Apostasy from Faith and on Heresy

28. Apostasy from faith is a total defection from faith in him who had received the true faith through baptism; therefore those who have professed heresy from infancy, faith having been altogether cast aside, are not apostates, but only those who once embraced the true faith.¹

In order that someone be an apostate from faith, it is not required that he adhere to some false sect, but it suffices that after baptism received in the Catholic Church he entirely fall away from faith; wherefore rationalists, naturalists, free thinkers, etc., who have entirely withdrawn from faith and manifest this externally, are judged to be apostates.

¹ From apostasy from faith, three other kinds are distinguished: apostasy from religion, which is withdrawal from a religious order without the intention of returning. A religious who only for a time wanders in the world by his own authority with the intention of returning is called a fugitive. Apostasy from sacred order, which is defection from sacred order with the intention of living in the lay state. Apostasy from obedience, which is total defection from obedience to the supreme pontiff and the Church; such apostasy is schism.

29. Heresy is defined: the voluntary and pertinacious error of a Christian man against a truth of faith.

a. It is said: a. "Of a Christian man," namely of one who through baptism had received the Christian faith and retains it; for if he rejects it totally, and the true faith, he becomes an apostate. b. "Voluntary error": heresy by its nature demands a positive assent contrary to the truth of faith; therefore he who only externally, by speech or work, denies a truth of faith while internal faith is retained is not a heretic. c. "Pertinacious": for formal heresy there is required pertinacity of the will against the authority of the Church, which proposes revealed truths to be believed; but he is pertinacious who knowingly opposes the authority of the Church, whether this happens from vainglory, or from the desire of contradicting, or from levity, or from any other cause. Therefore in order that someone be pertinacious it is not required that he defend his opinion stubbornly and with a certain delay of time, but it suffices that he know this opinion to be contrary to the definition of the Church. d. "Against a truth of faith": namely one which has been proposed by the Church to be believed; wherefore, strictly speaking, they are not heretics who deny a theological conclusion which in itself has not been revealed by God; nor those who affirm a proposition condemned by the Church or by the supreme pontiff, but not as heretical. Here it must be noted that the Church proposes as to be believed all things which are contained in Sacred Scripture as revealed; wherefore he is a heretic who denies a revealed truth manifestly contained in Sacred Scripture.

b. So long as someone retains the will of submitting himself to the authority of the Church, even if he errs in faith or holds an opinion contrary to faith, he is not a heretic, because he is not pertinacious, but acknowledges the infallible authority of the Church. From these things it is gathered to what extent those who adhere to a false sect are heretics. Namely, a child born in heresy but validly baptized belongs to the true Church of Christ, which alone has true baptism. When in heart he embraces the faith of his sect and begins to frequent its religious rites, he becomes a material heretic and remains such so long as either he does not doubt concerning the truth of his religion, or indeed doubts, but omits the investigation of truth only from negligence and carelessness, or from human fear lest he have to believe the truth once found, which he would not dare to embrace. He becomes a formal heretic when, seriously doubting concerning the truth of his religion, he neglects the investigation of truth for this reason, that he refuses to embrace the Catholic religion if perchance it were true, or does not embrace the Catholic religion which he knows to be true.

To discern a formal heretic from a material heretic, he is to be asked: a. whether he apprehended the obligation of inquiring into the truth; b. whether he investigated the truth or neglected the investigation; c. whether he was prepared to embrace the truth as soon as it had been sufficiently proposed.

c. He who knowingly denies a dogma which is believed by all, or who deliberately embraces an opinion which he knows to be contrary to the definition of the Church, by that very fact contemns the authority of that same Church, even if he does not think explicitly about it: for it is impossible that he not advert to it at least virtually.

30. Heresy is divided: a. Into material heresy, which proceeds from ignorance alone without pertinacity of the will, and formal heresy, which is joined with pertinacity of the will. Formal heresy is defined above; material heresy is to be defined: the voluntary error of a Christian man against a truth of faith.

b. Into internal heresy, which is conceived only interiorly in the mind, and external heresy, which is also outwardly manifested; moreover it can be manifested by words or deeds or even by omission of a deed.

c. External heresy is one thing when public, if it is manifested before several persons, and another when occult, if it is uttered with no one present or before only a few, so that it can still be hidden.

31. Moral and specific malice. 1. Formal heresy and apostasy from faith are sins mortal from their whole genus, after formal hatred of God the gravest, graver than all sins which are committed against the moral virtues: for they contain formal contempt of the wisdom and divine veracity.

2. Material heresy is free from fault before a reasonable doubt concerning the truth of one's own sect has arisen; after such a doubt has arisen, it is a grave or light sin according to the gravity of the negligence in inquiring into truth.

3. Heresy and apostasy do not differ specifically, because both apostasy and heresy are morally opposed in the same way to the authority of God speaking; therefore the fact that the apostate denies more truths and the heretic fewer is only an aggravating circumstance.

4. Diverse heresies, whether conceived interiorly in the mind or outwardly uttered by word, do not differ in species for the same reason, namely because each one contemns the same authority of God speaking in the same moral way.

