Case XXXVIII: Are Baptized Non-Catholics Bound by the Laws of the Church?

Miss X., a non-Catholic young lady, being convinced of the truth of the Catholic Church, and desirous of becoming a Catholic, meets with so much opposition from her parents that she decides to postpone her conversion until she reaches her majority. In the meantime, however, she is in doubt as to the line of conduct she ought to follow in regard to hearing Mass on Sundays and abstaining from the use of flesh meat on Fridays and other days of abstinence. Being conscientious about the matter, she consults a priest as toher duty under the circumstances. The priest informs her that she will have to hear Mass on Sundays and holydays of obligation and abstain from meat on Fridays and other forbidden days, just as if she were already a Catholic. His reason for this decision is that baptized non-Catholics are subject to the laws of the Church just like Catholics. The disobedience of heretics does not destroy the jurisdiction of the Church over them, neither does the Church "de facto" exempt them from the observance of her laws. Therefore he concludes that Miss X. is obliged to keep the laws of the Church regarding the hearing of Mass on Sundays and holydays of obligation and abstaining from the use of flesh meat on Fridays and other days of abstinence. From this latter obligation, however, namely, the obligation of abstaining, the priest dispenses her, by virtue of the general faculties he holds from the bishop.

Now it is asked: Is the position taken by the priest absolutely correct? At first sight it might seem to be correct. However, upon examination, it will be found to be incorrect in some points, and in others only probably correct, and therefore not a sufficient basis upon which to found a sure and certain obligation, binding in conscience.

1. Practically speaking, before inquiring further into the duty of Miss X. in her present circumstances, we should first of all endeavor to establish the validity of her non-Catholic baptism. Was Miss X. ever validly baptized? Because if there is reasonable ground for doubting the validity of her non-Catholic baptism, then she was only probably baptized, and therefore probably also never subject to the laws of the Church.

For although "in foro externo" those who have been doubtfully baptized are looked upon as having been validly baptized, as far as the obligations consequent on baptism are concerned, still this does not hold good "in foro interno," where there is question of an obligation binding in conscience.

2. If, however, there are no good grounds for questioning the validity of Miss X.'s non-Catholic baptism, then we find theologians divided as to her obligation to obey the laws of the Church before making her submission to the Church.

Although there are very good theologians who hold that Miss X. is bound by the laws of the Church in the present circumstances, still there are other good theologians and canonists who contend that she is not bound by these laws. All the theologians are agreed that the Church's jurisdiction extends to all baptized persons, including heretics and schismatics, so that the Church may legislate even for baptized non-Catholics, though they be cut off from external communion with her.

The only question which divides the theologians is this: Does the Church actually intend that all her laws shall be binding on all her baptized children, including heretics and schismatics? Or is there reasonable ground for distinguishing between some laws of. the Church and others, and saying that the Church desires that some of her laws should bind all alike, Catholics and non-Catholics, provided they are baptized, and that others of her laws she makes binding on Catholics alone?

The theologians who contend that all the Church's laws are binding on all baptized persons, advance the reason that it can not be the intention of the Church that her disobedient children should profit by their sin of heresy or schism by being exempted from laws that are binding on the faithful and obedient.

The theologians who hold that not all laws of the Church are binding on heretics and schismatics, make the following distinction: Some laws of the Church aim directly at the removal. of abuses, at promoting the public good and safeguarding Christian society, as, for instance, the laws concerning marriage impediments and others, which the Church has repeatedly declared to be binding on all baptized persons. Other laws of the Church aim directly at the sanctification of souls, as, for example, the laws of hearing Mass on Sundays, and abstaining from flesh meat on Fridays, and these laws the Church does not wish to be binding on baptized non-Catholics, because the only result of such an intention on the part of the Church would be to multiply sin.

Thus De Angelis, Prael. jur. can. l. I. tit. 2, n, 13, says that the whole question resolves itself into this: Does the Church wish to hold heretics and schismatics to her laws?

“And if it is permissible to offer any opinion in this matter, our judgment is that they are especially bound to observe those laws which have been enacted to curb abuses or to safeguard public order and honorable conduct in Christian society, such as the laws concerning impediments to marriage, especially diriment impediments, and others; for more than once, when the Ecclesiastical Authority was consulted, it asserted expressly or equivalently that they are bound.

But if the discussion concerns other ecclesiastical laws which tend directly to the sanctification of persons, it must be said that they are not bound by the Church, since the Church perceives that they would resist obstinately, and this would be nothing other than multiplying sin.”

Those who affirm that it is the Church's intention to hold even her rebellious children to all her laws appeal to the marriage legislation of the Church, which legislation Benedict XIV and Pius VII affirm to be binding on all baptized persons, because the Church has jurisdiction even over heretics and schismatics. But no one calls this general principle into question. The question is, Does the Church actually intend that every exercise of her jurisdiction should affect Catholics and non-Catholics alike? Does she make some laws for Catholics only, and others for all baptized Christians? We think that there are reasonable grounds for holding that the Church does not intend that laws like the law of hearing Mass on Sunday, and abstaining from the use of flesh meat on Friday, should be binding on baptized non-Catholics. Even from the law of clandestine marriage, the Church expressly exempted such heretics as had already set up a separate religious establishment, when the Tridentine decree "Tametsi" was promulgated in their territory. The opinions of the earlier post-Reformation theologians on this matter must be read in the light of the religious conditions prevailing in the world to-day.

Thus the danger that de Lugo (de Poenit. disp. 15, n. 144) foresaw for Catholics, if the opinion exempting baptized non-Catholics from the observance of some laws of the Church prevailed, has entirely disappeared in our day. He thought that it would be holding out an inducement to weak Catholics to leave the Church in order to be freed from the obligations of her laws, “by this an opportunity would be given for many maliciously to withdraw themselves from the obligation of the laws by placing themselves in such a state that, because of their perversity, they would not be believed likely to observe the law and thus would not be understood to be bound.”

3. It was a mistake to dispense Miss X. from the law of abstinence by virtue of Apostolic faculties. "In foro externo," Miss X. is a heretic, and therefore cut off from the visible communion of the Church. The faculties granted by the Holy See may not be used in favor of any one outside the body of the Church.

“Faculties can be applied only to those who are members of the Church through baptism and have not been rendered incapable of them by some penalty or censure, especially excommunication.” Putzer, Com. in Facul. Apost. n. 46.