ARTICLE I: ON THE NECESSITY OF FAITH

249. • I. The internal act of Faith is necessary for all adults for justification by necessity of means. This is established from the Epistle to the Hebrews,¹ where the Apostle says: Without Faith it is impossible to please God. For he who approaches God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder to those who seek Him. - And from the Council of Trent:² "without faith justification has never happened to anyone."

II. It is also necessary at some time in life by necessity of precept. This is established from Sacred Scripture. For it is said in the First Epistle of John:³ This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ. Likewise from condemned propositions, namely the 1st by Alexander VII (p. XIII), and the 16th and 17th by Innocent XI (p. XV).

250. Questions. - Quaer. 1° When does the precept of eliciting Faith urge?

Resp. 1° It urges of itself: 1° after the use of reason, once the obligation of the precept has been sufficiently known; 2° likewise when the truth of our Faith has been sufficiently proposed to an adult unbeliever; 3° in the article of death, for tending more proximately to God; 4° several times in life, at least once in a year.⁴

Resp. 2° It urges by accident: 1° when a grave temptation urges which cannot otherwise be overcome; 2° when a precept must be fulfilled which cannot be fulfilled without faith. Thus contrition cannot be elicited unless an act of faith precedes or accompanies it; 3° after a fall into heresy, or after Faith has been denied, because the injury inflicted on the First Truth must be repaired by a contrary act.

Quaer. 2° Are explicit acts required for fulfilling the precept of Faith?

Resp. In those who have already learned and believed the truths to be held by faith, implicit acts generally suffice. Hence he satisfies the precept who devoutly hears Mass, adores the Crucifix, prays, forms the sign of the Cross, receives the Sacraments, etc. - Thus commonly.¹

251. • I. There is a negative precept prohibiting the denial of the true Faith and the profession of a false one. For to deny the Faith is to deny God Himself. Hence Christ² says: He who shall deny me before men, I also will deny him before my Father, who is in heaven.

II. There is also an affirmative precept obliging sometimes to confess the Faith even with danger to life. For the honor of Christ sometimes requires that the faithful despise even life for confessing Him. This is established from the words of Christ Himself:³ Everyone who shall confess me before men, I also will confess him before my Father who is in heaven. And:⁴ He who shall be ashamed of me and of my words, the Son of man will be ashamed of him when He shall come in His majesty. Likewise the Apostle:⁵ With the heart one believes unto justice, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

The precept of confessing the Faith outwardly obliges by the law of nature as often as otherwise the honor due to God, or the spiritual utility of others, would be withdrawn in a notable way, either contrarily or privatively. Contrarily: as if, by omitting confession of Faith, God would be affected by great injury, or contempt of Religion, or scandal, or the perversion of others would follow. Privatively: if namely a great honor toward God, or a great utility for others, would cease. - The reason is because the charity which we owe to God or to the neighbor demands this. - St. Thomas,⁶ St. Alphonsus.⁷

252. Questions. - Quaer. 1° Is it ever licit to dissemble the Faith?

Resp. 1° It is never licit to simulate a false faith, because this would be the same as outwardly denying the true one, which is intrinsically evil. - But this is openly established from the words of Christ just cited.

Resp. 2° It is licit for a grave cause to dissemble or hide the true Faith, when the danger of scandal is excluded. The reason is because the precept of confessing the Faith does not always urge.¹

Quaer. 2° Can one who is questioned concerning the Faith use ambiguous words?

Resp. 1° Negatively, when evasion or silence is equivalent to denial, or to shame or fear which in those circumstances necessarily detract from the honor of God or the utility of the neighbor. For then the conditions set forth in the preceding number have place. This is confirmed from the constant practice of the Church and the common doctrine of the Fathers.²

Resp. 2° Affirmatively, when no scandal is created for those present, and no denial of Faith, or fear, or shame appears; because then there is no obligation of confessing the Faith.³

253. • Quaer. 3° Is it licit to use the signs or garments of unbelievers?

Resp. 1° Affirmatively, if they are garments or signs proper to some region, although this whole region be unbelieving; because these of themselves are not referred to Religion.

Resp. 2° But if they are garments and signs of Religion, a subdistinction must be made. More probably still affirmatively, if it is done for a grave cause, and the garments are not solely or primarily distinctive of the sect from the sect, because then their primary use is for covering the body, and only secondary for distinguishing the sect. - But otherwise, if the garments or signs are solely or primarily instituted for professing the sect, as are the garments and ornaments which priests use in the exercise of their functions.⁴

254. Resolves. - A. From principle I.

1° Someone sins gravely against Faith if, even only externally, he bends the knee before an idol, or exhibits other signs of false Religion, for example if he were to receive the heretical supper; - if in this region he contracted marriage before a heretical minister, since this person among us is not a witness civilly necessary, and so cannot be approached except insofar as he is a sacred minister; - if clothed in the garments of the Quakers, or even not clothed in them, for nowadays the Quakers themselves scarcely wear distinctive garments, he were silently to consider in their assembly, like the others, as though meditating; - if he were to go to the places in which those are received who profess the so-called conversion in the assemblies of Presbyterians, Methodists, or others, and among the others were to sit or bend the knees, as though about to pray; - if, asked whether he is a Romanist or Papist, he were to answer that he is not, unless nevertheless from the accompanying circumstances it can easily be gathered that he denies it because of those terms as invidious and full of contumely. The same today, after the Syllabus and the Decrees of the Vatican Council, seems to have to be said if someone should deny that he is an Ultramontane.

