On the Theological Virtues

“19. The will cannot bring it about that the assent of faith be in itself firmer than the weight of the reasons impelling to assent deserves. — 20. Hence one can prudently reject an assent which he holds to be supernatural. — 23. Faith broadly so called, arising from the testimony of creatures or a similar motive, suffices for justification.” Propositions condemned by Innocent XI.

“51. Faith justifies when it operates, but it does not operate except through charity. — 52. All the other means of salvation are contained in faith, as in their germ and seed; but this faith is not without love and confidence.” Propositions of Paschasius Quesnel condemned by Clement XI.

“12. When all love is lacking in great sinners, faith also is lacking; and although one may appear to believe, it is not divine faith, but human.” Proposition condemned by Alexander VIII.

“I. On God, the Creator of All Things. — 1. If anyone shall deny the one true God, Creator and Lord of things visible and invisible, let him be anathema. — 2. If anyone shall not be ashamed to affirm that nothing exists besides matter, let him be anathema. — 3. If anyone shall say that the substance or essence of God and of all things is one and the same, let him be anathema. — 4. If anyone shall say that finite things, both corporeal and spiritual, or at least spiritual things, emanated from the divine substance; or that the divine essence, by manifestation or evolution of itself, becomes all things; or, finally, that God is the universal or indefinite being which, by determining itself, constitutes the universe of things distinct in genera, species, and individuals, let him be anathema. — 5. If anyone shall not confess that the world and all things contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced by God from nothing according to their whole substance; or shall say that God created not by a will free from every necessity, but as necessarily as He necessarily loves Himself; or shall deny that the world was established for the glory of God, let him be anathema.

“II. On Revelation. — 1. If anyone shall say that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason through those things which have been made, let him be anathema. — 2. If anyone shall say that it is impossible or inexpedient that man be instructed through divine revelation concerning God and the worship to be rendered to Him, let him be anathema. — 3. If anyone shall say that man cannot be raised divinely to a knowledge and perfection which surpass the natural, but can and ought of himself, by continual progress, ultimately to attain possession of all truth and goodness, let him be anathema. — 4. If anyone shall not receive as sacred and canonical the books of Holy Scripture in their entirety, with all their parts, as the sacred Synod of Trent enumerated them, or shall deny that they are divinely inspired, let him be anathema.

“III. On Faith. — 1. If anyone shall say that human reason is so independent that faith cannot be commanded of it by God, let him be anathema. — 2. If anyone shall say that divine faith is not distinguished from natural knowledge concerning God and moral things, and that therefore it is not required for divine faith that revealed truth be believed because of the authority of God revealing, let him be anathema. — 3. If anyone shall say that no miracles can occur, and that therefore all accounts of them, even those contained in sacred Scripture, are to be relegated among fables or myths; or that miracles can never be known with certainty, nor the divine origin of the Christian religion rightly proved by them, let him be anathema. — 4. If anyone shall say that the assent of Christian faith is not free, but is necessarily produced by arguments of human reason; or that the grace of God is necessary only for living faith, which operates through charity, let him be anathema. — 5. If anyone shall say that the condition of the faithful and of those who have not yet attained the one true faith is equal, so that Catholics can have just cause for calling into doubt, with assent suspended, the faith which they have already received under the magisterium of the Church, until they shall have completed a scientific demonstration of its credibility and truth, let him be anathema.

“IV. On Faith and Reason. — 1. If anyone shall say that no mysteries truly and properly so called are contained in divine revelation, but that all the dogmas of faith can be understood and demonstrated from natural principles by reason duly cultivated, let him be anathema. — 2. If anyone shall say that human disciplines are to be treated with such liberty that their assertions, even when opposed to revealed doctrine, can be retained as true and cannot be proscribed by the Church, let him be anathema. — 3. If anyone shall say that, according to the progress of science, a sense can at some time be assigned to dogmas proposed by the Church other than that which the Church has understood and understands, let him be anathema.”

“68. Purely negative infidelity, in those to whom Christ has not been preached, is a sin.” Proposition of Michael Baius condemned by St. Pius V.

“28. If the Pope with a great part of the Church should hold an opinion in one way or another, and should not even be in error, it is still not a sin or heresy to hold the contrary, especially in a matter not necessary for salvation, until the one opinion has been rejected and the other approved by a universal Council.” Proposition of Martin Luther condemned by Leo X.

“5. Although it is evident to you that Peter is a heretic, you are not bound to denounce him if you cannot prove it.” Proposition condemned by Alexander VII, 24 Sept. 1665.

“Whether Ordinaries of dioceses who are not Bishops, such as Capitular Vicars, Apostolic Administrators of cathedral churches, and also Vicars General, and likewise whether Prefects of missions, can reconcile to the Church a repentant heretic, whether appearing before them of his own accord or brought in any manner before the external forum, equally with Bishops, and absolve him for both forums from the censure into which he has fallen because of heresy. — Resp. Concerning Capitular Vicars: in the affirmative with regard to subjects, even with the power of delegating; but as regards exempt persons, they regularly require a faculty of the Apostolic See. — Concerning Apostolic Administrators of cathedral churches: in the affirmative, even with the faculty of subdelegating. — Concerning Vicars General: they cannot by virtue of their office, but they can by delegation of their own Ordinary. — Concerning Prefects of missions: in the negative.” Holy Office, 1 Feb. 1865.

From the Holy Office, 21 Dec. 1895, a Bishop can by ordinary authority absolve in the external forum heretics who appear of their own accord, “after an abjuration juridically made.”

But regarding this juridical abjuration, the same Holy Office declared on 28 March 1900 “that the abjuration can be made before someone delegated by the Bishop as notary and before some persons as witnesses; and let the instruction of 8 April 1786 to the Bishop of Limerick be given.”

The aforesaid instruction reads thus: It is not necessary that those who have defected from the Catholic faith and afterwards desire to return to it first make a public abjuration; it is enough that they abjure privately before a few persons, provided, however, that they keep their promises and in fact abstain from communicating with heretics in spiritual things, or from doing anything expressive of heresy. The same is to be held concerning those who privately abjure the heresy in which they were educated from the beginning.

Cf. n. 364; Instruction for the profession of faith and absolution of heretics in the Collectanea of the S. C. de P. F., n. 1689; M. E., vol. 12, pp. 49–50.

“1. Whether a girl ten years of age dwelling in a monastery can safely be admitted to the profession of the Catholic faith against the will of her father, who is a heretic. — 2. Whether girls dwelling in a monastery can safely be admitted to the profession of the Catholic faith when their heretical parents consent and even promise that they will give them in marriage to Catholic men, although they declare concerning themselves that they are heretics and wish to remain such. — 3. Whether girls can safely be admitted to the profession of the Catholic faith, as in the preceding case, although the parents themselves are not Catholic but indifferent, that is, unbelievers. — 4. Whether girls at present well disposed are to be admitted without delay to the profession of the Catholic faith and reception of the sacraments, or whether their admission is to be deferred until marriage with a Catholic man because of the fear of perversion. — 5. If it is to be deferred, whether they are to be admitted into the monastery in order to be instructed in the Catholic faith, or whether one must wait until the time of marriage with a Catholic man.

“Resp. To the 1st: Let the Apostolic Vicar first strive with all his strength to obtain the consent of the girl’s father. If consent is not obtained, let him consider seriously the disadvantages which are foreseen as likely to arise from the admission of such a girl into the Church, both with regard to the proximate danger of the perversion of that same girl and with regard to grave harm to the Catholic school and mission; and insofar as no disadvantages, or only negligible ones, are foreseen, let him admit her without delay. But insofar as grave future disadvantages are foreseen, let him defer her admission to the formal and public profession of the Catholic faith, unless danger of death is imminent; and meanwhile let him take care to exhort her to persevere in her good purpose and to pray God that He may deign to remove all obstacles; and at the same time let him take care that she continue to remain in the monastery and in this manner complete and perfect her Catholic education. — To the 2nd and 3rd: in the affirmative; and let them take care that the parents stand by their promises. And with regard to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, with this intention: the intention is that suitable inquiries be made concerning the validity of the girls’ Baptism; and insofar as, after these have been made, a probable doubt remains concerning the validity of this Baptism, let the girls be baptized secretly under condition. — To the 4th: in the negative, unless a well-founded hope of their Catholic education shines forth. — To the 5th: provided for by the responses to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd; and if further difficulties arise, let the Right Reverend Apostolic Vicar have recourse in the individual cases.” Holy Office, 21 July 1880.

“97. Faith is necessary for rustic, ignorant, servile men and those not having an elevated intellect, who do not know how to know through reason and delight to know through faith; but a subtle man is more easily drawn to Christian truth through reason than through faith.” Proposition of Raymond Llull condemned by Gregory XI, on the seventh day before the Kalends of February 1376. Cf. nn. 345, 349, 350.

“22. Only faith in one God seems necessary by necessity of means, but not explicit faith in Him as rewarder.” Proposition condemned by Innocent XI. Cf. n. 345.

“64. A man is capable of absolution, however much he may labor under ignorance of the mysteries of faith, and even if through negligence, even culpable negligence, he does not know the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity and of the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ. — 65. It suffices to have believed those mysteries once.” Propositions condemned by Innocent XI.

“A Missionary is bound to explain to an adult, even one who is dying, provided that he is not wholly incapable, the mysteries of faith which are necessary by necessity of means, such as principally the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation.” Holy Office, 25 Jan. 1703; C. 549.

“1. At no time whatever in his life is a man bound to elicit an act of faith, hope, and charity by force of the divine precepts pertaining to those virtues.” Proposition condemned by Alexander VII.

“16. Faith is not judged to fall under a special precept in itself. — 17. It suffices to elicit an act of faith once in life. — 18. If someone is questioned by public authority, I counsel him candidly to confess the faith as glorious to God and to the faith; I do not condemn silence as sinful in itself.” Propositions condemned by Innocent XI. Cf. n. 350.

Cf. n. 353.

“For even if the matter concerned that submission which is to be rendered by an act of divine faith, it would nevertheless not have to be limited to those things which have been defined by express decrees of ecumenical Councils, of the Roman Pontiffs, and of this Apostolic See; but it would also have to be extended to those things which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary magisterium of the whole Church dispersed throughout the world, and which therefore are held by the universal and constant consent of Catholic theologians to pertain to the faith. But since the matter concerns that submission by which, in conscience, all those Catholics who devote themselves to speculative disciplines are bound, so that by their writings they may bring new benefits to the Church, therefore the men of that same assembly ought to recognize that it is by no means enough for Catholic scholars to receive and venerate the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary that they subject themselves both to those decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations and to those heads of doctrine which by the common and constant consent of Catholics are held as theological truths and conclusions so certain that opinions opposed to those same heads of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless merit some other theological censure.” Pius IX, Letter to the Archbishop of Munich and Freising, 21 Dec. 1863.

