Thesis XXVII

The Pauline privilege does not pertain only to those who follow the Catholic faith, but to all who have professed the Christian faith by the reception of baptism.

I. The question can be raised whether the Pauline privilege has force also when some unbeliever is indeed converted, yet not to the Catholic Church but to a heretical or schismatic sect; for example, if some Turk should embrace the schism of the Greeks or the Anglican sect. There will perhaps be some to whom the privilege seems not to have force for men of this sort. For the privilege is said to have been granted in favor of the faith; but in heretical sects there is not faith, or heresy is not faith, but a vice opposed to faith. What of the fact that Innocent III, c. Gaudemus cited above, in explaining this privilege, expressly makes mention of the Catholic faith? "If one," he says, "of the unbelievers is converted to the Catholic faith, etc." And indeed what reason is there why Christ should be believed to have wished to grant a privilege to his enemies, who are worse than pagan unbelievers (2a 2ae, q. X, a. 6), when punishment, not benefit, is owed to them?

II. Nevertheless I answer that unless sects of this sort have so fallen away that they have retained only the name of Christianity, and are therefore such that in them the religion of the true God and Christian profession, although vitiated, still flourish, and therefore baptism still obtains, the Pauline privilege seems to us to have force for them also. We know that Cardinal Camillus Tarquini composed a dissertation affirming this opinion, which nevertheless was not published, nor have we been able to find a manuscript copy. The reason by which we are moved is indeed one, yet proceeding, as it were, through certain steps. Namely, that privilege rests, as on an intrinsic condition, on disparity of worship; but Christian worship, although in sects separated from the Catholic Church, is in reality disparate from the worship of unbelievers, whether they are Jews or pagans. A certain indication of this matter is that there is no marriage of a heretic with a pagan or Jew because of the impediment of disparity of worship. But the right of using this privilege is acquired by the very fact that baptism has been received, which is the sacrament of faith; for certainly this right does not belong to catechumens, although perfectly believing. Therefore it is not faith alone, but the profession of Christian faith through baptism, or in other words the sacrament of faith, which confers such a right. But in heretical or schismatic sects also there is profession of the Christian faith through reception of baptism, or there is the sacrament of faith. Therefore. As regards schismatics indeed there is no difficulty in this matter; but as regards heretics, observe with St. Thomas, 2a 2ae, q. XI, a. 1, that "heresy is a species of unbelief pertaining to those who profess the faith of Christ, but corrupt its dogmas." Therefore, although in heretics there is not the interior habit of infused faith, nevertheless there is the exterior profession of Christian faith, although vitiated, and there is a true sacrament of faith, which is the solemn profession of the Christian faith. Now, according to the mind of theologians, the right of using this privilege is traced back to the power of baptism itself. "He who approaches baptism is regenerated in Christ and dies to the former life, since the generation of one thing is the corruption of another. And therefore he is freed from the obligation by which he was held to render the debt to his wife, and he is not held to cohabit with her when she is unwilling to be converted" (in Suppl., q. LIX, a. 4); and "if she is unwilling to cohabit without injury to the Creator ... the faithful husband departing can be joined to another through marriage" (ibid., a. 5). Therefore all baptized persons enjoy this right. Finally, at that time the marriage contracted in infidelity is dissolved when the convert enters another marriage. But the efficacy of this marriage is customarily explained in this way: that "the stronger bond always dissolves the less strong, if it is contrary to it ... and marriage in infidelity is not altogether firm and ratified" (ibid., a. 5, ad 1), that is, it is not altogether firm because it is not ratified. Therefore the matter is conceived thus, that the second marriage dissolves that which preceded because that which the convert enters is ratified. But the marriage of any baptized person whatever is ratified. "The sacrament of faith, which once admitted is never lost, makes the sacrament of marriage ratified" (c. Quanto cited). Therefore, if account is taken of the reason of this common explanation, it is evident that theologians recognize the right of the Pauline privilege where the sacrament of faith has existed, and therefore also in schismatics and heretics having true baptism.

This indeed is the common persuasion of theologians, as is clear even from the fact that, when they discuss the Pauline privilege accurately and one by one, they do not even touch on this distinction between a Catholic Christian and a heretical Christian, or they do not ask whether Catholics alone, or other baptized persons also, enjoy that privilege.

There can be no reason for this omission except this: namely, because it was evident to all that the faithful brother and sister of whom Paul speaks are the same as the baptized.

III. What, then, must be said to those things which were proposed for the contrary opinion? To the first we answer that the profession of Christian faith and the sacrament of faith are found also in heretical and schismatic sects; but the faith in favor of which the privilege is said to have been granted is the profession of Christian faith, is the sacrament of faith. Nevertheless, because God of himself does not will there to be anything except the profession of the Catholic Christian faith, it is permissible to concede that first and of itself (by priority of nature, not of time) this privilege was granted to the profession of Christian faith and to baptism received in the Catholic Church, but secondarily, on account of the identity of baptism and generic communion in the profession of Christian faith, it was extended also to heretical sects. Indeed, if (per impossibile) only heretical sects existed, not the Catholic Church, we do not think that God would have granted any privilege to them. To the second we answer that Innocent there names the Catholic faith because previously in the same place mention of the same had occurred, and the question proposed to the Pontiff was in reality concerned with this fact, that some unbeliever had been converted to the Catholic faith. Wherefore only historically is that appositive Catholic added to faith by Innocent, not however dogmatically, so that it would determine the necessary conditions for the force of the privilege; therefore those words are not to be taken exclusively. To the third we say that the privilege was granted not on account of heresy or schism, but on account of the profession of Christian faith and baptism. But although the persons may be evil, this does not prevent them from having those things which follow upon baptism from the will of God and do not require the state of justice, just as they can also be had by evil Catholics. But what is affirmed concerning the greater malice of heretics than pagans is true if you consider the crimes subjectively; but if objectively you compare pagan or Jewish worship after Christ with the profession of the Christian religion, although corrupted in certain dogmas, that assertion is certainly false. Cf. St. Thomas, 2a 2ae, q. cited, and Ballerini, Opus Th. Mor., v. 6, n. 683 ff.