Article I: On Communication with Infidels and Heretics

S. Th. II-II, q. 10, aa. 7 and 9.

752. Communication with infidels and heretics is distinguished as twofold:

1. civil, in profane and civil matters pertaining to social commerce, such as purchases, sales, banquets, cohabitation, conversation, familiarity, service, etc.: this is lawful, provided scandal and danger of perversion are absent;¹ and provided the heretics are not excommunicates to be avoided, in which last case can. 2267 would apply.

¹ "If some have been firm in faith, such that from their communication with infidels the conversion of the infidels can be hoped for more than the turning away of the faithful from faith, they are not to be prohibited from communicating with infidels.... But if they are simple and weak in faith..., they are to be prohibited from communion with infidels" (St. Thomas, q. 10, a. 9).

2. religious, in sacred things pertaining to religion, such as rites, dogmas, sacrifices, prayers, etc., and in mixed things insofar as they regard religion, for example, in the religious rite of marriage or of funerals. This can be considered either on the part of infidels and heretics, or on the part of the faithful, and on each side it can be active or passive.

753. Concerning the communication of infidels and heretics with Catholics it must be said: Infidels and heretics can passively assist not only at the preaching of the word of God, but also at other offices of public worship; yet they cannot actively participate in them, because that would rightly be considered as a sign of religious unity. Hence they are excluded from the sacraments (can. 731, § 2), from sacramentals which are publicly administered to individuals in church,² from ecclesiastical burial (can. 1240), from enrollment in pious associations (can. 693), and things of this kind; consequently it is also generally prohibited that they use the same church simultaneously with Catholics, or vice versa. But if they are apostates or heretics, and therefore excommunicated, can. 2259 also applies.

² Private prayers, however, can be made for all and for individuals, even the Mass, but only privately and with scandal removed (can. 809 and 2262, § 2); likewise blessings, not indeed consecratory, but merely invocative, for obtaining the light of faith, or, together with it, health of body (can. 1149). Yet public prayers cannot be made for them individually, that is, with the name of a singular person expressed, unless for a public person as such, for example, for a king, that is, for the prosperity of society: thus it was tolerated to pray nominally for the king of England after Mass, in the formula "O Lord, save the king" (February 23, 1820). Catholics can also pray privately together with heretics, provided the prayers are good and there is no scandal, for example, if the heretic is about to die.

There are many decisions of the Holy Office concerning this matter, which does not establish a positive ecclesiastical law, but interprets or applies in this matter and in similar questions the natural and divine law itself:

a) It is unlawful, in sacred functions, to invite heretics into the choir, to sing psalms alternately with them, to give them the peace, sacred ashes, candles and blessed palms, and other things of this kind of external worship, which are rightly considered indications of an interior bond and agreement (June 8, 1759).

b) It is not lawful to admit heretics, schismatics, or Jews, even if they are boys or girls, so that in Catholic churches they may sing in the musical choir at liturgical functions (May 1, 1889); nevertheless, considering special circumstances, this can be tolerated for schismatics (January 24, 1906). But it is lawful to permit non-Catholics to play the organ at liturgical functions in a Catholic church, if scandal is not to be feared from this (February 23, 1820).

c) It is not lawful to permit non-Catholics to carry torches or lights at the liturgical functions of Catholics (November 20, 1850); likewise to serve Mass (ibid.; June 30 and July 7, 1864); or to act as sponsor (May 3, 1893; June 27, 1900; can. 765); likewise to be used as witnesses in the marriage of Catholics, although sometimes it can be tolerated with scandal removed (August 19, 1891).

