Case 4. Non-catholics and the Law of the Church

Julia, a Catholic matron, asked her confessor whether it is lawful to provide meat for Protestants on days of abstinence. For sometimes, as she says, she has Protestant guests, either relatives or friends, who remain with her at home for several days; and if a day of abstinence occurs, she is accustomed to leave meat on a side table so that they may take it if they wish. This manner of acting, as is evident, has its inconveniences; and therefore, if it is lawful, she would like politely to invite them to eat meat on days of abstinence. Hence it is asked:

1. Who are subject to a law?

2. Are heretics and schismatics subject to ecclesiastical laws?

3. Is it lawful to cooperate in another’s sin, whether formal or material?

4. What is to be said concerning the case?

1. Who are subject to a law so as to be bound to obey it?

All those and only those are bound to obey a law who are subject to the authority of the lawgiver. It is he who imposes the obligation, and he can only bind those who are subject to his authority.¹

1 Bucceroni, vol. i, no. 192.

2. Are heretics and schismatics subject to ecclesiastical laws?

The Church certainly has power to bind all those who are validly baptized, for by baptism they become subject to her authority. They will in general be excused from formal transgression on account of ignorance when they violate ecclesiastical law which they do not recognize. Moreover, many approved authors hold that it is not the intention of the Church to bind heretics and schismatics by such laws as are designed directly to procure the spiritual good of souls, such as laws imposing fasting, abstinence, and the observance of holy-days. It is the intention of the Church to bind them by the diriment impediments of marriage unless in a particular case she exempts them, as she does with regard to clandestinity.¹

1 Cavagnis, Instit. Jur. Can., vol. i, n. 566.

3. Is it lawful to co-operate either in the formal or in the material sin of another?

There can not be formal co-operation in another's sin without willing that sin, and, as this is sinful, formal co-operation in the sin of another, whether formal sin or material, is never lawful. Material co-operation in an act of another which is not necessarily sinful in itself, though as put by the other party it is sinful, is allowed, provided that there be good and proportionate reasons for it, and provided that the sin of the other party is not intended, and provided also that the co-operator is not bound by a special obligation to prevent the act.

4. The case. Julia, a Catholic, has been accustomed to leave flesh-meat on a side-table on days of abstinence when she has non-Catholic guests, so that they might help themselves to meat if they chose to do so. In this way she got over the difficulty she felt about inviting them expressly to eat flesh-meat on days when the Church forbids flesh-meat. However, the method had its drawbacks, and so she asked her confessor whether she might expressly invite them to take flesh-meat. From what has been said above it is plain that she may, for in all probability the Church does not intend to bind non-Catholics by such laws. A faculty is sometimes granted to bishops to enable them to allow their subjects to offer meat to non-Catholic guests on days of abstinence, but, as Putzer remarks, such a faculty is not strictly necessary.¹

1 Putzer, Comment. in Facult. Apost., p. 312.