The role of intent

[neophyte]

I know that a non-Catholic can validly baptise even if he doesn’t believe what we believe about the nature of the sacrament. The intent to do what Jesus intended is sufficient, even if his understanding of what Jesus intended is wrong.

I’m also led to understand that, in the same way, a priest can validly consecrate the eucharist even if he doesn’t believe what the Church teaches about the nature of the sacrament, provided his intent is to do what the Church “really” does.

And a couple can validly marry, even given the same kind of defect in their understanding of the nature of marrieage.

So it appears that a defect in ones understanding of the nature of the sacrament doesn’t necessearily mean that there’s a defect in intent which would render the sacrament invalid.

Is the same true for the sacrament of confession? A non-Catholic who doesn’t believe what the Church teaches about confession may not licitly receive absolution, but what if his honest intent is to do what Jesus instituted, he makes with a contrite heart what otherwise would be a good confession, the priest doesn’t figure out that he’s not a Catholic, and he performs the penance that the priest prescribes? Would the absolution be valid?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Hi neophyte,

I think you can find the answer in the Code of Canon Law:
Can. 844

§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.
The sacraments referred to are Eucharist, Confession and Anointing of the Sick. Also note the §3 deals with the case of members of Eastern Churches not in full communion with Rome. Your question didn’t distinguish between the different types of non-Catholics, but they have different standing.

Does that help?

VC

 

[neophyte]

Hi neophyte,

I think you can find the answer in the Code of Canon Law:Can. 844
§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.
The sacraments referred to are Eucharist, Confession and Anointing of the Sick. Also note the §3 deals with the case of members of Eastern Churches not in full communion with Rome. Your question didn’t distinguish between the different types of non-Catholics, but they have different standing.

Does that help?

VC

I saw that, but it only speaks to licitness, not to validity, and the circumstance described is different.

 

[jpjd]

First, let’s clarify this about baptism: baptism by laity (and that includes non-Catholics) can be performed only in case of emergency, i.e. in danger of death.

Second, your hypothetical situation regarding the non-Catholic in Confession would not be valid because it is performed with deception. You say: the “non-Catholic doesn’t believe what the Church teaches about confession” and “his honest intent is to do what Jesus instituted, he makes with a contrite heart what otherwise would be a good confession,” [if that is even possible when he doesn’t believe what the Church teaches about confession] and then you say “the priest doesn’t figure out that he’s not a Catholic.”

The deception is that someone is posing as a Catholic to receive a sacrament that not only he should not receive but receives it without the priest knowing he’s not Catholic.

The sacraments are not a game to see how far can we push the envelope and still have it be valid. The Confession would not only be invalid but I think the deceptive non-Catholic just committed sacrilege .

Remember, in Confession, there is not only the priest’s intent but part of the sign of the sacrament is the contrition on the part of the penitent. Deception and contrition do not go together.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I saw that, but it only speaks to licitness, not to validity, and the circumstance described is different.

Neophyte,

Could you explicate that more? If it is licit then it would be valid, no?

I suppose you are asking if the Non-Catholic approaches confession absent a grave reason, and therefore illicitly, would the absolution nevertheless be valid?

VC

 

[cameron_lansing]

In your discussion, you may want to distinguish among some notions.

Intent relates to the will. That is where we form intention.

Error or ignorance relate to the intellect. That is where we form knowledge.

Error or ignorance may, or may not, infect an act of the will.

A general principle is that a defect in the intellect by a recipient does not invalidate a sacramental act or marriage (when it is not sacramental) unless it is determinative of the will.

While baptized non Catholics may receive sacramental absolution under the conditions of canon 844 (which should be read in its entirity), one who places a positive act of the will not to receive it would not.(*) Otherwise, the recipient may receive the sacrament both validly and licitly.

A proper disposition, minimally the intention to receive a sacrament, is required.

Here the error or ignorance about the sacrament would have to infect the intention. The only real way to know that in the external forum (the public forum) would be a recourse to the judgement of a Church authority (such as when a bishop has to decide on the validity of a baptism or a tribunal on the validity of marriage or ordination). But the conditions for that examination are unlikely to ever arise since confession pertains to the internal forum (the forum of conscience).

(*)The same is held to be true (ever since a declaration of the Holy Office in the 1800s) in the case of a an adult to whom baptism is administered, but who does not intend to receive it.

 

[neophyte]

In your discussion, you may want to distinguish among some notions.

Intent relates to the will. That is where we form intention.

Error or ignorance relate to the intellect. That is where we form knowledge.

Error or ignorance may, or may not, infect an act of the will.

A general principle is that a defect in the intellect by a recipient does not invalidate a sacramental act or marriage (when it is not sacramental) unless it is determinative of the will.

While baptized non Catholics may receive sacramental absolution under the conditions of canon 844 (which should be read in its entirity), one who places a positive act of the will not to receive it would not.(*) Otherwise, the recipient may receive the sacrament both validly and licitly.

A proper disposition, minimally the intention to receive a sacrament, is required.

Here the error or ignorance about the sacrament would have to infect the intention. The only real way to know that in the external forum (the public forum) would be a recourse to the judgement of a Church authority (such as when a bishop has to decide on the validity of a baptism or a tribunal on the validity of marriage or ordination). But the conditions for that examination are unlikely to ever arise since confession pertains to the internal forum (the forum of conscience).

(*)The same is held to be true (ever since a declaration of the Holy Office in the 1800s) in the case of a an adult to whom baptism is administered, but who does not intend to receive it.

Thank you, Deacon John.

I guess what has me scratching my head is that I don’t see how the error in understanding would necessarily infect the intent.

I can see how a non-Catholic could conclude from Sacred Scripture that we are to confess our sins one to another (I know some who have). I could also see how, because few non-Catholic denominations do confession, he could seek to confess to a Catholic priest without knowing that it would be a violation of Catholic canon law; the fact that non-Catholics often ask if it’s alright indicates to me that many really don’t know.

Despite the fact that he might not believe in the sacramental nature of confession, he could very well be intending to get from the process whatever Christ intends him to get. This to me seems very similar to the case of non-Catholics who do not believe in the sacramental nature of baptism, and yet who have a proper disposition.

What am I missing?

 

[Aramis]

For confession to be valid:

1. The confession must be made to a priest with confession faculties.
2. the penitent must confess their mortal sins
3. the penitent must intend to resist committing them again.
4. the penitent must understand the need for confession
5. Sacramental Absolution must be given by the proper formulae.

Now, non-catholics can confess their sins, even with proper intent. But unless there is danger, or they are one of the handful of permitted groups, then it’s doubtful that it is valid.

 

[bpbasilphx]

The intent to do what Jesus intended is sufficient, even if his understanding of what Jesus intended is wrong.

The intention has to be to “do what the Church does”, not do what Jesus did, to be a valid intention.