Article — Noldin, Summa of Moral Theology
Article Fourth. On Communication with Unbelievers and Heretics
34. Notions. a. A twofold communication is distinguished: civil communication, which happens in matters pertaining to social intercourse, and religious communication, or communication in sacred matters, which happens in matters pertaining to religion. This again is twofold: active, when we participate in the sacred rites of others, and passive, when we permit unbelievers or heretics to communicate in our sacred rites.
b. Active communication is one thing when formal, if someone internally, in mind and will, is present at the sacred rites of non-Catholics; and another when material, if someone assists at their sacred rites only externally and bodily.
c. Active communication is one thing when public, if someone is present at sacred rites which are instituted by non-Catholics as they are a religious assembly, of which kind are the sacred rites which happen in their temples; another when private, if someone participates with a non-Catholic in a sacred matter which he performs as he is a private person, as if a Catholic recites the Lord's Prayer with a non-Catholic.
What is established concerning communication in sacred matters also holds concerning communication in mixed matters, of which kind are marriages and funerals, insofar as these consist of religious rites and therefore pertain to religion.
35. On communication with unbelievers. 1. Civil communication with unbelievers is prohibited by no law and never has been prohibited, provided the danger of perversion is absent.
Since familiarity introduces a great danger of perversion, and banquets signify and promote familiarity, banquets with unbelievers are of themselves prohibited on account of the danger of perversion.1
- Active communication in sacred matters with unbelievers is prohibited of itself, because it signifies at least external profession of a false religion and denial of the true religion; therefore the apostle says: What part has the faithful with the unbeliever?2
This communication is more strictly prohibited with unbelievers than with heretics, because the worship of the former is plainly false and superstitious; therefore it is also much more difficult to permit the faithful to be present at the mixed rites of unbelievers than of heretics, especially where few faithful live intermingled with many unbelievers.
- By both divine and ecclesiastical law it is prohibited in particular to contract marriage with an unbeliever.3
1 S. C. de Prop. Fide, 2 July 1827.
2 2 Cor. 6:15.
3 2 Cor. 6:14 ff.; C. Cave 15, c. 28, q. 1.
36. On communication with Jews. With Jews in particular, besides communication in sacred and mixed matters, several other civil communications are forbidden to the faithful: a. to dwell with them in the same house; b. to use the same bath with them; c. to employ a Jewish physician; d. to serve Jews or employ them as servants; e. to be present at the same banquet with Jews; f. to concede public offices to them among Christians; g. to eat their unleavened bread, etc.1 The end of these prohibitions is both that the dignity of the Christian religion be preserved and that the danger of perversion be avoided. Today, however, since Jews almost everywhere enjoy the same civil rights with Christians, these prohibitions, insofar as they are positive, have gone into desuetude; wherefore from universal law no other communication with them is strictly forbidden except that which the law of nature or a particular statute forbids by reason of scandal or danger of perversion; yet by way of a norm the faithful should never fail to have before their eyes, outside the case of necessity, these prohibitions which show us the mind of the Church in this matter.
Therefore not even service among Jews can be prohibited in every case: for if female servants are not solicited to base or illicit things, if besides this it is permitted to them to observe the precepts of the Catholic religion, hearing Mass, abstinence, fasting, etc., and no other danger threatens, service ought not be absolutely forbidden. Indeed, even that service by which a Catholic woman acts as nurse in a Jewish family ought not now to be absolutely prohibited of itself. Yet particular circumstances of places can bring it about that serving among Jews, and especially offering oneself as nurse to the infants of Jews, is illicit.
1 C. Nullus 13 and C. Omnes 14, c. 28, q. 1.
37. On communication with heretics.1 1. Passive communication in sacred matters with heretics, and the same holds concerning unbelievers and Jews, is prohibited when it must necessarily be judged a sign of religious unity, as to mix themselves in the Catholic rites themselves.
a. To admit a heretic to participation in the religious rite itself is of itself intrinsically evil, because it is a sign of union and consent between a Catholic and a heretic in religious profession, as if Catholic and heretical worship did not differ essentially from one another. Yet not always and necessarily does this intimate communication in sacred matters signify unity and consent in religious worship: for sometimes from the circumstances themselves it can be gathered that the heretic in this matter acknowledges the truth of the Catholic religion; wherefore in circumstances of this kind, from a most grave cause, this communication can be licit. Thus the Church permits the celebration of a mixed marriage before a Catholic minister.
