27. On the External Profession of Faith

1. In places of the missions, a prince, moving persecution against Catholics, made a public edict by which he commanded that all Christians had to present themselves before the judge within the space of fifteen days; otherwise they were judged to have denied the faith. The faithful of several provinces asked the missionaries what was to be done, and almost all answered that they should flee, or, if it could conveniently be done, that they should hide themselves. Yet some reproved this, opposing proposition 18 condemned by Innocent XI, and ordered all the faithful of their mission to present themselves before the judge.

2. In a region of heretics, it was prohibited by law for religious to celebrate Mass. Mathurinus, a religious, had celebrated Mass there daily for a year. At last, having been caught, he is asked by the judge whether he knew the prohibition of the law, and whether he himself was a priest and a religious. To all these things Mathurinus responded with subtle evasion.

3. Lucianus, a heretical minister, already converted in his heart to the Catholic faith, seized by a lethal illness, calls a Catholic priest so that he may receive from him the sacraments of the Catholic Church. Yet he first asks him that he be willing to come to him clothed in lay garments, lest he introduce any suspicion of himself to others; then, that, if he should die from that illness, he say nothing concerning his conversion, lest perhaps his parents be liable to persecution; but if he should recover, that he himself should await a suitable time for manifesting his conversion, lest his whole fortune be confiscated.

Q. 1. When does the external profession of faith urge? What as to the cases?

To the first, cf. I. M. 364, 365. To the second: the missionaries responded well; nor is the condemned proposition rightly invoked against them. "If only," says Viva on this proposition, n. 13, "in general through an edict it is proposed that, if someone is faithful, he betray himself, when many are hidden, no one, speaking in itself, is held to betray himself." The reason is that, when a tyrant questions concerning the faith, someone is held to respond, not because he legitimately asks, but from this, that through such questioning there arises an article of necessity, for which the precept of confessing the faith obliges. Moreover, in the case, this article of necessity is not had. For flight and hiding, in the case, does not yield to contempt of faith, since on the contrary those who flee and are hidden are rather manifested as Christians and faithful. - "If a prince," says Scavini, 12th ed., Milan, 1874, l. 2, n. 911, "by a general law commands that the faithful betray themselves, by carrying such a sign or otherwise, the faithful are not held to this; since no one is held to tell the truth unless specially asked. Except, unless the circumstances are such that by the very fact that they do not betray themselves they seem to have denied the faith, as, for example, if some were previously known, and then from this they would be thought to have defected from the faith." - Struggl, q. 1, n. 39, 40; Lig. 13, 14; G. 193.

Mathurinus was not held to respond to the judge questioning him, since he had no right, in the case, of juridically questioning a priest. But to dissemble, by mental restriction, knowledge of the aforesaid law, or that he is a priest and religious, is certainly not to dissemble the Catholic faith, and much less to deny it. Wherefore Mathurinus acted rightly. Indeed, without any evasion Mathurinus could have simply denied that he knew anything about the law, understanding namely about a true obliging law; likewise he could deny that he is a priest and religious, understanding namely in order to the illegitimate celebration about which he was being asked, and to the illegitimate questioning of the judge, or that he himself was held to confess. - St. Thomas, Quodl. 12, a. 28; Elbel 62, 63; G. 192, 193.

The Catholic priest could indeed approach Lucianus clothed in lay garments. For this contains nothing against faith; and not rarely Catholic priests, from a reasonable cause, walk as laymen lest they be recognized, for example, in time of persecutions, etc. - But he could not permit Lucianus to dissemble the faith by dying. For there urges, especially in the article of death, for a heretic who is then converted to the faith, the positive obligation of the Church of external profession of faith, which obligation Lucianus was not ignorant of, as appears from the case. Furthermore, it was altogether necessary by that profession of faith to remove scandal and retract the errors which he had taught; otherwise others, either seduced by Lucianus or certainly confirmed in their errors, without doubt would have persevered further in these errors, not without most evident loss of salvation and detriment to divine honor. Wherefore Lucianus ought altogether, at least before two witnesses before he died, to profess the Catholic faith. But if Lucianus had been altogether in good faith concerning this obligation of the Church, which he had entirely been ignorant of, and had not been a heretical minister, but a man from the common people, who had never confirmed anyone in his false sect; since in such a man then neither the honor of God nor the salvation of souls would be endangered, and therefore the natural and divine precept would not then urge concerning externally professing the Catholic faith for removing scandal, then, on account of a truly reasonable and grave cause, the external profession of faith could more easily be dissembled. Nor does it matter that he would be believed by others to have died in heresy; for scandal having been removed and a grave cause standing, that false opinion can be permitted. The other thing could be permitted to Lucianus, namely that, health having been recovered, for some time he dissemble the external profession of the Catholic faith, until he could suitably provide for himself and his affairs. For to dissemble the faith on account of a reasonable cause is not to deny it. Yet he ought altogether to abstain from acts protestative of false religion, as for example, to go on in the exercise of a heretical ministry: for this is to deny the faith. Elbel 67-70; G. 195-198; Collectan. S. C. de P. F., n. 1639, 1642, 1643, 1647, 1650-1653, 1686.

4. "How ought a confessor to conduct himself toward apostate penitents placed in the article of death, when he is summoned secretly by them, so that he may absolve secretly? The reason of the difficulty is that in that article they are accustomed to be induced by an infidel family or false priests to acts of false religion, nor can they refuse without danger of death.

R. The Most Holy One judged that the confessor ought to absolve the apostate penitent placed in the article of death, the apostasy having first been abjured in the forum of conscience; and if he should survive for some space of time, and if he can, let him abjure in public before the faithful; but if he cannot, let him leave a written document of his abjuration, signed at least with the sign of the cross; but if he cannot do this either, let him commit to the confessor that he manifest his abjuration to the faithful.

Yet the apostate penitent then placed in danger of life is not held, even with Turks persuading him with danger of life, to confess the Catholic faith which he then embraced after abjuring infidelity, but to elude their persuasions, either by not responding, or by using equivocal words." Holy Office, 25 July 1630. A. S. S., v. 26, p. 642.