2° He does not sin against Faith who visits the temples of heretics or unbelievers from mere curiosity, yet with scandal, danger of perversion, or a law forbidding this excluded. - Likewise he who is present at a wedding banquet, since this does not pertain to Faith, or, without participating in the rite, at the burial of heretics, since this is done for the sake of civil honor. Kenrick¹ with others says the same concerning those standing by the celebration of nuptials contracted before a heretical preacher, since this for the most part is not estimated as approval of a heretical rite, but as an indication of respect toward the spouses. But whether the same can be said of those who on this occasion perform the office of bridesmen, I leave to wiser men to decide; much in this matter must be attributed to the common estimation prevailing among the people; for what, with no participation at all in the rite of heretics, is judged only a civil respect, cannot be held as profession of false religion. But where a Catholic enters nuptials before a minister, it is not fitting, says the same Kenrick,² for Catholics, especially parents and those more closely joined by blood, to approve this by their presence. Yet this resolution of the very celebrated Theologian seems a little milder; indeed we judge that this not only is not fitting, but generally is not licit (see below, n. 308), at least for parents and those who are held from office to disapprove this.

3° It is licit for servants to carry infants to be baptized and to hold them on the arm while they are baptized by a minister; for this is held as pertaining to service, and not as fellowship in worship.³ Say the same of attendance at a baptism of this sort and a fortiori at a baptismal banquet, where that attendance is judged civil respect. For the Declaration of Pius VI, namely that it is illicit to be present at baptism conferred by intruders, that is, Frenchmen, cannot be said certainly to comprehend our case. For the attendance of which Pius VI treats, considering the special circumstances then obtaining, could not fail to be, or at least be judged, an approval of those very intruders; but in our case no approval of the minister is commonly apprehended. A case similar to the case to which the declaration of Pius VI pertains would be if there were a question of attendance at baptism conferred by some German so-called Old Catholic.

"But absolutely it is not licit, neither by oneself nor through others, to perform the office of sponsor in Baptisms which are administered by heretics to the children of heretics," the S. Congregation of the Office responded on Thursday, May 10, 1770,¹ and Kenrick teaches this.²

4° Paul V, by Brief of September 22, 1606,³ declared to the English that it is not licit to obey the law prescribing to Catholics, even under most grave penalties, that they go to the temples of heretics, frequent their assemblies, and be present at their sermons. But now on the ships of our Government, as also in forts and other public places for the most part, in certain workhouses and prisons, all are compelled to attend prayers and a sermon, those who refuse being beaten. Therefore it is asked whether for Catholics in this region, where it is provided by laws that the secular power should usurp no right of involving itself in sacred matters, it is licit to provide attendance of this sort?

Resp. Since this attendance is demanded on account of order rather than favor toward the sect, and no one is compelled actually to furnish worship, the case must be said to be different from that of which the cited Brief speaks; and those are to be excused who, to avoid punishment or from some other sufficiently grave cause, present themselves, provided nevertheless that otherwise they openly profess the Catholic faith and avoid every fellowship in worship.⁴ Yet the matter is by no means free from danger, namely of perversion. Cf. Second Plenary Council of Baltimore.⁵

5° "To bend the knees with heretics praying," says Kenrick,¹ "whether publicly or privately, does not seem to be a denial of faith; for it is understood to be done for the sake of humanity," provided, I would add, that this is done only on some occasions. Moreover Kenrick himself adds: "Besides, the custom must altogether be disapproved; for it favors heresy, and has danger of perversion and bad example. Therefore it is by no means to be permitted to servants whom masters are accustomed to press to this." I resolve the same concerning a servant who would be ordered to read aloud Protestant bibles to a blind or sick master. "But they can," Kenrick continues, "drive their masters to the temples of heretics, or accompany the daughter or wife of their masters to them, for the sake of protection, without taking part in their rites." I would say the same is licit for a Catholic husband with respect to a heretical wife, as is commonly accustomed to be done in rural places, without Catholics being scandalized by it.

6° As regards those who in Protestant temples give an address, or in mixed assemblies, in which a minister presides or even pours forth prayers, give a speech, or are otherwise present, distinguish in about this way.