b. Therefore heretics can hear sermons in our churches, assist at Mass, be present at liturgical functions, etc., because in these things they do not communicate in the Catholic rite itself. Yet they are excluded from the sacraments, from sacramentals which are administered publicly in church to individuals, from ecclesiastical burial, and things of this kind. There are several decisions of the Holy Office concerning this matter, from which especially it is understood what the functions are in which heretics cannot licitly participate, because participation of itself signifies the consent of a Catholic with a heretic in religious profession.
a. It cannot be permitted that a heretic act as sponsor in baptism conferred Catholicly.2
b. "Therefore it is illicit in sacred functions to invite heretics into the choir, to sing alternately, to give them the peace, sacred ashes, candles and blessed palms, and other external things of worship of this kind, which by law are judged signs of an interior bond and agreement."3
c. It is not permitted to admit heretics, schismatics, or Jews, even if they are boys or girls, so that they sing in the musical choir at liturgical functions in Catholic churches.4 Yet it can be tolerated that schismatics together with Catholics sing in ecclesiastical functions, provided the danger of scandal is excluded and the schismatics cannot be excluded from singing without great difficulties.5 But it is permitted to allow non-Catholics to play the organ at liturgical functions in a Catholic church, if scandal is not to be feared from this.6
d. It is not permitted to allow non-Catholics to carry torches or lights at liturgical functions of Catholics.7
1 What communication with heretics is forbidden by reason of the excommunication inflicted on them will be said where censures are treated.
2 Holy Office, 1763; 3 May 1893; 27 June 1900.
3 Holy Office, 8 June 1859.
4 Holy Office, 1 May 1889.
5 Holy Office, 24 Jan. 1906.
6 Holy Office, 23 Feb. 1820.
7 Holy Office, 20 Nov. 1850.
38. 2. Active communication in sacred matters must be distinguished in several ways:
a. Formal active communication in sacred matters is never licit, since it is denial of faith by internal and external profession of a false religion.
Communication in sacred matters is formal in a twofold case: a. explicitly, if it happens with the intention of participating in the sacred rites and therefore with approbation of the false religion; b. implicitly, if it happens in the sacred rite itself, that is, in an action which pertains to the sacred rite, as to receive the supper of heretics, to sing with heretics in a sacred function: for from actions of this kind the depraved intention of participating in the heretical rite cannot be separated.
b. Material and private active communication in sacred matters, if it does not concern a matter evil in itself, with scandal and danger of perversion excluded, is licit.
Thus a Catholic can licitly recite the Lord's Prayer or other prayers together with a Protestant, because in this action profession of a false religion is not contained: for private worship, in which nothing false is contained, is not heretical.
c. Material and public active communication in sacred matters is of itself prohibited under grave obligation, not only by ecclesiastical law,1 but also by the law of nature, and this from several heads: a. because of the danger of perversion in faith; b. because of scandal, both on the part of the faithful, who from it take occasion of judging badly concerning the person who communicates with heretics and of doubting concerning the true faith, and on the part of heretics, who are confirmed in their error; c. because of the approbation of the false religion and denial of the true religion, which communication of itself signifies. With the other reasons set aside, this last is chiefly to be attended to here.
d. Material and public active communication in sacred matters can sometimes become licit from a proportionately grave cause (n. 22). Namely, those actions which do not pertain to the sacred rite itself and therefore do not necessarily involve confession of the false religion and denial of the true, with scandal and danger of perversion excluded, are licit from a just cause, for example, to assist at heretical functions, to accompany the funeral of some heretic.
The graver the sacred matter in which the Catholic participates, and the nearer the action through which he participates approaches to non-Catholic worship itself, the graver a cause is required. For the rest, judgment is to be made concerning this matter from the same principles which have already been set forth concerning an action from which there follows a twofold effect, good and evil,2 and which will be set forth below concerning cooperation.
1 C. Quicunque 2, De haereticis, in VI (V. 2).
2 Cf. On Principles, n. 53 ff.
39. Particular questions concerning communication in sacred matters with heretics. In three ways we can externally profess a false religion: a. by communicating in sacred matters with non-Catholics; b. by cooperating with their false rites; c. by employing signs of their false religion. Concerning this last, something was said above (n. 20); concerning the second, something will be said below, where cooperation is treated; the questions which pertain to the first are to be considered in this place.