d) It is not lawful to permit heretics or schismatics to celebrate their rites in Catholic churches (May 10, 1753), nor for Catholics to perform sacred rites in their temples (can. 823, §§ 1 and 2): for this is equivalent to consenting to their rites, or at least to offering Catholics the occasion of communicating with non-Catholics in sacred things (May 10, 1753; August 13, 1627; June 5, 1889). Nevertheless this can sometimes be tolerated if it is impossible to do otherwise and the conditions render confusion of religions impossible, and scandal is absent (June 5, 1889). Thus, for a graver cause, in order more easily to promote the conversion of schismatics and infidels, with a view to sacred ceremonies, missionaries are sometimes permitted the faculty of celebrating Mass in the Catholic rite upon altars in the temples of heretics or schismatics, "so that the same altars serve only as bare tables, and are arranged according to the manner of Catholics with a sacred stone, linens, an image of the Most Holy Crucified One, candlesticks, and other necessary furnishings for the use of the sacrifice of the Most Holy Mass in the aforesaid rite" (April 12, 1704).

754. Concerning the religious communication of the faithful with infidels or non-Catholics it must be said:

Active communication, or participation in sacred things themselves, namely, of public worship, is unlawful, because it is an implicit approval of the exercise of worship and an acknowledgment of the sect; but passive communication is generally unlawful, yet sometimes can be lawful on account of a grave reason. Hence:

a) If it is done with heretics (or schismatics), by natural and ecclesiastical law it is per se and regularly gravely unlawful for the faithful, "either on account of the danger of perversion in Catholic faith, or on account of the danger of participation in a heretical rite, or on account of the danger and occasion of scandal or seduction,"³ or on account of the appearance of adherence to the false sect which it of itself signifies (Rom. XVI, 17; Tit. III, 10).

³ Thus according to the rule given to missionaries by the S. C. de Prop. F., 1729.

b) Nevertheless, per accidens and extraordinarily, it can be lawful, provided the action is not intrinsically evil and there is a proportionate cause, which is required to be the graver the more important the sacred thing is in which communication occurs, and the nearer the action approaches to worship.

c) With infidels, a fortiori, it is unlawful, especially because their worship is wont to be false and superstitious.

Hence canon 1258: "§ 1. It is not lawful for the faithful in any way actively to assist or to have part in the sacred rites of non-Catholics.

§ 2. Passive or merely material presence, for the sake of civil duty or honor, can be tolerated, for a grave reason to be approved by the Bishop in a doubtful case, at the funerals, weddings, and similar solemnities of non-Catholics, provided the danger of perversion and scandal is absent" (cf. can. 2316).

755. Specifically as regards the Sacraments, the general principle is that they are unlawfully sought from a heretical minister (schismatic or juring), because such a petition is an implicit acknowledgment of the authority of the minister and of the sect itself. Hence:

1. It is never lawful to ask them from one who is going to administer them in a manner alien from the Catholic rite and by which such persons are distinguished from the Church, because it would be an immediate participation in unlawful worship and an implicit profession of a false sect.

2. Nor is it lawful, if he administers in the Catholic rite, except in extreme necessity for Baptism (that is, if a layman is lacking) and Penance only (Holy Office, July 7, 1864), and, when this is lacking, for Extreme Unction, provided nevertheless that the circumstance of necessity brings it about (as ordinarily happens) that the petition is no longer considered as an acknowledgment of the sect; otherwise it would still be unlawful.⁴

⁴ Likewise it is not lawful to give an alms to a heretical (or schismatic) priest to celebrate Mass (S. C. P. F., March 12, 1789); or formally and freely to go into a temple to hear his Mass, even if on a feast day one would be deprived of Mass (Holy Office, December 5, 1668; August 7, 1704).

3. It is never lawful in the Baptism of heretics, personally or through a procurator, to act as sponsor, because in the name of the one to be baptized he asks Baptism from the minister (May 10, 1770; July 7, 1864; January 3, 1871).

4. Indeed, regularly it is not lawful to assist at such a Baptism or materially to hold the infant in it, except for a grave motive and with scandal removed (May 10, 1770).