32. Whether he sins against faith who does not reject a proposition proscribed by the Church.

a. He who does not reject a proposition which the Church condemns as heretical sins gravely against divine faith and is a heretic.

b. He who does not reject a proposition which the Church through a council, or through the Roman pontiff speaking ex cathedra, condemns, but not as heretical, sins gravely against ecclesiastical faith, but not, at least not immediately, against divine faith, and therefore is not a heretic.

A proposition which the Church proscribes in this way is indeed certainly false, because the Church is certainly infallible in proscribing these things. Therefore he who does not reject a condemned proposition of this kind virtually denies the infallibility of the Church. But because it is not of faith that the Church is infallible in those things which are not revealed, therefore he does not sin against divine faith.

c. He who does not reject a proposition which the Church, either through some congregation or through the Roman pontiff, but not speaking ex cathedra, condemns, sins gravely against the faith of obedience, or against the obedience which is owed to the authority of the teaching Church, but he does not sin against faith.

Although doctrinal decrees of this kind are not absolutely infallible, nevertheless they surpass any authority of a private man, because the supreme pontiff has been placed by Christ the Lord to rule the Church by his supreme magisterium. Therefore it does not suffice to offer them external assent, namely by saying or writing nothing against them, but all Christians are bound to embrace them with internal assent, which the Church by that very fact requires from her subjects, because by her doctrinal authority she condemns error and proposes truth. The Vatican Council intimates this in these words: "We admonish all of the duty of observing also the constitutions and decrees by which depraved opinions have been proscribed and prohibited by this Holy See."¹

Note. To the truths which merit ecclesiastical faith, though others think obedience, belongs that by which we believe that the fire of hell is real, not metaphorical. This truth is therefore to be noted explicitly, because not long ago the Holy See declared that penitents who do not admit the reality of the fire of hell are to be diligently instructed, and the pertinacious are not to be absolved,² without, however, the use of the rule being prohibited concerning not admonishing a penitent who errs in good faith, where no fruit can be hoped for and likewise no scandal or common detriment is feared. The assent of obedience is owed also to decrees of beatification of the servants of God and to decrees by which books are prohibited with respect to the doctrines which are reproved in them.

¹ Constitution De fide catholica, c. 4.

² S. Poenitentiaria, 30 Apr. 1890.

32. On private revelations.* a. There are private revelations about which ecclesiastical authority has rendered no judgment; and there are private revelations which have been approved by the Apostolic See. Approbations are of two kinds: some revelations are approved only for the effect of the beatification and canonization of servants and handmaids of God. Approbation in this case is merely negative, signifying that nothing is contained in them which is against faith or good morals; but concerning their divine origin the Church determines nothing. Of this kind are the revelations granted to those on whom afterwards the honors of the heavenly ones have been conferred. Other revelations are positively approved, in that ecclesiastical authority explicitly or implicitly decrees that a revelation has truly been made by God to a determinate person: of this kind is the revelation granted to St. Francis of Assisi, to Juliana of Liege, to Margaret Alacoque, and to the virgin of Lourdes.

b. Private revelations positively approved by the Holy See must be admitted by the assent of obedience: for although they are confirmed by ecclesiastical authority, nevertheless they are not infallibly certain, and therefore they merit only human faith; and concerning these it is permitted to doubt, indeed even to deny them, provided sufficient reasons shine forth. Concerning other private revelations, whether they have been negatively approved or not, let these things be noted: a. By the persons to whom they are granted by God, they can and must be believed by divine faith, if they are persuaded concerning divine revelation, which also holds for the former kind; but others cannot believe them except by human faith, yet they ought not believe them, both because they do not pertain to them, and because they can scarcely ever have certainty concerning them, not even when they are approved by the Church: for the approbation of the Church declares only this, that they are not opposed to faith and good morals, and therefore can be made public for the edification of the faithful. b. If from the rules of sound criticism it is established that they are genuine, it is not permitted to despise them, but according to the rules of prudence they are to be admitted. Therefore he who without sufficient reason denies them acts rashly and imprudently, both because even private revelations often present truths most profound and most useful, and because they can be the word of God; nevertheless he does not sin gravely.

Schism is defined as separation from the unity of the Church, insofar as this is a society consisting of the faithful as members and of the Roman pontiff as head. They are called schismatics who refuse to be subject to the Roman pontiff and refuse to communicate with the members of the Church subject to him.

Schism properly is not a sin against faith, yet practically it is scarcely found without the sin of heresy, because schismatics at the same time deny one or another dogma of faith, for example, the primacy of the Roman pontiff. Schism is a special sin against charity, because it separates from the unity of the Church, which charity makes.

Opposed to the virtue of faith are doubt, heresy, infidelity, schism, apostasy, and superstition.

1. DOUBT.—Doubt is the state of a mind hesitating whether to give assent to a truth or to withhold it.¹ As the formal object or motive of religious faith is the infallible authority of God, it would be irrational, and therefore sinful, to doubt anything that is contained in divine Revelation.

¹ Cfr. John Rickaby, S.J., First Principles of Knowledge (Stonyhurst Series), p. 44.

