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
In bringing out that special importance, the Parisian dominican Peter of Tarantasia (who was elected Pope Innocent V shortly before his death in 1276)98 asked questions of a form familiar to us from our discussion of the sacrament of the altar: can baptism be conferred by evil ministers?99 and, may a better baptism be had from a better minister?100 In part adapting materials which Aquinas had used in his more general quaestio, “can the sacraments be conferred by evil ministers?”101 Peter puts forward these opinions: a bad man is not a fit minister of the sacrament of baptism, a dead member does not serve others as an effective channel, and no-one can serve two masters (cf. Matthew 6:24), the devil and Christ together. Hence an evil minister cannot confer baptism. On the other hand, Peter continues, Augustine says that baptism may be given by a man who is a drunkard, a murderer, given to whatever evil (this actually follows Peter Lombard’s review of the problem). And it is held that in extremis baptism can be conferred by a Jew, a pagan, or a heretic: therefore it can be conferred by any type of sinner.
Peter’s responsio explains that certain things pertain to the substance of the sacrament while others pertain to propriety, i.e., the behavior which is appropriate for its conferral. If substantial things are lacking, the sacrament is not valid; if things relating to propriety are lacking, the sacrament is unaffected. Furthermore, in time of necessity probity is relatively unimportant, and as far as the “dead member” is concerned, the influx involved is not internal (relating to the person’s own spiritual situation) but external, as coming from God. Besides, in certain actions to be a servant of the devil is to serve God, or to be his minister. But does an evil minister really confer an effective sacrament? Ecclesiasticus 34:4 rightly asks, “who can be made clean by the unclean?” An evil minister is not an effective mediator; and nothing can give what it hasn’t got itself. Against all this, however, is the argument that water may be conducted to the plains by a stone channel;102 similarly, grace may be conveyed by a bad minister to the recipients of the sacrament. Furthermore, an individual’s salvation should not be dependent on the life of someone else. And a doctor who has a corporeal infirmity is nevertheless able to cure someone else corporeally; the same is true of the spiritual doctor, who effects spiritual healing.
Can a better baptism be had from a better minister? After all, the better the agent the better the action. A multiplicity of causes results in a multiplicity of effects; when a holy man baptizes, the cause of grace is multiplied and therefore the effect is multiplied, and should not one desire as many good effects as possible? Furthermore, whoever is more enlightened is better able to enlighten others, and the more learned person is better able to teach others. However, as Augustine says, a better person does not give better baptism. This actually follows Peter Lombard’s own statement, “Nec melior est baptismus qui per meliorem datur,” which the Lombard had backed up with a summary of part of Augustine’s
