The author of De precationis sacris quotes canon law copiously to make the point that no-one should hear the mass of a priest who publicly and “wiþouten ony doute” keeps a concubine. Such evil individuals must not “entre into holy Chirche, and seie masse”—but if they presume to do so, their congregations “schullen not here her servyce.”83 The strident totalizing of such statements opens up the prospect of layfolk boycotting church services if they do not approve of the ministers who are officiating at them—a far cry from the restrained manner in which, for example, Thomas Aquinas tackled the question, “is it lawful to receive communion from or assist at masses of heretical, schismatic, or sinful priests?”84 Here Augustine is quoted as saying, “one should not shun God’s sacrament be the man good or bad.”85 After all, sinners, heretics, and excommunicates seem to have the power to effect a valid sacrament. Is this true also, Aquinas then asks, of the priest who is a fornicator? On the one hand, it is not forbidden to hear the masses of priests who have sinned in far worse ways—so why should the fornicator be singled out for rejection? On the other, according to canon law a man should not hear the mass of a priest “whom he knows beyond doubt keeps a concubine.”86 In resolving the problem, Aquinas affirms that, while all these kinds of sinful priests do have the power of consecrating the Eucharist, they do not rightly exercise it, and sin in so doing.87 If the Church has specifically debarred them from performing such a priestly function, then no-one should participate in it, whether as assistant or recipient—otherwise they commit sin. Until such times as the Church’s sentence is pronounced, however, it is quite lawful to receive communion from them and assist at their mass. What, then, of the fornicator in particular? There are indeed worse sins than fornication, yet men are more prone to it “owing to the lusts of the flesh. Consequently this sin is particularly forbidden to priests by the Church, lest anyone assist at the mass of one living in concubinage.” But Aquinas is anxious to point out that “this is to be understood of one who is notorious (notorio), either from being convicted and sentenced, or ‘by an acknowledgement of guilt in judicial form, or by plain evidence of the facts from which he cannot shuffle away.’”88
His teacher Albert the Great had stated that no-one should hear the mass of a deviant priest (whether a heretic, simoniac, or schismatic) who was notorious—here defined as one who had admitted his guilt in the presence of a judge or had it legally proved by a witness.89 And, if a person hears such a deviant’s mass with full knowledge of his deviancy, then that person sins mortally; if this is done in ignorance, of course, a more lenient view may be taken. Concerning the fornicator, Albert continues, the same distinction between what is “notorious” and what is “secret” (occultus) applies; an individual who is infamous for his vice should have the full rigor of the law applied to him, and following his trial, his mass should not be heard. Before such a sentence is passed, however, the fornicator-priest may be listened to—and anyone who does not do so is a contumax, an obstinate or unyielding person. A high standard of proof is here being applied. And the judgment of such deviants rests with the ecclesiastical authorities; congregations cannot, so to speak, take the law into their own hands.
Again, apparently a seamless web of orthodox consensus on a controversial issue. Behind this, however, lay an embarrassing fact. Peter Lombard had sharply distinguished between fornicator priests and those who were heretics and excommunicates, apparently believing that members of the latter group were unable to confect the Eucharist: “Indeed, those who are excommunicated, or manifestly designated as heretics, do not appear to be able to confect this sacrament, even though they are priests.”90 If he thought otherwise, as some apologists have suggested, then all one can say is that he made a thoroughly bad job of expressing his personal opinion. What happens in the relevant passage in the Sentences is, in my view, due to Peter’s (perfectly understandable) desire to deny the validity of sacraments performed outside the Church. Hence he makes great play with the Lord’s statement as reported at Malachi 2:2, “I will curse your blessings”: if the blessings of such deviants are cursed, how much more so is their host!91 (There is a major irony in the fact that this doctrine is attributed—quite falsely—to St. Augustine, the theologian who had done so much to accommodate the sacrament of baptism as conferred by one particular group of heretics, the Donatists.) Thus the Lombard left a legacy of toil and trouble for the legions of students who were obliged to comment on his Sentences as part of their theological training. Albert the Great tackled the problem with typical directness. “The Master says this falsely in his text,” he declares; “the Master is not to be supported.”92 “The divine sacraments require in their maker” only ordo and intentio—that is, the holy orders whereby one is a Christian minister and the correct intention or genuine objective of making the sacrament in question. And that is the truth of the matter, Albert asserts. Certain doctors may hold the view that heretics, schismatics, simoniacs, or open fornicators cannot confect the Eucharist, but they are simply wrong (“simpliciter falsum est quod dicunt . . .”).
Albert does soften his stance somewhat in proceeding to suggest that the Lombard may be supported if it is assumed that he is talking of heretics and people living outside the Church who do not follow the Christian manner and rite of celebrating the sacraments. However, to be on the safe side Albert devotes a (short) quaestio specifically to the meaning of Malachi 2:2, “Maledicam benedictionibus vestris.”93 That word vestris proves crucial— it is plural and therefore must refer to the blessings of mere mortals rather than to the sacraments of the singular God. En passant Albert asks, which of two equally evil priests sins the worse, the one who celebrates with full knowledge of his mortal sin, or the other who, terrified, only pretends to celebrate?94 His answer is that it is the first, because he has contempt for the sacrament and, insofar as he has the power to do so, defiles it.
Such underlying controversy may help us to understand why the distinction between sin which is known or “notorious” and sin which is secret95— a distinction which, as we have seen, appeared frequently in discussion of the officium praedicatoris—has in this case hardened into a matter of public legal pronouncements, of sentences duly passed by a church court, which bar a priest from carrying out some or all of the duties of his office. Indeed, it is remarkable how often the same arguments, with the same discourses pro and contra, appear and reappear in the Lombard-commentators’ discussion of various aspects of priestly power and responsibilities, as the Donatist threat (if we may be permitted this shorthand phrase) is addressed and averted. In particular, the methods of analyzing and resolving difficulties which are characteristic of discussions of the confection of the Eucharist (as reviewed above) are often paralleled in discussions concerning the ministration of baptism. This is hardly surprising, given that the Lombard had provided parallel discussions of the deviant minister of the Eucharist (with the schismatic or heretical priest being left problematic) and the deviant minister of baptism (with the universal validity of this sacrament being defended, in terms which recall, and sometimes actually draw upon, Augustine’s anti-Donatist writings).
Furthermore, given that these sacraments vied with each other in terms of order of importance, much effort was put into their complementary definition. Thomas Aquinas summed up the matter neatly by explaining that in absolute terms, the sacrament of the Eucharist is the greatest, but if viewed from the point of view of necessity (ex parte necessitatis), it must be said that baptism is the most important.96 “Baptism is necessary absolutely and unconditionally”;97 no-one can be saved without it, and hence if a priest is not present, the task may be delegated to others. Indeed, in extreme situations—as when, for example, a newborn child is at the point of death—it can be conferred by a layman, indeed by a lay woman (an old woman, they often say), or even by a heretic, a schismatic, or a non-Christian. In this special circumstance any water will do; it does not have to be holy water. But the proper form of words is essential—of far greater importance than who says them. The power to baptize, then, was conferred very widely, in marked contrast to the power of confection and the power of absolution within the tribunal of penance. And this was justified by its special, indeed unique, importance.
Vetula baptizat, et baptizatum est: The Power to Baptize