“The faithful,” says the Catechism of the Council of Trent, “can have no doubt touching those things of which God, who is truth itself, is the author. Hence we understand how great is the difference between this faith which we have in God, and that which we yield to the writers of human history.”²

² Cat. Rom., P. I, c. 1, qu. 1: “No doubt can occur to the faithful concerning those things of which God, who is truth itself, is the author. From this it is evident how great a difference there is between this faith which we have in God and that which we give to human histories.”

To doubt a doctrine which cannot stand the test of reason, either because it is not proposed by legitimate authority, or because all or some part of it is contradictory, is morally licit. Consequently, doubt is not forbidden per se, that is, not every kind of doubt is sinful, but there is a doubt that is reasonable and permissible.

A distinction must therefore be drawn between speculative doubt (also called theoretical or negative) and practical or positive doubt. The former has its origin in the intellect. When it is not directed against the substance of a revealed truth, but merely against the form in which that truth is couched, or against the arguments alleged in its support, or when it questions whether the dogma under consideration is really revealed by God or not, doubt is no sin, but rather a legitimate weapon against credulity, superstition, and intellectual sloth, and may prove an incitement to penetrate more deeply into the teaching of religion. When, on the other hand, a man harbors doubts against a truth of which he knows that, because proposed by the Church, it is surely contained in divine Revelation, he commits a sin, either of heresy or of infidelity.

Practical or positive doubt arises from the heart. It is the state of mind of him who, in the words of Jesus Christ, will not believe because he loves darkness rather than light.³ This kind of doubt is the product of a corrupt heart and logically leads to a denial of the faith and, in the end, to infidelity. “He that is of God, heareth the words of God; therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God.”⁴

³ John III, 19.

⁴ John VIII, 47; XVIII, 37; Rom. III, 4; IV, 19–22; 1 Thess. V, 21; Tit. II, 2.—Conc. Vatic., Sess. III, c. 3.—St. Anselm, De Fide Trin., c. 2: “For no Christian ought to dispute how that which the Catholic Church believes in her heart and confesses with her mouth is not so; but, always holding the same faith without doubt, loving it, and living according to it, he should humbly seek, as far as he can, a reason for how it is so. If he can understand, let him give thanks to God; if he cannot, let him not thrust in his horns for butting, but bow his head in veneration.” (Migne, P. L., CLVIII, 262).

There is a third species of doubt which is to be regarded as a temptation and is not sinful so long as the mind withholds assent. This form of quasi-doubt is sometimes a trial inflicted by God, sometimes the result of natural causes, physical or intellectual, and sometimes the product of carelessness, pride, self-conceit, or the sign of a secret repugnance to the truths of faith. It should be treated like scrupulousness, to which it is related.⁵

⁵ See this Handbook, Vol. I, pp. 199 sqq.—Cfr. F. Hense, Die Versuchungen, 3rd ed., pp. 237 sqq.; C. Krieg, Wissenschaft der Seelenleitung, Vol. I, Freiburg 1904, pp. 242 sqq.

2. HERESY.—Heresy (αἵρεσις, from αἱρεῖσθαι, to choose) is error repugnant to the faith, pertinaciously held (error pertinax) by one who professes the Christian religion. It may be negative or positive. Negative heresy implies a denial of, or refusal to accept, a truth proposed by the Catholic Church; positive heresy asserts as a revealed truth something which the Church does not teach as such.

Heresy, again, may be internal or it may be external. It is internal (haeresis interna) if held purely as a matter of conviction; external (haeresis externa) if expressed in words or manifested by deeds.⁶

⁶ Cfr. Acts XXIV, 5; XXVI, 5; 1 Tim. I, 3; IV, 2; 2 John X; Gal. I, 6–9; Tit. I, 11.—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 11, art. 1.

Formal heresy involves rebellion against God and is a very grievous sin because it destroys the foundation of the means of salvation. “A man that is a heretic,” says the Apostle, “after the first and second admonition, avoid, knowing that he, that is such a one, is subverted and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.”⁷ “To have erred,” declares St. Augustine, “is human; pertinaciously to persevere in error is diabolical.”⁸

⁷ Tit. III, 10 sq.

⁸ Serm., 164 (al. 22, De Verbis Apost.), c. 10, n. 14: “To err was human; to remain in error through obstinacy is diabolical.” (Migne, P. L., XXXVIII, 901).—Cfr. A. Seitz, Die Heilsnotwendigkeit der Kirche, pp. 83 sqq.

Material heresy (haeresis materialis) is the error of those who do not pertinaciously reject the teaching of the Church, but err in good faith, i. e., sincerely desirous of knowing the truth. This kind of heresy is sinful only when the error is inexcusable. A non-Catholic who is in good faith and believes that he has the true religion, lives in a state of excusable error. If serious doubts arise in his mind concerning the truth of what he believes, he is bound to enquire, and if his enquiry results in the conviction that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ, he must give up his erroneous belief, else his heresy will cease to be material and become formal. For every honest man is obliged to renounce, both internally and externally, a religion which he recognizes as false and to accept that which his conscience tells him is true. He who knowingly persists in religious error incurs the condemnation of Christ, who says: “He that shall be ashamed of me and of my words, in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of man also will be ashamed of him, when He shall come in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”⁹

⁹ Mark VIII, 38; cfr. John XII, 48.

