Article — Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis
Article I: On Infidelity
St. Thomas, II-II, q. 10.
734. Infidelity in general. - Infidelity (ongelovigheid), insofar as it is a state, is a defective lack of faith, namely, in one in whom faith ought to be; hence the blessed and man in the state of pure nature, although they do not have faith, are not infidels, because faith ought not to be in them; on the contrary, little children not baptized are infidels because they lack faith which they would have had, if they had not sinned in Adam.
The state of infidelity is threefold: a) negative infidelity or lack of faith in one who has never heard anything of faith; b) privative infidelity or lack of faith in one who has neglected to acquire for himself sufficient notice of faith; c) contrary and positive infidelity or lack of faith in one to whom it has been sufficiently proposed and who positively contemns it (by the will) and rejects it (by the intellect). This is infidelity properly so called, because it alone comes from the sin of infidelity.
735. The sin of infidelity. - Infidelity, insofar as it is a sin, is an act by which someone deliberately disbelieves some truth which is sufficiently proposed to him as revealed by God. This act on the part of the object is directly opposed to the act of faith, for to will to believe and not to will to believe, voluntarily to believe or to judge that this is true, and voluntarily to disbelieve or to judge that this is not true, are directly opposed by their object. Hence this act by its nature excludes faith, and therefore, so long as it is not retracted, man cannot believe; and the loss of the habit of faith necessarily follows from it. It is said in the definition:
a) an act, so that the sin of infidelity may be distinguished from the state of infidelity;
b) by which someone deliberately disbelieves, that is, refuses assent or adherence; for just as the act of faith is voluntarily to assent to revealed things, so the act of infidelity is voluntarily to dissent from them. Hence St. Thomas says that the sin of infidelity is in the intellect: it is not a mere omission or ignorance of faith, but a sin of commission by which someone positively resists faith and rejects it, which nevertheless has ignorance joined to it (a. 3, ad 2);
c) some truth revealed by God, for the denial or doubt of one article or point suffices for someone to lose faith. For he who rejects the authority of God revealing in one thing cannot receive it in another, because always and in all things it is of equal weight and value. Hence if a heretic adheres to other articles, he does this now not from divine faith on account of the authority of God, but either by human faith, or by his own opinion (n. 678);
d) which is sufficiently proposed: if some truth is invincibly unknown, indeed even if from negligence and altogether culpable ignorance it is insufficiently known, for this reason faith in it is not denied, nor is the sin of infidelity had, nor is faith excluded or lost:1 for the will not to inquire concerning faith is not the will not to believe; indeed together with it there can stand the will of believing the truth if it is sufficiently proposed, because by their object they are not directly opposed, as is clear in him who does not will to inquire concerning faith, and who, compelled to hear the faith, believes.
1 If affected ignorance is present, there is present the will not to believe, yet not formal infidelity, because dissent of the intellect is lacking, since the truth has not been proposed. Yet there is present a sin of the will of the same malice.
Therefore the sin of infidelity arises from contempt of the will and pertinacity of the intellect, and therefore it can also be defined: a voluntary error resisting faith with pertinacity.
736. Corollaries. [The printed heading omits the number.] - From the aforesaid doctrine it follows:
- That positive infidelity alone includes the sin of infidelity: for negative infidelity, since it is invincible, is no sin (John XV; Rom. X; condemned prop. 68 of Baius), whence, says St. Thomas: "those who are infidels in this way are indeed damned on account of other sins, which cannot be remitted without faith, but they are not damned on account of the sin of infidelity"; but privative infidelity does not include the sin of infidelity (which is of commission), but the sin of ignorance in faith (which is of omission), by which someone voluntarily lacks sufficient knowledge of faith. This sin, if it comes from grave negligence, will be mortal.
- The merely external denial of faith is not properly infidelity, and therefore does not exclude the virtue of faith, because together with it there can stand the will of believing internally, since they are not directly opposed by their object.
- Since the sin of infidelity supposes a sufficient proposition of faith, it follows that no one loses the habit of faith without fault2 (Vatican Council, sess. 3, c. 3 and can. 6). Whence a special property belongs to faith on the part of the subject, namely, irrevocability.
2 Yet we do not say: that without fault one cannot leave the body of the Catholic Church, or the profession of faith. For although this cannot happen from an objectively just cause and grace helps lest it happen, and therefore per se and ordinarily it is not without the graver fault of infidelity; nevertheless in exceptional circumstances some think that per accidens it can happen without fault or at least without grave fault of infidelity, though not many. Nor was this explicitly condemned by the Vatican Council, as is established from the history of the Council. Cf. Granderath, Constitutiones Conc. Vat. explicatae.