“The Pontifical Constitutions relating to the Chinese and Malabar rites, and especially the Bulls Ex quo and Omnium sollicitudinum of Benedict XIV of holy memory, are not disciplinary, but doctrinal.” Holy Office, 5 Aug. 1891.

“Let all the children of the Catholic Church learn to hear the Church herself, not only by keeping silence … but also by obeying inwardly, which is the true obedience of an orthodox man … [and let them learn] that the sense of the Jansenian book condemned in the five aforesaid propositions, which their words present … must be received and condemned as heretical by all the Christian faithful, not only with the mouth, but also with the heart….” Clement XI, Constitution Vineam Domini, 16 July 1703.

“Whether it can safely be denied, or at least called into doubt, that the text of St. John in the First Epistle, chapter 5, verse 7, is authentic, which reads thus: For there are three who give testimony in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. — Resp. In the negative.” Holy Office, 15 Jan. 1897.

“A penitent presents himself before a confessor and, among other things, declares that he holds the opinion that the fire in hell is not real but metaphorical; that is, that the punishments of hell, whatever they may be, are called fire by a manner of speaking; for just as fire produces the most intense pain of all, so no image is more apt for indicating the most atrocious punishments of hell and for forming an idea of hell. Hence the parish priest asks whether it is lawful to leave penitents in this opinion, and whether it is lawful to grant them absolution. The parish priest notes, moreover, that the matter does not concern the opinion of some individual, but is an opinion generally admitted in a certain village, where it is customary to say: ‘Persuade only the infants, if you can, that there is fire in hell.’

“Resp. Penitents of this kind are to be diligently instructed; and the obstinate are not to be absolved.” Sacred Penitentiary, 30 April 1890.

Cf. n. 345; Canons of the Vatican Council.

“41. It is not necessary for salvation to believe that the Roman Church is supreme among the other Churches.” Proposition of John Wycliffe condemned by the Council of Constance. Cf. n. 369.

“C. 1. On the Institution of the Apostolic Primacy in Blessed Peter. — If anyone shall say that blessed Peter the Apostle was not constituted by Christ the Lord as prince of all the Apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that he received from the same Our Lord Jesus Christ directly and immediately a primacy of honor only, and not one of true and proper jurisdiction, let him be anathema.

“C. 2. On the Perpetuity of the Primacy of Blessed Peter in the Roman Pontiffs. — If anyone shall say that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord Himself, or by divine right, that blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in that same primacy, let him be anathema.

“C. 3. On the Force and Nature of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff. — If anyone shall say that the Roman Pontiff has only an office of inspection or direction, and not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in matters which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church diffused throughout the whole world; or that he has only the more important parts, but not the whole plenitude, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate, whether over each and all Churches or over each and all pastors, let him be anathema.

“C. 4. On the Infallible Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff. — We define as a dogma: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, exercising the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, he defines by his supreme apostolic authority a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possesses that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals; and therefore that definitions of this kind of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church. But if anyone—which may God avert—shall presume to contradict this definition of Ours, let him be anathema.”

The 45 articles of John Wycliffe, condemned by the Council of Constance and by Martin V through the Bull Inter cunctas, on the eighth day before the Kalends of March 1418, and the Bull In eminenti of the same day.

The 30 articles of John Hus, condemned by the Council of Constance and by Martin V, as above.

The 9 propositions of Master Peter of Osma, condemned by Sixtus IV in 1479 as scandalous and heretical.

The 41 errors of Martin Luther, condemned by Leo X through the Bull Exsurge Domine, 16 May 1520.

The 79 propositions of Michael Baius, condemned by St. Pius V in the Bull Ex omnibus afflictionibus, 1 Oct. 1567, and also by Gregory XIII in the Bull Provisionis nostrae, 29 Jan. 1579, and by Urban VIII in the Bull In eminenti, 6 March 1641.

“These opinions, weighed in a strict examination before Us, although some could be sustained in some manner, We respectively condemn, in the strict and proper sense of the words intended by their assertors, as heretical, erroneous, suspect, rash, scandalous, and offensive to pious ears.” St. Pius V, loc. cit.

The use of knowledge obtained from Confession for external government is prohibited. Decree of Clement VIII, 26 May 1594.

The proposition concerning absolution and confession in the absence of the penitent was declared probable in no case by Clement VIII, Decree of 20 June 1602, and by Paul V, 14 July 1605.

The proposition in which the equality of Saints Peter and Paul is asserted, condemned by Innocent X in a decree of the General Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition, 29 Jan. 1647.

The 5 propositions of Cornelius Jansen, excerpted from his book entitled Augustinus, condemned by Innocent X in the Constitution Cum occasione, 31 May 1653, and also by Alexander VII in the Constitutions Ad sanctam, 16 Oct. 1656, and Regiminis apostolici, 15 Feb. 1664, and by Clement XI in the Constitution Vineam Domini, 16 July 1705. The several propositions were condemned separately under various theological notes, but all as heretical.

The 45 propositions condemned by Alexander VII in the decrees of the Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition Sanctissimus Deus noster, 24 Sept. 1665 and 18 March 1666. All were condemned and prohibited at least as scandalous. [The source prints “1866” for the second date; corrected here to “1666.”] The 65 propositions condemned by Innocent XI in the decree of the Congregation of the Holy Inquisition Sanctissimus Dominus noster, 2 March 1679.

All were condemned and prohibited, as they stand, at least as scandalous and pernicious in practice. — The Supreme Pontiff concludes the decree with these words: “Finally, in order that doctors or scholastics, or any others whatsoever, may hereafter abstain from injurious contentions, and that provision may be made for peace and charity, His Holiness, in virtue of holy obedience, commands them to beware, both in books printed or in manuscript, and in theses, disputations, and preachings, of every censure and note, and also of any insults whatever, against those propositions which are still disputed among Catholics here and there, until, the matter having been considered, judgment concerning those same propositions is pronounced by the Holy See.” Benedict XIV also ordained the same in the Bull Sollicita et provida, § 23.

The proposition concerning the use of knowledge acquired from Confession, prohibited by a decree of the Inquisition, 18 Nov. 1682, under Innocent XI.

The 68 propositions of Michael de Molinos, condemned by Innocent XI in the Constitution Coelestis Pastor, 20 Nov. 1687, respectively as heretical, suspect, erroneous, scandalous, blasphemous, offensive to pious ears, rash, relaxing and subversive of Christian discipline, and seditious.

The 2 propositions concerning love of the last end and concerning philosophical sin, condemned by Alexander VIII in the Decree Sanctissimus Dominus, 24 Aug. 1690.

The 31 propositions condemned and prohibited by Alexander VIII, 7 Dec. 1690, respectively as rash, scandalous, evil-sounding, injurious, proximate to heresy, savoring of heresy, erroneous, schismatic, and heretical.

The 23 propositions concerning the purest love toward God, condemned and reprobated by Innocent XII in the Brief Cum alias, 12 March 1699, whether in the obvious sense of their words or with attention to the connection of the opinions, respectively as rash, scandalous, evil-sounding, offensive to pious ears, pernicious in practice, and also erroneous.

The 101 propositions of Paschasius Quesnel, declared and condemned by Clement XI in the Constitution Unigenitus, 8 Sept. 1713, respectively as false, captious, evil-sounding, offensive to pious ears, scandalous, pernicious, rash, injurious to the Church and her practice, insulting not only to the Church but also to the powers of the age, seditious, impious, blasphemous, suspected of heresy and savoring of heresy itself, and also as favoring heretics and heresies and even schism, erroneous, proximate to heresy, several times condemned, and finally heretical; and as manifestly renewing various heresies, and especially those contained in the notorious propositions of Jansen, and indeed taken in that sense in which these were condemned.

The 5 propositions concerning dueling, condemned by Benedict XIV in the Constitution Detestabilem, 10 Nov. 1752, as false, scandalous, and pernicious.

The 85 propositions of the diocesan Synod of Pistoia, condemned by Pius VI in the Constitution Auctorem fidei, 28 Aug. 1794. The Supreme Pontiff thus concludes the Constitution:

“For these reasons, therefore, by apostolic authority and by the tenor of the present letters We prohibit and condemn this very book, whose title is Acts and Decrees of the Diocesan Council of Pistoia of the Year 1786, Printed in Pistoia by Atto Bracali, Episcopal Printer, with Approval, whether inscribed with the foregoing or any other title, wherever and in whatever language, in whatever edition or version, it has hitherto been printed or is to be printed; just as We also prohibit and condemn all other books already perhaps issued or—may God avert it—to be issued, either in writing or in print, in defense of it or of its doctrine; and We likewise prohibit and forbid all and each of the Christian faithful to read, copy, retain, or use them, under the penalty of excommunication to be incurred ipso facto by transgressors.”

The Syllabus of 80 Propositions, embracing the principal errors of our age condemned in the Consistorial Allocutions and Apostolic Letters of Pius IX.

The propositions condemned in the Encyclical Quanta cura of Pius IX, concerning which propositions the Pontiff thus ordains: “By Our Apostolic authority We reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all and each of the perverse opinions and doctrines individually commemorated in these Letters; and We will and command that they be held by all the children of the Catholic Church as entirely reprobated, proscribed, and condemned.”

The 40 propositions taken from the works of Antonio Rosmini, condemned by a Decree of the Holy Office, 14 Dec. 1887, with Leo XIII approving.

The propositions of Americanism disapproved in the Letter Testem benevolentiae of Leo XIII, 22 Jan. 1899. M. E., vol. 1, p. 62 ff.; Ferraris, Supplement, s.v. Opiniones.

Cf. n. 353.

“That which from the ancient times of the Church was always customary, that a certain and determinate formula should be proposed to the Christian faithful by which they would profess the faith and solemnly detest the heresies gaining strength in each age, this same thing, after the sacred Synod of Trent had happily been completed, the Supreme Pontiff Pius IV wisely accomplished. Hastening to execute without delay the decrees of the Tridentine Fathers, by the Constitution Iniunctum nobis, issued on the Ides of November 1564, he composed the form of profession of faith to be recited by those who were to be placed over cathedral and superior churches, or who would obtain their dignities, canonries, and any other ecclesiastical benefices whatsoever having care of souls; and by all others to whom it pertains by the decrees of that Council; and also by those whom it happened to be provided over monasteries, convents, houses, and any other places of regulars of whatever Orders, even military, under whatever name or title. By another Constitution issued on the same day and year, beginning In sacrosancta, he further salutarily extended this to all doctors, masters, regents, or other professors of any art and faculty whatsoever, whether clerics or laymen, or regulars of any Order, publicly or privately professing in any places whatsoever in any manner, or having or exercising any lectures, and finally to those to be adorned with degrees of this kind.