756. As regards sacramentals and the nuptial blessing, the same principle holds; they are unlawfully sought from a non-Catholic minister as such, because such a petition is an implicit acknowledgment of the authority of the minister. Hence:

1. It is never lawful to seek sacred things, such as blessings, prayers, etc., from a heretical (or schismatic) minister, nor the nuptial blessing, nor to give or renew matrimonial consent before him, even if the marriage had already been contracted before the parish priest (January 29, 1817), and this under penalty of excommunication reserved to the Ordinary (can. 2319; 1063, § 1).

2. To enter a civil contract before a heretical minister acting only as a civil minister is lawful (November 29, 1762; can. 1063, § 3).

3. It is never lawful, in a marriage celebrated before a heretical minister, to fulfill the office of witness, whether of the paranymph leading the bride, not to the bridegroom, but to the altar or to the minister, because by participating in the ceremony itself, and by lending the authority of a witness to the contract, he implicitly acknowledges the authority of the minister.

4. It is regularly not lawful to assist at such a marriage except for a grave motive, with scandal and contempt of ecclesiastical authority removed, and only for the sake of civil honor and duty⁵ (May 10, 1770; January 14, 1874; can. 1258, § 2).

⁵ Those things which regard marriage also hold for marriage between a Catholic party and a non-Catholic party against the prohibition of the Church.

757. As regards disputations with infidels and heretics:

1. To dispute as one doubting concerning faith and intending to test the truth of faith by arguments, for a member of the faithful, is a sin, and indeed a sin of infidelity.

2. To dispute privately for exercise is per se lawful, unless it is dangerous for the one disputing or for the hearers.

3. To dispute in order to refute errors is per se lawful, provided the disputant is firm in faith, sufficiently learned, and the disputation is judged likely to profit at least the hearers; yet in practice this will rarely happen.

4. Nevertheless, by positive law a public disputation⁶ is prohibited to all, unless with the consent of ecclesiastical authority (can. 1325, § 3). Cf. S. C. de Prop. Fide, March 8, 1625; February 7, 1645; December 18, 1662; Holy Office, January 19, 1664; S. C. Conc., March 6, 1625; and March 8, 1658.

⁶ A disputation is public when it is held on a fixed day and hour, before a multitude and judges of the controversy. - The prohibition also holds concerning disputation with socialists (Cong. de Neg. extr., January 27, 1902).

758. As regards entrance into the temples of heretics and assistance at their offices, the general principle is that it is not lawful to participate in the offices, yet sometimes it is lawful to assist materially (can. 1258). Hence:

1. Simple entrance into a temple is per se an indifferent thing; hence it is lawful if it is done (with scandal removed) to visit the temple, to avoid rain or assault, etc. (Holy Office, January 13, 1818).

2. Participation in the offices, psalmody, prayers, rites, by which someone conducts himself as heretics do and joins himself to them, is never lawful, even if it is required by public authority (S. C. P. F., August 6, 1764; Holy Office, January 13, 1818; April 26, 1894). Yet it is lawful privately to pray before the Most Holy Sacrament or the statues of the Saints, or to show reverence to the Most Holy, provided it sufficiently appears that the one who acts thus does not formally unite himself with those standing by; likewise, to pray privately together with heretics, if the prayers are good.1

3. Cooperation in the offices themselves of heretics, whether by singing, or by directing the chant, or by musical instruments, even done spontaneously or only from greed for gain, is never lawful, because it pertains to the very exercise of worship, or is even a simulation of false faith2 (Holy Office, June 19, and S. C. P. F., July 8, 1889).

4. Merely material assistance at offices or sermons, had from mere curiosity and without any cause, because it has the appearance of evil, is a sin (Holy Office, August 7, 1704; May 10, 1770; instruction of the Cardinal Vicar of Rome, July 12, 1878), yet probably only light, unless peculiar circumstances are added, or a special prohibition, as was made in Rome (Cardinal Vicar of Rome, July 12, 1878). Hence, with scandal removed, if it is done for a good end it will be lawful, for example, in order to refute heretics.

