|
Objection 1: It seems that the validity of a sacrament requires a
good intention in the minister. For the minister's intention should
be in conformity with the Church's intention, as explained above
(Article 8, ad 1). But the intention of the Church is always
good. Therefore the validity of a sacrament requires of necessity a
good intention in the minister.
Objection 2: Further, a perverse intention seems worse than a
playful one. But a playful intention destroys a sacrament: for
instance, if someone were to baptize anybody not seriously but in fun.
Much more, therefore, does a perverse intention destroy a sacrament:
for instance, if somebody were to baptize a man in order to kill him
afterwards.
Objection 3: Further, a perverse intention vitiates the whole
work, according to Lk. 11:34: "If thy eye be evil, thy"
whole "body will be darksome." But the sacraments of Christ cannot
be contaminated by evil men; as Augustine says against Petilian
(Cont. Litt. Petil ii). Therefore it seems that, if the
minister's intention is perverse, the sacrament is invalid.
On the contrary, A perverse intention belongs to the wickedness of
the minister. But the wickedness of the minister does not annul the
sacrament: neither, therefore, does his perverse intention.
I answer that, The minister's intention may be perverted in two
ways. First in regard to the sacrament: for instance, when a man
does not intend to confer a sacrament, but to make a mockery of it.
Such a perverse intention takes away the truth of the sacrament,
especially if it be manifested outwardly.
Secondly, the minister's intention may be perverted as to something
that follows the sacrament: for instance, a priest may intend to
baptize a woman so as to be able to abuse her; or to consecrate the
Body of Christ, so as to use it for sorcery. And because that which
comes first does not depend on that which follows, consequently such a
perverse intention does not annul the sacrament; but the minister
himself sins grievously in having such an intention.
Reply to Objection 1: The Church has a good intention both as to
the validity of the sacrament and as to the use thereof: but it is the
former intention that perfects the sacrament, while the latter conduces
to the meritorious effect. Consequently, the minister who conforms
his intention to the Church as to the former rectitude, but not as to
the latter, perfects the sacrament indeed, but gains no merit for
himself.
Reply to Objection 2: The intention of mimicry or fun excludes the
first kind of right intention, necessary for the validity of a
sacrament. Consequently, there is no comparison.
Reply to Objection 3: A perverse intention perverts the action of
the one who has such an intention, not the action of another.
Consequently, the perverse intention of the minister perverts the
sacrament in so far as it is his action: not in so far as it is the
action of Christ, Whose minister he is. It is just as if the
servant [minister] of some man were to carry alms to the poor with a
wicked intention, whereas his master had commanded him with a good
intention to do so.
|
|