“Now, since afterwards the sacred Vatican Council was assembled, and before its suspension announced by the Apostolic Letters Postquam Dei munere of 20 Oct. 1870, two dogmatic Constitutions were solemnly promulgated by the same Council: the first, namely, on the Catholic Faith, which begins Dei Filius, and the other on the Church of Christ, which begins Pastor Aeternus; it is not only opportune, but also necessary, that in the profession of faith there should be made, as by the heart so also by the mouth, public and solemn adherence also to the dogmatic definitions of the aforementioned Vatican Council. Wherefore Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius IX, having sought on this matter the vote of a special Congregation of the Most Eminent Fathers, Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, established, commanded, and ordered, as by the present decree he commands and orders, that in the aforesaid Pian formula of profession of faith, after the words especially by the sacred Synod of Trent, there be said and by the ecumenical Vatican Council handed down, defined, and declared, especially concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible magisterium; and that hereafter the profession of faith be made by all who are bound to make it thus and not otherwise, under the threats and penalties established by the Council of Trent and by the above-mentioned Constitutions of Pius IV of happy memory. Therefore let this be observed everywhere, and by all whom it concerns, diligently and faithfully, notwithstanding,” etc.

“Given at Rome, from the Secretariat of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, on 20 Jan. 1877.” — Cf. C. 1870, 1871.

The profession of the orthodox faith according to the form prescribed by the Supreme Pontiffs Pius IV and Pius IX — Cf. C. 1670, note (1).

The profession of the Catholic faith for Greeks according to the formula prescribed by the Supreme Pontiff Gregory XIII — Cf. C. 1671, note (1) I.

The profession of the Catholic faith for Orientals according to the formula prescribed by the Supreme Pontiff Urban VIII — Cf. C. 1671, note (1) II.

The abjuration or profession of faith for newly converted heretics — Cf. C. 1680, 1689; cf. here n. 346.

“Whether those obtaining a benefice with care of souls, dignities, and canonries in metropolitan or cathedral churches satisfy the precept of the sacred Council of Trent, sess. 24, c. 12, De Ref., if they make the profession of faith after receiving institution or collation and before being placed in possession. — Resp. In the affirmative.” S. C., 23 April 1902; A. S. S., vol. 35, p. 595.

“1. Whether, besides canons, dignitaries, and curates provided with an immovable title, as they say, pastors also removable or succursalists are bound to the profession of faith according to the prescription of the sacred Council of Trent. — 2. And, in the affirmative concerning succursalists, whether they can make the profession before a simple deputy appointed by the Bishop. — 3. Whether the aforesaid profession must be renewed as often as all those mentioned above are transferred to another benefice. — Resp. … according to the Council of Trent, sess. 24, c. 12, De Ref., and the resolutions issued in similar matters: to the 1st, in the affirmative; to the 2nd, in the negative; to the 3rd, in the affirmative.” S. C. C., 15 Dec. 1866.

“Whether by common law a Bishop can subdelegate all the priests of his diocese so that they may give investiture, or place priests who have been instituted in possession of a benefice, and receive the profession of the orthodox faith. — Resp. The Ordinary can delegate with regard to placing in possession; but with regard to receiving the profession of faith, he cannot.” S. C. EE. et RR., 14 April 1890.

Cf. n. 353.

Whether it is lawful for Catholics to visit the churches of heretics. — Resp. “It is lawful if they visit for the sake of mere curiosity, without any communication in sacred things, provided that such visiting is not commonly regarded as an act professing a false religion; since, just as visiting profane buildings, so also visiting the churches of heretics, is an act indifferent in itself, which becomes evil only from a perverse end or from circumstances. It becomes evil, namely: 1. if someone visits them with the intention of being present at the sacred functions of heretics; 2. or, even without such an intention, if the very entrance into the churches of heretics brings about, or appears to bring about, some communication with those same heretics in divine things, and hence also affords an occasion of scandal; 3. or if such visiting has been commanded by a heretical government as a profession of one and the same faith and religion among Catholics and non-Catholics; 4. or if both parties commonly regard it as a token of one and the same communion of Catholics and non-Catholics. — In these cases, therefore, it is never lawful for Catholics to visit the churches of heretics, because it is never lawful to participate in the sacred rites of heretics or to feign one’s own faith. Where all these things are absent, and they are moved solely by curiosity to see the churches, they can visit them without fault.” Holy Office, 13 Jan. 1818.

“It is not unknown that in certain places a heretical minister acts the part of a merely civil magistrate, before whom spouses are accustomed to present themselves, or even are bound to do so for a political end, namely, that they may be held civilly as honorable spouses and that their offspring may be judged legitimate. But then, when heretics urge it or civil law commands it, it is not disapproved that the Catholic party together with the heretical party present themselves, before or after the marriage contracted according to the form of the Council of Trent, even before a minister devoted to heresy, solely to fulfill the civil act. For to a doubt once expressed thus: Whether a Catholic contracting with a heretic before his own Catholic parish priest can licitly, when heretics urge it, ratify this marriage before a heretical minister, if from this no profession of a heretical rite is had or inferred, and whatever the heretical minister does in the case is and is judged to be a merely civil and political requirement, this Sacred Congregation responded in the affirmative.

“But indeed, as often as the heretical minister is regarded as devoted to sacred rites and as fulfilling, as it were, the office of parish priest, it is not lawful for the Catholic party together with the heretical party to give matrimonial consent before such a petty minister, because he would be employed to complete a certain religious ceremony, and the Catholic party would associate himself with the heretical rite; whence a certain implicit adherence to heresy would arise, and consequently communication with heretics in divine things would be altogether illicit. For that reason, even if this pernicious custom has grown up so that it cannot easily be corrected by the clergy, it must nevertheless be rooted out with all diligence and zeal employed. And indeed Benedict XIV openly teaches that it is not lawful for contracting parties to present themselves before a heretical minister insofar as he assists as a minister devoted to sacred rites; that the contracting parties sin mortally; and that they are to be warned.

“Therefore, parish priests and Missionaries, opportunely instructed and admonished by you, should teach the faithful, both by public catecheses in churches and by private instructions concerning the constant doctrine and practice of the Church, so that, as far as can be done, they may be salutarily averted from contracting mixed marriages; but if not, let them utterly abhor celebrating marriage before a heretical minister devoted to sacred rites, which is in every way illicit and sacrilegious. Thus response was made to the Ordinary of Trier on Wednesday, 21 April 1847.

“Let parish priests know besides that, if they are questioned by the contracting parties, or if they certainly know that they are going to a heretical minister devoted to sacred rites in order to give matrimonial consent, they cannot be silent, but must warn those same spouses concerning the most grave sin which they commit and concerning the censures into which they incur. Nevertheless, to forestall grave evils, if in some particular case the parish priest has not been asked by the spouses whether or not it is lawful to go to the heretical minister, and no explicit declaration is made by those same spouses concerning going to the heretical minister, but he nevertheless foresees that they may perhaps go to renew matrimonial consent, and moreover, from the circumstances concurring in the case, foresees that the warning certainly will not be profitable, but indeed will be harmful, and that thereby material sin will be turned into formal guilt, then let him be silent, scandal nevertheless being removed, and provided that the other conditions and cautions required by the Church have duly been established, especially concerning free exercise of religion being granted to the Catholic party and concerning all the offspring being educated in the Catholic religion. But if at length they wish consent to be renewed before the parish priest after it has already been given before the heretical minister, and this is publicly known or is notified to the parish priest by the parties themselves, the parish priest shall not assist at this marriage unless, the other things to be observed being observed as is supposed, the Catholic party, repentant of the deed, has first duly obtained absolution from the censures contracted, salutary penances having been imposed beforehand. The Sacred Congregation therefore trusts greatly in the Lord that, prudently and firmly adhering to the foregoing, you will bring it about that the inviolable deposit of doctrine is preserved safe and sound, that the morals of Catholics correspond to the faith, that the apprehended harms are warded off, and that the faithful, strengthened by doctrine and example, walk through the paths of justice.” Holy Office, 17 Feb. 1864; 29 Nov. 1672.

“Christians are forbidden to presume to dwell with Jews, to perform their continual service when hired for wages, to nurse their infants in their own homes, or to serve them as nurses. Book 5 of the Decretals, tit. 6, cc. 5, 8, 13. — It is likewise forbidden to Christians to call or admit Jews or other unbelievers as physicians for their care, or to cause them to be called or admitted. Gregory XIII, Constitution Alias, 30 March 1581. — When the faithful serving Jews undergo danger of perversion, there is no place for tolerance; and only when no danger of this kind is imminent is it lawful prudently to dissemble.” S. I. C., 14 July 1886; Diocesan Synod of Albano, year 1886, part I, art. 7, n. 3.

“According to the present discipline introduced by Martin V in the celebrated Extravagant Ad evitanda, Catholics are permitted freely to associate with heretics, provided that they have not been expressly and by name denounced, and to communicate with them in merely profane and civil matters.” Holy Office, 10 May 1873; A. S. S., vol. 27, p. 449 ff.; C. 1816.

“Since often and for a long time various cases, under various circumstances of utility, necessity, dangers, vexations, and even persecution to be endured by the faithful, have been proposed to this Sacred Congregation by Missionaries and Prelates of the East concerning the communication of Catholics with heretics and schismatics in divine things; and since this Sacred Congregation has constantly and uniformly replied: It is not lawful; the hope had been conceived that the Missionaries of the East would sufficiently and easily understand that some cases could indeed be devised speculatively in which it would be lawful to tolerate some communication in divine things, but that in practice, with all the circumstances of the fact considered, cases can be found only with the greatest difficulty in which that communication is lawful; and that it is even morally impossible that another general rule be prescribed, accommodated to every kind of men, every region, and every time, than that which was given by this Sacred Congregation to the repeated questions of the Missionaries of the East in the Instruction issued in the year 1719; namely, resting upon this doctrinal principle: that communication in divine things with heretics and schismatics is regularly to be held illicit in practice, either because of danger of perversion in the Catholic faith, or because of danger of participation in a heretical and schismatic rite, or finally because of danger and occasion of scandal. These circumstances indeed, just as they are regularly connected in practice with communication in divine things with heretics, are also universally forbidden by natural and divine law, in which there is neither any power that can dispense nor any connivance that can excuse; so that no place has been left for devising and proposing new doubts. Hence in that Instruction it was expressly prescribed: Missionaries are to be instructed that they must wholly abstain from acts expressive of a false sect, from communication in a schismatic and heretical rite, from danger of perversion, and from occasion of scandal….

“Therefore let it be dear to the heart of each Prelate, Missionary, or director of souls to teach and stir up the faithful to avoid these dangers, which they regularly undergo, either all or some, in communication in divine things with the heretics and schismatics of the East. For although these still for the most part preserve the substance and validity of the sacraments, nevertheless they do not allow Catholics outwardly to exhibit those signs of disapproval and separation which they ought; from which it comes about that that outward conformity in the same worship, and reverence toward the pseudo-ministers of the liturgy, cannot free any Catholic, however firm in faith and abhorring the heretical or schismatic rites by which their worship is infected, from the danger of scandal.

