On the Theological Virtues

The S. C. de P. F. prescribed: "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 could not be refused, first the S. C. is to be informed of them, which, according to the quality of the time and persons, will prescribe what is to be done." 8 March 1625; 27 May 1644; 18 Dec. 1662; S. I. C. 19 Jan. 1644; S. C. C. 6 March 1625.

"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 Council 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 have obtained their dignities, canonries, and any other ecclesiastical benefices having care of souls; and by all others to whom it pertains from 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. This, by another Constitution issued on the same day in the year beginning In sacrosancta, he further salutarily extended to all doctors, regent masters, or other professors of any art and faculty whatever, whether clerics or laymen, or regulars of any order, publicly or privately professing in any places whatsoever in any way, 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, before its suspension announced by the Apostolic Letters Postquam Dei munere of 20 October 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 handed down by the sacred Council of Trent,' there be said 'and by the ecumenical Vatican Council, 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. Decree of the S. C. C. 20 Jan. 1877. You have the formula of the Profession of Faith in Acta S. Sed. Vol. 10, p. 72 ff.

"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 of whom 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.

Cf. the Constitution Ex quo singulari of Benedict XIV, 11 July 1742, on the Chinese rites; Omnium Sollicitudinum, 12 Sept. 1744, on the Malabar rites; Cas. Consc. resol. in Miss. Nankin., Fr. Aloysius Sica, Zi-Ka-Wei, 1881, case 29.

"Whether Missionaries, interrogated by a Tyrant whether they wish to remain in his kingdom, having given pledge that they will not promulgate the Evangelical law, can licitly agree, promise, and accept such a condition? - Resp. They cannot promise this." S. O. 1674.

"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 communication in divine things of Catholics with Heretics and Schismatics; and since by this Sacred Congregation it has constantly and uniformly been written back: 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 thought up speculatively in which it would be lawful to tolerate some communication in divine things, but that practically, with all the factual circumstances considered, cases can very difficultly be found 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 to the repeated questions of the Missionaries of the East by this Sacred Congregation in the Instruction issued in the year 1719; namely, based on that 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, so universally are forbidden by natural and divine law, in which there is no power which dispenses, nor any connivance which excuses; 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 value of the Sacraments, nevertheless they do not allow Catholics outwardly to show those signs of disapproval and segregation which they ought; from which it comes about that that external conformity in the same worship, and reverence toward the Pseudo-ministers of the Liturgy, cannot free any Catholic, however most 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 factual circumstances, 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 submission 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 Sacraments, for this reason, namely, that, blaspheming the assemblies of the faithful as though of 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 by this example also 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 very difficultly be avoided; and therefore a Catholic is not safe in conscience if with them he communicates in divine things in this kind of case..." Instr. S. C., in Gury-Cretoni, Note (C).

"... We have received letters by which... you signify that the 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 then in perpetuity on anniversary days; likewise for the queen his consort and for future kings or queens, both at the death of each one and on the anniversary days which will 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 mind: that if thereafter the same queen should die outside Catholic communion, the Sacrifice of the Mass in her funeral and on anniversary days would be offered for the Catholic royal family universally. But since recently, at the death likewise of the 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 held 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 the departed of the Catholic royal family universally 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 on the day of her death or annually. And hence we ourselves, although we pursue you, beloved son, and your monks with paternal charity, nevertheless will 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 made against that prohibition which rests on Catholic doctrine itself, concerning a sacred funeral not to be celebrated for departed non-Catholics. Act therefore, beloved son; expend all your industry and work so that the most serene king, according to his piety, may wholly agree 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 dies outside the true Catholic faith, you and your monks need much firmness of soul and prudence, so that you indeed in no way violate that most grave prohibition of holy Church, and the pious king may understand that, with the duties of religion preserved, it cannot in any way 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.

"Whether Mass can or ought to be celebrated and alms received for a Greek-schismatic, who earnestly asks and insists that Mass be applied for himself, whether with him standing in the Church or remaining 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." S. I. C. 19 April 1837.

"If in that kingdom (of 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 alms for the application of Mass? - Resp. In the affirmative, provided that there is no scandal, and 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." S. I. C. 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 to be asked: 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." S. I. C. 1779.

"Whether Catholic Missionaries and presbyters, when asked by schismatics, can preach in the Churches of these? - 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.

The Sacred Congregation "ordered that it be written 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. to the Archbishop of Sardis, 13 Aug. 1627.

"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 Holy Sacrifice is to be performed upon portable altars placed in private homes." S. C. de P. F. 21 May 1627.

