theology of indulgences, or “pardons” as they were known vulgariter, which are the main stock-in-trade of that “noble ecclesiaste,” Chaucer’s Pardoner.
II. CONSECRATING THE SACRAMENTS: PRIESTLY POWER AND THE KEYS TO HEAVEN
The “sacrament of the altar” was deemed to be of the first importance for the Christian faith, and hence its ministers were subjected to close scholastic scrutiny. Thomas Aquinas explains that “in an absolute sense” (simpliciter loquendo) the Eucharist is the greatest of all the sacraments,59 and priests are consecrated in order that the corpus Christi may be “confected” (the Latin verb conficere being regularly used in this context).60 “Take away this Sacrament from the Church,” exclaims Bonaventure, “and what is left in the world besides error and unbelief? The Christian people would be scattered like a herd of swine and given to idolatry. . . . Instead, by the presence of this Sacrament, the Church stands firm, faith is strengthened, the Christian religion and divine worship are kept alive.”61
Little wonder, then, that concerns about priests who were aberrant in one way or another (because they were known fornicators, heretics, schismatics, excommunicates, or whatever) came into sharp focus in discussion of the minister who confected the sacrament of the altar and of the correct manner of its ministration. From our point of view, therefore, this body of doctrine affords a crucial means of placing the specific responsibilities of the preacher within the cultural construction of clerical privilege and prerogative in general. Here is a controversial site on which all the major academic theologians of the later Middle Ages worked out their rationalizations of the power of the priesthood and sought to consolidate their control over Christian belief. The ideological structure they built seems solid and secure. But it had weak spots—soon to be put under extreme pressure by the arguments of John Wyclif and the followers who often transformed rather than merely transmitted his thought in vulgari. More foundationally, Peter Lombard himself, the Master of the Sentences, had raised but failed to resolve a burning issue, which was to trouble generation after generation of his commentators, concerning the limits of the sacerdotal capacity for confection and the point at which it may cease to exist.
Sin versus Sacrament: Evil Ministers of the Mass
The highly influential Summa theologiae which was begun by Alexander of Hales O.F.M. and completed by others after his death in 1245 provides an excellent point of departure, given the popularity it enjoyed and the fact that Alexander was the schoolman who inaugurated at Paris the tradition of lecturing on Peter Lombard’s Sentences.62 In this Summa the question is posed, can a priest who lives an evil life consecrate the Eucharist? It would seem so, according to Augustine: “Within the Catholic Church, in the mystery of the Lord’s body and blood, nothing greater is done by a good priest, nothing less is done by a bad priest.” In fact, these words are not Augustine’s, but he had said identical things in his writings against the Donatists,63 though there the crucial sacrament was baptism—its universal validity and integrity, the fact that people baptized by members of the Donatist sect did not have to be re-baptized when they came within, or returned to, the fold of orthodox Christianity. Peter Lombard alleges this auctoritas in his defense of the Eucharist confected by the evil minister; its strong anti-Donatist message ensured it would be reiterated again and again in scholastic discussions of all kinds of aberrant priest.64 “Donatism” is not, it should be noted, the lead concept or banner headline in such discussion; the situation is rather that issues which originated (or at least received full attention) in that ancient controversy were recuperated and redeployed within the scheme of a textbook which became essential reading for every trainee theologian. No matter what the usage of the term may have been, the relevant arguments were very well known.
For the moment let us stay with the Alexandri summa and some of the “contrary opinions” it sets against the proposition that the deviant priest can consecrate the Eucharist. If God confers his benefits on the worthy, there seems no reason to doubt that He withdraws them from the unworthy (Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 are brought in as supporting evidence); furthermore, anyone who misuses power deserves to lose it, and this principle applies to both divine and human law. The Summa’s response is that a bad priest has the potestas conficiendi as much as a good one, (pseudo-) Augustine being quoted at more length: “it is not by the merits of the consecrator that the sacrament is wrought, but by the Creator’s word and the power of the Holy Spirit.” But, is not a bad priest improperly disposed under his Lord God, and thus not functioning with the necessary divine power? This objection is dismissed with the statement that even though such a man is deficient in goodness of life, nevertheless he is properly disposed by dint of holy orders and office. Whatever he lacks, Christ will supply.
Thomas Aquinas takes the same line, emphasizing that “the priest consecrates this sacrament, not by his own powers, but as Christ’s minister in whose person he acts.”65 One does not cease to be Christ’s minister because one is wicked, “for the Lord has good and bad ministers as servants.” The fact that “a man may be Christ’s minister even though he be not righteous” is deemed to be “part of Christ’s greatness”; 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:
