Question I: Concerning Certain Sins Against Faith

I. Object of the question. - The sin of infidelity is directly opposed to divine faith; in the baptized this is heresy and apostasy. Many things are indirectly opposed, namely whatever constitutes a danger or an occasion of losing or suppressing faith, such as communication with unbelievers and heretics, especially in sacred things, cooperation toward infidelity and heresy, the publication and reading of writings contrary to faith, and opinions dangerous to faith, concerning which in the Treatise on Faith.¹

¹ Cf. Summa Theologiae Moralis, I, nn. 733-780.

In the present matter there is especially treated: concerning liberalism and socialism, which for the most part constitute an indirect danger to faith from which the faithful are to be kept away; concerning heresy, which is a direct obstacle to faith, from which those who have fallen into it are to be converted; concerning doubt in faith, which can be either one or the other. Hence we shall consider penitents of three kinds:

a) those infected with liberalism or socialism, to be admonished or even dismissed,

b) heretics, to be received into the Church and to sacramental confession,

c) those doubting and wavering in the true faith.

II. Of how much importance it is to meet Liberalism and Socialism. - Not rarely does it happen that certain Catholics are imbued with the spirit of liberalism and adhere in some measure to its theories; similarly, to those of socialism. Therefore it is necessary that the confessor know those errors, and be able to bring forth a prudent judgment concerning the stain of liberalism or socialism by which perhaps penitents are infected, and to set before himself the right mode of acting with penitents of this kind.

For the matter is full of dangers. Ordinarily, indeed, someone does not become a complete liberal or socialist immediately from the beginning. He begins to read newspapers or other writings of liberals or socialists; he associates with their societies, perhaps without an evil intention, or gives them his vote in political elections. Nor for this reason does he necessarily become impious or indifferent in the matter of religion; but ordinarily his faith grows cold and religious practice is gradually diminished. In the sons of men of this kind religious indifference is wont to grow; and their sons are still baptized, make first Communion, enter marriage before the Church, and call a priest at the end of life, but besides these things there is almost no practice of religion. In the third generation there will already be complete indifference, or even hostility toward religion, so that in practical life paganism as it were prevails.

Against these dangers priests must seriously admonish and fortify the faithful, both publicly and also privately in confession.

In present times, indeed, the matter perhaps becomes less practical in our regions, because many liberals no longer frequent the church or the sacraments, nor is the struggle against them so sharp as formerly; nevertheless the principles always hold, and new circumstances could occur in which they would again serve more in practice. Indeed, because of the absence of struggle the dangers are perhaps greater, since the faithful do not so easily perceive the imminence of danger and the greatness of the evil. Hence one must never desist from opportune admonition.

III. Notions concerning Liberalism.² - In general, all those are called liberals who confuse the physical liberty of choosing with independence from God and from those sharing divine authority, which moderns call moral liberty; hence, under the false name of liberty, they pursue a certain absurd and most deadly license or independence.

² Concerning Liberalism, cf. Pius IX, const. Quanta Cura, 8 Dec. 1864, and the Syllabus; Leo XIII, const. Immortale Dei, 1 Nov. 1885, and enc. Libertas, 20 June 1888; Moulart, L'Eglise et l'Etat; Daris, L'Eglise et l'Etat; Villada, Casus Conscientiae; Aertnijs, Th. P., nn. 94-101; Bouquillon, Theologia Moralis Fundamentalis, n. 246 sq.; Ballerini, Opus Morale, II, tr. 4, n. 164 sq.; Theologia Mechliniensis, de Fide, nn. 44-46. Certain things are also found in Genicot, Th. M., I, n. 205, and in Lehmkuhl and Ferreres, in their respective work: Casus Conscientiae.

A. One kind is doctrinal or philosophical liberalism, which applies in the moral and civil matter the principles of rationalism or even naturalism, which place the principate of human reason, private or public, individual or universal, as the highest principle and judge of truth.

And indeed in such a way that it denies every divine power and law and follows a morality fully independent; or at least denies every revelation and positive and supernatural divine law, but admits a merely natural morality. This is not treated here, because it pertains to those who are not faithful and therefore do not confess.

B. Another kind is merely economic, which denies divine and moral law in economic matters and in the production of riches.

This is not considered in the present matter, because it is opposed more to justice than to faith and religion or to the first precept of the Decalogue.

C. Another kind is merely political, which admits divine law, even supernatural law, for private persons, but not for civil society and its laws; hence it defends liberty of conscience, of cults, of the press, of doctrine, and of association.

