Article — Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis
Article II. On apostasy from faith and on heresy
512. Apostasy, which by force of the name signifies the same as departure (apo-histamai, aphistamai), is threefold, namely apostasy from faith,16 apostasy from order, and apostasy from religion, according as someone culpably withdraws either from orthodox faith or from the clerical state or from the religious state. Here only apostasy from faith is treated; and this can be defined: total17 defection from the Christian faith once voluntarily received. It is called total defection; for if someone denied one or another article of faith, he would be rather a heretic than an apostate. Nevertheless, since any Catholic man who denies even one article of faith consequently must also deny the infallibility of the Church, by that very fact he totally withdraws from the Church and the Catholic faith and becomes a true apostate. Hence the true essence of apostasy seems to consist in this, that someone voluntarily rejects the Catholic faith which he previously had.18 Therefore he who from infancy has been baptized and reared in heresy is not an apostate, but a heretic. But for apostasy it is not required that a man adhere to some determinate false sect, e.g. that he pass over to Judaism or Mohammedanism; rather, it is sufficient that after baptism received in the Catholic Church he fall away wholly from faith. Hence rationalists, atheists, free-thinkers, and Freemasons (at least very many) are in reality apostates from faith. What we shall say afterward about positive and formal heresy, about its malice and penalties, holds a fortiori of apostasy, which, as was said above n. 509 from St. Thomas, is nothing other than an aggravating circumstance of infidelity and heresy.
16 It is called by St. Thomas: apostasy of perfidy (S. theol. 2, 2, q. 12, a. 1).
17 Thus authors commonly define apostasy, e.g. Busenbaum apud St. Alph., Theol. mor. 2, 17; Laymann, Theol. mor. l. 2, tr. 1, c. 12; Billuart, De fide diss. 5, a. 4; Lehmkuhl, Theol. mor. I, 413; Noldin, De praec. n. 28. The Code of Canon Law, c. 1325, § 2, speaks in the same way. A few authors also call a partial recession from faith apostasy. Cf. Lugo, De fide disput. 18, sect. 4, n. 96.
18 Cf. Billuart, De fide diss. 5, a. 4.
513. On apostasy to the Masonic sect. The Masonic sect and other similar sects pursuing the same end have been dispersed through the whole world and already have inflicted many evils on true religion. Apparently and speciously, indeed, the Freemasons proclaim that they intend philanthropic ends and mutual assistance; but in reality they overthrow every positive religion.19 In England and in North America the Masonic sect does not seem to plot so vehemently against true religion as in France, Spain, and other regions; but nevertheless it is never licit for any Catholic to give his name to that Masonic sect; indeed, those who give their name to the Masonic sect or to other associations of the same kind, which plot against the Church or legitimate civil powers either openly or secretly, incur an excommunication simply reserved to the Supreme Pontiff.20 Clerics and religious giving their name to associations of this kind are besides punished with other penalties and must be denounced to the Holy Office.21 All secret sects as such are already prohibited, even if they do not directly plot against the Church or civil government. Hence the sect whose name is "Independent Order of Good Templars" was proscribed by the Holy Office on August 9, 1893, although its principal end seems to be good, namely abstinence and temperance to be promoted.22 The Society of Fenians ("Fenians and Invincibles"), as plotting against legitimate civil authority, was proscribed by the Holy Office on January 12, 1870, under the penalty of excommunication in the same way as the Masonic sect.23 Notorious Freemasons cannot be admitted as sponsors in the sacrament of baptism or confirmation,24 nor can they be granted ecclesiastical burial unless due retraction has preceded.25 The faithful are to be deterred from marriages with them; moreover the pastor cannot assist at these marriages without the permission of the Ordinary.26 What things are to be required from Freemasons wishing to return into the bosom of the Church will be said in the treatise on censures.27
19 In a Masonic convention held at Geneva in the year 1902 Mayoux exclaimed: "We say that a Freemason can be a materialist, yes; that he can be a positivist, yes; that he can be a deist, spiritualist, yes; but that he be Catholic, Protestant, or Jew, never" (applause). Cf. Tanquerey, Synopsis Theol. mor. II, n. 666.