A heresy is never formal, or grievously sinful, if it involves no real error against the faith (positivus assensus falsi seu dissensus veri), or if the holder is not a professed Christian, or the error is not deliberate and pertinacious.¹⁰ Involuntary error or error based upon ex- cusable ignorance is not even venially sinful. The distinctive mark of formal heresy, therefore, is wilful and obstinate rejection of a Catholic dogma. Hence the declaration of sincere Catholic writers: “I may err, but I shall never be a heretic.”¹¹

¹⁰ Cfr. St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, l. XVIII, c. 51, n. 1: “Heretics [are] those who under the Christian name resist Christian doctrine.” (Migne, P. L., XLI, 612).—IDEM, Epist., 43 (al. 162), c. 1, n. 1: “Those who defend their opinion, however false and perverse, with no obstinate animosity, especially an opinion which the audacity of their own presumption did not produce, but which they received from parents seduced and fallen into error, and who seek the truth with cautious solicitude, ready to be corrected when they have found it, are by no means to be numbered among heretics.” (P. L., XXXIII, 160).—IDEM, De Gestis Pelagii, c. 6, n. 18: “It matters how much, it matters whence, finally it matters whether, upon being admonished, he corrects it, or by obstinately defending it even makes into a dogma what he had said through levity, not as a dogma. Therefore, although every heretic is consequently also a fool, not every fool is immediately to be called a heretic.” (P. L., XLIV, 351).—IDEM, De Anima, l. III, c. 15, n. 23: “These things, if each is defended obstinately, can make as many heresies as there are opinions numbered.” (P. L., XLIV, 522).—IDEM, De Bapt. contra Donat., l. IV, c. 16, n. 23: “I do not yet call him a heretic, unless, after Catholic doctrine has been manifested to him, he chooses to resist the faith and chooses that which he held.” (P. L., XLIII, 169).—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 5, art. 3.—A. Seitz, Die Heilsnotwendigkeit der Kirche, pp. 59 sqq., 89 sqq.

¹¹ Cfr. St. Celestine I, Epist., 25, n. 3: “Nor shall I give to this perfidy the name of error; not every impiety is error.” (Migne, P. L., L, 550).—Conc. Lateran. IV., c. 2 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 432).—Cicero, Phil., XII, 2: “It belongs to any man to err; to none but a fool to persevere in error.”—A. M. Weiss, O. P., Lutherpsychologie, 2nd ed., pp. 29 sq.

As against heretical errors, the teaching of the Church is called by St. Paul “sound doctrine” or “the sound word.”¹² “Heretics,” says St. Ignatius of Antioch, “are scarcely to be cured; there is one physician, ... Jesus Christ our Lord.”¹³

¹² 1 Tim. I, 10; Tit. I, 9; II, 1, 8; cfr. 2 Tim. II, 17.

¹³ Epist. ad Ephes., c. 7 (Funk, Patres Apost., Vol. I, 2nd ed., p. 218, 17).

The chief sources of heresy are ignorance and pride.¹⁴ St. Augustine says that if there were no pride in the hearts of men, there would be neither heresy nor schism.¹⁵ It seems strange to have this truth confirmed by Martin Luther. “Every heretic and proud man,” he says in his commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, written while he was still a Catholic, “is first misled by ignorance of the divine truth. Then he accepts as true what seems to him to be true, and is already trapped, because he proceeds securely, as if he were true and free, beyond snares and imprisonment. In course of time he objects to everything that does not suit him and turns away his ears. Finally he gets angry and zealously defends the creatures of his brain, persecuting his opponents, slandering them, and inflicting all manner of injury upon them. The consequence is that he becomes utterly blind and cannot see what others see, and while all the rest rise up, he remains lying on the ground, defending his opinions.”¹⁶

¹⁴ Cfr. Matt. VII, 15 sq.; XV, 14; XXIII, 2 sqq.; Luke VI, 39; Acts XX, 29 sq.; Col. II, 8.

¹⁵ De Vera Religione, c. 25, n. 47: “If this [pride] did not exist, there would be neither heretics nor schismatics, nor those circumcised in the flesh, nor worshippers of creatures and images.” (Migne, P. L., XXXIV, 142).—IDEM, Enarr. in Ps., 124, n. 5: “Do not think, brethren, that heresies could arise through certain small souls. None but great men have made heresies; but the greater they were, so much the more evil were those men.” (P. L., XXXVII, 1652).—IDEM, ibid., 134, n. 18: “There are learned men who afflict the Church by making schisms and heresies.” (P. L., XXXVII, 1750).—IDEM, ibid., 106, n. 14: “They [the heretics] are leaders, they are learned, they are great, they are precious stones.” (P. L., XXXVII, 1429).—IDEM, Serm., 46 (al. 165, De Temp.), c. 8, n. 18: “In different places there are different sects, but one mother, pride, has begotten them all.” (P. L., XXXVIII, 280).

¹⁶ Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, fol. 241b, apud Denifle, Luther und Luthertum, Vol. I, 2nd ed., p. 478.