Namely, it proclaims the separation of the State and the Catholic Church, and the State's indifference concerning various religious confessions. But by the name of separation from the Church, they understand and signify an absolute divorce between the two powers, all mutual concord and all mutual help being taken away, so that the Church, despoiled of every influence, of all goods, and of all external prerogatives, lives in hiding, while the State governs all things as if the Church did not exist. Hence it professes the separation of marriage from the Church, and its subjection under the civil power; the separation of the school from the Church and its subordination under the direction of civil authority; the abrogation of the immunity of clerics from the burden of undergoing and exercising military service, etc. In one word: it is a political system which professes the full independence of the State from the Church or from religion.³

³ Cf. encyclical of Leo XIII, Libertas, 20 June 1888.

In this form of liberalism a threefold grade can be distinguished:

1. Radical liberalism, which so exaggerates this independence that it wishes the Church to be subject to the State. Its watchword is: the Church in the State, that is, the Church subject to the State.

2. Moderate liberalism, which professes the simple separation of the State from the Church and from every religion, using this formula: a free Church in a free State.

3. So-called Catholic liberalism, which professes that from the nature of the thing religion is not to be separated from civil society, but that each power ought to govern the human race by a concordant effort; yet in the general hypothesis of the present age, attention being paid to progress and the condition of men, that it is no longer expedient to desire and defend that conjunction, but that simple separation is to be approved and sought, together with the modern liberties flowing from it, especially those of cults and of the press. Let the words be noted well: in the general hypothesis, to be sought, to be approved; because it is not liberal but truly Catholic to profess that in special circumstances these liberties are to be tolerated in order to avoid greater evils or to obtain greater goods.

Now the errors of liberalism in every grade have been condemned by the authority of the Church;⁴ hence those who knowingly profess such errors sin gravely.

⁴ Cf. the encyclical of Pius IX, Quanta Cura, and the Syllabus; likewise the encyclical of Leo XIII, Libertas.

The word liberal is of itself equivocal; hence if in certain regions it is taken in an entirely different sense, or designates a merely political party which in no way defends condemned principles, those things which we have said would not hold concerning such liberalism. Nor do we intend to speak of it, but we speak in the theologically received sense.

IV. Whether there is invincible ignorance of liberalism. - The answer is:

1. As regards the radical form of liberalism, ordinarily this must be denied, because its errors are so open, and so opposed to the fundamental principles of morality, that even the more unlearned cannot fail to recognize its falsity and impiety.

2. As regards the other milder forms, if the unlearned are excepted, most who call themselves liberals are not in good faith, and therefore are to be treated as such by the confessor.

The reason is that the documents of the Holy See condemning Liberalism are publicly known, and have been so propagated that invincible ignorance among most people seems morally impossible: this holds especially and generally concerning those who by reason of office are bound to know the falsity and condemnation of liberalism, such as kings, ministers and counselors of the kingdom, senators, deputies, prefects of provinces and cities, judges, advocates, and similar officials who have a part in making laws or putting them into execution; and also editors of political newspapers.

3. Nevertheless, more unlearned persons and, exceptionally, certain educated persons are found who profess milder Liberalism in good faith.

This happens both because, having been preoccupied by the doctrine of their parents, teachers, and companions, they judge liberalism of this kind harmless, and because they do not know how to distinguish between thesis and hypothesis, and confuse the liberty of evil which is owed by right with the toleration of evil which is done for the sake of avoiding a greater evil or increasing or preserving good.

V. Is the confessor bound to question penitents concerning the sin of liberalism? - The answer is: Affirmatively, as concerning other sins. And indeed, if liberals everywhere are admitted to the sacraments without question or admonition, and confessors in the sacred tribunal keep deep silence concerning this matter, the faithful will think the matter is not of great importance and will not sufficiently perceive the depravity of liberalism. Hence, although the matter, as we have noted, has become less practical because of circumstances, nevertheless it is not to be consigned wholly to oblivion: otherwise concerning the evil doctrine and dangers of Liberalism the same will happen as concerning bad readings, which are no longer sufficiently held as evil, because priests have omitted sufficiently to admonish concerning their depravity. Therefore:

1. A penitent is to be questioned, whoever he may be, whether unlearned or learned, whether poor or prince, who is silent about the sin of liberalism of which he is certainly known to be guilty, for example from the confessor's own knowledge or from public knowledge. And if, when questioned, the penitent denies it and appears formally to lie, he can in no way be absolved.

