Chapter III. On the vices opposed to faith

509. Since faith is the foundation of the whole spiritual life, hence the vices which destroy or even weaken faith are most pernicious and open a broad way to all other vices. But as long as the sinner conserves faith, he retains in himself some divine seed and firm hope is present that at some time he may be brought to sincere conversion. Hence infidelity is deservedly called by St. Thomas,¹ after hatred of God, the gravest sin.

509. Sins against faith can be divided 1. into sins of omission and 2. into sins of commission.

1. By culpable omission someone sins against faith a) through omission of an act of internal or external faith (concerning these it has already been said in the preceding chapter); b) through voluntary ignorance of the truths of faith necessary to be known. Any man is bound to take care that he have sufficient knowledge of faith; and therefore he must sometimes hear sermons on Catholic doctrine, unless he is prepared to procure for himself from elsewhere the necessary notion of faith; this indeed will be difficult for simple faithful. Especially parents who send their children to non-Catholic schools, in which either no instruction or insufficient instruction in Catholic doctrine is handed down, sin gravely by this omission.

2. By commission someone can sin against faith in two ways, namely a) by excess and b) by defect.

a) By excess man sins against faith either by rash credulity or by superstition. He sins by rash credulity who admits things as pertaining to faith and the Christian religion, although they are not such, e.g. if someone lightly believes private revelations which are suspect and very doubtful. Hence St. John admonishes: "Dearly beloved, do not believe every spirit; but test the spirits, whether they are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world."²

Superstition, which is a certain protestation of infidelity through an exterior act,³ is opposed not only to the virtue of faith, but also to the virtue of religion, because it exhibits divine worship either to one to whom it ought not, or in the way in which it ought not. Superstition will be treated more fully below, II, 501 sqq., in the treatise on the virtue of religion.

b) By defect one sins against faith by infidelity. But infidelity is twofold: negative and positive. Negative infidelity (also called material infidelity) is the lack of faith in him to whom either faith has never been announced or has not been sufficiently announced; therefore it is involuntary infidelity. Positive infidelity (also called formal infidelity) is a culpable lack of faith in him who resists the assent of faith or contemns faith. The principal species of positive or formal infidelity are: paganism, Judaism, heresy. Thus St. Thomas,⁴ who writes: "Since the sin of infidelity consists in resisting faith, this can happen in two ways: because either one resists faith not yet received, and such infidelity is that of pagans or gentiles; or one resists the Christian faith received, either in figure, and thus it is the infidelity of the Jews, or in the very manifestation of truth, and thus it is the infidelity of heretics. Hence in general the three aforesaid species of infidelity can be assigned." Apostasy is reduced to heresy; it is a total falling away from faith in him who previously had the true faith.⁵ St. Thomas⁶ says: "Apostasy does not import a determinate species of infidelity, but a certain aggravating circumstance." Heresy strictly so called is the voluntary and pertinacious error of a baptized man against some truth of Catholic faith. From heresy schism is usually distinguished, which consists in pertinacious withdrawal from the obedience due to the Supreme Pontiff. Therefore schism is not directly opposed to faith, but almost always schismatics are also heretics, since they not only refuse obedience to the head of the Church, but also deny one or another article of faith (especially the primacy of the Supreme Pontiff).

St. Thomas⁷ teaches: "Heresy and schism are distinguished according to those things to which each is per se and directly opposed. For heresy per se is opposed to faith; but schism per se is opposed to the unity of ecclesiastical charity. And therefore just as faith and charity are diverse virtues, although whoever lacks faith lacks charity, so also schism and heresy are diverse vices, although whoever is a heretic is also a schismatic; but the reverse does not hold. And this is what St. Jerome⁸ says: 'Between schism and heresy I judge there to be this difference, that heresy has a perverse dogma, schism separates from the Church.' And nevertheless just as the loss of charity is the way to losing faith according to that: 'From which certain ones straying [namely from charity and other things of this kind] have turned aside into vain talking,'⁹ so also schism is the way to heresy. Hence Jerome adds in the same place that 'schism at the beginning can be understood in some part as diverse from heresy; for the rest, there is no schism which does not devise for itself some heresy, so that it may seem rightly to have withdrawn from the Church.'"

To apostasy from faith are reduced indifferentism, pantheism, materialism, skepticism, monism, etc., of a man previously educated Catholic.

In this chapter we shall treat 1. of paganism and Judaism, or of those who never received faith; 2. of apostasy from faith and of heresy; 3. of dangers of faith.

¹ Cf. S. theol. 2, 2, q. 34, a. 2 ad 1; q. 20, a. 3; q. 10, a. 3.

² 1 John 4, 1.

³ S. theol. 2, 2, q. 94, a. 1 ad 1.

⁴ Ib. q. 10, a. 5. Modern authors distinguish infidelity properly and improperly so called. "Infidelity properly so called is the lack of faith in a non-baptized man; for an unbeliever is properly called one who has not received the infused habit of faith. Infidelity improperly so called is any defect of internal faith, in which sense it comprehends also heresy and apostasy from faith." Thus Noldin, De praeceptis n. 26. Although in vernacular languages the unbaptized and they alone are usually regarded as unbelievers, nevertheless there is no reason why in moral Theology we should withdraw from the terminology used by St. Thomas and other older theologians.

⁵ Cf. Cod. iur. can. c. 1325, § 2.

⁶ S. theol. 2, 2, q. 12, a. 1 ad 3.

⁷ Ib. q. 39, a. 1 ad 3.

⁸ Comm. in epist. ad Tit. 3, 10.

⁹ 1 Tim. 1, 6.