20 Cod. iur. can. c. 2335.
21 Ib. c. 2336.
22 Collect. de Prop. Fide n. 1845.
23 Collect. de Prop. Fide n. 1350.
24 Holy Office, July 5, 1878; Collect. n. 1495.
25 Holy Office, l. c.; Cod. iur. can. c. 1240.
26 Cod. iur. can. c. 1065.
27 Cf. below III, 516.
514. Heresy (Greek hairesis = selection) designates a sect which selects certain truths of faith and rejects others. Heresy considered objectively is a proposition which contradicts some article of faith, e.g. confirmation is not a sacrament; but heresy taken subjectively, or formal heresy, with which alone we are dealing here, can be defined: the pertinacious error of a Christian man against some truth of Catholic faith. Hence for formal heresy there are required error in the intellect and pertinacity in the will, so that a Christian man, i.e. one baptized, knowingly and voluntarily denies or calls into doubt some truth which the Catholic Church teaches as a dogma of faith. Hence a formal heretic is not:
He who from fear, levity, or another motive outwardly denies the faith, but inwardly retains the true faith. (But in the external forum even merely external heresy is gravely punished, because by it the precept of confessing faith is gravely injured.)
He who from ignorance, even gravely culpable ignorance,28 errs in faith; for pertinacity is lacking.
He who denies some truth which is indeed held by many as revealed, but which the Church has not yet proposed as revealed. Much less is he a heretic who denies some proposition which is only a theological conclusion.
Those who err in faith without pertinacity are accustomed to be called material heretics, provided, however, they are prepared to correct their error as soon as they have certainly recognized it. Not a few non-Catholics who from infancy have been reared in heresy and have never had any serious doubt about their religion are indeed materially heretics, but in reality belong to the Catholic Church, because they are validly baptized. In doubt whether someone is a material or formal heretic, he is to be judged a material heretic, and therefore in the article of death he can, provided scandal is absent, receive sacramental absolution,29 though not Holy Communion. Hence, e.g., if a confessor is called to a dying non-Catholic, he could with him elicit an act of faith in God one and triune, in Jesus Christ the redeemer and rewarder, then an act of contrition for all sins committed, and afterward conditionally impart absolution to him. Thus Lacroix apud Elbel, who says:30 "If a Catholic priest understands that a non-Catholic man has been brought to his last extremity, he acts prudently (unless something else should prevent it) by going to him, and with the same man eliciting acts of faith, hope, and charity, remaining in those [truths] which are common to us with heretics. If, however, the circumstances permit, he can afterward ask whether he would wish to embrace the saving faith, if he knew that he was not in the true faith; likewise whether he would wish to embrace all things necessary for salvation, to confess and to be absolved." On the contrary, if it is a question of heretics or schismatics who are not dying, it is forbidden to minister the sacraments of the Church to them unless first, their errors having been rejected, they have been reconciled to the Church.31
28 Several authors, such as Lugo (De fide disp. 20, sect. 6, n. 174), Banez, Suarez, Azor, etc., thought that any ignorance, even crass and affected ignorance, excused from heresy and the penalties of heretics. But such ignorance certainly is gravely sinful and injures the precept of knowing those things which are of faith, nor today does it excuse from the penalties laid against heretics.
29 Cf. Holy Office, July 20, 1898.
30 De fide, Conference I, n. 35.
31 Cod. iur. can. c. 731, § 2.
515. Divisions. Heresy is divided: a) into material and formal, about which it has already been said above. The first is involuntary error, or at least error without pertinacity; the other is voluntary and pertinacious error of a baptized man in faith.
b) Into internal and external. Internal heresy is error against faith existing in the mind alone, without being manifested by any external sign. External heresy is error against faith manifested by word or by another external sign.
c) Into occult and public. Thus external heresy is subdivided; it is occult if it becomes known to no one or to few; but if it is known to many, so that it can no longer be concealed, it is called public.
Note. For incurring the guilt of heresy internal voluntary heresy suffices; but for incurring the ecclesiastical penalties laid against heretics, external heresy at least occult is required and suffices. The reason is that the Church is not accustomed to punish except external acts. Hence if someone, e.g., freely and culpably thinks that the Supreme Pontiff lacks the gift of infallibility, he incurs grave guilt of heresy; but if he expresses the same heresy by some sign, even occult, he incurs besides the penalty of excommunication (the other requisites being posited).
