the wicked laying on of hands: therefore wicked Ministers do not confer grace through the Sacraments. — I deny the consequence, and to the first I say that Saint Ambrose is not speaking of Sacraments duly conferred by wicked Ministers, but of heretics who celebrated Baptism not in the form of the Church but in the form of their own perversity. To the second I distinguish: when an adult knowingly and willingly receives the Church's Sacraments without necessity from Ministers separated from the Church, when he could easily receive them from legitimate Ministers, he receives damnation rather than grace because of contempt and disdain for the Church, I concede; because of the nullity and invalidity of the Sacrament, I deny.

You will object: Wicked Ministers profane and pollute the Sacraments: therefore they cannot sanctify through them. — I distinguish the antecedent: they profane them with respect to themselves, because of their perverse will and wickedness, by which, handling a sacred thing unworthily, they are more polluted while they cleanse others, I concede; on the part of the Sacraments and recipients, I deny: for according to Augustine, book 3 of On Baptism, chapter 10: The water over which God's name is invoked is not profane and adulterous; therefore neither the creature itself nor the name itself is adulterous. Christ's Baptism is preserved by the words of the Gospel, and is holy both through adulterers and in adulterers, because its holiness cannot be removed or polluted, and divine power attends its Sacrament, whether for the salvation of those living well or for the ruin of those using it badly; for the light of wax or of a lamp, when diffused through sewers, contracts no filth from them; and Christ's Baptism cannot be polluted by crimes. And from Nicholas I, To the Consultations of the Bulgarians, chapter 1: No one, however polluted, can pollute the divine Sacraments; nor can a sunbeam passing through sewers draw any contagion from them. Therefore, whatever sort of priest he is, he cannot pollute what is holy; nevertheless, if it is to be received in common, it is to be received from him until he is rejected by the judgment of the Bishops: for wicked men administering good things harm only themselves, just as a wax light when lit causes harm to itself but provides light to others in darkness.

Second Conclusion. — A CONSECRATED MINISTER COMMITS MORTAL SIN EVERY TIME HE CONFECTS AND ADMINISTERS THE SACRAMENTS IN A STATE OF MORTAL SIN.

The first part is proved: a person sins as often as he transgresses an express divine command; but when a consecrated Minister confects and administers a Sacrament in a state of mortal sin, he transgresses a divine command: therefore, etc. The major is clear: for sin is a transgression and violation of the law. The minor is proved by all those texts of Scripture in which God commands that God's Ministers handle holy things holily; especially Leviticus 21: They shall be holy to their God and shall not pollute his name; for they offer the incense of the Lord and the bread of their God, and therefore they shall be holy. And chapter 22: Say to them, the sons of Aaron, and to their descendants: Every man who approaches from your offspring to the things that have been consecrated and that the children of Israel offered to the Lord, in whom there is uncleanness, shall perish before the Lord. And Isaiah 52: Cleanse yourselves, you who carry the vessels of the Lord. Hence Psalm 49, rebuking the sinner, says: Why do you recount my justice and take up my covenant through your mouth? But you have hated discipline, etc. From these it can be inferred that if the greatest purity and cleanliness were required in the Ministers of the Old Law, and if a sinner is rebuked because he dares to utter God's covenant, the precepts of the Law, and praises, how much more is purity of conscience and spirit required in the Ministers of the New Law, so that they may worthily approach to handle the Sacraments, which are ordered to confer not only legal holiness but also internal and supernatural holiness?

The same truth is proved by the authority of the Supreme Pontiffs and the Holy Fathers; for Saint Gregory, book 1 of the Letters, Letter 21, says: It is necessary that the hands of the one who strives to wash away filth should strive to be clean, lest by touch he pollute each thing worse. For it is written: Cleanse yourselves, you who carry the vessels of the Lord. Likewise from Nicholas I in his responses to the consultations of the Bulgarians: Many, he says, by administering good things harm only themselves, just as a wax light when lit is a detriment to itself but administers light to others in darkness, and from the source of benefit to others it brings loss to itself. Urban I, Letter to Lucius: Our predecessors Nicholas and Gregory VII decreed that the faithful abstain from the Masses of priests who are found to be drunkards or adulterers, so that such men may not be deprived of the threshold of divine penance. Gregory IX, in the final chapter On the Time of Ordination, says that individual Priests are to be removed and adjured under threat of divine judgment, if they have not purified themselves, not to minister in the orders they have received. And in the final chapter On the Cohabitation of Clerics and Women: Every Priest who has bound himself by mortal sin is to be suspended, not because he has been affected by a special censure of the Church, but because by reason of his state he is impeded from doing divine things.

