Last week’s post examined the offence of failure to report when required by canonical law to do so. Today’s post focuses on the more grave delict of attempt and simulation of sacraments, particularly the celebration of the sacrament of Eucharist and penance.
Canon 1379 states: “§1 The following incur a latae sententiae interdict or, if a cleric, also a latae sententiae suspension: 1° a person who, not being an ordained priest, attempts the liturgical celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice; 2° a person who, apart from the case mentioned in can. 1384, though unable to give valid sacramental absolution, attempts to do so, or hears a sacramental confession. §2 In the cases mentioned in §1, other penalties, not excluding excommunication, can be added, according to the gravity of the offence.
§4 A person who deliberately administers a sacrament to those who are prohibited from receiving it is to be punished with suspension, to which other penalties mentioned in can. 1336 §§2-4 may be added. §5 A person who, apart from the cases mentioned in §§1-4 and in can. 1384, pretends to administer a sacrament is to be punished with a just penalty.”
Canon 1384 focuses on the attempted absolution of an accomplice in the sin against the sixth commandment.
To understand ‘attempting’ and ‘simulation’, one must understand the difference between the Latin adjectives ‘capax’ (noun = capacitas) which means capable and ‘habile’ (noun = habilitas) which means able. Capacity is ontological in that it concerns the entity’s being, while ability is added to the being to allow it to function. One can be capable and able, and one can be capable but unable because of the lack of faculty or restrictions. These two terms help explain validity and liceity.
Capacity concerns validity, meaning that the person is ontologically able to do something. Ability concerns liceity, which means that one capable of doing something has been given the faculty to carry out an action or that there are no restrictions.
Therefore, a sacrament is said to be ‘attempted’ because the person completing the action cannot ontologically celebrate that sacrament. For instance, a valid priestly ordination ontologically changes a man, giving him the capacity to celebrate sacred mysteries. Hence, the priest is capable. One who is not a priest or a bishop only attempts to celebrate the Mass because the completed action is invalid since he is incapable. On the other hand, a priest who celebrates the Mass without permission celebrates it validly but illicitly because he is capable but was not given the faculty to celebrate the Mass in that area or at that time (unable).
Regarding the sacrament of penance, the law states: “For the valid absolution of sins, it is required that, in addition to the power of order, the minister has the faculty to exercise that power in respect of the faithful to whom he gives absolution”(Can. 966 §1). This means that the faculty (ability) to celebrate the confession is elevated to validity. Therefore, a newly ordained priest who celebrates the sacrament without the faculty only attempts sacramental absolution. Other priests whose habitual faculties to celebrate the sacrament everywhere have been revoked merely attempt sacramental absolution.
However, canon 976 states that “any priest, even though he lacks the faculty to hear confessions, can validly and lawfully absolve any penitents who are in danger of death, from any censures and sins, even if an approved priest is present.” A priest without faculty can validly and licitly absolve a penitent in the danger of death because he already has the capacity by virtue of his priestly ordination. A deacon cannot absolve a penitent even at the point of death because he is incapable. Therefore, regarding the delict attached to the sacraments, anyone who attempts to celebrate the sacrament of the Eucharist and Penance is to be punished according to the law.
The other term is the simulation of sacraments, translated as ‘pretend’ (simulat) in canon 1379 § 5 above. While one without capacity merely attempts, one capable and able can simulate or pretend. Simulation of marriage elucidates this. The law reads: “§1. The internal consent of the mind is presumed to conform to the words or the signs used in the celebration of a marriage. §2 If, however, either or both of the parties should by a positive act of will exclude marriage itself or any essential element of marriage or any essential property, such party contracts invalidly” (Can. 1101).
This means that simulation occurs when the internal consent of the mind does not correspond with the action one performs. Therefore, simulation of the celebration of the Eucharist or Penance, and indeed any other sacrament, happens when the minister celebrates the sacrament following the liturgical laws whilst not actually intending to celebrate the sacrament. The celebrant knows that the sacrament cannot even bear fruit ex opere operato because he did not intend to celebrate it.
Another dimension of simulation is celebrating the sacrament without the proper matter, such as anointing with water, baptising with milk, using tea instead of wine for the Mass, and distributing unconsecrated host as Holy Communion. Dissimulation is another case that involves faking an action, which, in reality, was not done.
Attempting and simulating the liturgical celebration of the Mass and sacramental absolution and the prohibited hearing of confession mentioned in canon 1379 §1, 2° are among the more grave delicts reserved to the Dicastery for Doctrine of the Faith. Finally, “a person who has placed an act of orders reserved to those in the order of episcopate or presbyterate while either lacking that order or prohibited from its exercise by some declared or imposed canonical penalty.” is irregular for receiving Holy Orders (Can. 1041, 6°).
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️