3. INFIDELITY.—By infidelity (ἀπείθεια, infidelitas) we mean an absolute lack of faith in the Christian religion.

a) If this lack of faith arises from invincible ignorance, it is called negative and is no sin, but merely an evil or a penalty of sin. If, on the other hand, infidelity arises from unwillingness to know or accept the truths of Revelation (infidelitas positiva), it is per se sinful. “If I had not come and spoken to them,” says our Divine Saviour, “they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.”¹⁷

¹⁷ John XV, 22.—Cfr. Prop. Damnat. Baii, n. 68: “Purely negative infidelity in those to whom Christ has not been preached is a sin.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1068).—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 10, art. 1: “Infidelity can be taken in two ways: in one way according to pure negation, so that one is called an unbeliever from this alone, that he does not have faith; in another way infidelity can be understood according to contrariety to faith, whereby, namely, someone resists the hearing of the faith or even despises it; and in this the nature of infidelity is properly completed, and according to this infidelity is a sin. But if it is taken according to pure negation, as in those who have heard nothing of the faith, it does not have the nature of sin, but rather of punishment, because such ignorance of divine things followed from the sin of our first parent.”

Positive infidelity, as a rule, amounts to more than mere negation; it opposes to the true faith, which it rejects, some false doctrine of its own invention. Its sources are ignorance, pride, sensuality, and malice.¹⁸ The degree of sinfulness involved in each case is to be measured by the gravity of the underlying cause.

¹⁸ Cfr. Luke XVI, 27–31; John III, 19 sq.; V, 44–47; VIII, 42–47; X, 24–26; Eph. IV, 17–19; 1 Tim. I, 19 sq.—P. Segneri, Incredulus non Excusabilis, Dillingen 1696.—A. Guyot, Les Causes de l’Incredulité, 6th ed., Paris 1904.—A. Kirchberger, Der Unglaube und die Vernunft, Ravensburg 1907.—Pohle-Preuss, God: His Knowability, Essence, and Attributes, 4th ed., St. Louis 1921, pp. 52 sq.

The sinfulness of infidelity may be judged from what has been said above¹⁹ on the necessity of faith. The subjective guilt involved in each case varies according to the degree of consciousness and pertinacity with which the truth is rejected and is objectively graver if it disfigures the truths it denies.²⁰

¹⁹ Supra, pp. 6 sqq.

²⁰ St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 10, art. 3: “Every sin formally consists in turning away from God. Hence a sin is the graver, the more a man is separated from God through it. But through infidelity man is especially removed from God, because he does not have a true knowledge of God; and through a false knowledge of Him he does not approach Him but is removed farther from Him. Nor can it be that one who has a false opinion of God knows Him in some respect, because that which he supposes is not God. Hence it is manifest that the sin of infidelity is greater than all sins which occur in the perversity of morals. It is otherwise with the sins opposed to the other theological virtues.”

Infidelity is really the most grievous of all sins because by it a man departs farther than by any other sin from God, who is man’s last end.²¹ The terrible consequences of unbelief are variously described in Holy Writ. “He that believeth not shall be condemned;”²²—“He that believeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him;”²³—“If you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin;”²⁴—“The wrath of God cometh upon the children of unbelief,”²⁵ etc.

²¹ St. Augustine, Tr. in Ioa., 89, n. 1: “He wishes a certain great sin to be understood, not every sin as though under a general name. For this is the sin by which all sins are held fast; if anyone does not have it, all sins are forgiven him.” (Migne, P. L., XXXV, 1856).

²² Mark XVI, 16.

²³ John III, 36.

²⁴ John VIII, 24; XII, 48; Rom. XI, 20.

²⁵ Col. III, 6; Heb. III, 18; Apoc. XXI, 8.

b) There are various forms of infidelity.

α) Indifferentism (latitudinarianismus), or carelessness in religious matters, based upon the assumption that all religions, or at least all Christian denominations, are equally true or equally false (theoretical indifferentism),²⁶ or sloth in the fulfilment of the duties imposed by religion (practical indifferentism).²⁷

²⁶ 2 Cor. VI, 14–16.—Encyclical of Pius IX, Dec. 9, 1846: “To this pertains that horrible system of indifference concerning any religion, most repugnant even to the natural light of reason, by which those deceivers, having abolished every distinction between virtue and vice, truth and error, decency and disgrace, imagine that men can attain eternal salvation in the worship of any religion whatsoever, just as though there could ever be any fellowship of justice with iniquity, any society of light with darkness, or any agreement of Christ with Belial.” (Syllab. Error., n. 15–18; Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1715 sqq.).

²⁷ Apoc. III, 15 sq.

β) Eclecticism, so called, i. e., the arbitrary se- lection from the body of religious or philosophical truths presented by the Church of certain doctrines and combining them into a system; γ) Scepticism, which regards uncertainty or doubt as the product of reflection and the normal state of the human mind, and thereby completely renounces the knowledge of truth; δ) Formal or positive atheism in its various forms (Pantheism, Materialism, Naturalism, Rationalism), all of which agree in rejecting God and divine Revelation.²⁸

²⁸ Pii IX. Syllab. Error., n. 1–14 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1701 sqq.).—J. Engert, Der naturalistische Monismus Häckels, Vienna 1907, pp. 208 sqq., 247 sqq.—W. Monod, Aux Croyants et aux Athées, 2nd ed., Paris 1910.—G. Grupp, Jenseitsreligion, Freiburg 1910, pp. 41, 95.