The Holy Fathers teach the same truth, especially Saint Augustine, book 2 of Against the Letter of Parmenian, chapter 10, where he says: The Sacraments, although they harm those handling them unworthily, nevertheless profit those who worthily receive them through them.

Reason also supports it: irreverence toward God and pollution of sacred things is a sin mortal by its kind, since it is sacrilege; but the administration of the Sacraments, when performed by a Minister who is in mortal sin, is a kind of irreverence toward God and pollution of the Sacraments themselves; for that Minister, as far as lies in him, pollutes them. He shows himself unworthy of God's presence when he thrusts himself into the sacred ministry in a state hateful to God: therefore, etc. — Furthermore, one sins in acting who does what ought not to be done; but one who administers the Sacraments in a state of mortal sin does not act as he ought, because the Minister ought to conform to his Lord, according to Ecclesiasticus 10: As is the judge of the people, so also is his Minister; but the Lord is most holy. Hence Saint Augustine, Treatise 5 on John, concludes: We all say that the Ministers of so great a Judge ought to be just, etc. — Finally, the holiness of the Sacraments, since it is a sacred thing, must also be handled holily, not profanely, that is, with the unworthiness of mortal sin, as a profane action is exercised; but when the Sacraments are administered in a state of mortal sin, such action on the Minister's part is not distinguished from a profane action, since it is hateful and injurious to God: therefore, etc.

You will say: Sinners do not incur a new sin while performing works of charity; but the administration of the Sacraments is a work of charity: therefore a sinner who administers them does not incur a new sin. — I distinguish the major: one who performs works of charity from something not consecrated, and for which he is not bound by justice, let it pass; one who performs works of charity from a sacred thing, which he is bound to exercise by reason of justice, does not commit mortal sin, I deny. And with the minor distinguished in the same way, the consequence must be denied: since the Sacraments are sacred in themselves and the Minister is bound by office to confer them, probity of life is required in him, so that he may handle holy things holily.

You will object: If it is a mortal sin to administer the Sacraments in a state of mortal sin, especially because every administration of a sacred thing in a state of mortal sin brings in a new mortal sin: but the consequent is false: therefore, etc. The major is established by what was just said. The minor, however, is proved: first, because if a Bishop in mortal sin confers the first Tonsure, effects chrism, blesses oil, or consecrates a church, he effects a sacred thing; yet he does not sin mortally. Likewise, Deacons or Subdeacons ministering in mortal sin perform a sacred thing, yet they do not thereby commit a new mortal sin. Finally, preachers announcing the Word of God by office in a state of mortal sin administer a sacred thing, yet they do not seem to sin mortally: therefore neither do those who administer the Sacraments. — I deny the minor, and to its first proof I say that, indeed, it does not seem improbable that a Bishop effecting the aforesaid things does not sin mortally, because these are merely certain sacramentals, which in themselves are not immediately instituted to confer grace, nor in them does the Minister act as the legate of God who sanctifies the soul, and consequently, in performing these things in a state of mortal sin, they do not seem to commit a new sin: for this requires not only that it be a sacred thing, but also that the action itself be consecrated in itself and ordered to immediately conferring sanctity on the soul, and furthermore that he be deputed to that action by office: nevertheless, I would not consider free from venial sin one who performed these things in a mortal state: because ministers of sacred things are bound to have holiness above other men; for they ought to be conformed to the Lord, whose legates they are. — As for the Deacon and Subdeacon carrying out their proper ministry in a state of mortal sin, they do not seem free from a new sin: since St. Paul, 1 Timothy 3, warns that Deacons likewise must be chaste, not double-tongued, not devoted to much wine, not pursuing shameful gain, holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience. Hence Alexander II, as we read in Distinction 32, chapter Furthermore, decreed:

Whatever Priest, Deacon, or Subdeacon, after the constitution of our predecessor of blessed memory, Saint Pope Leo, and of Nicholas concerning the chastity of Clerics, has not abandoned a concubine or wife, we command on the part of Almighty God and by the authority of the blessed Apostles, and absolutely forbid him, to sing Masses, to read the Gospel or Epistle at Mass, to remain in the Presbyterium for divine offices with those who obeyed the blessed constitution, or to receive a portion from the Church.

Although he prescribes only against concubinary Deacons and Subdeacons, nevertheless the same seems to be said concerning those themselves who are guilty of any mortal sin, because they perform a sacred thing irreverently and unworthily. Hence, in chapter Quaesitum on the times of ordinations, Gregory IX says that not only adulterous priests, but also adulterous clerics, murderers, perjurers, and false witnesses are to be removed and, under threat of divine judgment, earnestly admonished not to minister in the Orders they have received as a testimony to their condemnation, unless they repent. I nevertheless judge that exercising the acts of the minor Orders in mortal sin is not a mortal sin: both because the matter is light, and because those acts are ordered only remotely to the sacrifice and the Sacrament, nor is it altogether certain that those minor Orders have the character of a perfect and complete Sacrament. — As for preachers, it appears probable that, fulfilling their ministry in mortal sin, they sin mortally: because they carry out a just and holy matter unjustly, since they depart from the holiness both of the Gospel and of Christ the Lord, whose place and ministry they undertake. Hence God also sharply rebukes their audacity in these words of the Psalm: Why do you recount my justices? etc.

Third Conclusion. — IT IS LICIT TO ASK FOR AND RECEIVE THE SACRAMENTS OF BAPTISM AND PENANCE FROM ANY MINISTER IN A CASE OF NECESSITY; IT IS ALSO LICIT TO RECEIVE THEM FROM ANY EVIL MINISTER WHEN HE IS TOLERATED IN THE CHURCH, IF SOME NECESSITY URGES; BUT NOT IF HE HAS BEEN CUT OFF, WHEN THERE IS NO PRESSING NECESSITY. This Conclusion consists of three parts, of which

The first is handed down in the Council of Trent, Session 14, chapter 7, where we read:

It has always been observed in the Church of God that there is no relaxation at the point of death; and likewise all Priests can absolve any penitents from any sins and censures in the ultimate danger of life.

The same is established in Eugene's decree at the end of the Council of Florence, where it is decreed that in a case of necessity even a Pagan or Heretic can baptize, provided he observes the Church's form and intends to do what the Church does. Saint Augustine also teaches the same, book 1 of On Baptism, chapter 2, where he says:

If extreme necessity should perhaps compel, when he has not found a Catholic through whom he may receive it, and he preserves Catholic peace in his mind, so that he has received it through someone placed outside Catholic unity, if it happens that he immediately departs this life, we regard him as Catholic and nothing else.

Reason also supports this: for the revocation and removal of jurisdiction, as regards the confection and administration of the Sacraments, is not made as a punishment of the faithful receiving the Sacraments, but as a punishment of the wicked ministers. Furthermore, the Doctor says, distinction 5, question 2, no. 3: The precept of a superior obliges more than that of an inferior; but God commands Baptism to be received and did not determine from whom in a time of necessity; the Church, however, forbids association with one whom it cuts off: therefore in that case the divine precept must be obeyed more than the Church's. That is, when an obligation of ecclesiastical law coincides with an obligation of divine law, ecclesiastical law yields to divine law, and the lesser to the greater; but the obligation to receive the Sacrament of Baptism and Penance is of divine law, whereas the prohibition against receiving Sacraments from a Minister separated from the Church is only of ecclesiastical law: therefore, etc. Finally, the Doctor says in the same place:

The excommunicated person is more bound to avoid others than others are bound to flee his company, because avoiding an excommunicated person is his punishment for his contumacy, and it binds him more to avoid others than it binds others to avoid him. But, says the Doctor, one who has been cut off or excommunicated in that case is not bound to avoid another; rather, he is bound not to avoid him. For if such a cut-off person knew that some little child, not baptized, would die immediately, he would necessarily be bound to baptize him, and thus not to avoid him in the act of baptizing. I prove this because if he found him exposed to danger of bodily life through hunger, he would necessarily be bound to help him in order to save his bodily life; but he is more bound to love his spiritual life than his bodily life: therefore, when the little child is exposed to danger of spiritual life, he is bound to confer upon him the remedy necessary for spiritual life; therefore much more is another not bound to avoid that same person by associating with him in such an act.

The second part is proved, namely, that it is permitted to ask for the Sacraments from a bad Minister who has not been cut off by the Church, but is tolerated, and upon whom it falls by office to minister the Sacrament. I say it is proved first from the decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs, especially Nicholas I, as is related in question 5, chapter Scribentibus, where, responding to the inquiries of the Bulgarians, he writes: When writing to us asking whether you ought to receive communion from a priest who has been caught in adultery, or has merely been tainted by this reputation, or not, we answer: Communion is to be received from him until he has been rejected by the judgment of the Bishops. Likewise, Lucius III, chapter Vestra on the cohabitation of clerics and women, where we read:

In some places it is said: Let no one hear the Mass of a Priest whom he knows with certainty to have a concubine. In some places it is read: No matter how polluted he may be, he cannot pollute the divine Sacraments. Therefore, the mysteries of Christ are received fearlessly from every Priest. For the rest, one distinction concerns what is notorious, another what is occult. What is notorious is defined as that concerning which a Presbyter is canonically condemned; what is occult is what is tolerated by the Church: it is one thing when a Presbyter does not deny a notorious crime, or is canonically condemned for it. It is another thing to abstain from the offices of such men, so that the license to sin may be taken away from the others, and people of this kind may be drawn to the Sacrament of Penance. It is another thing if such mysteries are rejected as though they belonged to men lying in fornication. Therefore, hold without doubt that from clerics and presbyters, as from fornicators, so long as they are tolerated and do not possess the essence of the work, the divine mysteries may lawfully be heard and the other Ecclesiastical Sacraments received. And in the same place Gregory IX, chapter Quaesitum est, says: It was asked concerning clerics who have fallen into fornication, whether their office should be heard before they have repented. Indeed, although anyone who is known, as regards himself, to be suspended for mortal sin ought not to be avoided in his offices, nevertheless, as regards others, he is not already suspended in the case proposed, unless such sin is notorious through a sentence, or a confession made in court, or through the obviousness of the matter, which cannot be concealed by any evasion.

The Doctor clearly explains this truth, distinction 5, question 2, no. 15, where he says:

*As to the second member of the distinction, namely concerning an evil man not cut off by the Church, if he is secretly evil, so that his life is not scandalous to the people, it is sufficiently conceded that some people may, indeed ought to, receive Baptism from such a man, if otherwise they ought to receive it, because on account of a sin that is not notorious no one ought to avoid his neighbor in notorious acts. But if he is either notoriously evil, for example publicly a fornicator or something of that kind, either it falls to him by office to dispense the Sacrament of Baptism, for example because he is a Priest or Parish Curate, or, if it does not fall to him, it is nevertheless fitting by reason of his office, for example because he is a Priest assigned or called to assist the Curate. In the first way, the one who receives Baptism for himself or for his little child does not sin, because one does not sin who asks a due thing from an evil man; that Curate is a debtor to his parish in administering these Sacraments. In the second way, if he can have another whose office it is to baptize, either equally evil or better: if better, the one who receives from him sins, because it does not fall to him to administer the Sacraments; and if equally evil, he ought to receive from his own. But if no other Curate or Priest can be obtained except one equally evil with this man, while a good Layman can nevertheless be obtained, it is doubtful which should be preferred to which in this act: a good Layman to a publicly evil Priest, or an evil Priest to a good Layman. And briefly, because the offi> ce of administering the Sacraments in the Church belongs to Priests, it seems that it should be said that, as regards this act, the evil Priest is rather to be chosen.