737. The sin of infidelity is mortal from its whole genus (Mk. XVI, 16), because it always contains contempt of the authority of God revealing, and therefore is a sin against the Holy Spirit, as rejecting from contempt a means necessary for salvation. And it is per se most grave, with hatred of God alone excepted. For since through the theological virtues we are directly and principally turned to God, hence sins directly opposed to them directly and principally import aversion from God, and therefore they are graver than sins directly opposed to the moral virtues: thus by infidelity man is more separated and removed from God, because he does not even have true knowledge of God.
Moreover, infidelity is graver than despair, because it is opposed to the truth of God as it is in itself; but despair is against God according as His good is participated by us. But hatred of God is graver, because that by which all other sins are sins, that is, voluntary aversion from God, is directly and per se intended in this sin, and is its very essence.
Yet often infidelity is a less grave sin on account of circumstances, for example, ignorance.
738. Diverse modes of infidelity. - Infidelity can be considered 1. on the part of the act and the mode in which it is committed; 2. on the part of the object as to species; 3. on the part of the conditions of the one sinning.
The mode in which it is committed is manifold: 1. as to the formal object: a) by denying God's truth in speaking or by doubting concerning it; b) by denying the fact of revelation or by doubting concerning it; c) by admitting revealed truth, not on account of God's authority, but exclusively on account of one's own reason; - 2. as to the material object: a) by denying proposed revealed truth, or by assenting to an opinion incompossible with revealed doctrine; b) by assenting to revealed truth not firmly, but with fear of the opposite; c) by deliberately and positively doubting concerning it, that is, by suspending assent, not indeed because someone wills either now to attend to other things, or not to fatigue the mind, or to inquire into motives for assenting more suitably, or something similar, but precisely because he positively thinks or fears that the proposed truth can be false. For all these things manifestly exclude the will of believing firmly and firm voluntary adherence on account of God revealing, and thus at least implicitly are a denial of faith.
739. Species of infidelity. - On the part of the object infidelity can be regarded:
- According to the corruption of the truths of faith, and thus its species are indefinite, because errors can be multiplied indefinitely: these species are diverse but only according to physical being, and not according to moral being, because they do not include diverse repugnance to reason.
- According to diverse relation to faith, and thus at present three principal species are distinguished: paganism (to which Mohammedanism, deism, atheism, etc., are referred), Judaism, and heresy. A pagan is one who acknowledges no faith or redemption; a Jew acknowledges the redeemer but thinks Him still to be coming; a heretic acknowledges Christ the redeemer, but corrupts His dogmas. These are three morally distinct species, because errors are opposed to faith under a diverse reason, either to faith which is not received, or to faith which is received3 either in figure, or in manifestation of truth; besides, they often include diverse superstitions or are punished with diverse penalties. Hence those species are to be declared in confession.
3 Objectively as to the account of evil; now:
They can be considered in two ways:
a) if they are considered according to the corruption of the truths of faith and the number of errors, paganism is graver than Judaism and Judaism than heresy;
b) but if they are considered according to diverse relation to faith, heresy is graver than Judaism and this than paganism, because it is graver to resist faith which is received in manifestation of truth than faith which is received in figure, and this than to resist faith which is not received, just as it is graver not to fulfill what someone has promised than what he has not promised.
- Hence also subjectively on the part of the one sinning, as to the account of fault, ordinarily heresy is graver, because heretics ordinarily have greater knowledge of faith than Jews, and therefore are more voluntarily opposed to it and with greater pertinacity; - similarly Jews than pagans. Yet in an extraordinary case they could have equal knowledge of faith.
- Faith is received objectively, not always subjectively.
740. Are infidels to be compelled to faith? - Unbaptized infidels cannot be compelled by external force to receiving faith, because to believe is of the will; for neither can they be compelled by the Church, to whose power they are not subject, nor by civil society, which does not enjoy spiritual jurisdiction. Yet they can be compelled not to impede the preaching or exercise of faith by blasphemies, persuasions, persecutions in their places, because the Church received from Christ the right of preaching everywhere. Indeed, by their own princes they can be compelled both to observing the law of nature (and natural religion), in whose observance the right civil order is founded, and also sometimes to hearing faith.
But baptized infidels can be compelled by spiritual and corporal penalties, so that they may return to faith and the Church, because through Baptism they have been made subjects of the Church (Council of Trent, sess. 7, can. 14).
741. Are the rites of infidels to be tolerated? - The rites of infidels cannot be approved or fostered by Christian princes (Syllabus, prop. 77-79); but they can sometimes be tolerated, if greater evils would be feared from their prohibition, or greater goods would be impeded: thus God tolerates evils in the world lest worse things be incurred, or better things impeded. Hence the rites of Jews are moderately tolerated, from whose preservation we have a great testimony of our faith (Const. Imm. Dei; encyclical Libertas of Leo XIII).