Can priests have conditional intentions when administering sacraments?

[FortressGiant]

Greetings all,

I keep trying to find an answer to this in canon law but have not found it yet. Does anyone know of a section in canon law or the Catechism that deals with whether or not priests can have conditional intentions when administering the sacraments and whether or not having a conditional intention would impact validity? All help is greatly appreciated. Thanks!

FG

 

[PickyPicky]

I believe ordination can be conditional, can’t it? Conditional on a subject’s previous ordination being invalid?

 

[Todd_Easton]

From the Code of Canon Law:

Canon 845
§1 Because they imprint a character, the sacraments of baptism, confirmation and order cannot be repeated.
§2 If after diligent enquiry a prudent doubt remains as to whether the sacraments mentioned in §1 have been conferred at all, or conferred validly, they are to be conferred conditionally. (source)

 

[Hodos]

The validity of the sacrament does not depend on the person administering it. God is performing the work, the person administering the sacrament is only declaring God’s promises to us. We are not Donatists.

 

[FortressGiant]

The validity of the sacrament does not depend on the person administering it. God is performing the work, the person administering the sacrament is only declaring God’s promises to us. We are not Donatists.

Hello Hodos,

Thank you for your reply. To be more specific with this…the validity of the sacrament can depend on the minister administering it, since the proper intention of the minister is required for valid administration. For example, if a lay person baptized but their intention was simply to make fun of the ritual, the baptism would not be valid.

What I am asking about specifically is whether or not the minister can have a conditional intention for the administration of a sacrament, besides those mentioned as necessary in canon law. For example:

1. Priest intends to baptize the way the Church does but has a past condition in his mind of “this will only be valid if the person actually did come to RCIA every single time like they said they did” OR
2. Priest intends to absolve during confession but has a future condition in his mind of “this will only be valid if the person never commits these sins again” or “so long as the person never commits the sins mentioned again”

I understand this would be very rare and would likely require an uneducated or crooked priest but I’m curious about what canon law does have to say about these types of conditional intentions, whether they are known in public or only privately, held by the administering ministers.

FG

 

[Hodos]

First, feel free to demonstrate this scripturally. Second, the early Church Fathers would disagree with you on this score. The validity of the sacrament is based on Christ’s atoning work and on faith, not of the administrator, but of the one receiving the sacrament. As an example, refer to 1 Corinthians 11 where the sacrament has been administered in an improper manner that actually blasphemes the sacrament, however, Paul warns those who participate in such actions that the body and blood of Christ are indeed present and that they are eating and drinking judgement upon themselves.

 

[Godfollower]

Hodos —

You are correct that the validity of a Sacrament does not depend on the purity of the person performing it. But you are incorrect in saying that the person’s intent is irrelevant.

Canon xi. If any one shall say, that, in ministers, whilst they effect, and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does; let him be anathema.

Trent canon XI.

This is why, for example, a decree of nullity can be had following a “shotgun wedding” — the ministers of the Sacrament of Matrimony are the bride and groom; if the groom was coerced, then he lacked the requisite intent to perform the Sacrament, and it was done invalidly.

To be valid, a Sacrament requires three things: the proper matter, the proper form, and the proper intent of the minister of the Sacrament.

 

[Hodos]

Again, feel free to demonstrate where in scripture this Canon law is proven, not assumed. Thanks. As you can see above, the canon is at odds with scripture.

So just looking at your example of marriage, this understanding of marriage (we don’t hold this to be a sacrament, but it demonstrates the fallacy of your line of thought) is at odds with what Christ’s word says in Matthew 19 regarding divorce. The coercion thing, first of all, is false. Is he at the altar or the justice of the peace? Did he say I do? If the answer is yes, he took an oath to marry his wife, then his motivations for doing so are irrelevant (whether he feels some moral obligation to marry her because they got pregnant out of wedlock or whatever, the reasoning is immaterial). Jesus doesn’t give an excuse for dissolving the marriage because someone had their fingers crossed. His statement in Matthew 19:9 is addressed to ANYONE with one exception, adultery. He isn’t interested in the motivations for the marriage. Proposing otherwise is nothing more than trying to create loopholes where his verbiage doesn’t allow for it.

The other interesting thing about this Canon is that it was proposed in response to the Reformation and the fact that the Reformers continued to celebrate the Sacraments of Baptism and Communion. It essentially conveniently overturned the Catholic reaction to the Donatists and Novatianists so that only the Sacraments performed within the Roman Catholic church were efficacious and valid. Now all of a sudden, it isn’t Christ doing the work, its the minister. That’s a problem.

 

[Godfollower]

Now all of a sudden, it isn’t Christ doing the work, its the minister. That’s a problem.

No, Jesus did the work when He creates the Sacraments. But they require the intent of the minister to be valid.

By your argument, actors are married every time they act out a wedding. That’s just silly. After all, the Scripture doesn’t require an altar or a justice of the peace; nor does it stipulate a minimum age. Why don’t we just say that every pair of five-year-olds who acts out a wedding is in fact actually married?

Because they don’t meet the requirements to be validly married — just as a groom who’s too drunk to form valid consent or too scared of the bride’s Dad’s shotgun to say “no” lacks the required intent to perform the Sacrament of Matrimony.

 

[Hodos]

No, Jesus did the work when He creates the Sacraments. But they require the intent of the minister to be valid.

Again, feel free to demonstrate this from scripture. And Novatian would be applauding you. And clearly, acting out a wedding and being married are two separate things. Reducing the argument to the absurd only demonstrates the absurdity of your position.

 

[Godfollower]

Again, feel free to demonstrate this from scripture. And Novatian would be applauding you. And clearly, acting out a wedding and being married are two separate things. Reducing the argument to the absurd only demonstrates the absurdity of your position.

Your own response proves my point. Yes, acting out a wedding and validly performing a wedding are in fact two different things. Why? Because their intent is different — one couple intends to get paid for acting; one couple intends to perform the Sacrament. The only difference lies in their intent.

As for Scriptural references, here you go:

You ask and receive not: because you ask amiss, that you may consume it on your concupiscences.

Janes 4:3.

If you’d rather a more modern translation, here’s one:

When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.

That’s all we’re saying: say the words all you like, but it isn’t a Sacrament if your intent isn’t there.

 

[Todd_Easton]

Not a sacrament per se but there was the incident recorded in Acts of the “Jewish exorcists who undertook to pronounce the name of Jesus over those who had evil spirits” and it didn’t go well for them, being “overpowered” and forced to flee “naked and wounded.” (Acts 19:13-16) So, obviously, more was required for an exorcism than the exorcist simply pronouncing the name of Jesus over those who had evil spirits. I suspect what they lacked was the intention to honor Jesus as God incarnate.

 

[Blessedwithfive]

As far as baptism is concerned, the administer of the sacrament does not have to be a believer to make the sacrament valid. It is just matter (water) and form (I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit) and it is valid.

 

[Godfollower]

As far as baptism is concerned, the administer of the sacrament does not have to be a believer to make the sacrament valid. It is just matter (water) and form (I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit) and it is valid.

The minister also has to have the requisite intent. But that intent need only be something like “I intend to do whatever the Catholic Church means when it talks about baptism” — and that’s enough, even if the baptizer is not Catholic and thinks it’s all a bunch of hooey. There are atheist ER personnel who have baptized more infants than some Catholic clergy — because the infants were in danger of death, and the fact of baptism brought peace to the parents, which in turn helped calm the situation and helped in providing medical care to the patients.