Chapter II: On Other Sins Against Faith

— By the will of not believing with supernatural faith even those things whose revelation has been sufficiently proposed, there is constituted a sin directly contrary to faith, necessarily grave, by which the sinner is despoiled of the habit itself of faith.

But several other sins, of various gravity, can be committed against faith.

1. Sin is committed by omission of the profession of faith prescribed by divine or ecclesiastical law; - by omission of an act of faith to be elicited from divine law; - by omission of diligence in acquiring a relatively sufficient knowledge of faith; - by omission of diligence in seeking the true religion.

These sins, grave in their own genus, can be excused from mortal sin not only by error of conscience, but also by smallness of matter.

Sin is committed by external denial of faith or shame concerning it. Denial is grave in its whole genus; not so shame.

Sin is committed by rashness or imprudence by which faith is exposed to danger.

— You ask in what way he sins who rejects definitions concerning truths not revealed, or defends propositions noted below heresy?

1. From dogmatic theology we know that the infallibility of the Church extends to truths which, although they are not contained in the deposit of faith, are nevertheless so connected with the same that without them that deposit would not be safe. Although these cannot be believed by divine faith, nevertheless the virtue of divine faith renders obedience, even internal obedience, necessary to definitions of this kind. That obedience is called religious-Catholic. The motive of assent is infallible authority, constituted by God, to which we are all subject. Some use the words ecclesiastical faith.

Therefore, he who knowingly rejects an infallible declaration sins gravely by a sin of disobedience or rebellion toward the Church: which sin is opposed to the very virtue of faith, since our very subjection is prescribed for safeguarding faith. Cf. Palmieri, Op. theol., t. 2, tr. 5, c. 4, n. 106.

2. A proposition condemned as scandalous, savoring of heresy or error, offensive to pious ears, is not necessarily false. Then directly only the enunciation of the thesis is proscribed. Wherefore he who professes it sins against religion, while he refuses obedience to the religious power: which obedience is necessary from religion; he sins against charity, insofar as he is a scandal to others, or weakens the unity of the Church; finally he sins against the virtue which that proposition directly harms. Cf. Lehmkuhl, I, 418.

3. Even if the condemnation has proceeded from a non-infallible authority, for example, from a Sacred Roman Congregation, besides the external disobedience against religion which is committed by defending and professing the proscribed theses, for the most part sin is also committed by rashness through internal dissent, except in some rare case where assent can prudently be suspended until infallible authority has pronounced on the matter. Cf. Lehmkuhl, I, 419, and the things said I, 317. - Suarez, De Fide, d. 19, and Lugo, De Fide, d. 20, n. 133, treat of this question.

N. B. The Code, c. 2317, strikes with grave penalties, but ferendae sententiae, those who pertinaciously, whether publicly or privately, teach or defend doctrine condemned by the Apostolic See (that is, by the Roman Pontiff or by a Sacred Roman Congregation; cf. c. 7) or by a General Council, but not as formally heretical; and c. 2331 § 1 likewise says that he is to be punished with suitable penalties who pertinaciously does not obey the Roman Pontiff or his own Ordinary when they legitimately prescribe or prohibit something.

2. What the individual notes signify is proposed in dogmatic theology. Lehmkuhl, I, 116, sets forth the matter in summary this way: "Erroneous is opposed to a thesis theologically certain, or to one which, by means of another truth (naturally certain), certainly follows from revealed doctrine." He who sustains it is suspected of heresy and is presumed a heretic.

Near to heresy is that which is not only erroneous, but is also opposed to a thesis which is called next to faith, because it is held as revealed by many, yet not by all.

"Near to error is opposed to that which is gathered most probably from revealed doctrine."

Rash is opposed to the common doctrine of theologians, which is deserted without solid reasons and therefore rashly.

— You ask concerning the sin of him who adheres to liberalism.

1. Even setting aside extreme liberalism, which in reality is the same as pantheism or rationalism, objectively he is a heretic who either fully embraces the doctrine of liberalism, even that which they call milder, or holds its chief heads: for example, the full independence, in Christian society, of the State from the Church and the subjection of the Church under the authority of the State. For this is altogether repugnant to the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and to the magisterium of the Church here on earth: both of which are dogmas of faith. Cf. Palmieri, Op. theol., t. 2, tr. 5, c. 4, n. 107.

2. He who holds only the secondary heads of liberalism will be objectively a heretic or not according to the quality of his error. Thus he will be a heretic who denies that the doctrine concerning the sacrament of matrimony is to be held by faith (cf. propositions 65, 66, 68, 73 of the Syllabus); he will not yet be a heretic if he absolutely defends the present opportuneness of the "modern" liberties against proposition 77 of the Syllabus. In doubt, what is minimum is to be held. Yet he sins against faith, because for the most part he will defend a doctrine reprobated by the infallible magisterium.

3. Subjectively, not rarely, because of ignorance, even though often gravely culpable, the liberal will be excused from formal heresy. In certain points, for example in relations between the Church and the State, he can more easily be in good faith.

4. The confessor, from the subjective state, will judge concerning the guilt and concerning the censure of the penitent. If he has detected good faith in a man who otherwise satisfies the duties of Christian life, the quality of the error under which he labors, the greater or lesser scandal which he has given, the hoped-for fruit and the harm to be feared from the error being denounced will teach him the prudent norm of questioning and admonishing. Cf. Palmieri, l. c. n. 103-108. Cf. the encyclical Libertas of Leo XIII, 20 June 1888.

— A similar question which can be raised concerning socialism is to be solved in almost the same way. There is a certain integral socialism, which sends religion away to private life, rejects authority, and repudiates marriage for free love: and this cannot be defended without heresy.

But restricted to external temporal goods and their possessions, it puts forth some tenets which are certainly condemned by the infallible magisterium of the Church, as if you should deny that external things which are a source of revenues can be justly possessed. But other tenets, by which, the previous order not being reprobated, a new order, a new regime of goods is proclaimed, are to be examined more cautiously. For besides rash and to-be-rejected points, they easily contain points which can either be disputed or even usefully introduced by a legitimate way.

The very coerced adherence of many workers to socialistic societies will move us so that in confession we act prudently, lest we sin either by scandalous connivance or by destructive severity. The instructions of the Ordinaries of places must also be diligently attended to.

— Besides contrary infidelity, which is committed by a will excluding faith, sin can be committed: a) by various omissions of the profession of faith, of acts of faith, of diligence in the knowledge of faith, in seeking the true faith: which sins are grave in their own genus; b) then by denial (always grave) of faith, by shame concerning faith; c) by rashness and imprudence in reading to be done, in frequenting companions by whom faith is exposed to danger.

To the virtue itself of faith is opposed the grave sin of disobedience committed by him who knowingly rejects infallible declarations, even outside faith strictly so called; for the most part he also sins by rashness who internally dissents from doctrinal decrees of a Sacred Roman Congregation, besides the sin of external disobedience, which also is dangerous to faith. He who violates decrees by which the propositions themselves or at least their enunciations are condemned sins variously, but not necessarily against faith.

One adhering to liberalism, even if he is not always objectively a heretic, is convicted of sinning against faith. Yet a prudent confessor will consider the subjective persuasion and all the circumstances, so that from them he may gather the manner of questioning and admonishing.

In almost the same way the question concerning socialism is to be solved theoretically and practically.