Hence a) in places in which Catholics have for a long time lived mixed with non-Catholics, such assistance is commonly not judged a grave fault, provided scandal is absent, as well as participation in rites or prayers, and danger of perversion.

b) In places altogether Catholic, in which heretics, almost unknown a little before, have now established seats, erect temples, and seek disciples, such assistance easily causes scandal and is taken as favor toward the sect or a sign of communion with it; hence it will easily be gravely evil and must be more strictly prohibited.

c) If it is required by a private person or by public power in hatred of religion or in favor of heresy, it is never lawful: for thus the very thing which is required by the superior would be judged to be fulfilled. - But if it is required for another reason (for example, for servants, sailors, soldiers, those incarcerated), it is lawful for avoiding grave inconvenience (Paul V, 1606).

d) In every case, however, assiduous attendance will rarely be excused from mortal sin, on account of danger or scandal.

1. Nor is it unlawful to swear by touching or kissing the Bibles of heretics, as is the custom in England (Holy Office, February 20, 1820), because the Bibles are not considered as improperly published or perhaps falsified, but as a sacred book.

2. Therefore it is more easily admitted that a non-Catholic may play the organ among us, than that a Catholic may do so in the worship of a heretical sect. - It would be another matter to do this in the temple of heretics for the king, even during an office, provided it is not part of the office.

759. Corollary. - Concerning assistance at funerals or burial:

1. If they are heretical (pagan, Mohammedan, Jewish...), materially to assist at them, for the sake of civil duty, is lawful for Catholics on account of grave harm, provided they do not communicate in the rites or sacred ceremonies of the sect whatsoever (prayers, lights, hearing the sermon), and the danger of scandal is absent⁷ (Holy Office, January 13, 1818; July 5, 1871).

⁷ In this matter, for parish priests and priests, the declaration of the Holy Office, March 3, 1859 and May 8, 1889, is to be noted: "a parish priest, as parish priest, cannot be present at the funerals of non-Catholics; but if he assists only civilly, without sacred vestments and without any communication in a sacred rite with heretics, it can be tolerated, provided it is notoriously clear concerning the bond of kinship or friendship between the parish priest and the deceased non-Catholic."

2. If they are strictly civil and in no way anti-Catholic, assistance or cooperation does not seem unlawful, if it is done for the sake of exhibiting civil duty, or for some other reason, even of friendship alone: thus it sometimes happens for one deceased who was not baptized, or for a suicide to whom the Church denies burial.

3. If they are (as more often happens) civil and at the same time anti-religious, for example, if they are a manifestation against burial denied by the Church, or against religion, as happens if great solemnity, a convocation of enemies of the Church, signs of Freemasons, spiritists, free-thinkers are employed; or even if the deceased, being baptized, wished to die as an apostate, or by some contract had bound himself to this, even if he died piously: formal cooperation or participation in the ceremonies, if it occurs, is never lawful; and material cooperation or assistance will not be lawful unless a) it does not signify approval and every danger of scandal is absent, b) it does not become greater or more lasting than necessity demands, and c) there is a very grave reason, such as ordinarily is not simple gratitude, ordinary friendship, invitation, gain, an artistic society, human fear. Yet near kinship, total subjection or coercion, loss of office with great temporal harm suffice, especially where such a reason could easily be recognized by all (letter of Pius IX to the archbishop of Paris, October 26, 1865).

4. To go to the mortuary house in order to exhibit civil respect and for the sake of courtesy is lawful.

760. Observations. - 1. The gravity of sin in assistance at offices, Baptism, marriage, and funerals of non-Catholics depends upon the circumstances: it is to be weighed from the gravity or species of the evil, from scandal, from the approval given, and from the insufficiency of the motive. To this end there must also be considered the quality of the person assisting, the necessity or fittingness of assisting, the significance of the solemnity, and the hostile intention.

2. Danger for faith can also arise from attendance at non-Catholic schools, and from mixed marriages; concerning these things it will be said in the respective treatises which regard these questions.