All these forms of unbelief are grievously sinful, though the personal guilt of individual unbelievers is often diminished by the influence of a wrong or defective training, by the power of deeply rooted prejudices or lack of proper instruction.

The reason why so many refuse to accept divine Revelation is not that they think too deeply, but that they do not think deeply enough. It is often asserted that a thorough training in the natural sciences (now-a-days called “Science” par excellence) destroys religious conviction. But this claim is untrue and can be easily refuted by the example of the many great scientists who have openly professed belief in God and the existence and knowability of miracles.²⁹

²⁹ K. A. Kneller, Das Christentum und die Vertreter der neueren Naturwissenschaft, 2nd ed., Frei- burg 1904 (tr. by T. M. Kettle, Christianity and the Leaders of Modern Science, St. Louis 1911). Father Kneller brings overwhelming evidence to show how the real leaders of scientific thought are forced to recognize, if not always the truth of revealed religion, at least that of the groundwork on which it rests. See also the three volumes of James J. Walsh’s excellent work, Catholic Churchmen in Science, Philadelphia, The Dolphin Press, 1913 sqq.—G. Sortais, La Providence et le Miracle, Paris 1905.—E. Dennert, Vom Sterbelager des Darwinismus, 6th ed., Stuttgart 1905 (English tr., At the Deathbed of Darwinism, by E. V. O’Hara and J. H. Peschges, Burlington, Iowa, 1904); C. Gutberlet, Vernunft und Wunder, Munich 1905.

To solve the problem offered to the human mind by miracles we must try to view them from the viewpoint of Almighty God rather than from our own limited coign of vantage. Miracles are not detached phenomena, but parts of a wonderful system of government. They are wrought by the same God who has conceived and created the universe. This is the true metaphysical harmony. “To the Lord was his own work known from the beginning of the world.”³⁰

³⁰ Acts XV, 18.

Why should the chemist, the physicist, the botanist, the zoölogist, the meteorologist, the astronomer, the anthropologist, the physician or the technician be hindered in his work by accurate notions of God, the world of spirits, the human soul, or the origin, purpose, and end of man? In every field of scientific research there have been and are eminent men who have not only preserved, but deepened and strengthened their religious faith. He who proclaims religion and science to be irreconcilable merely proves that he is ignorant of the true meaning of dogma, the real significance of religious ceremonies, and the authentic interpretation of the mysteries of faith. Unfortunately, those who have achieved eminence in some branch of science as a rule devote little or no time to the study of religion. A learned mind needs more than the elementary instruction imparted in the catechism. Religion, like science, has its technical literature, and its representatives are ready to explain and defend whatever the Church teaches. Those who attack the Christian religion usually have but a vague notion of its sources and methods, even though they constantly harp on the need of original research and critical acumen in their own chosen field. Now he who neglects or refuses to devote serious study to philosophy and theology, has no right to draw philosophical or theological conclusions from the data furnished by natural science. To do so is to mistake the essence of religion, which, though it may be practiced by all, even the most ignorant, can be scientifically demonstrated only by those properly equipped for the task. Theology, like every other science, must be studied from its own sources and by its own methods, though, of course, there are many points of contact between it and the natural sciences. Thus the law of causation, the teleological principle, the laws of nature, and other data furnished by natural science lead the mind almost imperceptibly and with a kind of elemental necessity from the contemplation of the results of empirical research to religious speculation and a study of the supernatural.

4. SCHISM (σχίσμα) technically denotes a formal separation from the unity of the Church, and in this sense is not a direct antithesis of faith. But experience teaches that a state of pure schism, i. e., schism without heresy, cannot continue long, at least in the case of a large number of men. St. Jerome says: “Schism, at the beginning, may be understood as something different from heresy, but there is no schism which does not invent for itself some heresy, in order to justify its secession.”³¹

³¹ In Tit., c. 3, quoted by St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 39, art. 1.

5. APOSTASY (ἀποστασία) is of three kinds.

a) Apostasy from the faith (apostasia a fide)³² implies formal abandonment of the religion of Christ, coupled with the profession of some anti-Christian system (Judaism, Mohammedanism, paganism).

³² Thess. II, 3; 1 Tim. IV, 1 sq.—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 12.

b) Apostasy from ecclesiastical obedience (apostasia ab ordine) is committed by a Catholic who wilfully and contumaciously sets at nought the authority of the Church.

c) Apostasy from religious profession or from Holy Orders (apostasia a religione) is the sin of those who without permission abandon the religious order in which they are professed, or, after having received major orders, renounce the clerical profession and return to the dress and customs of the world.