“This is confirmed the more also from the fact that scarcely any rite exists among the heterodox which is not stained by some error in the matter of faith. For in their churches either the dedication is in memory of some schismatic whom they venerate as a saint, or images are present, or relics are honored, or feasts are celebrated of those who died in schism and are commonly held as saints, or finally commemoration is made of living schismatic and heretical Patriarchs and Bishops, who are commended as preachers of the Catholic faith. Therefore, all Catholics who come together in that celebration of rite and prayer and worship, in these circumstances of fact, cannot be purged of the guilt of perverse communication, or at least of pernicious scandal. Nor does the pretext of merely material assistance excuse them; for it is excluded by the fact itself, whereby those who are present at these functions of heretics or schismatics sufficiently show themselves to agree with them in unity of prayer, in unity of worship, in unity of veneration, and in obedience toward the perverse ministers of heresy and schism.

“This is also made clear from the fact that the Orientals themselves daily see with their eyes, hear with their ears, and confess with their mouth that no sectarian hardened in schism comes, is present, or gathers in the churches of Catholics, whether to hear Mass or to receive the sacraments, for this reason, namely, that, blaspheming the assemblies of the faithful as though of a perverse communion, they judge this intercourse pernicious and illicit, and the rite damnable. But when they see Catholics come to their churches, be present at their rites, and partake of their sacraments, must it not be believed, or at least feared, that from this very fact they are more confirmed in their errors, and also by this example persuade themselves that they walk on the right path of salvation? From this it follows that the danger of pernicious scandal to the schismatics and heretics themselves can be avoided only with the greatest difficulty; and therefore a Catholic is not safe in conscience if he communicates with them in divine things in this kind of case….” Instruction of the S. C. de P. F., 1729; C. n. 1811; A. S. S., vol. 27, p. 449 ff. [The text above says that the Instruction was issued in 1719; this citation prints 1729.]

“Communication in divine things with heretics cannot and ought not so easily and so generally to be pronounced forbidden by law in absolutely every circumstance. This is evident in marriages entered into between a Catholic and a heretic; the same is demonstrated by those Pontifical Constitutions through which heretics were invited to the Council of Trent with a guarantee of safe-conduct. And finally, it is worthy of notice that Catholic priests are commanded not to cease from divine services if even notorious heretics come to the churches; from which passive communication in divine things is recognized as permitted, contrary to the opinion of Fagnanus, who erred in this.” Holy Office, 24 Feb. 1752; A. S. S., vol. 27, p. 449 ff.; C. 1814.

“Communication with heretics can be either in reprobated doctrine or in rites or other signs expressive of a false sect, with scandal of the faithful; for this reason communication with them is forbidden by the Church, lest the faith be understood either to be lost or endangered. Hence St. John the Evangelist commands so severely: If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house, nor say to him, Hail; for he who says Hail to him communicates in his evil works (2 John 10). From these words it is inferred most evidently that whatever expresses such a Hail will be prohibited, such as liturgical actions which were instituted to signify ecclesiastical unity. Wherefore we read that it was ordained by the Fathers of the Council of Carthage: With heretics one must neither pray nor sing psalms, as Benedict XIV relates (On the Diocesan Synod, bk. 6, c. 5). It is therefore illicit at sacred functions to invite heretics into the choir, to sing psalms alternately, to give them the peace, sacred ashes, blessed candles and palms, and other external acts of worship of this kind, which are rightly and deservedly regarded as indications of an interior bond and agreement, both in the active sense, namely, by giving similar things to them, and in the passive sense, by receiving them from them in their sacred rites. For in either hypothesis it would be the same as to say Hail to them and to communicate in their evil works. But certain things are now proposed which of themselves, as they are set forth meagerly and simply, do not seem to display communication in sacred things. For the things objected concerning witnesses at marriages and concerning persons swearing in our churches declare no forbidden cooperation on the part of Catholics. For those are called witnesses who merely stand beside the betrothed party, doing or saying nothing that is judged to carry a sign of forbidden participation; and thus, if in this material presence no scandal is to be feared, there will be no reason for the Missionary’s mind to waver in uncertainty. Much less ought he to be troubled if, with no Catholic inviting or cooperating, heretics enter our churches, which are open to anyone, in order to pronounce their oaths. What is it to us if the entire action of the heretics is removed from the cooperation of the faithful? “Finally, as regards funerals, let the Missionaries know that response was already made on Thursday, 20 May 1755, that heretics or schismatics are to be tolerated insofar as they exhibit a merely material presence for the sake of civil honor toward the deceased, without involving themselves in Catholic prayers and rites. For in this there is no participation in sacred things, properly so called, on the part of Catholics; and this being excluded, in the other matters let them conduct themselves according to the tenor of the Constitution Ad evitanda of Martin V.” Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, 8 June 1859.

“…1. All those incur excommunication reserved to the Pontiff among the most special cases who, even without the will of adhering to heresy and only for the sake of human respect, give their names to sects of heretics, of whatever denomination.

“2. A fortiori, they incur the same penalty who are present at non-Catholic functions, or services, as it is commonly said, or hear someone preaching with the intention of giving themselves over to him insofar as, as they impiously say, they can be persuaded by him.

“3. Thus also they incur the same excommunication who, having become promoters of another’s spiritual ruin, induce in any way and see to it that others go or come to the halls or churches of heretics to hear conferences.

“4. Finally, all those are overwhelmed by the same penalty who publish in print invitations to the aforesaid conferences and their themes, because of the favor which by such action they furnish to the propagation or confirmation of heresy.

“But it is most strictly forbidden, through mere curiosity and knowingly, to enter the halls and churches of Protestants at the time of conferences; and all gravely sin who through mere curiosity listen to the conferences of Protestants and assist, even materially, at non-Catholic ceremonies; and all craftsmen who, even for the sole reason of profit, sing or play instruments in the churches of Protestants; and printers, even subordinate workers, who, lest they be dismissed by their superiors, set type for printing books of heretics. Indeed, if there is question of books of heretics by which heresy is taught and sustained, even subordinate printing workers incur the major excommunication reserved in a special manner to the Pontiff.

“Nor are architects, contractors, and master builders excused from mortal sin who contribute their own labor and work to erect some church of Protestants. As regards other builders and lower workers, they can be excused from sin, provided scandal is absent from their deed and the work is not done in contempt of the Catholic religion. But parish priests and confessors shall devote diligent labor to admonishing people of this kind that it is necessary to abstain from such material work insofar as the work is commonly held as an indication professing a false religion; and insofar as the same work displays something which alone and directly signifies either the reprobation of Catholic worship or the approbation of reprobated heretical worship; or when it is certain that the same persons are forced or called by heretics to labor in contempt of the Catholic religion; and that in no case is the intention of cooperating with heretical worship lawful.

“Finally, fathers and mothers become guilty all the more of a most enormous sin when, truly cruel to the souls of their children, they send them to Protestant schools, and still worse if they compel them to go. It is evident that parents of this kind are to be reproved and detested in their crime, that their amendment is to be sought by every possible means, and that sometimes they are to be kept far from the sacraments as incapable and unworthy until they have withdrawn their children from schools of this kind.

“The children also, with the matter considered in itself, certainly become guilty of grave fault by attending such schools. But in a case of true compulsion, the confessor, after weighing the circumstances of the person and the fact, shall act toward them according to the rules proposed by approved authors for cases of this kind….” Rome, from the Vicariate, 12 July 1878; 28 Sept. 1884. Cf. A. S. S., vol. 11, p. 168 ff.; vol. 17, p. 164 ff.

“The House of the Religious of the Sacred Heart of Our Lord Jesus Christ was founded at Leopolis in the year 1844, and for fourteen years schismatic girls from Moldavia, together with Catholics, have been educated there not only in profane sciences but also in the Catholic religion, since their schismatic parents expressly requested and request this. The proportion between the number of Catholic and schismatic girls has not always been the same; but now for five years the schismatics have constituted about one-third of all the pupils of that house. Besides Catholic instruction, the aforesaid schismatic girls also have in common with the Catholics pious reading and common spiritual exercises, and together with them they assist daily at the sacrifice of the Mass. All also prayed in common, but I arranged beforehand that the Catholic girls pray separately in Polish and the schismatics in French. According to the request of the schismatic parents, some girls, under the supervision of a trustworthy person, are led once or twice a year to a schismatic church in order to receive the sacraments according to their own confession, while others abstain from receiving them. This practice in the Institute of the Sisters of the Sacred Heart was not indeed approved by the local Ordinaries, because the Religious never submitted an official report concerning it to the Ordinariate; but nevertheless it came privately to the knowledge of the local Ordinaries, who tolerated it,” etc.

“Resp. It can be tolerated that schismatic girls be admitted into the school which the Sisters called after the Most Sacred Heart of Our Lord Jesus Christ direct at Leopolis, provided that they show a good disposition and are instructed according to the things set forth, but nevertheless are not obliged to assist at the sacrifice of the Mass or other ecclesiastical functions; rather, let this be left to their choice. It is indeed forbidden that they ever hold disputes with the Catholic girls concerning matters pertaining to religion; that they go to a schismatic church to receive sacraments from schismatic ministers—but if in some case this cannot in any way be prevented, let the Sisters conduct themselves passively; and it is likewise forbidden that the girls be visited by friends and relatives, except parents and guardians, without the permission of the Ordinary. Concerning all these things their parents or guardians are to be instructed clearly and explicitly, and are to consent to them before the girls themselves are admitted to the school. And let this be written to the Right Reverend Lord Latin Archbishop of Leopolis, with the admonition that he take care for the execution of all these things and for the spiritual good of the girls as far as can be done, even after their departure from the school; and let the Sisters be instructed that, if any girl seeks to be converted to the Catholic faith, the matter is to be referred to the Archbishop himself, who will provide prudently according to the circumstances of the case; and let him diligently take care that from the admission of schismatics no danger, even the least, of perversion or indifferentism be present for the Catholic girls.” Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, 11 June 1866. — From this decision it can be concluded what the mind of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office is, and what cautions were prescribed by it in this matter. Nevertheless, the reported decree cannot be held as a general rule to be applied to every other mixed boarding school, because of the diverse circumstances of each particular case. Instruction of the S. C. de P. F., 25 April 1868; C. n. 1679; A. S. S., vol. 32, p. 560 ff.; M. E., vol. 12, p. 289.

“…Finally, it will be useful to add that the aforementioned Sacred Congregation of Propaganda, in the general meeting of 31 Aug. 1863, while examining the rules of the Institute of the Sisters of Our Lady of Sion established in France and speaking about the young boarders in the corresponding educational establishment, decided that response should be made to the founder ‘that it is the intention of the Sacred Congregation that, as a general rule, none but Catholic girls be admitted into schools for boarders. But if for a grave reason it should be necessary to receive girls of other confessions, who are nevertheless to be educated in a Catholic manner, the diocesan Bishop is to be informed of this, so that in concert with the Superior they may establish with all diligence the rules necessary to avoid every danger of seduction or perversion; among these rules it is not to be omitted to prescribe that, during the visits which the aforesaid girls receive from their parents, a Sister must always be present.’” Instruction of the S. C. de P. F., 25 April 1868.