516. Malice of heresy. 1. Formal heresy is a sin mortal from its whole genus, and therefore it does not admit smallness of matter.
The reason is that it contains formal contempt of the truthfulness and authority of God. Wherefore St. Thomas rightly writes:32 "Someone sins more gravely against faith who resists faith received than one who resists faith not yet received, just as one sins more gravely who does not fulfill what he promised than one who does not fulfill what he never promised.... Hence, speaking simply, the infidelity of heretics (and a fortiori the infidelity of apostates) is worst." Apostasy does not differ specifically from formal heresy, but is its very aggravating circumstance (as was already said above n. 509), especially if it is apostasy to Judaism or paganism.
- Material heresy is not a sin, because it is not voluntary.
32 S. theol. 2, 2, q. 10, a. 6.
517. Ecclesiastical penalties. Formal heretics and apostates who have manifested heresy publicly or at least externally incur:
Excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Supreme Pontiff in a special manner.33
Privation of benefices, dignities, pensions, offices, or other ecclesiastical functions, unless, having been admonished, they repent.34
Infamy of law and incapacity of giving a vote in ecclesiastical elections, if they have given their name to a heretical or schismatical sect or have publicly adhered to it.35
Deposition or degradation for clerics who, having been admonished, have not repented.36
Irregularity, both from delict37 and from defect, if they have given their name to a non-Catholic sect or have publicly adhered to it, on account of infamy of law.38
Privation of ecclesiastical burial. For notorious heretics are judged to be public sinners, to whom ecclesiastical burial is to be denied. The reason is that heretics, as being externally separated from the Church in life, also in death and in the cemetery cannot be joined with the Christian faithful.39
There are or have also been other penalties laid against heretics, which nevertheless are nothing other than consequences of the aforesaid penalties, and today are not reduced into practice, e.g. confiscation of goods, incarceration, beating. To judge and punish the crime of heresy, tribunals of the Inquisition had been instituted in antiquity. Not a few judges of those tribunals were slain by heretics in hatred of the faith (St. Peter Martyr, Bl. Antonius Pavonius, Bl. Bartholomaeus Savilianus). According to modern discipline, such tribunals of the Inquisition now no longer exist in the diverse parts of the world, but it belongs to bishops to watch in their own diocese over the purity of faith. But at Rome there exists the Congregation of the Holy Office, to which causes pertaining to faith are committed.
On absolution from the sin of heresy see the treatise on censures.
33 Cod. iur. can. c. 2314, § 1, n. 1.
34 Ib. n. 2.
35 Ib. and c. 167, § 1, n. 4. On account of infamy of law such heretics incur also other penalties, e.g. they are incapable of ecclesiastical offices and benefices (c. 2294), of the function of sponsor (cc. 765 and 795), of the personal right of patronage (c. 1453, § 1).
36 Ib. c. 2314.
37 Ib. c. 985, n. 1.
38 Ib. c. 984, n. 5.
39 c. 8, X 5, 7. Cod. iur. can. c. 1240, § 1, n. 1.
518. Scholion 1. On propositions qualified by a theological note. A formal heretic is he who pertinaciously denies some revealed truth, as has already been said. But sin is committed not only when a certainly revealed truth is rejected, but also when that is rejected which is, as it were, a consequence of those truths; and therefore the Vatican Council says: "Since indeed it is not enough to avoid heretical depravity, unless those errors also are diligently fled which more or less approach it, we admonish all of the duty of observing also the constitutions and decrees by which perverse opinions of this sort, which are not expressly enumerated here, have been proscribed and prohibited by this Holy See."40 The same thing Pius IX had already said before in the letter to the Archbishop of Munich, December 21, 1863, in these words: "Since there is question of that subjection by which all Catholics are bound in conscience, ... therefore the men of the same convention ought to recognize that for learned Catholics it is not enough that they receive and venerate the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that there is also need that they subject themselves both to decisions which, pertaining to doctrine, are set forth by the Pontifical Congregations, and to those heads of doctrine which are retained by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions so certain that opinions opposed to the same heads of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless merit another theological censure."41
Propositions opposed to Catholic doctrines are called:
a) Heretical, if they are directly opposed to a certainly revealed truth.