Essentially, all three kinds of apostasy consist in abandoning or denying the truths of Revelation and embracing a religious system opposed to Christianity. Wilfully and contumaciously to abandon the Catholic faith is a sin against the Holy Ghost.³³ A Catholic can never have a le- gitimate reason for leaving his Church.³⁴ “There is no parity,” declare the Fathers of the Vatican Council, “between the condition of those who have adhered to the Catholic truth by the heavenly gift of faith, and of those who, led by human opinions, follow a false religion; for those who have received the faith under the teaching of the Church, can never have any just cause for changing or doubting that faith.”³⁵ Sacred Scripture attributes apostasy from the faith to the Devil, who is the author of evil and the father of lies. False apostles, says St. Paul, “are deceitful workmen, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ, and no wonder, for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light.”³⁶

³³ Heb. VI, 4–6; X, 26–29; 2 Pet. II, 21. See this Handbook, Vol. II, pp. 91 sqq.

³⁴ Prop. Damnat. sub Innocentio XI., n. 20: “Hence someone can prudently repudiate the supernatural assent which he had.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1170).

³⁵ Conc. Vatican., Sess. III, c. 3: “The condition of those who have adhered to Catholic truth through the heavenly gift of faith is by no means equal to that of those who, led by human opinions, follow a false religion; for those who have received the faith under the teaching authority of the Church can never have any just cause for changing that faith or calling it into doubt.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1794).

³⁶ 2 Cor. XI, 13 sq.; cfr. Gal. V, 7 sq.

6. CREDULITY (temeraria credulitas, in opposition to pius credulitatis affectus) means proneness to believe without sufficient evidence. In matters pertaining to faith and morals credulity is immoral because it runs counter to reason. The Catholic Church admonishes all men to scrutinize carefully whatever is offered in the name of religion without the warrant of divine authority.³⁷ Credulity leads to superstition, “the twin-sister of unbelief,” or at best to an emotional pietism without true religious conviction and genuine faith.

³⁷ Matt. VII, 15; Rom. XII, 1; 1 Thess. V, 21; 1 Pet. III, 15; 1 John IV, 1.—St. Augustine, De Utilitate Credendi, c. 11, n. 25: “Believing is then blameworthy when either something unworthy is believed about God, or something is easily believed about a man.” (Migne, P. L., XLII, 83).—St. Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, I, n. 2: “Just as right order demands that we believe the profound things of the Christian faith before we presume to discuss them by reason, so it seems negligence to me if, after we have been confirmed in faith, we do not strive to understand what we believe.” (P. L., CLVIII, 362).

It is charged that Christianity demands a sacrifice of the intellect (sacrificium intellectus). This is true in a sense, and could not be otherwise, as Christianity is a divinely revealed religion. However, the Church does not demand blind obedience, but merely “a reasonable service,”³⁸ which enables the believer to say with the Apostle: “I know whom I have believed.”³⁹ Ours is an enlightened faith, which fills us with joy and confidence and gives us the strength which we need to perform our duties. The ideal state of the soul is as far removed from credulity as from scepticism. He who believes too readily is as easily deceived as he who deliberately shuts his mind to the truth.

³⁸ Rom. XII, 1; cfr. 2 Cor. X, 5.

³⁹ 2 Tim. I, 12.

Because of the importance of the true faith, the Church has taken special precautions to keep it pure. These precautions are embodied mainly in the organization against evil literature which is generally called the Index, and consists of three parts—preventive censorship, the prohibition of books, and the Index itself. The consideration of these measures belongs more particularly to Canon Law, and we will therefore confine ourselves to a few necessary remarks towards the end of this volume.⁴⁰

⁴⁰ Infra, pp. 399 sqq.

READINGS.—H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 28 sqq.—Ern. Müller, Theol. Mor., Vol. II, 5th ed., Vienna 1887, pp. 37 sqq.—J. B. Ferreres, S.J., Compendium Theol. Mor., Vol. I, 9th ed., Barcelona 1918, pp. 186 sqq.—Thos. Slater, S.J., A Manual of Moral Theology, Vol. I, New York 1908, pp. 174 sqq.—A. Lehmkuhl, S.J., Theol. Mor., Vol. I, 11th ed., Freiburg 1910, pp. 236 sqq.

On doubt and skepticism in religious matters: J. L. Balmes, Cartas a un Eseptico, Barcelona 1851 (English tr., Letters to a Sceptic, Dublin 1875).—F. Hettinger, Apologie des Christentums, Vol. I, 9th ed. (edited by E. Müller), pp. 5 sqq.; in English under the title, Natural Religion, London 1890.—B. Kuhn, Formes Actuelles du Doute, Bruxelles 1906.—P. Jäger, Zur Überwindung des Zweifels, Tübingen 1906.—L. J. Walker, S.J., art. “Scepticism,” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIII, pp. 516 sqq. (See also the literature cited in Pohle-Preuss, God: His Knowability, Essence, and Attributes, 4th ed., St. Louis 1921, p. 54).—H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 35 sqq.

On heresy: J. Wilhelm in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, pp. 250–262.—Ad. Tanquerey, Synopsis Theol. Mor., Vol. II, Paris 1905, pp. 369–374.—J. B. Ferreres, S.J., Comp. Theol. Mor., Vol. I, 9th ed., Barcelona 1918, pp. 187 sqq.—H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 30 sqq.

