Case XLIII: Co-Operation by the Furnishing of Non-Catholic Churches

A firm manufacturing stained glass, owned by a Catholic, received a handsome order from a Protestant community. The head of the firm asks Father A. whether he can properly and with a clear conscience undertake the commission.

Father A. forbids this, absolutely, as it would be assisting in building a temple for heretics. Subsequently Father B. is asked, who at once permits the firm to do the work.

Who is right? What justification is there for obeying one and not the other?

If Fathers A. and B. gave their decision without further inquiry into the status of the case, they both erred. We will explain this more fully. What is here really concerned? A Protestant house of worship is in need of stained glass windows; if the house were intended for profane purpose there would be no difficulty whatsoever. But the windows are to adorn a place where will be held worship the participation in which is forbidden by the Church, consequently a co-operation in something prohibited, a cooperatio ad rem malam, can not be denied. In the cooperatio, however, the first question is, can it be designated as formal? If so, there can be no permission, because it would be an actual participation in the sinfulness of the act, therefore a sin; if not formal, then it is material, and the act of the co-operation is neither bad of itself nor of its intention, it would solely become wrong through the guilt of the performer. That is sufficient, however, to render such co-operation unpermissible. The law of charity requires us to prevent evil as much as possible, primarily, therefore, not to assist in it in any way at all. The obligations of charity, however—we must not overlook this—exalted as they are, do not oblige us in general under great sacrifices, i. e., for sufficient reasons to suffer evil to be done is not sinful. Hence the principle that a material co-operation is permissible for comparatively grave reasons. In material co-operation the question of the importance of the motives for the action are of great import. The more sinful the act, the greater the injury, the worse the scandal— on the one hand; on the other hand the more closely the material co-operation is connected with the act, the more necessary the co-operation for its accomplishment—then the more weighty must be the reason that is to render such material assistance permissible.

Let us apply this principle to the case before us. It is here a question of material support of a heretical sect; therefore the greatest good, the faith, is at stake. If by refusal of assistance the faith could be preserved, or a real injury to it averted, then our duty is clearly defined. Such would be the case if a new sect was being founded, or if a sect newly entered a locality theretofore free from all heresy. Hence the great severity of the rescript of the Cardinal Vicar of July 12, 1878.

If, however, a sect is tolerated to prevent greater evil, and officially recognized by temporal authorities, the case is a little different. The danger to the faith has become chronic, not so burning; the scandal has become lessened by conventionalism, though unfortunately not, without spreading indifference in matters of faith. For the Catholic there remains the duty of abstaining from material co-operation, especially one directly connected with the promotion of heresy, as, for instance, contributing money to build heretic churches, contributing, or helping, at bazaars for the same purpose, etc. Archi-tects must not make plans for such churches, nor erect the building, unless a more important reason exists than the gain itself. Frequently, however, it will be best not to say anything about this, and not to disturb the good faith that has arisen from long existing practise. The decoration of churches appears to be less intimately connected with the prohibited worship than the building of the church itself. For this reason the furnishing of stained glass work might more easily be permitted; yet there should be a weightier reason than the ordinary gain, for instance actual lack of work which threatens the business, or which necessitates the discharge of workmen, who then would only with difficulty obtain other positions, and similar reasons, such as great improvement of the firm. If such reasons exist, and the locality in question is one of mixed religions, if there is no scandal to fear, or if it may be removed by explanation, the firm may undertake the work. The pictures must of course not bear even a trace of heresy.

W. Stentrup, S.J.