2. Likewise he is to be questioned who is probably thought to be a liberal or a favorer of liberalism, for example if he is held as such by many grave men, or if he belongs to a liberal assembly or party which is opposed to religion or the Church, or if ordinarily he reads truly liberal newspapers without just cause. If a penitent of this kind seriously denies that he is a liberal, ordinarily he is to be believed: unless, because of special circumstances, a grave doubt remains, in which case the principles are to be applied which govern those doubtfully disposed, and he is to be absolved only under condition if a grave cause is present, or absolution is to be deferred if this is not feared to be harmful to the penitent.

3. Nevertheless not all penitents are to be questioned: for a mere suspicion of sin does not suffice, even from rumors of the crowd or from a reputation arising from no certain source, but true and solid probability, or a prudent and grave doubt, is required.

As to the manner of questioning, let the confessor proceed cautiously, beginning by asking generally, for example whether he feels any troublesome temptations against faith or against declarations of the Supreme Pontiffs or bishops or the doctrine of the Church; if the penitent denies this, let him ask further, for example, thus: do you not have relations with enemies of the Church, or sympathy for those who attack her? do you not frequent adversaries of the Church? are you therefore not a follower of liberalism?... From the response it will be clear what sort he is; then, if there is need, let him ask whether he reads liberal newspapers, frequents or supports an assembly of liberals; likewise concerning speaking against the doctrine, ministers, and precepts of the Church and concerning transgression of these.

VI. Must the confessor admonish penitents who seem to be in good faith concerning the malice of liberalism? - The answer is: Affirmatively, of itself, that is, unless at some time greater harm would follow from the admonition. Given opportunity, he is bound to admonish them, especially if the penitents are persons who, because of office, learning, or honor, exercise great influence upon others. The reason is both because they are rarely in invincible ignorance, and because the errors of liberalism are very harmful to the liberals themselves as to faith, to their family for the education of children, and to the common good because of public scandal and the depraved influence which they exercise upon others.⁵

⁵ Nor ought it create business for the confessor that such penitents will be deterred from the sacraments in the future; for by admonition precisely this is intended, that either they abstain from the sacraments, by the reception of which they provide scandal to the faithful, or they abandon the sin of liberalism now known to them.

But if, after the admonition has been made, someone refuses to obey and pertinaciously adheres to Liberalism, he is unworthy of absolution, and to grant it would be a great scandal for him and for other faithful.

We said: of itself, for:

1. it can happen that this penitent, not solidly pious, would be turned away more from the Church and inflict great harm upon her because of his influence: in which case it will be more prudent to abstain;

2. penitents lightly infected with liberalism can be in good faith, and, if no fruit is hoped for from admonition, be left in good faith. Then nevertheless the confessor should generally inculcate the necessity of believing the doctrine of the Church and of obeying all her precepts.

VII. Cooperation toward liberalism. - Just as liberalism itself is evil, so cooperation toward it is evil of itself and is to be avoided. This can be furnished in several ways:

1. through bad liberal newspapers, not only by writing, collaborating, printing, supporting, spreading, and selling them without a grave cause proportioned to the evil, but also by reading them; and this will be gravely evil if one very bad article is read, or if someone habitually reads them, or even rarely but with grave danger or grave scandal;

2. through patronage or subsidy of liberal works (for example schools) given without a grave cause;

3. through the election of liberal deputies, which will also be gravely evil if it is done from conviction; or even without conviction, if the outcome of the election appears doubtful and probably can depend on the vote;

4. a fortiori through the office of the deputies themselves, namely by effectively giving a vote to laws infected with liberalism.

VIII. Case concerning a dying liberal. - It is asked what is to be done by a confessor called to a dying man who is counted among the leading liberals. The answer is:

1. if the dying man, destitute of his senses, sought a priest or gave signs of a desire for confession, absolution and Extreme Unction are to be conferred absolutely; but under condition if he gave no signs, provided that he did not expressly refuse the confessor immediately or almost immediately before he was deprived of his senses;

2. if he can speak or respond by signs, of itself the confessor must instruct him concerning the error of liberalism and admonish him concerning the obligation of repairing scandal, unless no fruit of the admonition is hoped for and the dying man is in good faith, which nevertheless can rarely be supposed. Then nevertheless let him suggest a general sorrow concerning all things, if there are any, done against religion, and a purpose of doing nothing against it.⁶

⁶ Cf. those things which we said concerning the dying, in the little work Concerning Various Categories of Penitents, c. 2, q. 6.

But if he belongs to a Masonic sect:

a) he must be questioned whether perhaps he has fallen into heresy or into apostasy;

b) likewise, whether he knew that Masons incur excommunication;

c) regularly it will have to be required that he break off every communion with them;

d) likewise, that he send a formal renunciation to the sect - for if he wished to persevere in frequenting it, generally he could not be absolved. (Cf. Holy Office, 5 July 1837.)