A certain Superioress admitted three Protestant girls into a semi-boarding school, their parents willing and consenting that they be instructed in the catechism together with the Catholic girls and be present at sacred functions. She asked the Holy Office: 1. Whether she could retain them. 2. What was to be done in a similar case in the future. — Resp. “The three pupils already received can be tolerated, provided that every danger of perversion of the Catholic pupils is absent, concerning which the Directresses are to keep diligent watch. As regards other resident pupils, in the negative. For day pupils, let them have recourse in individual cases, the daughters of apostates always being excepted.” Holy Office, 6 Dec. 1899.

“Whether anything should be noted concerning the plan of the Bishops of the United States of America to admit non-Catholics as honorary members into the Societies of St. Vincent de Paul. — Resp. Nothing indeed prevents spontaneous alms from being received even from non-Catholics; but it is altogether inexpedient that those same persons be enrolled among the honorary members.” S. C. de P. F., 19 Sept. 1867.

“Whether Catholics are permitted to take an oath into the hands of a Greek priest—a schismatic—because of an obligation imposed by the government, when it is given in such a manner that the judge alone imposes it, and the Greek priest, without a stole and without lighted candles before the Crucifix, and without dictating it in the least, remains silent; and nothing is required but his sole and bare presence, while the witness pronounces it himself, placing his hand upon the Gospel. — Resp. Insofar as the schismatic minister assists at the oath of Catholics with a merely passive and political presence, without a stole and other signs of ministry, or as one not devoted to sacred rites, those swearing in this manner do not sin.” Holy Office, 1 April 1857.

“Public disputations are not to be held with heretics, because for the most part, either because of talkativeness or boldness or the circumstances of an applauding people, truth is oppressed while falsehood prevails; and if at some time disputations of this kind cannot be refused, first the Sacred Congregation is to be informed of them, which, according to the condition of the time and persons, will prescribe what is to be done.” S. C. de P. F., 8 March 1625; 27 May 1644; 18 Dec. 1662; Holy Office, 19 Jan. 1644; S. C. C., 6 March 1625. Cf. c. Quicumque 2, § 1, De Haeret., in the Sext.

“Whether it is permitted to build the churches or synagogues of heretics. — Resp. They are not to be disquieted, provided that scandal is not present and it is not done in contempt of religion. But let the Bishop take care that, through Missionaries and confessors, the craftsmen be opportunely instructed when they ought to abstain from giving their own labor in building churches or synagogues. Namely, they are bound to abstain from the work: 1. where work of this kind is commonly held as a sign expressive of a false religion; 2. or where something is contained in the work itself which directly and uniquely of itself expresses reprobation of Catholic worship and approbation of the condemned worship of heretics; 3. or where it is known that Catholic craftsmen are driven to the work or called by heretics in contempt of the Catholic religion. — Moreover, although outside these cases they are to be left in good faith, nevertheless they must always be admonished not to intend to cooperate with the worship of heretics.” Holy Office, 14 Jan. 1818; 7 July 1864. Cf. the preceding Instruction of the Cardinal Vicar.

“Whether it is lawful for Catholics to contribute money for building a heretical church. — In the affirmative, but only in order to free themselves and their own churches from that inconvenient and scandalous simultaneity with Protestants.” Sacred Penitentiary, 1822.

Cf. n. 365.

“Whether Catholic Missionaries and priests, when asked by schismatics, can preach in the churches of the latter. — Resp. Either they are invited for the purpose that Catholic truth be preached there without restriction, and even against the errors of those same schismatics, and then in the affirmative; or only that a sermon be made concerning virtues and vices which commonly both Catholics and schismatics ought to embrace and avoid, and then in the negative.” S. C. de P. F., 1674.

“Whether Greek schismatics can visit Catholic churches and there assist only materially at their sacred rites and divine services. — Resp. The access of non-united Greeks to Catholic churches can be permitted, provided that the sacraments are not administered to them, that they do not in any manner communicate in divine things, and that they have not been invited to come in this manner.” Holy Office, 22 Sept. 1763.

It is lawful for Latins to celebrate Mass in the presence of Greek schismatics and to continue it when they arrive. Holy Office, 25 Nov. 1665.

“1. Whether it is lawful to offer torches or lighted lamps to any heterodox person who wishes to assist at our functions. — 2. Whether it can be permitted that the children of schismatic parents exercise the office of servers in the celebration of the divine mysteries. — Resp. To the 1st: in the negative and according to the intention. The intention is that, if, in view of the particular circumstances, only the heterodox persons cannot be excluded from such a ceremony, let the Catholic laity also be excluded. To the 2nd: it cannot be permitted.” Holy Office, 20 Nov. 1850.

“I implore, by way of exception, the faculty of permitting certain schismatics and heretics, and possibly even Israelites, especially boys and girls who frequent our congregational schools, to sing in our churches and oratories…. This is most useful…. Besides, there does not seem to be any danger…. In the East this custom is very widespread…. — Resp. Let the Apostolic Vicar insist that the abuses in question be removed as quickly and efficaciously as possible; and in the meantime let him take care that Catholic boys are accurately taught the liturgical chants.”

“Can heretics be permitted to sing in our churches and to assist at the altar to serve Mass? — Resp. To both parts: in the negative.” Holy Office, 7 July 1864.

“Whether Catholics in Holland are permitted to offer their offspring to be baptized by a heretical minister, lest they be compelled to pay a fine of 25 florins. — Resp. It is not lawful.” Holy Office, 26 Sept. 1868.

“A Catholic wife privately takes care that her infant be baptized by her parish priest; this infant is afterwards baptized in a church by a heretical minister, the parents consenting to it in order to avoid a grave pecuniary fine, for perhaps on a single occasion the whole small substance which they have would be taken away. Do the parents who thus consent sin, and by what sin? — Resp. It is not lawful, and the consenting parents sin mortally; therefore they are to be warned.” Holy Office, 29 Nov. 1672.

“It is regularly not lawful for Catholics to be present at the sermons, baptisms, or marriages of heretics or schismatics. But absolutely it is not lawful, either by oneself or through others, to perform the office of sponsor in Baptisms which are administered by heretics to the children of heretics.” Holy Office, 10 May 1770.

“With regard to the abuse of admitting heretics as sponsors in the sacrament of Baptism, the Sacred Congregation ordered that the decree of the Council of Trent, sess. 24, De Ref., be recalled to the memory of all Apostolic Vicars.” S. C. de P. F., 8 Sept. 1869; A. S. S., vol. 27, p. 574.

“In the conferral of the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation, heretics or schismatics cannot licitly perform the office of sponsor, either personally or through a Catholic proxy, either alone or with Catholics; nor is it lawful for Catholics to perform the same office in the same sacraments administered according to a non-Catholic rite. For thus this Apostolic See has constantly held. Wherefore it will be your duty, laboring especially through parish priests, to see that abuses prevailing there concerning this matter are amended diligently as well as prudently, gradually and imperceptibly, as you now hope.” Holy Office, 1871.

“Whether Catholics are permitted to adore the Most Holy Sacrament which they encounter in the streets when the schismatic parish priest carries it to the sick as Viaticum or in another manner. — Resp. Not only is it lawful, but one must adore the Most Holy Sacrament; Catholics, however, must abstain from accompanying it.” S. C. de P. F., 15 Dec. 1764.

“Let the Bishop of Trebinje command the Catholics subject to him not to go to Masses and other divine offices in the churches of schismatics, and let him warn them that, in the absence of a Catholic Mass, they are not bound by the precept of hearing Mass.” Holy Office, 5 Dec. 1668.

“Whether the decree by which Catholics are forbidden to assist at the Masses of schismatics and their prayers is understood also for places in which Catholic priests are not found, and concerning prayers in which there is nothing against the Catholic faith and rite. — Resp. His Holiness judged: in the affirmative.” Holy Office, 7 Aug. 1704.

“The Sacred Congregation judged that Missionaries ought not celebrate divine things in churches in which heretics at the same time have their profane and sacrilegious exercises. But so that satisfaction may be made for Catholics, the sacred rite is to be performed upon portable altars placed in private homes.” S. C. de P. F., 27 May 1627.

“The Sacred Congregation ordered that it be written to the Archbishop of Zara that he should provide that, in the church of St. John of Cartola, Diocese of Cattaro, Catholics not celebrate divine things with Greek schismatics; for although they use different altars, nevertheless, because of the identity of the church, it is to communicate with schismatics in divine things.” S. C. de P. F., 13 Aug. 1627.

“With regard to celebrating Mass in the same church with heretics, even when it is divided by an intervening wall, the Sacred Congregation judged that Father Ignatius, Missionary in Rhaetia, and his companions are to be commanded not to do this at all, but to use a portable altar, whenever it shall be necessary to celebrate, according to the privileges granted to the missions.” S. C. de P. F., 13 Feb. 1629.

“Whether the practice which the Catholic parish priests of the fortress of Lastua have of celebrating the sacrifice of Holy Mass in Catholic churches usurped and officiated by Greek schismatics, or even in those which belong purely to the schismatics themselves, is to be tolerated. — Resp. It is to be held as a universally accepted and observed rule that Catholics are not permitted to communicate in divine things with heretics and schismatics. But in certain particular cases this rule admits some exceptions, namely, if in the same church there are separate chapels and altars, of which some serve Catholics alone and others schismatics; or if parts of the same church are separated, and in one only Catholics celebrate, and in the other only schismatics. Then the shared use of the church can be tolerated. But insofar as these things are lacking, the Right Reverend Lord Archbishop can command the parish priests of his diocese to use portable altars according to the faculties imparted to them in the Formula, which His Holiness intends to give and renew again.” Holy Office, 1 Dec. 1757.

“Our Most Holy Lord Clement XI, Pope by divine Providence, … for more easily promoting the conversion of schismatics and unbelievers and for attracting them to embrace the Catholic faith by the sight of the sacred ceremonies, benignly granted to the Father Prefect, or Vice-Prefect, of the Missionaries for the time being in Ethiopia, that according to their judgment and conscience they can dispense with those same Missionaries and grant them the faculty of celebrating the most holy sacrifice of the Mass in the Catholic Roman rite upon an altar in the churches of heretics or schismatics in Ethiopia; in such a way that the same altars serve only as bare tables and are arranged in the manner of Catholics with a consecrated stone, cloths, an image of the Most Holy Crucified One, candlesticks, and other necessary furnishings for the use of the most holy sacrifice of the Mass according to the aforesaid rite; never, however, generally, but in particular cases in which other more suitable places are not available, so that there is urgent necessity for more easily promoting the said conversion, and furthermore for the consolation of Catholics, and for other just and most urgent causes to be judged by the same Father Prefect or Vice-Prefect of the Missionaries, concerning which he burdened their conscience.” Holy Office, 12 April 1704; C. 1808.