Either a) there is a question of a priest about to preach in a temple of the sects, and then the following response of the S. Penitentiary must be attended to; when asked whether Catholic Missionaries and priests, requested by schismatics, could preach in their churches, in the year 1674 it resolved: "Either they are invited to the effect that the Catholic truth be preached there indefinitely and also against the errors of those same schismatics, and then affirmatively; or only that a sermon be made concerning virtues and vices which commonly must be embraced and avoided both by Catholics and by non-Catholics, and negatively."² From this response applied to our regions I conclude that a priest is not to be blamed who, although not invited, indeed even asking this permission, in some place where a Catholic church or another suitable place, for example a courthouse, is lacking, would announce Catholic truth in the temple of sectarians. Outside this case it is better to abstain, so that every appearance of fellowship in matters of religion may be avoided, and lest the faithful go to the churches of sects for any cause whatever.³

Or b) there is a question of a layman who is going to give an address in the same churches of sects concerning temperance, liberty, or other things of this sort, according to the custom of this region. This certainly must be vehemently dissuaded, especially if non-Catholics on that occasion are also going to speak; for in matters of this sort they are scarcely not accustomed to run beyond just limits and to mix in very many things contrary to faith, to which the Catholic speaker either will contradict or will not. - If the former, the matter will have the appearance of a public disputation concerning faith, which is forbidden to a layman.¹ A layman besides will scarcely fail to enter the danger of not rightly answering objections. - If the latter, the silence of the Catholic will easily be held in place of approval, or certainly will harm religion as though it cannot be defended.

Or c) there is a question of an address to be given either in a church of the sects or in a profane place or under the open sky, with a minister presiding, or at least about to pour forth prayers before or after the address. If the former, it will scarcely be licit for a Catholic to give an address, since in circumstances of this sort he would seem in some way to enter into a society of religion; if the latter, it will be licit when, for example, an address is to be given on the occasion of a national feast or of some civil solemnity, as, for example, the dedication of a new municipal courthouse, or the anniversary of some battle at the graves of those slain, although a minister at the request of others pours forth prayers; for in those circumstances he who performs his part by giving an address is not judged to enter into fellowship of religion; otherwise speakers in legislative assemblies would also have to be blamed, for at the beginning of individual sessions a minister is accustomed to pour forth prayers. What has been said concerning those who in this latter case give an address, resolve the same concerning those present, whether they are individuals or, when there is a question of some national feast or civil solemnity, Catholic societies; for those societies, even in the case in which they are present with insignia or banners which exhibit the image of the Saint under whose invocation they exist, are present only civilly.

7° Those who sing publicly outside temples, or at least outside every occasion and appearance of worship, as is accustomed to happen in a concert of many persons, do not seem to sin against faith, even if certain hymns concerning sacred matters have Protestant authors, provided nevertheless that they have nothing adverse to faith; for in those circumstances they are referred only to the delight of the ears. But they would sin if they furnished their work so that money to be collected from it should yield to Protestant uses.¹

8° He does not sin against Faith who, passing through places of heretics, from fear of grave danger, eats meat on a day of abstinence, lest he be recognized as a Catholic; because this of itself is not a sign of heresy. Otherwise, however, if he ate meat, even from fear of death, impelled to this in hatred of the Faith.

9° Nor does he sin against Faith who flees in time of persecution; indeed, generally flight is in some way prescribed, as is clear from the words of Christ:² But when they shall persecute you in this city, flee into another. But this especially holds if someone's safety is necessary for the utility of the faithful, or someone fears a fall.

255. Resolves. - B. From principle II.

1° This proposition (18th) was indeed rightly condemned by Innocent XI: "If someone is questioned by public authority, I counsel him frankly to confess the Faith as glorious to God and the Faith; to be silent I do not condemn as sinful of itself." Yet from this you would not rightly conclude that always and everywhere one must answer public authority questioning concerning faith. For since he who is questioned by a judge contrary to the order of law, although otherwise legitimate, is held by no obligation of answering; and our laws will that no account of the religion or faith of citizens be had, no response is owed of itself to a question of this sort. Much more can someone be unwilling to satisfy the curiosity of private persons.³

It is said: of itself, and to curiosity. For an answer certainly is owed if, according to the principle enunciated above, the honor due to God or the spiritual utility of the neighbor would be notably diminished or even cease by not answering, by evading, or by equivocating; as, for example, if taciturnity, evasion, or equivocation were, or seemed to those present, a denial of faith, or yielded to contempt of faith or to grave scandal.

2° Although faith must sometimes be professed publicly, nevertheless public controversy with heretics concerning matters of faith is prohibited by the Decree of the S. Congregation of the Council dated March 6, 1625, except with the permission of the Supreme Pontiff. But whether this decree is in living observance, as they say, among us, can rightly be doubted. Besides, in a case of necessity and when there is danger in delay, the Ordinary of the place, according to the things said at n. 154, 2°, will be able to concede this license.

Note. - Other resolutions connected with the precept of faith, see n. 313 sqq., where cooperation in the sacred rites of heretics is discussed.