Intention and Sacramental Validity

Many Catholics have probably heard that the proper intention of the minister is required for the valid celebration of a sacrament, but the exact nature of this intention is generally not well understood. Due to poor catechesis, poor seminary formation, and a lack of appreciation for liturgy in the modern era, many clergy and laity struggle with theological deficiencies, and in some cases, priests have deliberately gone out of their way to commit overt liturgical abuses and inappropriately experiment with the Church’s sacramental rites as though these rites were their own personal plaything.

While it is relatively easy to deal with situations in which invalid matter is used, such as if a priest uses crackers and grape juice to celebrate Mass, or if the proper form is omitted, such as if someone performs a baptism saying “We baptize…” rather than “I baptize…,” the question of intention is more difficult because it concerns the subjective movements within the internal forum of the minister. This has led some members of the Catholic faithful to unnecessarily worry about whether the sacraments at their local parish are valid if the priests there are known to profess questionable theological propositions, even if those priests are not known to experiment with matter and form and risk invalidity in that way.

A minister who is theologically ignorant, professes erroneous propositions, or lacks the infused theological virtue of faith entirely may not intend what the Church intends, but nevertheless, it is still possible that he intends to do what the Church does, which is the minimum requirement for valid intention. It is de fide that the minister need not have faith to celebrate baptism validly, and the same teaching is sententia fidei proxima with respect to the other sacraments, including the consecration of the Eucharist.¹ This means that provided that there is the proper matter, form, and intention, a minister who lacks faith can still validly celebrate the sacraments. If intention is required but faith is not, then the true question here is what exactly is meant by “intendere facere quod facit Ecclesia.”

The common opinion of theologians is that a merely external intention, which means that the minister desires to properly perform the ceremonies but internally lacks the intention to confect the actual sacrament, is insufficient.² Acting with a merely external intention would consist of simply using the matter and form, eliminating the need for the final cause (proper intention) to be listed as an additional requirement at all. A merely external intention would lead to the simulation of a sacrament, or simply the appearance that it has been confected. What distinguishes a simulated sacrament—which is performed by a minister who only wishes to go through the motions—from a truly celebrated one is the internal intention to do what the Church does, which is the performance of the rite with the proper matter and form as a religious rite.

Faith is not required for validity because the minister need not intend what the Church intends (e.g. to give grace), but merely intend to do what she does (to perform a sacred rite). St. Thomas Aquinas teaches: “Sometimes [the minister] intends to do what the Church does, although he considers it to be nothing.”³ For example, a non-Catholic can validly perform a baptism using the proper matter and form, although he himself does not believe what the Church teaches concerning the necessity and effects of baptism. An intention to perform a religious rite is sufficient; the minister need not specifically intend to wash away original sin and confer sanctifying grace. If called upon to baptize in danger of death, he can do so validly, provided that he at least have the intention to perform a religious rite that Christians regards as sacred.

As succinctly summarized by theologian Ludwig Ott:

Objectively considered, the intention of doing what the Church does suffices. The minister, therefore, does not need to intend what the Church intends, namely, to produce the effects of the Sacraments, for example, the forgiveness of sins; neither does he need to intend to execute a specific Catholic rite. It suffices if he have the intention of performing the religious action as it is current among Christians.⁴

As we have seen here, the sacraments work ex opere operato, independently of the personal worthiness or even the faith of the minister. If a priest were to be ignorant of the doctrine of the Real Presence or simply reject it, the validity of his Masses would not be thrown into question solely on that account, as long as he still uses the proper matter and form and intends to perform a religious rite, even if he himself does not believe it is sacred. Theological errors and liturgical abuses should be systematically and ruthlessly rooted out, but the faithful can be assured that it is actually quite difficult to invalidate a sacrament entirely. While we should hope and pray for good, holy priests who are orthodox and well-educated in theology, God is more than capable of working through broken human instruments and is not limited by the personal failings of individual ministers.

1. L. Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Charlotte, NC: TAN Books, 1974), 342.

2. Ott, 344.

3. IV Sent., dist. 6, Q.1 A.3, sol 2, ad 1.

4. Ott, 344.