On simultaneousness. a. Just as it is not permitted to allow heretics to celebrate their rites in our churches, so it is not permitted for us to celebrate ours in their churches: for this, because of the identity of the church, is to communicate with heretics in divine things.1 Yet since to celebrate divine things in the same church at the same time with heretics is not by its nature communication in the same sacred rites, therefore from a most grave cause this simultaneousness can be permitted and in fact is permitted.2 In reality at Jerusalem, in the church of the Holy Sepulchre, all sects perform their rites. b. Likewise, just as it is not permitted to allow heretics, that is, sects of heretics, to mix themselves in our prayers or rites, so it is not permitted for us to perform a liturgical function together with heretics, or in general to pour forth public prayers with them: for the worship of a sect proceeds from the faith which it professes as from its root; and since this is heretical, the worship also is heretical.
On communication in the baptism of heretics. a. It is never permitted for a Catholic to act in the office of sponsor in the baptism of the child of a heretic, who is baptized by a heretical minister. For a long time and much on each side it was disputed whether this action is intrinsically evil, as being communication in the heretical rite itself; the controversy was finally ended by the declaration of the Holy Office, which establishes that this is absolutely not permitted either by oneself or through others.3 For baptism solemnly conferred by a heretic is a heretical rite; but he who acts as sponsor truly participates in this rite and implicitly approves it, since he offers the child to be baptized and asks for baptism. But to be present at the baptisms of heretics merely materially as a spectator or for the sake of honor, and to act as witness or honorary sponsor, is not prohibited when a just cause exists.
b. It is not permitted for Catholic parents positively to permit their children to be baptized by a heretical minister; but if it cannot be avoided without grave inconvenience, it can be permitted negatively, by holding themselves passively.
- On communication in the weddings of heretics. a. It is licit to be present at their wedding banquet: for this action is merely civil and therefore civil communication, which is licit with heretics. b. To be present at weddings which are celebrated by heretics before a heretical minister in a heretical rite is licit if the matter concerns a merely material presence which happens for the sake of curiosity or honor.4 c. To be present at the weddings of heretics in some office, for example of witness, which is required for the validity of the marriage or constitutes part of the sacred rite itself, is illicit, because it is tacit approbation of a false sect. d. It is altogether illicit for a Catholic to enter marriage with a heretic before a heretical minister: for this action is a manifest participation in the heretical sacred rites themselves and recognition of heretical worship.
Girls who, as in North America, perform the principal attendance upon the bride (first bride's maid) are judged by common estimation to perform only a civil office.5
- On entrance into the churches of heretics and on assistance at their sacred rites. a. Of itself, scandal and danger of perversion being excluded, it is licit to enter the churches of heretics to view them for the cause of mere curiosity, when no sacred rite is being had there, because this entrance is an indifferent action and signifies neither explicitly nor implicitly the approbation of false worship.6
b. Of itself it is not permitted to assist at the sermons or sacred functions of heretics, because this assistance of itself is participation with heretics in sacred matters; yet from a proportionately grave cause assistance could be permitted, provided the one assisting is present only materially without any sign of reverence.
a. Thus, from a most grave cause and with the danger of perversion excluded, it is permitted for a Catholic female servant to accompany her mistress into a heretical church, and it is permitted for soldiers to assist a heretical king visiting a church, according to the example of Naaman the Syrian, to whom the prophet Elisha permitted that he accompany his lord the king into the temple and there bow himself with him, so that the king might lean on his shoulder while he genuflected before the idol.7
b. It is permitted for learned Catholic men to hear the sermons of heretics in order to refute them, with scandal and danger of perversion always excluded: for they approach only so that they may know what heretics teach. Yet it must be noted that all these things, even if they happen only materially, are prohibited in some regions, as in several dioceses of Italy, by a special ecclesiastical law.
c. But it is never permitted in the churches of heretics, when religious functions are performed there, to play the organ or other instruments, to sing hymns and psalms, etc., because actions of this kind contain participation in the false worship itself of heretics, which is formal and altogether illicit communication in sacred matters.8
- If assistance which happens at the sacred functions of heretics is prescribed to Catholics by the government, a distinction must be made thus:
a. If Catholics are compelled to participate in the sacred functions themselves of heretics, as happens to boys frequenting public schools in the Russian empire, who are ordered to go to the churches of schismatics, to receive blessed breads, to pray with others, etc., this is not permitted.9
b. If assistance is prescribed to Catholics in hatred of the faith or in favor of a false sect, it likewise is not licit.
c. If assistance is prescribed to Catholics only for the sake of domestic order, not in favor of a false sect, as sometimes happens to soldiers, captives in prisons, and sailors on public ships, all of whom are ordered to assist at sacred functions which are had there, it seems licit, provided they assist at the functions only materially.10
- With respect to the burial of heretics: a. It is permitted for a Catholic to accompany the funeral of a heretic, even if the funeral is celebrated in a heretical rite, provided a. he is present only materially to offer civil honor, b. he cannot be absent without grave harm, at least without violation of a civil office, c. he does not communicate with heretics in sacred matters, therefore neither prays together with them, nor mixes himself in their rites, nor carries a light, nor is present at the sermon which is to be given.11
b. A Catholic priest cannot, in places in which heretics do not have their own ministers, accompany the corpse of a heretic from the house to the cemetery, even if the corpse is not carried to the church and the bells are not rung.12
To frequent the religious instruction of heretics is not communication in sacred matters, because religious instruction does not have the character of a sacred rite, but of literary discipline instituted for cultivating the mind. Yet voluntary attendance is an illicit profession of a false religion; involuntary attendance, with the danger of perversion excluded, can be permitted from a most grave cause; but it is by no means permitted to repeat the false doctrines of heretics as if they were true and admitted.
Whether it is permitted to seek sacraments from heretics, see On the Sacraments, n. 43.
1 S. C. de Prop. Fide, 14 Aug. 1627; Holy Office, 10 May 1753.
2 S. C. de Prop. Fide, 12 Apr. 1704.
3 Holy Office, 10 May 1770.
4 Holy Office, 14 Jan. 1874, declares that it can be tolerated if Catholics are present only for the sake of a civil office at weddings which are contracted between a Catholic party and a non-Catholic before a heretical minister, with scandal and any danger of perversion removed, and also contempt of ecclesiastical authority, which nevertheless is generally to be feared if near relatives are present at marriages entered against the prohibition of the Church.
5 Sabetti, cited in Genicot, Casus conscientiae, p. 45.
6 Cf. Lugo, De fide, d. 14, n. 171 ff.
7 4 Kings 5:18-19. Cf. Lugo, ibid., n. 173.
8 S. C. de Prop. Fide, 19 June 1889.
9 Holy Office, 26 Apr. 1894.
10 Cf. Lehmkuhl, I, n. 651, in note.
11 Holy Office, 13 Jan. 1818. Cf. Lugo, loc. cit., n. 159.
12 Holy Office, 26 Jan. 1886.
40. Whether disputation with heretics is licit.
a. Public disputation, or disputation before a numerous people, both clerics and lay persons, is prohibited without the express license of the Roman pontiff, because public disputations are accustomed to lack the desired fruit.1
b. Private disputation, or disputation before a few hearers, is permitted to clerics if they are challenged, if some fruit is hoped for either in the one challenging or in the hearers, and if the clerics are skilled and instructed with sufficient doctrine.
c. But for lay persons even private disputation concerning matters of faith is prohibited by positive law:2 for since it is much easier to propose difficulties than to solve those proposed, from the lack of skill of lay persons it could easily happen that heretics are confirmed in error, but Catholics themselves conceive doubts and waver in faith. Yet this prohibition does not extend to men truly learned and firm in faith, where great utility is hoped for or where custom has been introduced, as in Germany.
Note. By these things are presented the principles to be observed by law in religious communication with heretics or schismatics; nevertheless for practice these things are to be noted: in regions in which Catholics have already lived mingled with heretics for a long time, by custom many things are done without grave cause which of themselves are licit only from grave cause; thus from mere curiosity Catholics enter the churches of heretics, even while sacred functions are being had there, are present at funerals, etc.; indeed they even perform in good faith those things which are altogether illicit. Now because in regions of this kind the danger of perversion and scandal of the faithful is less to be feared, communication which is not illicit in itself can more easily be tolerated; indeed even in prohibiting those things which can in no way be permitted, pastors of souls ought to be very cautious and prudent, lest without hope of fruit they disturb good faith and provoke the hatreds of heretics. Therefore the Holy See itself declared that illicit communications can sometimes be dissembled in order to avoid graver harms.3 But in regions in which heretics a little before have fixed seats and erected churches, and therefore the danger and scandal of forbidden communication is greater, the norms set forth above are to be urged more severely. Therefore the Cardinal Vicar, when heretics were erecting churches at Rome, in an instruction published for the pastors of the City, declared that all those sin gravely who from mere curiosity hear the sermons of Protestants and assist, even only materially, at non-Catholic functions.4
1 S. C. C., 8 Mar. 1658.
2 C. Quicunque 2, De haereticis, in VI (V. 2).
3 Holy Office, 26 Apr. 1894.
4 Instruction of 12 July 1878, in Aichner, Compendium iuris ecclesiastici, Brixen: Weger, 1900, p. 156.