The clauses which the Sacred Penitentiary is accustomed to require in the faculty granted for absolving Masons are the following:

1. that they separate themselves from the sect and abjure it, that is, detest it;

2. moreover, that they hand over books, manuscripts, and signs of Freemasons to the confessor, who is to transmit them to the Ordinary or burn them;

3. likewise, that they denounce hidden leaders to the Ordinary;

4. likewise, that a grave penance be enjoined upon them, and the other things to be enjoined by law, so that reparation of damage or scandal be procured in the better way by which it can be done.

Nevertheless a grave reason can excuse from several of the aforesaid, which can more easily be present at the moment of death.

IX. What concerning Socialism? - Similar principles hold for socialism, for socialists also admit the theory of liberalism, at least political liberalism, concerning the separation of religion and the State: liberals often are such in the merely political matter, but socialists in the economic matter. Moreover:

1. Socialism which is called scientific adheres to atheism and materialism, so that on this side it is heretical.

2. Economic but perturbative socialism, which admits collectivism or communism and violent means (a fortiori anarchism), was also openly condemned by the Church; hence good faith will be rare. (Cf. what was said n. IV.)

3. Merely reformative socialism of itself is not necessarily hostile to the Church, yet in fact in our regions it is a party which is opposed to the Church; hence concerning it those things hold which we said concerning political liberalism (n. V and VI).

4. Formal cooperation toward socialism, by which someone thinks socialistically, is gravely evil; merely material cooperation and even material aggregation to works, not only political but also economic, of itself is illicit, but by grave and urgent necessity it can be lawful, provided that there is no proximate danger of perversion in faith (n. VII).

Hence: a) Let pastors and preachers not fail in the office of admonishing concerning the fleeing of bad societies and the avoiding of evil companions and papers.

b) Those who are imbued with the principles of scientific socialism profess materialism and atheism, and therefore are to be held as sinning directly against faith.

c) Those following the political party of socialists from conviction commit, of itself, grave sin: namely, good faith will rarely be present, unless perhaps in regions altogether dechristianized.

d) Those enrolled in socialist syndicates are easily guilty because of cooperation, scandal, and the grave danger to which they expose themselves. Nevertheless accidentally it can be lawful for a time, if scandal is lacking, the danger of perversion is only remote, and there is an urgent necessity from which they could not free themselves, such as if a worker otherwise would have to bid farewell to the labor of his profession and therefore to his daily sustenance. Thus, unless the bishops of some region should judge otherwise and universally prohibit any aggregation whatever to the works of socialists. Then, namely, they would have to be obeyed, as judging authoritatively concerning the necessities and dangers of religion.⁷

⁷ Cf. Tessens in Vie diocesaine, Dec. 1921.

e) Those workers who from good faith do not perceive the gravity of the offense of cooperation are of themselves to be admonished; nevertheless accidentally they may be left in good faith for a time, in a case in which the admonition is foreseen as not going to profit and scandal is lacking. Then nevertheless a general admonition should be made concerning avoiding the proximate occasion of sin and concerning suitable remedies by which they may be morally removed, such as conversation and association with good men truly Christian and the reading of good newspapers.

Conditions and possibilities in this matter are not everywhere the same, but most diverse. Nevertheless, as far as they can, let the bishops wish to declare that in this matter insistence is to be placed rather upon rigor than upon benignity, and that indulgence is not to be given easily. Experience shows that from that great benignity it happens that always less and less can be obtained and exacted from the faithful, and finally the indifference or defection of many follows. Here also the axiom holds: Resist beginnings! Nevertheless there are sometimes circumstances in which benignity alone, at least for a time, can be fitting.

X. Admonition. - The pastor and priests generally must abstain from frequent visitation of those liberals and socialists who are confirmed in error. But if some intercourse is necessary, let them not begin to speak about religious and political questions or to dispute about them; but if they are asked about these things, not indeed maliciously but sincerely, let them speak boldly, yet not too much or at greater length, but briefly, clearly, and solidly.

XI. Of how much importance it is to meet and heal the sin of heresy. - Heresy keeps Christians from the right way of salvation and separates them from the Church; hence priests ought by all means to take care that those who have fallen into heresy or are detained in it, having been converted from it, may be led back into the bosom of the Church. This work indeed presents less difficulty if they have not yet passed over to a heretical sect; but it is of longer and more prudent labor if they have already been admitted into some sect, or have been baptized or educated in it.

