26. On the Obligation of Internal Faith

1. Simplicius, an unlearned man, while confessing before Macarius the parish priest, when questioned concerning the things necessary to be believed, is found very ignorant. For he does not know how to recite the symbol of faith, nor to give an account concerning the mysteries of the Most Holy Trinity and Incarnation, etc. But the confessor, indignant, scolds and rebukes the penitent, as a man too careless about his own salvation, and, absolution having been denied, dismisses him until he has learned the things which are necessary to be known for salvation.

Q. 1. What things must necessarily be believed? 2. What concerning the manner of acting of Macarius?

To the first, cf. I. M. 349 seqq. To the second: Macarius the confessor is more to be scolded and rebuked than Simplicius the penitent; since he so harshly repels from himself an unlearned man, and deters him from the sacraments. For first, it is not necessary that the penitent know by memory all things to be believed; but it is enough that he know them as to substance. Nor indeed is it necessary that an account concerning the individual mysteries be explicitly given; it suffices to know and believe them. Wherefore, if Simplicius knew at least the principal heads of faith which are contained in the Apostles' Creed, the precepts of the Decalogue and of the Church, and the principal sacraments of baptism, penance, and Eucharist as to substance, although he did not know how to give an account of them, he could indeed and ought to have been absolved by Macarius. But if Simplicius was altogether ignorant of these things, and it was to be feared lest, having been dismissed, he would not return further, or would return with the same ignorance, he ought to have instructed him sufficiently as regards the one God and Rewarder, as regards the mystery of the Trinity and the Incarnation, then eliciting with him a general act of faith; he ought furthermore to have disposed him for absolution, by stirring him to contrition and purpose, also eliciting with him an act of contrition; finally he ought to have exhorted him that thereafter he should wish to learn the same things better, and should also learn the other things which are contained in the Creed, the precepts of the Decalogue and of the Church, and the principal sacraments; and thus to impart absolution to him. But if there is a prudent hope that Simplicius will return, then either Macarius himself ought to instruct him gradually on individual occasions, or ought at least to indicate to him, or even procure for him, the means by which he may be instructed by another, and thus gently he ought to send him away for a few days, until he is sufficiently instructed, earnestly asking him to return as soon as possible. If Simplicius knows how to read, it will be very useful to give him some suitable little book which contains and explains a small catechism. Elbel 31 seqq.; G. 186.

2. Politianus, a supporter of civil liberties, who often confesses and approaches Communion, making a journey at paschal time, confesses outside his own parish, lest he be deprived of paschal Communion. But Fabritius the confessor, understanding that he stands for the civil liberty of government, denies him absolution, and declares him unworthy of paschal Communion, because, he says, liberalism is a sin, and all liberals are in a continual state of mortal sin.

Q. What as to the case?

R. The manner of acting of the aforesaid confessor certainly cannot be approved, since there is question, as appears from the case, of an honest man and a good Catholic, who frequents the sacraments of the Church, and bears their deprivation at paschal time with difficulty, since even when established on a journey he is unwilling in any way to omit them. Nor indeed can the doctrine of the confessor be approved, since in its universality it is altogether false. Liberalism is a sin, if that also comprehends errors condemned by the Church. Liberals likewise are in sin if they hold and defend errors of this sort. But if civil liberty imports nothing else than the republican or constitutional form of government, as it is called, and consequently civil liberties of government which are contained within the legitimate limits of justice and of the public good, there is certainly nothing illicit in it in itself, nor has it ever been condemned by the Church in itself. Whence it also cannot be affirmed that those who from this are called liberals are in mortal sin. Hence in the Instruction of the Holy Office, 29 Aug. 1877, to the Canadian bishops, the Sacred Congregation says: "The Church, in condemning liberalism, does not intend to strike all the individual political parties which perhaps are called liberal, since the decisions of the Church refer to certain errors opposed to Catholic doctrine, not to a determined political party." Collectan. S. Congr. de Prop. Fid., n. 1665. And as regards the very form of government,

Leo XIII, in the encyclical letter Quella lunga, 29 June 1881, teaches these things: "Yet it is important to note here, that those who will be placed over the public thing can in certain circumstances be elected by the will and deliberation of the multitude, without Catholic doctrine being contrary or repugnant to this.... Nor is there question here of the modes of public government, since there is no reason why the Church should not approve the principate of one or of many, provided it is just and directed to the common advantage. Wherefore, justice being preserved, peoples are not prevented from procuring for themselves that kind of government which better suits their character, or the institutions and customs of their forefathers." If it were otherwise, it would have to be said that now all those in the Catholic nations of Europe and America who favor modern institutions of governments are in mortal sin and are unworthy of sacramental absolution, which indeed is altogether absurd.

3. Blandina, a pious woman, heard from a preacher that acts of faith, like acts of the other theological virtues, must frequently be elicited. Wherefore she fears vehemently lest she has not satisfied this precept, and has thus gravely offended.

4. Sylvius, a confessor, is not accustomed to ask penitents whether they sometimes elicit acts of faith. He acts thus also with penitents careless for many years about salvation and the sacraments; especially if they are matrons and conspicuous men, whom he does not dare to question.

Q. 1. When does the precept of faith oblige? 2. What as to the cases?

R. To the first, cf. I. M. 354, 355, 376, 381. To the second: Blandina, since she is a devout woman, ought not to be anxious concerning the obligation of eliciting an act of faith, since she is most frequently raised by faith in following the devout life. G. 188.

As regards Sylvius, the confessor is not held specially to ask penitents concerning acts of faith. For they are presumed sufficiently to satisfy the divine precept, unless a special reason persuades the opposite. This certainly holds as regards those who do not neglect the practice of religion, and approach the sacraments. But as regards the others, Lugo excellently admonishes this: since this obligation, as regards the time when it urges, is so uncertain, and since for this very reason it is partly not known, and partly the omission, if ever it were present, is not adverted to, hence it happens that neither among penitents is there a custom of confessing about this, nor among confessors of asking about this. G. 189.