"Our Most Holy Lord Clement XI, Pope by divine Providence, in a particular audience given to me, Commissary of the Holy Office, said that, 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, he benignly granted to the Father Prefect, or Vice-prefect, of the Missionaries for the time being existing in Ethiopia, that according to their judgment and conscience they can dispense with the same Missionaries, and grant them faculty of celebrating the most holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Catholic Roman rite upon an altar in the temples of heretics or schismatics in Ethiopia; in such a way that the same altars do not serve except as bare tables, and be arranged in the manner of Catholics with a consecrated stone, cloths, and the aforesaid rite of the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; 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 Missionaries, concerning which he burdened their conscience." 12 April 1704. Cf. Zephyrinus Zitelli, Appar. Iur. Eccl., p. 495.

"In the Churches of Catholics of Rhaetia occupied by heretics, Missionaries can continue their exercises." S. I. C. 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 to communicating with them in their sacred rites polluted with schismatic and heretical bran; or at least to providing occasion to Catholics entering Latin churches of communicating with heretics in divine things, or at least of conceiving scandal." S. O. C. 10 May 1755.

"Whether it is lawful for Latin confessors or priests to administer the Sacrament of Penance to Greek Catholics communicating in divine things with Greek schismatics? The same S. O. C. responded on the same day: It is not lawful outside the case of extreme necessity." For fuller Instruction it ordered to be transcribed what Benedict XIV taught in the treatise On the Diocesan Synod, bk. 6, c. 5.

"His Holiness decreed that 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." S. O. 10 May 1770.

"As regards the abuse of admitting heretics as Sponsors in the Sacrament of Baptism, the Sacred Congregation ordered that the Decree of the Sacred Council of Trent, sess. 24, De Ref., be recalled to memory for all Apostolic Vicars." S. C. de P. F. 8 Sept. 1869.

"Insofar as schismatics accompanying the funerals of Catholics exhibit a merely material presence, for the sake of civil honor toward the deceased, not mixing themselves with the Catholic prayers or rites by which it is customary to carry out funerals and lead the dead to burial, it can be tolerated; but insofar as in that function they employ their own rites, or mix themselves with ours, it is not lawful and is not to be permitted." S. I. C. 10 May 1753.

Doubts proposed by the Archbishop of Udine, Apostolic Administrator of the Diocese of Mantua. "1. Whether a Catholic Priest, in places where heretics do not have their own ministers, can accompany the corpse of a heretic from the house to the cemetery, even if the corpse is not brought into the Church, nor the bells rung? And in the affirmative, 2. Whether a practice of this kind is permitted or tolerated only in some special places, or can be extended also to our Italy? And in the affirmative, 3. What sacred vestments can the Priest use in this procession, if he must be preceded by the Cross? - Resp. To the 1st, in the negative. To the 2nd and 3rd, provided for in the first." S. I. C. 19 Jan. 1886.

S. I. C. responded on 14 Jan. 1818: "It is lawful, if they go from mere curiosity, without any communication in sacred rites, in which case such going is commonly held as a protestation of false Religion; when indeed it appears sufficiently clear that to go in this way also to the temples of heretics is an act indifferent in itself, which becomes evil only from a depraved end, or from circumstances. But it becomes evil: 1. If one who goes to sacred functions of heretics has the intention of assisting at them; 2. Or even in the absence of such intention, if the very entrance into the Church of heretics brings in, or seems to bring in, some communication with those heretics in divine things; hence also it would provide occasion of scandal; 3. Or if such going is required by the heretical government, as a protestation of that same faith and religion between Catholics and non-Catholics; 4. Or finally if it is commonly held, as it were, 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 go to the temples of heretics, because it is never lawful to participate in the sacred rites of heretics, nor to simulate one's own faith. But where all these things are absent, and they are moved by curiosity alone to see the temples, they can go to them without fault."

S. I. C. responded: "They are not to be disquieted, provided that scandal is not present and that it is not done in contempt of religion. But let the Bishop take care that, through Missionaries and Confessors, they be opportunely instructed when they ought to abstain from giving their own work in building the churches or synagogues of heretics. Namely, they are bound to abstain from the work: 1. where work of this kind is commonly held as a sign expressive of 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." 14 Jan. 1818.

Resp. "In the affirmative, but only in order to free themselves and their own temples from that inconvenient and scandalous simultaneity with Protestants." S. Poenit. 1822.

"Can Christians be permitted to construct temples or altars of idols, or to make 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 make their statues." S. C. de P. F. 7 Dec. 1626. Doubt concerning Japan.