For this in a priest there is required:

1. great charity, which inspires immense mercy toward the miserable state of a soul adhering in error, and prevents every manifestation of suspicion concerning the sincerity of the one to be converted, even if he were a perverse Catholic; unless nevertheless he gives contrary signs;

2. much patience, since a long time is often required for heretics to overcome the old life and acknowledge the truth;

3. fervent and continual prayer, to obtain divine help altogether necessary for conversion;

4. a prudent manner of acting in proposing doctrine, by which, namely, he in no way diminishes Catholic truths, but neither proclaims them unseasonably, being content to affirm those things which are necessary;

5. discretion in selecting books which clearly and opportunely set forth Catholic doctrine and are to be recommended to the one being converted;

6. untroubled serenity in refuting objections, by which he in no way shows himself burdened by them.

XII. Notions concerning heresy. - Heresy is defined as an error in Catholic faith, voluntary and pertinacious, in one who has professed the Christian faith by reception of Baptism; but if someone has totally cast off the faith, heresy is called apostasy.

It therefore contains at once contempt of the authority of God revealing, and contempt of the infallible authority of the Church proposing faith, and is therefore most grave.

Heresy is either material or formal, according as one denies the authority of the Church in proposing faith without pertinacity, because it was not sufficiently proposed; or, on the contrary, sufficiently knows it and nevertheless denies it in at least one point. It is internal if it so lies hidden in the mind that it is manifested by no external sign, or external if it manifests itself by external signs, even if no one sees them; this is occult if to no one or only to one or another, public if it is externally manifested openly and before several.

According to can. 2314, formal and external heresy incurs by the fact itself excommunication reserved to the Supreme Pontiff; and heretics, unless after being admonished they come to their senses, are to be deprived of benefice, dignity, pension, office, or any other function, if they have any in the Church, are to be declared infamous, and clerics, after repeated admonition, are to be deposed; indeed, if they have given their name to a non-Catholic sect or have publicly adhered to it, by the fact itself they are infamous, and clerics, after previous admonition, are to be degraded. Moreover all are irregular (can. 985), and are deprived of ecclesiastical burial (can. 1240, section 2). If a Catholic has fallen into external but occult heresy, namely one which has not been divulged and probably will not be divulged, and has not incurred the censure of excommunication, for example because of ignorance, any confessor can absolve him from the sin. On the contrary, if that sinner has incurred the censure, and the confessor does not have the faculty of absolving from it, and there is not an urgent case, he can seek this faculty from the Sacred Penitentiary, or even ask it from the local Ordinary, and then in the sacrament of Penance absolve from the censure and the sin (can. 2314, section 2).

XIII. How one must proceed with heretics wishing to return to the Church. - In this case several things come to be attended to, as to precautions to be employed, instruction to be given, and proximate preparation.⁸

⁸ Cf. Reuter, Neo-Conf., nn. 197-203; Aertnijs, Th. P., nn. 108-115.

1. Precautions to be employed.

a) The priest ought prudently to question the heretic wishing to be converted concerning the cause or motive of his conversion, and to watch lest under the veil of piety he chiefly seek temporal advantages, such as marriage or support, and, once these have been obtained, live badly or return to error.

b) Therefore, lest the priest be deceived, let him test by various questions made at different times whether the sayings of the heretic cohere with one another; but let him say or do nothing which he would not wish said or done if the one to be converted should perhaps return to heresy.

c) Let him strive to win the confidence of the heretic for himself, so that the latter may more willingly and more sincerely open his errors and miseries and falls, and commit himself wholly to his direction.

d) Let him place before his eyes the very great importance of this business, in which the hinge of eternal salvation turns, and therefore let him inculcate upon him the necessity of praying, and also pray fervently for him and ask the prayers of others.

2. In the instruction to be given the following things are to be observed:

a) Before all things it must be investigated whether he was a material heretic, from simplicity, ignorance, or sinister information; or formal, from sufficient knowledge and pertinacity.

b) Likewise it must be inquired how much he has been instructed in the doctrine of his sect, so that his errors may be known and the mode by which he is to be instructed may be determined: for if he is simple and unlearned, he needs right instruction in Christian doctrine, but not in controversies of faith; but if he is more skilled, satisfaction must be given to him as to the individual articles and all difficulties.

c) Since the assent of faith is prudent and reasonable and firm, the priest ought to set forth the motives of credibility of the dogmas, which are to be believed if the Catholic Church alone is the true Church of Christ. Hence let him not descend at once to particular dogmas, but first show the true Church of Christ.

