CathInfo.com

What If Liénart Had Been a Mason?

      But purely for the sake of argument, let assume the claim is true.

The question then would be: Would this affect the validity of ordinations performed by Cardinal Liénart?

Those who have attacked the Archbishop claim it would, and they make much of the chronology of the alleged sequence of events. The sequence they give is the following:

      Cardinal Liénart: Born, 1884; ordained, 1907; became Mason, 1912; promoted to 30th degree, 1924; became bishop 1928; ordained Archbishop Lefebvre, 1929; became Car­dinal, 1930.

      Now, the question of the validity of the or­dination depends upon the usual criteria for the validity of any sacrament. The essential re­quirements are "intention, matter, form, minister, and disposition of the recipient."

We can presume that matter and form fulfilled the necessary re­quirements of the Church, for in such solemn and public ceremonies an error in this regard would not have escaped unnoticed.

With regard to the minister, it is a teaching of the Church that neither faith nor the state of grace is required. Sinful, heretical, schismatic and apostate priests or bishops can still validly (though sinfully and illicit­ly) confect the sacraments, provided that they use the proper matter and form and have the necessary intention.

The question (if Bishop Liénart had been a Mason) would NOT be whether he could have validly administered a sacrament at all, but whether in fact he did so. In other words, did he either withhold his intention, or have an in­tention contrary to that which is considered necessary?

      The obvious answer is that we do not know and cannot know — because we cannot look back into his heart in 1929. The requirement established, or rather defined, at the Council of Trent is that the minister must "intend to do what the Church does." (Sess. 7, Can. 11)

Is it possible for a Freemason to intend to do what the Church does? The answer is yes. It is also possible for him to withhold this intention and to have a contrary in­tention — but, then, it is possible for any priest or bishop to do the same with any sacrament.

      To backtrack a little, intention can be characterized as "external" and "internal." Exter­nal intention is reflected in performing the rites correctly, but it does not suffice. If the minister does not have the correct internal intention, he would be acting in his own name or by his own power, rather than in Christ's name and with Christ's power. He would be performing a purely natural act — and not a supernatural one.

      The crux of the issue is how can we know and recognize this "internal intention" on the part of the minister?

Pope Leo XIII spoke to this issue when discussing Anglican orders:

“Concerning the mind or intention, insomuch as it is in itself something internal, the Church does not pass judgment; but insofar as it is externally manifested, she is bound to judge of it. Now if, in order to effect and confer a Sacrament, a person has seriously and correctly used the matter and form, he is for that very reason presumed to have intend­ed to do what the Church does. It is on this principle that the doctrine is solidly founded which holds as a true Sacrament that which is conferred by the ministry of a heretic or a non-baptized person [as in Baptism] as long as it is conferred in the Catholic rite.” (Em­phasis supplied.)

      Perhaps it would be more correct to say that the Church cannot pass judgment purely on inter­nal intentions for the simple reason that she cannot ever really know them.

Thus, those who claim that Cardinal Liénart was a Mason and for this reason did not validly confer priestly ordination arrogate to themselves the right to do something even the Church has no power to do — pass judgment on the unexpressed intentions of the ministers of a sacra­ment.

      All this is not to say that the correct perfor­mance of the external rites, absent any intention at all, suffices for validity — indeed, this opinion was condemned by the Church.

In the absence of external evidence which clearly shows that the intention was withheld, the Church always presumes that the minister did in fact have the intention of doing what the Church does.

And thus we find St. Thomas Aquinas teaching that "the minister of the sacrament acts in the person of the whole Church, whose minister he is; while in the words uttered by him, the intention of the Church is expressed; and that this suffices for the validity of the sacrament, except the contrary be expressed on the part either of the minister or of the recipient of the sacrament." (Summa, Part III, Question 64, 8 and 2).

      Now, it is not necessary for the minister of a sacrament to be either morally pure or orthodox. Augustine teaches that "the evil lives of wicked men are not prejudicial to God's sacraments, by rendering them either invalid or less holy." St. Thomas in discussing this states that "the ministers of the Church work instrumentally in the sacraments… Now an instrument acts not by reason of its own form, but by the power of one who moves it… The ministers of the Church do not by their own power cleanse from sin those who approach the sacraments, nor do they confer grace on them: it is Christ Who does this by His own power while He employs them [the ministers] as in­struments." (Ibid., 6, ad 1).

Putting this somewhat differently, the minister acts as a conduit for Christ's grace, providing he in no way obstructs Christ and the Church's intent by using his free will to intend a contrary purpose.

      We have also said that the minister need not be orthodox. As St. Thomas teaches:

"Since the minister works instrumentally in the sacraments, he acts not by his own, but by God's power. Now, just as charity belongs to a man's own power, so also does faith. Wherefore, just as the validity of a sacrament does not require that the minister should have charity, and even sinners can confer the sacraments, so neither is it necessary that he should have faith, and even an unbeliever can confer a true sacrament, providing that the other essentials be there… Even if his faith be defective in regard to the very sacrament that he confers, although he believes that no inward effect is caused by the thing done outwardly, yet he does know that the Church intends to confer a sacra­ment by thai which is outwardly done. Wherefore, his unbelief notwithstanding, he can intend to do what the Church does, albeit he esteem it to be nothing. And such an intention suffices…" (Ibid., 64,9)

      While we are on St. Thomas, let us also note that illicit administering of the sacraments in no way invalidates them. He states that "if a man be suspended from the Church, or excommunicated or degraded, he does not lose the power of conferr­ing sacraments, but the permission to use this power. Wherefore he does indeed confer the sacra­ment, but he sins in so doing." (Ibid., 64; 10 and 3)

The recipient would of course sin in knowingly receiving the sacrament from such an individual "unless ignorance excuses him." And thus, as Pope Paschal II states, "instructed by the examples of our Fathers, who at diverse times have received Novatians, Donatists, and other heretics into their order [i.e., acknowledged the validity of the orders received in their heretical sects]: we receive in the episcopal office [i.e., as true bishops] the bishops of the aforesaid kingdom who were ordained in schism. . ."

The Church, of course, presumes the normal intention on even the part of heretics — that is, the intention to do what the Church does.

And finally it should be noted that none of the lay “popes” who have spread the Masonry allegations have ever been able to cite even one Catholic theologian — still less, a real pope — who taught that Holy Orders conferred by a Mason must be presumed invalid on grounds of lack of proper intention.

What a bunch of nonsense that was, Thursday. I hope Matthew deletes that.