b) Proximate to heresy, which, although they are not opposed to a certainly revealed truth, nevertheless are opposed to doctrine which most theologians defend as pertaining to faith, e.g. he who asserts that the Pope errs in the canonization of saints.
c) Erroneous, which are opposed to a theological conclusion deduced from two premises, of which one is of faith and the other is certain by the light of natural reason, e.g. the Blessed Virgin descended carnally from Adam. Therefore she had the debt of contracting original sin (although by a special privilege she never in fact contracted original sin).
d) Proximate to error, which are opposed to a conclusion deduced from two premises, of which either the one is not certainly revealed or the other is not certainly evident, e.g. if someone asserted that no other sin excludes from heaven except sin committed from obstinate malice.
e) Temerarious, which either are opposed to the common doctrine of theologians or which the institutions and customs of the universal Church disapprove, e.g. if someone asserted that some other saint besides the Blessed Virgin was conceived without original sin.
Not rarely also other censures have been branded upon false propositions; e.g. they are called: offensive to pious ears, scandalous, blasphemous, seditious, captious, etc.42 All these indeed are understood easily enough. The general rule is: He who pertinaciously defends as true some proposition proscribed by the Church undoubtedly sins and is subject to ecclesiastical penalties43 (e.g. he is kept away from the ministry of preaching), yet he is not a heretic unless he voluntarily assents to a proposition truly heretical.
40 Const. "Dei Filius" at the end (Denz. n. 1820).
41 Denz. n. 1684.
42 Cf. De Groot, Summa apologetica q. 10, a. 5; J. Mayol O. Pr., Summa mor. circa Decal. disput. praelimin., a. 3.
43 Cod. iur. can. c. 2317.
519. Scholion 2. On the decisions of the Sacred Congregations in matters of faith. The Supreme Pontiff does not always judge about matters pertaining to faith and morals directly by himself, but quite often through the Roman Sacred Congregations, especially through the Holy Office; e.g. about the authenticity of the Johannine Comma, about the unlawfulness of craniotomy, etc. Certainly no Roman Congregation has the gift of infallibility; nevertheless, since according to the Code of Canon Law, c. 244, § 2, any resolutions of those Congregations, if they are of greater moment, receive Pontifical approbation, it would be temerarious and sinful either inwardly not to assent to them or outwardly to contradict them. Indeed, even those decisions of the Sacred Congregations which are not expressly approved by the Supreme Pontiff are to be received with great reverence, since they have been issued by most worthy ecclesiastical assemblies or tribunals.
520. Scholion 3. On doubt in faith. Since Catholic faith is most certain, there can never be present a just cause for calling it into doubt;44 and therefore every voluntary doubt about it is gravely sinful. Nevertheless the following things are to be attended to:
a) A Catholic who positively doubts some proposition which he certainly knows to have been proposed by the Church as an article of faith is a heretic.44a It is clear; for by such doubt the formal object of faith is destroyed, namely the infallibility of God revealing. Hence that adage: "One doubtful in faith is an unbeliever."
b) A Catholic who negatively doubts some article of faith, e.g. who suffers difficulties and grave temptations in believing which he does not sufficiently overcome, is not yet a heretic, since he is not pertinacious; nevertheless he is bound according to his powers to evade doubts of this kind. But if he conducts himself remissly, he sins venially or mortally, according to the danger of losing faith.
c) A non-Catholic who positively doubts about the truth of his sect is bound seriously to investigate the true religion. But if he neglects this, he does indeed sin, but he does not yet seem to be a formal heretic, since pertinacity in his error is lacking. Therefore he can be held as a material heretic (and consequently not bound by excommunication) as long as he has not certainly recognized the falsity of his sect and nevertheless refused to embrace the true faith. Since it is often difficult to determine whether error in faith is really pertinacious, to heretics returned into the bosom of the Church absolution is accustomed to be given from censures which perhaps they incurred.
Scholion 4. On blasphemy. As a sin opposed to confession of faith, blasphemy is adduced by the Angelic Doctor.45 But since blasphemy is also opposed to the virtue of religion, below II 529 sqq. in the treatise on the virtue of religion we shall deal with it.
44 Conc. Vat. sess. 3, cap. 3 (Denz. n. 1794).
44a Cf. Cod. iur. can. c. 1325, § 2.
45 S. theol. 2, 2, q. 13.