This can be done in a twofold way; hence the circumstances must be considered so that it may be judged which method is to be employed. Namely, it can be done:

1. from the notes of the Church, by successively showing: that the true faith is necessary for salvation; that there is only one true religion and Church of Christ; that it is the secure rule of faith, indeed that it is infallible; that it ought to be distinguished by certain notes by which it is discerned from the false; that the notes of the true Church are four; and finally that these are found in the Catholic Church alone;

2. from facts, perhaps more easily and more suitably to the capacity of many:⁹ by showing that the Catholic Church is a fact naturally inexplicable, but divine, and therefore the true religion: because of her stability unconquered by adversaries, her inexhausted fecundity in goods and the heroic sanctity of many in her, her universal unity in faith from the obedience of all to one head, and the many miracles performed in her favor.

⁹ The prior method ordinarily is proposed in theological or apologetical treatises; the other was especially employed by Cardinal Dechamps.

d) Afterward let the priest descend to the individual articles, especially those in which heretics differ from Catholics, such as the necessity of good works, the number of the sacraments, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the cult of the Blessed Virgin and of the saints, the Roman Pontiff and his infallibility.

e) Finally, when access to conversion already appears near, rather than permit objections against the truth, it is better to suppress this cause of temptations, and to require total submission toward the ecclesiastical magisterium for the full expulsion of the spirit of free examination.

3. Proximate preparation. - When he has been fully instructed in matters of faith, the petitioner is to be prepared for making the profession of faith, which is to be explained to him, and for reception of the sacraments; wherefore he is to be instructed concerning Baptism, concerning Penance with confession, and concerning the Eucharist and their fruits. But since neoconverts for the most part vehemently dread confession, therefore let there be explained:

a) the obligation strictly binding the priest to observe the sacramental seal;

b) that this confession, which God wished us to undergo by confessing our sins to one man, is part of penance and satisfaction;

c) that it is no wonder if a heretic has failed in many things, since he has lacked the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist and the other helps which are wont to be supplied to Catholics;

d) nevertheless, that in examining conscience he is not to torture himself, since the confessor will supply by questions, to which it is enough to respond sincerely.

Let the priest admit no notorious heretic, or one enrolled in any sect, into the bosom of the Church, unless the matter has first been brought to the local Ordinary, and the knowledge and firmness in religion of the one to be converted have been well explored. Moreover, in his reconciliation with the Church, a threefold order is to be observed according to the various case.

A. If it is certain that the convert was not baptized, or that his Baptism is certainly invalid, only Baptism will have to be ministered to him, without abjuration of heresy or absolution.

According to can. 744: "the Baptism of adults, where it can conveniently be done, is to be referred to the local Ordinary so that, if he wishes, it may be conferred more solemnly by him or by his delegate"; and according to can. 755, section 2, "the local Ordinary can, for a grave and reasonable cause, grant that the ceremonies prescribed for the Baptism of infants be employed in the Baptism of adults."

B. On the contrary, if he was certainly validly baptized: a) before the local Ordinary or his delegate and at least two witnesses (Holy Office, 8 Apr. 1786, 28 Mar. 1900), let there be made only the abjuration of heresy with absolution from censures in the external forum, by the local Ordinary himself or by a priest delegated by him for this, in the case in which the convert is of puberty (can. 2314, section 2); or only the profession of faith, if he is before puberty (can. 2230); b) confession of sins; c) absolution from sins in the internal forum.

C. Finally, if the Baptism previously conferred is doubtful, whether positively or even negatively: a) let there be made the abjuration of heresy with absolution from censures or the profession of faith, in the same manner as was said in the preceding case; b) confession of sins, always prescribed,¹⁰ and exhortation to contrition (Holy Office, 17 Dec. 1868; S. C. de P. F., 12 July 1869); c) Baptism to be renewed under condition, which by the indulgence of the Ordinary can be done privately according to can. 759, section 2; d) confession summarily repeated and absolution from sins under condition. Thus Holy Office, 20 July 1859; 20 Nov. 1878; 2 Dec. 1874.