"In no way is it lawful for Catholic Christians, nor can it be permitted or tolerated by 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." S. I. C. 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 stands, it will be very 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 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 expressive act." 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 for idols or cooperate in their construction." S. I. C. 8 Jan. 1851. Cf. T. A. Gallo, Suppet. Evang. Praeecon., etc., Rome, 1872, Vol. 1, p. 197 ff., 251 ff.

"Christians, servants of Turkish masters, are employed to construct mosques..., to repair their walls..., 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 Sacraments to them, 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 out of 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 they do not have the intention of cooperating with superstition." S. C. de P. F. 31 Aug. and 14 Sept. 1780.

"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 the 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 to avoid the grave harm threatening him, and asks the village that what they contribute be used for other lawful works? 3. 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 1, 2, and 3: It is not lawful, whether a protestation has or has not been made. To 4. Likewise it is not lawful, as above." S. I. C. 5 Sept. 1736; 5 April 1785; 5 July 1854. 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 pay 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 they do not assist at superstitious rites; and if no one protests against it, they are not to be disquieted." S. C. S. O. 27 April 1847. Cf. Collectan. Const., etc., for the use of Apostolic Workers, Paris, 1880, nn. 1071, 1104, etc.

"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 by reason 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 plan that they may give 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 temples of heretics to hear conferences. 4. Finally all those are bound by the same penalty who publish in print invitations to the aforesaid conferences and the themes of the same, 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 temples 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 temples of Protestants; and printers, even secondary ministers, who, lest they be thrown out 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 secondary printer-ministers 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 temple of Protestants. As regards other builders and lower workers, they will be able to 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 will devote diligent work so that they admonish people of this kind that it is necessary to abstain from such material work, insofar as the work is commonly held as an indication protesting false religion; and insofar as the same work carries with it something which alone and directly signifies either reprobation of Catholic worship or approbation of reprobated heretical worship; or when it is certain that the same are forced or called by heretics to work in contempt of the Catholic Religion; and that in no case is the intention of cooperating with heretical worship lawful." 12 July 1878; 28 Sept. 1884. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 11, p. 168 ff.; Vol. 17, p. 164 ff.

"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, 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." Instr. S. C. S. O. 14 Jan. 1753.

"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 will be judged formal, intrinsically evil, and can never lawfully be done. On the contrary it will 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, that which 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.

"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 in this hospital adherents of a non-Catholic religion are sometimes received, and the same 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 false religion; furthermore, whether the same solution is to be given when a sick heretic lives in the private house of some Catholic, namely, whether then the Catholic can lawfully call a heretical minister? The S. O. C., on 15 March 1848, responded: It is not lawful; but let them behave passively. Cf. Fr. Clement Marc, Inst. Mor. Alph., 2nd ed., n. 450.

Cf. N. 192 toward the end.

"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." S. Poenit. 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 adherence to be shown to the intruding Government, and from every act which by its nature is directed to 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." S. Poenit. 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 the local Ordinary, who in individual cases will decide according to the mind of the Most Holy Lord." S. Poenit. 10 Dec. 1860. Cf. Acta S. Sed. 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, general inquisitors, my colleagues, ordered it to be declared that It is not expedient imports a prohibition. But while I communicate this declaration to Your Excellency, I am compelled to add that the Most Holy Father, in these circumstances, maintains firm a prohibition of this kind.

It will also be very useful to Your Excellency to know the responses which the Sacred Penitentiary gave in the year 1883 to Bishops asking both about the sin which is committed and about the censures which are contracted by taking part in political elections. As regards sin, whether the same person ought to be held guilty of grave fault who would give a vote for the election of Deputies, the response read: He will behave in particular cases according to his own conscience and prudence, after all circumstances have been weighed. 'But as regards censures: To be ensnared or not ensnared by censures, on account of political elections, depends on the circumstances of the fact and on the dispositions of mind of the electors; the circumstances and dispositions are to be weighed according to the norms which are offered in the subject matter by approved authors.'" 30 July 1886. R. Cardinal Monaco. Cf. Commentar. de C. Apostolicae Sedis, nn. 39, 68 ff.

"How ought Ordinaries to conduct themselves concerning the Royal placet and Exequatur, which the Government arrogates to itself over Bulls, Briefs, and Pontifical Rescripts?

Resp. Private Persons who, in order to keep themselves unharmed, have recourse to the Government for the Royal placet or Exequatur are not to be disquieted. But in this matter Ordinaries, as far as they can, should behave passively; and if they have been questioned by the Government concerning petitions of this kind, let them make known their judgment according to the laws of justice and according to the form of the sacred Canons." S. Poenit. 10 Dec. 1860. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 1, p. 557 ff.; Vol. 2, p. 675 ff.; Vol. 7, p. 146.