Fallible Authors. Alastair Minnis

He receives service from both good and bad, since by His providence all such actions “are to His glory.” Of course, persons who are blemished should not approach the altar. But “this does not prevent them from offering a true sacrifice if they do.” But what, then, may be said concerning Malachi 2:2, “I will curse your blessings”? (This is an auctoritas of crucial importance in scholastic confrontation of the evil minister and the consequences of his actions, to which we shall be returning again and again.)⁶⁶ And the view of Dionysius the Areopagite that the words uttered by one who has fallen away from the priestly order cannot rightly be called prayers? Aquinas’s answer is that “the blessing of a sinful priest inasmuch as he acts unworthily is deserving of a curse,” and is reputed a blasphemy rather than a prayer, “yet inasmuch as it is pronounced in the person of Christ it is holy and effective for salvation.” The crucial point, then, is that valid consecration of the Eucharist is not dependent on the life (whether good or bad) of the celebrant but rather on divine power and authority, the requisite amount and type of which is conferred on the priest at his ordination.⁶⁷ In sum, an admirably succinct refutation of the fundamentals of Donatism.

      To be sure, the evil-living priest who dares to consecrate while in a state of mortal sin brings down the divine wrath upon his own head. This is made abundantly clear in Bonaventure’s Tractatus de praeparatione ad missam. “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Hebrews 10:31), which is what happens to those who approach the altar without due contrition, a firm intention to amend, and proper confession of sins.⁶⁸ “Alas, how many today are those wretched priests who, unmindful of their salvation, partake of the Body of Christ at the altar as if they were eating the flesh of a mere animal; and who, entangled and contaminated by abominations—which it would be indecent to mention—are not afraid of touching and kissing with their criminal hands and their polluted lips the Son of God and of the Virgin Mary!”⁶⁹ Even worse is the fact that “in our days” some priests have reached “such utter perversion and irrationality (perversitatem et stultitiam)” as to imagine that their “crimes and impure sins, which they repeat every day and intend to repeat,” will be expiated, without penance or confession having been performed, by the mere fact of their daily celebration of the Holy Eucharist. Cleanliness of mind must be assured—and also of body. Here Bonaventure has in mind not only “willful impurity, which is a mortal sin, but also any nocturnal or accidental stain,” which is definitely a possible impediment to the celebration of Mass if one is celebrating voluntarily, i.e., if the priest had the option of excusing himself from approaching the altar, there being no “grave necessity or binding command” to necessitate and justify his involvement. However, if the nocturnal emission was genuinely accidental, and not the result of “previous impure desires or excessive drinking,” then it may be said that “the soul is not seriously befouled by the memory and imagination of carnal dreams.”⁷⁰ But there is no ambiguity about what awaits the individual who is guilty of some impurity in his soul or flesh: “Out of sheer disgust, Christ vomits such a man, and expels him as an evil-smelling corpse to be devoured by wild beasts and birds of prey. He abandons this unfruitful soul to the devil’s tortures . . .”⁷¹

      None of this, however, is the recipient’s problem.⁷² No matter how much the wicked celebrant has incurred the divine wrath, there is no question whatever of the validity of his sacrament in itself. This point is made abundantly clear in a host of quaestiones, the discussions of Albert the Great (c. 1200–1280), Bonaventure, and Aquinas being among the most cogent.⁷³ Is the mass of a bad priest worth less than the mass of a good priest? Albert and Bonaventure cite (pseudo-) Augustine’s anti-Donatist statement that in confecting the Eucharist, “nothing greater is done by a good priest, nothing less is done by a bad priest” (cf. p. 55 above). Bonaventure adds that if one priest’s mass is said to be better than another’s, this would give some men the impression that they had, so to speak, a better deal than other people, which would be inconveniens—an inappropriate and unfitting idea. Both theologians firmly distinguish between the substantial and the additional aspects of the mass. In respect to the former, that being the confection of the body and blood of Christ, there is utter uniformity and equity between priests. In respect to the latter, the work of man rather than of God (as Albert puts it), there is inequality—and from that point of view the mass of the good priest may be regarded as better.⁷⁴ Those additional aspects or “adjuncts” which can admit of inequality include such things as petitions, prayers, obsecrations, and the manner of devotion and devout affection. The Mass of a good priest is more stimulating in the arousal of devotion.⁷⁵ Albert emphasizes that in no way does he wish to censure anyone for preferring to hear the good priest’s Mass, because “frequently the bad man irreverently treats the body of Christ”—for example, by covering it with a dirty cloth or leaving it unattended on the altar. Similarly, Bonaventure remarks that “if a person more willingly hears the mass of the more devout priest, I believe that he acts well, providing he believes that, as far as the substantial aspect is concerned, this priest does not far exceed the sinner; otherwise he [that person] would err perilously.”⁷⁶

      Aquinas also addresses the issue of the quality of priestly prayer,⁷⁷ citing the Decretum as stating that “the worthier the priest the more readily is he heard in the needs for which he prays.” The authority of Augustine would seem to go against this, he notes, inasmuch as the saint says that “the wickedness of ministers cannot redound to Christ’s mysteries.”⁷⁸ In resolving this apparent contradiction, Aquinas contrasts the sacrament itself with “the prayers offered therein for the living and the dead.” As far as the sacrament is concerned, “the mass of a bad priest is worth no less than the mass of a good priest, for by both the same sacrament is wrought.” In this case, an individual’s “private evil” (malum privatum) cannot harm anyone else. As far as the prayers are concerned, however, a further distinction must be made. “In so far as they have efficacy from the devotion of the priest who prays” then there is no doubt that the prayers of a better priest are more fruitful. But, “in so far as they are said in the person of the whole Church, of which the priest is the minister,” it must be said that “the prayers even of a sinful priest are fruitful” and this includes not only the prayers of the mass but also the other prayers he says while performing his ecclesiastical office. In contrast, his “private” prayers are not fruitful.⁷⁹

      The level of consensus here reached concerning the substance of the mass and the adjuncta of personal prayers is striking, the standards and methodologies of analysis remarkably uniform. And yet: in the event it did not take much pressure to reveal the cracks in the edifice. By way of example, we may consider the Lollard treatise De precationis sacris—not from an extreme wing of Wycliffite thought, by any means, but thus all the more indicative of how relatively small conceptual shifts could produce quite strikingly different—and threatening—results.⁸⁰ The prayers of the wicked are here said to be an abomination to the Lord (cf. Isaiah 1:10); indeed, “preire wiþouten goode dede is nout.”⁸¹ Therefore when a priest who is “out of good lif and charite” dares to say mass, “he etiþ and drynkiþ his owen dampnacion.” That is perfectly orthodox, as is the idea that “a cursed man doþ fully þe sacramentis, þou it be to his dampnynge, for þei ben not autouris [authors] of þes sacramentis, but God kepiþ þat dygnyte to hymself.”⁸² The anonymous writer, however, angrily attacks the suggestion that this same valorization might apply to the prayers of wicked priests: “þe fend techiþ a newe glose, to seie þat þou men ben not worþi to be herd in preisynge for here owene good lif, it here preiere is herd in merit of holy Chirche, for þey ben procuratours of þe Chirche. Certis þis is a foul soffyme [sophism], a foul and a sotil discet [deceit] of Anticristis clerkes, to coloure here synne þerbi.” The implication here is that such “discet” makes the evil priest utterly untrustworthy, not a fit guide for those people who seek “a trewe servaunt of God, and clene of