You will say 1: From the Apostle, Romans 1: They are worthy of death not only those who do those sins, but also those who consent to those doing them; but one who asks for or receives Sacraments from an evil Minister shares in his sin, namely in the sacrilegious administration of the Sacrament: therefore, etc. — I deny the minor, for one who receives the Sacraments from an evil Minister tolerated by the Church does not share in that wicked man's sin, but rather in the holiness of the Church, by which it presents or tolerates that Minister for carrying out divine things and serving the salvation of the faithful.

You will press: One who leads another into sin shares in his sin; but one who asks for a Sacrament from a Minister whom he knows to be wicked leads him to sin, namely to commit sacrilege: therefore, etc. — The Doctor denies the minor, in the place cited above, no. 9, where he says:

I say that one who asks Baptism from an evil Priest does not cooperate with him directly in mortal sin; for he asks from him an act that is due, and in this he does not sin, because no one's wickedness excuses him from fulfilling the duty by which he is bound to another. That requested act could also be fulfilled without sin if the one who is to baptize were converted. Hence, so far as concerns the act of the one asking, the asker rather compels the Priest to repent than to perform an act of sin. But if he does not repent, nothing is to be imputed to the one who asks for that act, because he does not ask for it insofar as it is a sin, but insofar as it is a duty.

You will ask: How should one conduct himself toward a Simoniac Minister who would not confer a Sacrament without receiving a payment? — The Doctor responds, no. 7.

I say that if he were unwilling to baptize in any way unless he received payment for the act of baptizing, and thus were perfectly simoniacal, because he was selling the Sacrament, Baptism must in no way be received from him, neither for an adult, because that person would sin mortally and is not obliged to receive the Sacrament when he cannot receive it without mortal sin, nor for his own little child: even suppose that there were no one in the Province who was willing to baptize. AND IF YOU ARGUE, then he exposes his little child to the danger of damnation. — I answer: let him baptize the child himself if he can, for example if he is neither maimed nor mute, or if he cannot find anyone to baptize his little child except by buying Baptism, he ought to let his little child die without Baptism: evil things must not be done so that good may come from them, Romans, chapter 3. *and each person ought to love himself more than his neighbor, and consequently ought to avoid mortal sin in himself more than damnation in another. Nevertheless, that difficult case, or one that would never occur, is such that Baptism can be obtained without simony being committed on the part of the one baptizing or of the one offering the little child for baptism. For if that Priest wished to sell his water and would in no way grant it otherwise, the water itself may be bought, even suppose that it is consecrated; but with no regard whatsoever to the consecration, because it would be worth as much as unconsecrated water. Thus it is permitted to sell a consecrated chalice, with no regard whatsoever to buying or selling the consecration. But if the Priest endeavors to sell > the act of baptizing, the one who offers the little child may buy it, not intending to buy the act insofar as it is sacramental, but the Priest's labor in that act. Just as nowadays Priests are hired to celebrate Masses, not so that they themselves sell, and others buy, the act of celebration insofar as it is sacramental—far be it from us—but they sell their labor, and others buy it: because each person must somehow live from his labor and obtain his livelihood.

Finally, the third part is proved, namely, that it is not permitted to ask for the Sacraments from a Minister cut off by the Church: first, indeed, from the aforementioned Councils of Constance, Basel, and Lateran, in which a penalty is decreed against those who received the Order or other Sacraments from prohibited Ministers. Second, from the Supreme Pontiffs, especially Innocent I, Letter 22, chapter 8, where he writes: We say that those ordained by heretics have their head wounded by that laying on of hands. Also from Saint Gregory, Book 3 of the Dialogues, chapter 31, where he relates and praises the generous steadfastness of Saint Hermenegild, who preferred to suffer the bloody death inflicted by his father's command rather than receive the Eucharist offered by Arian Bishops. — Likewise Nicholas I, in chapter 71 on the inquiries of the Bulgarians, responds:

Whatever sort of Priest he is, he cannot pollute holy things; therefore Communion is to be received from him until he is rejected by the judgment of the Bishops: and consequently he judges that it is not to be received from those who are cut off from the Church by an episcopal sentence and judgment. — Gregory VII establishes the same in book 2 of the Letters, Letter 15, which is to Rodulf and Berthold: You, he says, are in no way to receive the office from those whom you know either to have been promoted and ordained simoniacally or to be lying in the crime of fornication. Finally Urban II clearly hands down this truth in his Letter to Lucius, where, concerning Sacraments administered by notorious sinners, he says: > They certainly have their proper powers and dignities; but for those administering or receiving these same Sacraments contrary to the constitutions of the aforesaid Pontiffs, unless perhaps only death intervenes so that someone may not depart this life without Baptism or Communion, these things, I say, are so harmful to those administering and receiving them that they are almost idolaters, since the confection of Orders and Sacraments with such men, and knowingly receiving them otherwise than permitted, are vehemently forbidden by the holy Canons.

The Holy Fathers teach the same, especially Saint Ambrose, book On Initiation, chapter 4, where he says: The Baptism of the faithless does not heal or cleanse, but pollutes. And Saint Fulgentius, book On Faith to Peter, chapter 36: Hold most firmly and do not doubt at all that the Sacrament of Baptism can exist among heretics, but that outside the Catholic Church it cannot profit. And in book 1 of On Baptism, chapter 2, and elsewhere: They can have the form separately, he says, but power cannot be present in them, just as sensation does not follow a limb when it is cut off from the body.

From all these things follow four rules to be observed by the duty of justice, religion, and charity, which our Hiquaeus sets forth and explains in his Commentary on the Doctor's cited question, number 11. The first is: in a case of extreme necessity, whether one's own or that of a child, even a Minister who has been cut off can administer Baptism, and it can be asked for and received from him; because by the duty of charity and also by the duty of religion, by reason of his Order, he is bound to the person in extreme need, and thus by the precept both of charity toward oneself and toward the child, and by the duty of religion, the one asking is bound to embrace a Sacrament given by anyone; and this rule presupposes an extreme necessity that is either real or moral.

— The second rule is: a tolerated Priest who is a Parish Priest has, beyond the duty of charity and religion, also a duty of justice to administer the Sacrament to his subjects outside necessity, when no one else is available; and the parishioner may licitly ask the Sacrament even from him when it could not be deferred without grave harm.

I understand grave harm as an omission by which ecclesiastical law and custom would not be fulfilled, or when a notable loss would be suffered through its omission; and this rule applies equally when asking for the Sacrament from another. Nevertheless, the obligation rests upon the Minister unless he is the ordinary, or at least has been appointed by a superior as Vicar and assistant; in that case he has a duty to administer not only from charity but also from justice, provided he assumes that responsibility and the care of supplying the Parish Priest's deficiency.

— The third rule is: when someone can provide for himself otherwise without harm to himself, and without spiritual harm to his Parish Priest, he is bound by the affirmative precept of charity not to ask for the Sacrament from a wicked Parish Priest, whom he knows will minister only sacrilegiously, because through the frequent exercise of the ministry he is confirmed in evil and, having been given over to a reprobate mind, he despises conversion, which perhaps would not be delayed if others withdrew from his communion; because those who are hastening¹ into evil often come to a halt through the very confusion and are converted to the good. And perhaps the Parishioner is also bound to the same by the precept of religion, and of divine honor, and of reverence for the Sacrament.

What of these things concurs in the particular case here and now must be weighed from the circumstances of the case, applying these general rules, from which individual cases can be resolved in particular, in which one may associate with a notoriously evil Minister, whether cut off or not cut off.

— The fourth rule: as regards a Minister who is secretly evil, both publicly and privately one ought to ask the Sacrament from him if no other is available or cannot conveniently be awaited, provided the rule of charity is thereby observed, the rule previously given concerning the scandal of the Pharisees, by seeking his salvation and the reverence due to the Sacrament insofar as this can conveniently be done. Thus Hiquaeus.