¹⁰ That confession is to be required from those doubtfully baptized was called into doubt by some, because the obligation is uncertain. But the Holy Office constantly requires confession from converted heretics to be rebaptized under condition, as is established directly from the decrees of 14 June 1715 and 17 Dec. 1868, which expressly establish this, and indirectly from the decrees of 20 July 1859 and 2 Dec. 1874, which suppose that one must act in this way generally. Therefore the decrees contain a universal law, as moreover the Prefect of S. Cong. P. F. declared, 12 July 1869. Hence by far the greater part of theologians teach that confession is certainly to be required, even in the more benign school of St. Alphonsus, to which among others belong Lehmkuhl, Noldin, Pesch, Ferreres, Arendt, etc. Nevertheless certain others, as formerly Ballerini and Bucceroni, to whom even today Vermeersch in some measure approaches, attribute a certain probability to the denying opinion; and De Smet would not dare to call it improbable, because the decrees of the Holy Office are particular, as for the decree of 17 Dec. 1868 was declared by the Secretary of the Holy Office, but about 30 years after that decree was issued. We do not deny that the decrees are particular; but since in diverse circumstances the Holy Office always gives the same response and since it supposes that one must act generally in that way, the decrees depend on common reasons, not on particular reasons, and therefore must be said to contain a universal law. Namely, the Holy Office judges that the denying opinion is not probable; otherwise it would not respond so constantly. For Baptism is presumed valid until the contrary is established, and therefore the Church urges upon the baptized the observance of the obligations of divine law and ecclesiastical law, from which the repetition of Baptism under condition, done as a mere precaution, does not exempt. And it would be imprudent to act otherwise. Some would wish not to urge the precept of confession, lest, namely, heretics to be converted be deterred. But if at the very moment of conversion it were to be feared that confession could not be obtained, it would be obtained far more difficultly afterward. Therefore it is altogether imprudent and inopportune to postpone this obligation.

It would indeed suffice before Baptism to stir up to contrition, and to postpone confession until after Baptism is renewed under condition; nevertheless it is better if it is made already before Baptism, for the sake of greater facility and opportunity (Holy Office, 2 Dec. 1874).

In the confession itself let the confessor treat the neoconvert kindly, take away from him, as far as can be done, every fear, inculcate confidence that all sins are to be blotted out, and help him by his questions, yet taking care lest he make a rigid examination. First of all let him discreetly inquire whether he was a material or formal heretic: if he was formal, let him inquire from what time he was such, whether he thought himself to sin by not observing the precepts of the Church, whether he said blasphemies or calumnies against the Catholic Church, whether he perverted others. If he was doubtful concerning his own religion, let him ask whether and how long he contemned or neglected to inquire after the truth. If the penitent has committed many and grave sins, let him not chastise them with a rigid rebuke, but exhort him to try henceforth to begin a truly Christian life. Let him also not impose a very grave penance, lest the penitent be frightened away.

XV. Observations. - 1. The zealous priest, when opportunity is given, will study to lead heretics back to the Church. For this end he will pray and exhort them to pray, will lead them when occasion is given to flight from sin, likewise that they frequent churches and sermons, and read books setting forth Catholic doctrine; and in friendly conversation he should uncover their false dogmas, not by attacking directly, but by showing for what causes they seem difficult to believe.

2. The priest who would not be sufficiently apt for instructing a heretic or for resolving his difficulties, should send him to a more learned man.

3. In the same manner as for heretics, one must proceed in the reconciliation of apostates and schismatics.

XVI. Concerning those doubting and wavering in faith.¹¹ - At the present time there are many who seriously doubt concerning the truth of religion or foster and preach errors contrary to revealed truths, but nevertheless think themselves to be faithful Catholics and fulfill Christian offices in their own way. Concerning these three things are asked: 1) whether and concerning what they are to be questioned; 2) whether they always commit the sin of formal heresy; 3) whether in their good faith they can be admitted to the sacraments.

¹¹ Cf. Noldin, Th. M., II, n. 33; Berardi, Praxis Conf., ed. 3, n. 87 sq.; Aertnijs, Th. P., n. 166.

1. Are those confessing such things to be questioned, and concerning what? Resp. Those who accuse themselves of doubts in faith or of speech against faith: a) are to be questioned concerning what matter they doubted or spoke about; for often they erroneously think that things are truths of faith which are not such, in which case they can sin against faith only from an erroneous conscience. b) When in fact the matter is of faith, against which they spoke, they committed heresy if, knowing that the doctrine had been proposed by the Church as to be believed of faith, they seriously attacked truths of faith (indeed, supposing knowledge, they contracted excommunication); but if they were ignorant, they did not commit the sin of heresy, although nevertheless they could have sinned, and gravely, insofar as their ignorance was voluntary from preceding negligence.

But if they spoke thus either from human respect or from vanity, they sinned gravely against external faith. If finally they spoke thus in order to explain their difficulties and better understand truths of faith, they sinned in no way.

2. Whether those seriously doubting or certainly erring in faith always commit the sin of formal heresy, or on the contrary can be in good faith? Resp. From defect of sufficient instruction it can happen that they do not advert that doubts or errors of this kind are gravely sinful, as being against the infallible authority of the Church and therefore against the authority of God revealing. This is possible, for example, if a pastor has set forth the truths to be believed merely materially, without the reason for believing.