“In the Catholic churches of Rhaetia occupied by heretics, Missionaries can continue their exercises.” Holy Office, 13 June 1534.

“Nor is it lawful to permit heretics and schismatics to celebrate in our churches, even if the consecrated stone has first been removed.” S. C. de P. F., 16 Sept. 1695.

“Whether it is lawful for Latin Catholics to concede or permit that, in their churches, priests of the Greek rite, schismatics and heretics, celebrate Mass. — Resp. In the negative; especially since they make commemoration of the Patriarch of Constantinople and celebrate the feast of the infamous Palamas. For this is equivalent to consenting to their heretical rites and communicating with them in their sacred rites polluted with schismatic and heretical bran; or at least to providing occasion to Catholics entering Latin churches for communicating with heretics in divine things, or at least for conceiving scandal.” Holy Office, 10 May 1753.

“…We have received letters by which … you signify that Our most dear son in Christ, the King of Bavaria, in restoring to you the monastery, placed this condition: that the monks in their church would be bound to celebrate a funeral for the King himself when he shall die, and thereafter in perpetuity on anniversary days; and likewise for the Queen his consort and for future Kings or Queens, both at the death of each and on the anniversary days which intervene until the death of the subsequent one. You add, however, beloved son, that you indeed even then foresaw the difficulty easily arising from the fact that the most serene wife of the King is alien from Catholic sacred rites; but nevertheless, from the counsel of a certain prudent man, as you thought, you resolved to accept that condition with this intention: that if thereafter the same Queen should die outside Catholic communion, the sacrifice of the Mass at her funeral and on anniversary days would be offered for the Catholic royal family universally. But since recently, at the death likewise of a non-Catholic woman, the most serene Queen Dowager, no light dissensions arose throughout the whole kingdom concerning her funeral, you judged it yours to refer to Us concerning that condition and concerning the manner to be observed by you and your monks in that case, and to ask Our judgment. We therefore, insisting on the rules of the most holy Church, respond that that intention of offering the divine sacrifice or other prayers for all the departed of the Catholic royal family is by no means sufficient to render honorable, under the cause of a public funeral, that which was requested by name for a non-Catholic person and is celebrated at that person’s death or on the anniversary day. And hence We Ourselves, although We cherish you, beloved son, and your monks with paternal charity, nevertheless shall not approve and confirm those things which pertain to that monastery and its affairs before that condition, incautiously undertaken by you, is restricted to the funerals of Catholic princes alone. For We cannot permit that in any way fraud be committed against that prohibition, which rests upon Catholic doctrine itself, concerning a sacred funeral not to be celebrated for departed non-Catholics. Act therefore, beloved son; expend all your industry and labor so that the most serene King, according to his piety, may wholly assent to this…. Meanwhile, if before the matter has been arranged with His Majesty it should happen—which may God avert—that the most serene Queen departs her final day outside the true Catholic faith, you and your monks need much firmness of soul and prudence, so that you do not in the least violate that most grave prohibition of holy Church, and the pious King may understand that, with the duties of religion preserved, it can by no means happen that you comply with him in that matter….” Brief of Gregory XVI, 9 July 1842, to Rupert Feiss, President of the Monks of Scheyern. Cf. also the Letter Officium perlibenter to the Bishop of Augsburg, 13 Feb. 1842. [The source prints “Gregory XIV, 9 July 1482”; corrected here from the identity and date of the cited letter.]

“Whether Mass can or ought to be celebrated and an alms received for a Greek schismatic who earnestly asks and insists that Mass be applied for him, whether he is present in the church or remains outside the church. — Resp. According to the things set forth, it is not lawful, unless it is expressly established that the alms are offered by the schismatic to obtain conversion to the true faith.” Holy Office, 19 April 1837. Cf. On the Eucharist, n. 610; C. 891.

“In no case, not even one of necessity, is it lawful for a Catholic to confess his sins and obtain absolution from a schismatic priest.” S. C. de P. F., 17 Feb. 1761.

“In danger of death, when a Catholic priest is lacking, can absolution be sought from a schismatic priest? — Resp. It is lawful, provided, however, that scandal is not afforded to the other faithful, that there is no other Catholic priest, that there is no danger that the faithful person be perverted by the heretic, and, finally, that the heretical priest will probably administer this sacrament according to the rites of the Church.” Holy Office, 7 July 1864.

“Whether Latin confessors or priests are permitted to administer the sacrament of Penance to Greek Catholics communicating in divine things with Greek schismatics. — Resp. It is not lawful outside the case of extreme necessity. For fuller instruction, it ordered that what Benedict XIV taught in On the Diocesan Synod, bk. 6, c. 5, be transcribed.” Holy Office, 10 May 1753.

“1. Whether material schismatics who are in good faith can sometimes be absolved. — 2. Whether it can at least tacitly be conceded to them that they sometimes receive the sacraments in their own churches and assist at sacred functions. — Resp. To the 1st: since scandal cannot be avoided, in the negative, except at the point of death, and then with scandal efficaciously removed. — To the 2nd: in the negative.” Holy Office, 20 July 1898.

“Can the help of the sacraments be procured for heretics in danger of death by calling for this purpose a priest of their own belief? — Resp. It is not lawful.” Holy Office, 7 July 1864.

“N. sets forth that in the city M. there exists a hospital of which he himself is rector and chaplain, and in which nuns take care of the sick. But since adherents of a non-Catholic religion are sometimes received in this hospital, and those same persons repeatedly ask for a heretical minister from whom they may receive religious helps and consolations, it is asked whether it is lawful for the aforesaid nuns to call a minister of a false religion; furthermore, whether the same solution is to be given when a sick heretic lives in the private home of some Catholic, namely, whether then the Catholic can lawfully call a heretical minister. — Resp. It is not lawful; but let them conduct themselves passively.” Holy Office, 14 March 1848. Let them conduct themselves passively; namely: “It would not be lawful for the nuns or other Catholic persons assigned to the direction or service of the hospital to comply directly with the requests of non-Catholic sick persons as regards calling one of their ministers, which it is well that they declare should the occasion arise; but at the same time, for making the call, they can employ some person belonging to their respective sect. In this manner the principle concerning forbidden communication in divine things remains safe.” Holy Office, 31 Jan. 1872; 14 Dec. 1898.

“Because some minister is needed for the service of the churches of the Catholic Armenians both in Isfahan and in Julfa, and because there are no Catholic Armenian Bishops, men are sent to be ordained and to receive sacred Orders from one of the schismatic and heretical Bishops. — Resp. It is in no way lawful; and those ordained by Bishops of this kind are irregular and suspended from the exercise of their Orders.” Holy Office, 21 Nov. 1709.

“1. Whether heretics, schismatics, and unbelievers can be invited to assist at the nuptials of Catholics, or even at mixed nuptials which are licitly contracted. — 2. Can Catholics be present in any manner at the nuptials of heretics, schismatics, and unbelievers, or even at those nuptials which are illicitly contracted between a Catholic party and another party devoted to the aforesaid sects, whether the nuptials become valid or are invalid? — Resp. To the 1st: it can be tolerated when a reasonable cause is present, provided that no communication in sacred things intervenes and scandal is not to be feared. — To the 2nd: as a rule, in the negative; nevertheless, it can be tolerated that Catholics be present at nuptials of this kind solely for the sake of civil duty, scandal, every danger of perversion, and contempt of ecclesiastical authority being removed.” Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, 14 Jan. 1874.

“Can a Catholic permit a heretic or schismatic to contract marriage in his own house—the Greeks for the most part conducting marriages in a house, to which their priest comes? — Resp. According to the things set forth, it is not to be permitted.” Holy Office, 7 July 1864.

“Whether it is lawful for a Catholic priest to conduct himself as a civil minister in the celebration of marriages of Protestants. — Resp. This is lawful; for in this case the priest is as an authorized witness.” S. C. de P. F., 27 Dec.

“Whether it is lawful to be present at the funerals and burial of heretics. — Resp. It is lawful whenever there is question of material assistance furnished for the sake of civil duty, from which Catholics cannot exempt themselves without grave harm or danger, provided that they in no manner communicate in their rites and any sacred ceremonies.

“But lest a dangerous custom of assisting at the funerals and burial of heretics be rashly permitted in practice, let the Bishop examine and seriously consider whether it can easily be removed without hatreds and enmities thereby arising between heretics and Catholics, from which some grave harm to Catholics is to be feared. But if it cannot be removed peacefully, Catholics are to be diligently instructed concerning the conditions under which it is permitted in any circumstances. — Namely, it is permitted, as has been said: 1. that there be only a material presence furnished for the sake of civil duty, and therefore on the condition that Catholics intend to perform no act of religion or of religious worship and rite. — 2. It is permitted in a case in which they cannot exempt themselves from it without grave harm or danger; this circumstance is not present where someone, knowing that no harm or danger otherwise threatens him, should be present by his own pleasure and choice, bound by no due civil duty. — 3. Finally, it is permitted on the condition that they in no manner communicate in sacred things with heretics; therefore they must neither pray together, nor involve themselves in their rites, nor carry lights, nor discharge suffrages for the soul of the deceased.” Holy Office, 13 Jan. 1818; C. 1833, 1845.

“A parish priest, as a parish priest, cannot be present at the funerals of non-Catholics; but if he assists only civilly, without sacred vestments and without any communication with heretics in a sacred rite, it can be tolerated, provided that the bond of kinship or friendship between the parish priest and the deceased non-Catholic is publicly known.” Holy Office, 30 March 1859; C. 1852.

“Always and as a rule, attendance remains forbidden at the merely civil funerals of those who are commonly called freethinkers, at which, for ostentation and in contempt of religion, the attendance of priests or ministers of worship is deliberately excluded.” S. C. de P. F., 3 May 1876.

“Insofar as schismatics accompanying the funerals of Catholics exhibit a merely material presence for the sake of civil honor toward the deceased, without involving themselves in the Catholic prayers and rites by which it is customary to conduct funerals and lead the departed to the sepulcher, it can be tolerated; but insofar as they employ their own rites in that function or involve themselves in ours, it is not lawful and is not to be permitted.” Holy Office, 10 May 1753; C. 1816.

“Whether non-Catholics, by reason of the bond of consanguinity or marriage, can licitly be interred in the ancestral tomb of Catholic families. — Resp. It can be tolerated.” Holy Office, 30 March 1859; 25 April 1860. Namely: “Let Bishops take care with all their strength that all things be done according to the norm of the sacred canons; but insofar as this cannot be obtained without scandal and danger, it can be tolerated.” Holy Office, 30 March 1859.

Cf. the Constitution Ex quo singulari of Benedict XIV, 11 July 1742, concerning the Chinese rites, and the Constitution Omnium sollicitudinum of the same Benedict XIV, 12 Sept. 1744, concerning the Malabar rites. The two aforesaid Constitutions are not disciplinary but doctrinal. Holy Office, 5 Aug. 1891; Letter of Cardinal Monaco, Secretary, 17 Sept. 1891.

