Question IX: Whether we are bound to avoid the conversation of heretics

Soto ASSERTS it, 4. dist. 25. quaest. 1. art. 1. et 3. and dist. 20. quaest. 1. art. 5.

The COMMON opinion, however, denies it, as long as the heretic has not been juridically declared and denounced, because the Council of Constance indulged communication with all excommunicates, except those denounced by name and public strikers of clerics. So the authors in Sanchez Lib. 2. decal. cap. 9. So Henriquez with others, Lib. 13. cap. 5. Suarez 3. p. Tract. 5. disp. 9. sect. 2. Toletus Lib. 1. summae, cap. 9. Tannerus disp. 1. quaest. 9. dub. 5.

Whence it is to be noted that the Seraphic Doctor, in 4. dist. 18. p. 2. q. 1. asserts the opinion of Soto, but before the Council of Constance: at that time, however, it was the common opinion.

The DIFFICULTY, however, is: whether it is sufficient for someone to be declared a heretic; or whether it is also required that he be declared excommunicate.

TO ME it seems sufficient that he be declared a heretic; for excommunication is infallibly linked to heresy. So both Soto, Medina, Henriquez, and others, whom Sanchez reports, Lib. 2. cap. 9. who however holds the opposite with others; and Suarez, de censuris, disput. 9. thinks it probable with Card. Lugo disp. 22. sect. 1.

WE MAY also communicate with them in sacred things, namely by assisting at Mass together with a heretic. So all the Doctors in Sanchez, dicto cap. 9. against Basilium Poncium, in Appendice de matrimonio Catholici cum haeretico, cap. 9.

WE MAY also receive the Sacraments from a heretic, in the manner of our Church, in necessity, unless scandal arise from another source. See Sanchez num. 10.

Many other things on this matter Sanchez discusses, Lib. 2. in Decal. c. 9. Card. Lugo disp. 14. sect. 5. §. 5. and d. 22. sect. 2.

I shall touch upon SOME doubts which I find discussed in the Seraphic Doctor. The first is: Whether marriage with a heretic, or heretic woman, is valid.

On these, Thomas Sanchez Lib. VII. de matrim. disp. 72. Ferrarius, opusc. de matrim. Catholici cum haeretico. Basilius Poncius in his Appendice, post Lib. XII. de matrim. In common, however, the Doctors of Law and the Theologians assert with D. Bonaventure, 4. dist. 39. quaest. 1. whom Sanchez reports, num. 2. and Poncius, and it is gathered from cap. decernit de haereticis, in 6.

But if the heretic promise to convert, and there be moral certitude, the marriage will be not only valid but even licit, as is had in the C. Chalcedonensi cap. 14. So Hurtado disp. 76. §. 229. Sà, under the word matrim. num. 8. Card. Lugo disp. 22. sect. 1. Although Sanchez denies it, disp. 72. num. 4. Poncius in Appendice, capite 8.

The second is, whether a spouse may put away a spouse fallen into heresy; and indeed it was defined in the C. Trident. sess. 24. cap. 5. that marriage is not on that account dissolved.

That they may be separated, however, is certain; for besides fornication, the Tridentine defines other causes for which they may be separated, sess. 24. can. 8. The same is evident from cap. Quanto, de divortiis, and from cap. litteras at the end, and cap. transmissa, de restit. spoliat. and cap. 1. ut lite non contestata.

The sectarian heretics urge the place of Matth. 5. and 19. But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.

Cardinal Lugo RESPONDS, disp. 22. sect. 3. with Sanchez Lib. X. disp. 15. cap. 14. Bellarmine Lib. I. de matrim. cap. 14. that Christ speaks of perpetual separation, and by his own authority, without the consent of the wife put away.

This exposition, however, as to his own authority, D. Bonaventure refutes, in 4. dist. 35. quaest. 3. where he shows from usage that the judgment of the Church is necessary.

Therefore the holy Doctor RESPONDS, quaest. 1. ad 5. that fornication is there expressed as the cause of separating himself perpetually, because among the causes it is evident, since it is against the faith directly belonging to marriage; but the remaining causes he holds are to be litigated: And that he speaks of perpetual separation is proved; for there, cap. 5. he had premised the use of divorce, which was toward perpetual separation. The holy Doctor observes also that the divorce of the Church now used is different from that old repudium. See the holy Doctor, q. 1. On these things, however, I shall treat in the Tractate on marriage.