Indeed, according to some authors, it seems able to happen that certain persons persuade themselves that they have a just cause for departing from faith, so that without the sin of formal heresy they fail entirely from adherence to faith. Given that the case is possible, nevertheless it will be most rare; hence in practice, not good faith but bad faith is to be presumed in those saying farewell to faith.¹²

¹² Entirely diverse under this respect is the condition of a Catholic and of a non-Catholic. In the faithful person the light of faith effects that he firmly believes with tranquil conscience; nor has it been heard that anyone, whether in life or in death, or in the sight of eternity, was agitated by remorse because he is a Catholic. On the contrary he will feel remorse if he thinks of deserting the Catholic faith. For the non-Catholic there are reasons for changing religion; the Catholic cannot truly need a change, neither on the part of the thing, nor on the part of the conscience urging him. A non-Catholic, as long as he is merely doubting, ought to remain in his religion, since he is in a state of perplexity; if the Catholic religion already seems more probable, he is bound to inquire more, even to certainty, at which, with divine help confidently and perseveringly implored, he will arrive.

3. Whether those erring who seem to be in good faith can be admitted to the sacraments? Resp. Let the confessor judge what would more contribute to the salvation of a penitent of this kind, who in confession says that he doubts concerning faith or that he cannot believe all things; whether he should absolve him, or send him away without absolution until, having put aside doubts and errors, he embraces the faith fully. In this last case, works elucidating true doctrine are to be indicated to him, or oral instruction is to be provided.

Since absolution can be valid, with an admonition added to believe all things which God has revealed and the Church proposes, and to beware lest he lead others into doubts or errors against faith, he will also licitly be able to be absolved as often as a greater spiritual detriment is to be feared from absolution being denied.

XVII. Admonitions for confessors. - 1. The preceding things are to be understood concerning a true positive or grave doubt, but not concerning a negative doubt which is founded on no or a slight reason, and therefore is in no way to be attended to but is to be contemned as empty.

2. But those who labor under a serious or grave doubt against faith are to be treated with great charity.

3. Yet the confessor should not easily say to them that such deliberate doubting concerning faith is a grave sin, unless he is specially asked about this.

4. Nor should he say that grave doubts or temptations against faith are easily comprehensible, or almost natural, nor that he himself or others have suffered the same; but let him counsel the reading of books defending or well setting forth faith.

5. Let him also insist upon the solidity of faith which rests upon the word of God Himself.

6. Nevertheless confessors should know that the faithful more rarely accuse themselves of doubts against faith.

7. But when a penitent occurs who opens doubts or temptations against faith:

a) Before all things it must be examined whether he gave perfect consent, which can be clear from the confession itself and the responses of the penitent; but if this is not sufficiently established from them, the presumption will be taken from the penitent's usual life, so that a man of languid faith, leading a life little Christian, not avoiding occasions dangerous for faith, in doubt is rather to be judged to have consented; on the contrary, one who leads a truly Christian or devout life, or labors under scruples or neurasthenia or a similar pathological state, is to be judged not to have given perfect consent.

b) In the case in which the penitent, by deliberately doubting, has committed a grave sin against faith, he cannot be absolved unless he has put aside the doubt and has a firm purpose of avoiding all proximate occasions of sins against faith. To this let the confessor help and dispose him, by correcting errors, by instructing him concerning the particular point from which the doubt arose, by proposing solid motives of faith according to the capacity of his understanding, by indicating suitable remedies against future temptations, such as prayer and humility, by recommending the reading of a good book concerning religious truths; in this, nevertheless, discretion is needed, so that account be taken of the condition and character of the penitent, and the book not put forward weak arguments, but truly solid ones, and aptly respond to objections.

c) But when a truly pious person is troubled by various but troublesome temptations against faith: if he indulges in some measure the vanities of the age and of a life too worldly, let him be admonished to hand himself over more diligently to God alone; meanwhile let him not cast down his soul, since temptations are not a sign of weak faith, but God permits them for our progress in humility, as is also established from the life of the saints; but let him learn to repel them. For this end let the confessor suggest that one must not struggle with them, or dispute against them, or have recourse against them to motives of credibility to the contrary; but that they are merely to be fled and contemned without positive effort, simply by turning away to other honest occupations, even merely profane ones.

But if after temptation the penitent wishes to elicit an act of faith, let there be one merely general act concerning the whole revealed doctrine, for example: I firmly believe whatever God has revealed and Mother Church proposes as to be believed; nor afterward let new acts of faith be formed, lest agitation grow and thence the temptation rather be fostered, or at least lest a scrupulous estimation gradually arise that consent had been given unless contrary acts were continually repeated.¹³

¹³ Thus Leroux, in Rev. Eccl. de Liege, Jan. 1927.