“Whether Missionaries, questioned by a tyrant whether they wish to remain in his kingdom, having given their pledge that they will not promulgate the evangelical law, can licitly agree, promise, and accept such a condition. — Resp. They cannot promise this.” Holy Office, 1674.

“In relation to cooperation with superstitious rites, this rule is to be held. If the cooperation has been part of the superstitious rite, then it is to be judged formal, intrinsically evil, and can never be done licitly. On the contrary, it is to be judged material if it was not part of the superstitious rite. Some grave harm which would arise to the cooperator if he wished to abstain from this material cooperation will make it lawful, even if scandal is present—what is called scandal of the little ones by theologians—because by the law of charity no one is bound to remove that scandal with grave harm to himself.” S. C. de P. F., 2 July 1827.

“All direct cooperation of Christians with superstitious things is forbidden, and those acts are furthermore prohibited which, according to the common estimation of the people, are referred to worship being exhibited to idols. Nor can acts of this kind be excused because of the intention of the one acting or ministering, on the ground that they direct their mind not toward the superstitious worship of idols but toward some other indifferent service; for the private intention of the one acting does not avail to cleanse from guilt an act which among unbelievers is regarded as directed toward superstitious worship. Likewise, the fact that Christians concur in superstitious things only by slight labor and by remote ministry cannot furnish a sufficiently suitable excuse. For whatever the labor may be that is expended directly for superstitious things, and whatever ministry, however remote, is furnished for worship being exhibited to idols, if in the common estimation it cannot be referred to an indifferent cause, is always illicit and vicious.” S. C. de P. F., 5 April 1785; C. 1713.

“Can Christians be permitted to construct temples or altars of idols, or to fashion the idols themselves, in order to avoid exile or deprivation of goods? — Resp. It is not lawful to cooperate in building temples or altars of idols, or to fashion their statues.” S. C. de P. F., 7 Dec. 1626.

“In no way is it lawful for Catholic Christians, nor can it be permitted or tolerated for any cause or motive, that they devote their labor to building, restoring, and sweeping temples of a false deity, or temples dedicated to the authors of false sects, or to cleaning their walls and pavements, cleaning altars, and opening and closing doors.” Holy Office, 1669.

“There are Christian communities which have already been compelled by the Mandarins to erect a public shrine for idols. Moreover, while the most cruel tyrant who governs this most wretched kingdom remains, it will be most difficult to destroy these public shrines…. I ask whether, with the above-mentioned things considered, the Christian communities which have erected shrines of this kind can truly be judged immune from superstitions, provided that they perform no acts of superstition in those shrines…. — Resp. Deferred; and inquiry is to be made of the Apostolic Vicar whether the erection of the shrine is held as an act expressive of a false religion.” S. C. de P. F., 10 Aug. 1841. But on 8 Jan. 1851 the same Sacred Congregation, having received an affirmative response from the Apostolic Vicar, wrote back: “It is not lawful for Christians to build temples for idols or to cooperate in their construction; and let the Decree for Japan of 7 Dec. 1626 be given, namely: Japanese faithful cannot, in order to avoid danger of death or exile, build altars or idols or cooperate in their construction.” Holy Office, 8 Jan. 1851. Cf. T. A. Gallo, Suppet. Evang. Praecon., etc., Rome, 1872, vol. 1, p. 197 ff., 251 ff.; C. 1697. [The source prints “8 Jan. 1821” in the transitional sentence but “8 Jan. 1851” in the cited response; corrected here to 1851.]

“Christians, servants of Turkish masters, are employed to construct mosques, to repair their walls, and to whitewash the walls. The Apostolic Vicar asked whether such acts are lawful. Considering the motives, causes, and circumstances set forth by the Apostolic Vicar, showing the miserable servants placed in the hard necessity of performing such labors, their good faith, invincible difficulties, the further danger of the expulsion of Missionaries and the prohibition of the ministers of religion from instructing Christian servants and administering its sacraments, it was resolved in these Congregations that, if the Christian servants were not compelled by the Turks to these labors out of hatred for our religion or in contempt of it—in which case they ought rather to sustain death—the Apostolic Vicar ought to leave them in the good faith in which they are, provided that they do not have the intention of cooperating with superstition.” S. C. de P. F., 31 Aug. and 14 Sept. 1780; C. 1734.

“It is the custom in the Kingdom of Tonkin that the whole community must concur in the building of a temple of idols and in other superstitious things, as also in other public works, by contributing money or other things. But if anyone refuses, the community will inviolably take from his goods much more than that sum fixed for him, or will impose on him a much more grave fine, or even will accuse him before the magistrates, with danger for the Christian faithful of denying the faith, of prison, and of other grave harms. It is asked: 1. Whether this is lawful. — 2. Whether at least it is lawful after a protestation has been made, by which the faithful person declares that he contributes only in order to avoid the grave harm threatening him, etc. … — 4. Whether it is lawful for the faithful, when they are compelled to cook foods or contribute rice for the sustenance of the workers, to do these things. — Resp. To the 1st, 2nd, and 4th: it is not lawful, whether a protestation has or has not been made.” Holy Office, 5 Sept. 1736; 5 April 1785; 5 July 1854; C. 1700, 1714, 1751. Cf. Gallo, loc. cit., p. 215 ff.

In other cases the Christian faithful were compelled by grave penalties in mission places to contribute money for superstitious acts and for public festivity. The Sacred Congregation, having been questioned concerning lawfulness, responded: “Chinese Christians can contribute money, provided that through contributions of this kind they do not intend to concur in idolatrous and superstitious acts, with the cause supposed which is narrated in the doubt; especially if, should it conveniently be possible, a protestation has first been made that they furnish the imposed taxes only in relation to the joy of the people and to indifferent acts, or at least to acts not repugnant to the worship of the Christian religion.” S. C. de P. F., 12 Sept. 1645. “Let Christians first make a protestation that they pay the money taxatively as a mere tribute, provided that they do not assist at superstitious rites; and if no one protests against it, they are not to be disquieted.” Holy Office, 21 April 1847; C. 1698, 1714, 1742.

“Whether in that kingdom—China—it will be lawful for Christians to pray and to make sacrifice to Our Lord God for their departed, who depart from this life in their unbelief. — Resp. If they truly die in unbelief, it is wholly not lawful.” S. C. de P. F., 12 Sept. 1645.

“Whether it is lawful for priests to celebrate Mass for the intention of Turks and other unbelievers, and to receive from them an alms for the application of Mass. — Resp. In the affirmative, provided that there is no scandal, nothing is added in the Mass, and, as regards the intention, it is established that nothing of evil or error or superstition underlies the unbelievers offering the alms.” Holy Office, 12 July 1865.

“The Turks dwelling at Chocim in Moldavia, on the occasion of their goods being lost or taken by theft, send certain offerings to the nearby Friars Minor Conventual, urging through their messenger that by the aid of St. Anthony of Padua, whom the Turks of Kamieniec think to be alive, they may be able to recover their lost goods. Therefore three doubts are proposed: 1. Whether the Friars Minor can receive offerings from Turks. 2. Whether Masses can be celebrated for Turks. 3. Whether they can accept those offerings under the title of alms, for Mass to be celebrated at the altar of St. Anthony according to the need or intention of the offerer. — Resp. In the case of which there is question, it is not lawful.” Holy Office, 1779.

“15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, led by the light of reason, he shall have thought true. — 16. Men can find the way of eternal salvation in the worship of any religion whatever and can attain eternal salvation. — 17. At least good hope is to be entertained concerning the eternal salvation of all those who in no way dwell in the true Church of Christ. — 18. Protestantism is nothing other than a different form of the same true Christian religion, in which it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. — 77. In this our age, it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion be held as the sole religion of the State, with all other forms of worship excluded. — 78. Hence in certain regions bearing the Catholic name, it has laudably been provided by law that men immigrating there may have the public exercise of each one’s own worship. — 79. For it is false that civil liberty of every form of worship, and likewise the full power attributed to all of openly and publicly manifesting any opinions and thoughts whatsoever, conduces to corrupting more easily the morals and minds of peoples and to propagating the pest of indifferentism.” Propositions condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus.

“8. God is honored in those men who intend neither things, nor honors, nor utility, nor inward devotion, nor sanctity, nor reward, nor the kingdom of heaven, but have renounced all these things.” Proposition of Eckhart condemned by John XXII. Cf. n. 381.

“7. The soul ought not to think either of punishment, or of paradise, or of hell, or of death, or of eternity. — 12. He who has given his free will to God ought to take care for nothing, neither for hell nor for paradise; nor ought he to have a desire for his own perfection, or for virtues, or for his own sanctity, or for his own salvation, the hope of which he ought to purge away.” Propositions of Michael de Molinos condemned by Innocent XI. Cf. n. 79.

“1. There is a habitual state of the love of God which is pure charity and is without any admixture of a motive of self-interest. Neither fear of punishments nor desire of rewards has any further part in it. God is not loved any further because of merit, nor because of perfection, nor because of the happiness to be found in loving. — 2. In the state of the contemplative or unitive life, every interested motive of fear and hope is lost. — 3. What is essential in the direction of a soul is to do nothing other than follow grace step by step with infinite patience and subtlety. One must keep oneself within these limits so that God may be permitted to act, and never lead [a soul] to pure love unless God, through inward anointing, begins to open the heart to this word, which is so hard for souls still attached to themselves, and therefore can scandalize them or cast them into disturbance. — 4. In the state of holy indifference, the soul no longer has voluntary and deliberate desires on account of its own interest, except on those occasions in which it does not faithfully cooperate with all its grace. — 5. In the same state of holy indifference, we will nothing for ourselves, all things for God. We will nothing so that we may be perfect and blessed on account of our own interest; but we will all perfection and beatitude insofar as it pleases God to bring it about that we will these things by the impression of His grace. — 6. In this state of holy indifference, we no longer will salvation as our own salvation, as eternal deliverance, as the reward of our merits, as our greatest interest of all; but we will it with a full will as the glory and good pleasure of God, as a thing which He Himself wills and which He wills us to will for His sake. — 7. Abandonment is nothing other than abnegation, or renunciation of oneself, which Jesus Christ requires of us in the Gospel after we have relinquished all external things. This abnegation of our very selves is only with regard to our own interest…. The extreme trials in which this abnegation or abandonment of oneself ought to be exercised are temptations by which the jealous God wills to purge love, showing it no refuge and no hope with regard to its own interest, even eternal. — 8. All sacrifices which are customarily made by souls most greatly disinterested concerning their eternal beatitude are conditional…. But this sacrifice cannot be absolute in the ordinary state. In one case of extreme trials this sacrifice becomes in some manner absolute. — 9. In extreme trials the soul can be invincibly persuaded, by a reflex persuasion which is not the innermost ground of conscience, that it has been justly reprobated by God. — 10. Then the soul, divided from itself, expires with Christ upon the cross, saying: My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me? In this involuntary impression of despair it consummates the absolute sacrifice of its own interest with regard to eternity. — 11. In this state the soul loses every hope of its own interest; but it never loses in the higher part, that is, in its direct and intimate acts, perfect hope, which is a disinterested desire for the promises. — 12. The director can then permit this soul simply to acquiesce in the loss of its own interest and in the just condemnation which it believes to have been imposed upon it by God. — 13. The lower part of Christ upon the cross did not communicate its involuntary disturbances to the higher part. — 14. In extreme trials for the purification of love, a certain separation of the higher part of the soul from the lower takes place…. In this separation the acts of the lower part flow from an altogether blind and involuntary disturbance, for everything that is voluntary and intellectual belongs to the higher part. — 15. Meditation consists of discursive acts which are easily distinguished from one another…. This composition of discursive and reflex acts is the proper exercise of interested love. — 16. There is a state of contemplation so sublime and so perfect that it becomes habitual, so that whenever the soul actually prays, its prayer is contemplative, not discursive. Then it no longer needs to return to meditation and its methodical acts. — 17. Contemplative souls are deprived of a distinct, sensible, and reflex view of Jesus Christ at two different times: first, in the nascent fervor of their contemplation; second, the soul loses the view of Jesus Christ in extreme trials. — 18. In the passive state all the distinct virtues are exercised without thinking that they are virtues. At each moment nothing else is thought than to do what God wills; and jealous love at the same time brings it about that one no longer wills virtue for himself, nor is one ever so endowed with virtue as when he is no longer attached to virtue. — 19. It can be said in this sense that the passive and disinterested soul no longer wills even love itself insofar as it is its perfection and its happiness, but only insofar as it is that which God wills from us. — 20. In confessing, transformed souls ought to detest their sins, condemn themselves, and desire the remission of their sins, not as their own purification and deliverance, but as a thing which God wills, and wills us to will for His glory. — 21. The holy mystics excluded exercises of the virtues from the state of transformed souls. — 22. Even if this doctrine—concerning pure love—were the pure and simple evangelical perfection designated in universal tradition, the ancient pastors did not everywhere propose to the multitude of the just anything except exercises of interested love proportioned to their grace. — 23. Pure love alone itself constitutes the whole interior life; and then it becomes the sole motive of all acts which are deliberate and meritorious.” Propositions condemned by Innocent XII, Brief Cum alias, 12 March 1699.

“19. He who loves God in the manner in which reason argues or the intellect comprehends does not love the true God.” Proposition of Michael de Molinos condemned by Innocent XI.

“70. A man existing in mortal sin, or under the guilt of eternal damnation, can have true charity; and even perfect charity can subsist with the guilt of eternal damnation.” Proposition of Michael Baius condemned by St. Pius V.

Cf. n. 353.

“53. Charity alone makes [actions Christian] in a Christian manner through relation to God and Jesus Christ. — 54. Charity alone is that which speaks to God; it alone God hears. — 55. God crowns nothing except charity; he who runs from another impulse and another motive runs in vain. — 56. God rewards nothing except charity, since charity alone honors God. — 57. Everything is lacking to the sinner when hope is lacking to him; and there is no hope in God where there is no love of God. — 58. Neither God nor religion is present where charity is not present.” Propositions of Paschasius Quesnel condemned by Clement XI.

“Objective goodness consists in the congruity of the object with rational nature; formal goodness, however, in the conformity of the act with the rule of morals. For this it suffices that a moral act tend interpretatively toward the last end: HENCE MAN IS NOT BOUND TO LOVE EITHER AT THE BEGINNING OR IN THE COURSE OF HIS MORTAL LIFE.” Proposition declared and condemned as heretical by Alexander VIII, 24 Aug. 1690.

“5. We do not dare to condemn as sinning mortally one who should elicit an act of love of God only once in his life. — 6. It is probable that the precept of charity toward God does not of itself oblige strictly even once every five years. — 7. It obliges only when we are bound to be justified and have no other way by which we can be justified.” Propositions condemned by Innocent XI.

“10. We are not bound to love our neighbor by an internal and formal act. — 11. We can satisfy the precept of loving our neighbor through external acts alone.” Propositions condemned by Innocent XI.

“13. If you act with due moderation, you can without mortal sin be saddened by someone’s life and rejoice at his natural death, and seek and desire it with an inefficacious affection, not indeed from displeasure with the person but because of some temporal advantage. — 14. It is lawful by an absolute desire to wish for the death of one’s father, not indeed as an evil of the father but as a good of the one wishing, because a rich inheritance is to come to him. — 15. It is lawful for a son to rejoice over the parricide of his parent perpetrated by himself in drunkenness, because of the immense riches thereby obtained from the inheritance.” Propositions condemned by Innocent XI.

“12. You will scarcely find in secular persons, even in kings, anything superfluous to their state. And thus scarcely anyone is bound to almsgiving when he is bound only from what is superfluous to his state.” Proposition condemned by Innocent XI.

“One who gives alms to the Friars is by that very fact excommunicated.” Proposition of John Wycliffe condemned at the Council of Constance.

“The faculty by which citizens and the Church are able openly to distribute alms for the sake of Christian charity is to be taken away.” Proposition condemned by Pius IX in the Encyclical Quanta cura.

“77. The people can at their own discretion correct lords who transgress.” Proposition 17 of John Wycliffe condemned at the Council of Constance.

“As regards the controversy … whether a confessor is bound to admonish and teach penitents who invincibly are ignorant of the prohibition of certain superstitious rites or of the condemnation of the Alexandrian permissions, when he foresees that the penitents, admonished and instructed, will not amend themselves, or whether instead he ought to leave them in good faith: the Supreme Pontiff considers that to leave such ignorant persons in their own ignorance concerning the cases about which there is question is not only the same as to close off every approach for all those Christians, lest they furnish obedience uniform with the Apostolic Constitution, and the same as to evade the mind of the Holy See, which prudently commanded that the declarations recounted concerning the aforesaid rites be made known to all Christians; but also that omissions of such instruction tend toward grave scandal of the gentiles and toward public harm to the Christian name in those regions. His Holiness further declares that, although in some cases confessors can omit the instruction of penitents, nevertheless in the present case this doctrine has no place; therefore confessors and Missionaries ought to admonish and teach not only penitents but also other Christians who invincibly are ignorant of the prohibition of certain superstitious rites and of the condemnation of the Alexandrian permissions, even if no fruit should be hoped from such admonition; for the instruction of such ignorant persons is incumbent on evangelical workers as a proper function of their office enjoined upon them by the aforesaid Apostolic Constitution.” Instruction of the Holy Office, 14 Jan. 1753. Cf. C. 1762, pars. 14, 15, 20 ff.

“10. If someone scandalizes others by his own defects, it is not necessary to reflect upon them, provided that the will to scandalize is not present; and to be unable to reflect upon one’s own defects is a grace of God.” Proposition of Michael de Molinos condemned by Innocent XI.

“51. A servant who, with his shoulders lowered, knowingly helps his master climb through windows in order to violate a virgin, and many times serves him in the same matter by carrying a ladder, opening the door, or cooperating in some similar manner, does not sin mortally if he does this from fear of notable harm—for example, lest he be ill-treated by his master, regarded with a scowling countenance, or expelled from the house.” Proposition 51 condemned by Innocent XI.

“Whether it is lawful to give votes for forming Councils and representative municipal persons; and whether those elected can discharge the office of Councillor and municipal Magistrate. — Resp. Provided that municipal officials are not driven to those things which are opposed to divine and ecclesiastical laws, and abstain from furnishing an oath according to the form proposed by the invading government, it can be tolerated.” Sacred Penitentiary, 10 Dec. 1860.

“Whether it is lawful to compete for teaching offices and to accept them when offered by some community, or even by the government, if those who accept abstain from showing adherence to the intruding government and from every act which by its nature is directed toward holding that government ratified. — In the affirmative, scandal being removed, if it is present, and under the conditions set forth in the question; but especially under the condition that in teaching they be wholly conformed to Catholic doctrine.” Sacred Penitentiary, 10 Dec. 1860.

“Whether offices can be retained and accepted under the intruding government. — Resp. Provided that there is not question of offices which directly and proximately influence the spoliation or the maintenance of the same spoliation, and that they can be exercised without danger of wounding divine and ecclesiastical laws, it can be tolerated. But in practice each of the said officials or persons of the Pontifical Dominion who is prepared to stand by the commands of the Holy See is to be cautiously admonished to consult the Bishop or local Ordinary, who in individual cases will decide according to the mind of the Most Holy Lord.” Sacred Penitentiary, 10 Dec. 1860; A. S. S., vol. 1, p. 558 ff.

“An opinion has grown up in very many dioceses of Italy that it is lawful to approach the political ballot boxes, from the fact that the Sacred Penitentiary, when questioned about this, responded only: It is not expedient.

“But so that every equivocation might be cast away, the Most Holy Father, having heard the judgment of those Most Eminent Lords, Cardinals and General Inquisitors, my colleagues, ordered it to be declared that It is not expedient carries a prohibition. But while I communicate this declaration to Your Amplitude, I am compelled to add that the Most Holy Father, in these circumstances, firmly maintains the prohibition of this kind.

It will also be very useful for Your Amplitude to know the responses which the Sacred Penitentiary gave in the year 1883 to Bishops asking questions both concerning the sin which is committed and concerning the censures which are contracted by taking part in political elections. Concerning the sin, when it was asked whether he who should give his vote for the election of deputies was to be held guilty of grave fault, the response was given: In particular cases he shall conduct himself according to his conscience and prudence, all the circumstances having been weighed. Concerning censures, however: Whether or not one is bound by censures on account of political elections depends upon the circumstances of the fact and upon the dispositions of those elected; the circumstances and dispositions are to be weighed according to the norms which are set forth by approved authors in the matter in question. Holy Office, 30 July 1866.

“How ought Ordinaries to conduct themselves concerning the Royal placet and Exequatur, which the government arrogates to itself over Pontifical Bulls, Briefs, and Rescripts? — Resp. Private persons who, in order to preserve themselves unharmed, have recourse to the government for the Royal placet, or Exequatur, are not to be disturbed. But the Ordinaries, insofar as they can, are to conduct themselves passively in this matter; and if they should be questioned by the government concerning petitions of this kind, they are to disclose their judgment according to the laws of justice and in conformity with the sacred canons.” Sacred Penitentiary, 10 Dec. 1860.

“The peculiar circumstances of affairs having been considered, it can be tolerated that Bishops in Italy present the Bulls of their own nomination so that the government may append the Royal exequatur to them.” Holy Office, 29 Nov. 1876; A. S. S., vol. 1, p. 557 ff.; vol. 5, p. 675 ff.; vol. 7, p. 146.

On cooperation with regard to superstitious and heretical rites — Cf. n. 365 ff.