On infidelity: P. Segneri, Incredulus non Excusabilis, Dillingen 1696.—A. Guyot, Les Causes de l’Incrédulité, 6th ed., Paris 1904.—Ch. H. Vosen, Das Christentum, 5th ed. (by S. Weber), Freiburg 1905, pp. 46 sqq.—A. Kirchberger, Der Unglaube und die Vernunft, Ravensburg 1907.—Ad. Tanquerey, Synopsis Theol. Mor., Vol. II, Paris 1905, pp. 378–390.

On schism: St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 39.—J. Forget in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIII, pp. 535–539.

744. Heresy (ketterij) etymologically signifies election, whence in the whole Catholic tradition it designates the error of him who, with faith received especially in Baptism, adheres to Christ and does not wish to receive from the Church the rule of faith, but chooses for himself, that is, from perfect deliberation firmly establishes a rule of believing.1

It is customarily defined: a voluntary and pertinacious error in Catholic faith, in one who professes the faith of Christ. There is indicated:

1. the material element:

a) error, that is, an erroneous judgment, not ignorance alone, of the intellect, whence he is not a heretic who only externally denies faith from levity or fear, by speech or work;

b) in faith, that is, in revealed truth, whence he is not a heretic who only denies a truth connected with a revealed truth, even one infallibly defined by the Church, such as a theological conclusion or dogmatic fact. Thus heresy is distinguished from simple error, against ecclesiastical faith or the obedience due to the teaching Church;

c) Catholic, that is, in some revealed truth directed to all which the Church proposes as to be believed; so that in the one denying there is at once contempt of the authority of God and of the Church: thus heresy is distinguished from infidelity, which can also be opposed to divine faith alone;

d) voluntary, otherwise it would not be an act of infidelity by which someone would not wish to believe God and the Church and would disbelieve; whence he who, while adhering to the Church, from ignorance even culpable did not know that something was proposed by the Church as to be believed, and denied it, would not be a heretic even materially: thus heresy is distinguished from ignorance alone of faith;

2. the formal element: pertinacious, so that someone is opposed to the authority of God and of the Church, not indeed from ignorance even culpable, but knowingly and willingly, that is, with an evil will, while the truth and this authority are sufficiently proposed to him, whether it happens from pride or vainglory, or from the cupidity of contradicting, or from levity, or from any other cause; whence he who through ignorance even culpable did not know that the Church must be obeyed in faith, could sin, but would not be a formal heretic but only a material one: thus heresy properly so called and formal is distinguished from merely material heresy;

3. the subject: in one who professes the faith of Christ, that is, in one who received it, especially by Baptism, and did not totally cast it off: thus heresy is distinguished from apostasy and from the simple infidelity of Jews and pagans.

1. St. Thomas says that election signifies that which someone firmly wills after perfect consideration.

745. Heresy differs from infidelity as a species from a genus: for it adds something to infidelity.

1. Infidelity can be in every man using reason; heresy is only in a Christian, especially a baptized one.

2. Infidelity says only denial of faith in those things which God has revealed; but heresy says denial of faith in those things which are proposed by the Church as revealed and to be believed; whence he who denies a private revelation made to him would commit not heresy but the sin of infidelity, and he who denies a truth which he certainly knows to pertain to public revelation but which the Church does not explicitly propose as to be believed, would be a heretic, but not in the full sense and before the Church.

3. Infidelity is opposed to divine faith; heresy to Catholic faith.

746. Heresy is divided in various ways. - Heresy is one kind material,¹ another formal. Material heresy denies the authority of the Church in proposing faith without pertinacity, because it was not sufficiently proposed; formal heresy sufficiently knows the authority of the Church, but refuses to embrace the faith of the true Church and denies it at least in one point. - One kind is internal, which so lies hidden in the mind that it is manifested by no external sign; another is external, which manifests itself by external signs (words, signs, deeds, omission of a deed), even if no one sees it; this is either occult, which is manifested either to no one or to one or another only, or public, which is externally manifested openly and before several.

¹ Material heresy is without sin, if the ignorance is invincible; if it is vincible, it is venial provided that grave negligence was not present; otherwise it will be a grave sin of ignorance in faith, but not the sin of heresy.

The signs on account of which someone is to be judged materially a heretic are customarily indicated: 1. if he is prepared to submit himself to the judgment of the Church, when he recognizes the error, although in the meantime he holds his opinion tooth and nail; 2. if he has known nothing concerning Catholic faith, and has never doubted concerning his own; 3. if, while doubting, he has studied to recognize the truth, as much as he could. - But he who through human fear, or through neglect, procrastinates his conversion to faith, is not for that reason a heretic; nevertheless he sins against the affirmative precept of faith, if he defers it for a long time.

On the contrary, one is to be judged pertinacious and therefore a formal heretic: 1. who doubts, and from pertinacity or from contempt of the Church refuses to inquire further; - 2. who deliberately turns the intellect away from truth sufficiently proposed, so that he may adhere to his own sect or opinion; - 3. who, once the truth is recognized, perseveres in contradicting the Church, as heresiarchs are wont to do from hatred of the Pope or of the Church. - These are the three principal grades of pertinacity, the first of which is founded upon truth studiously neglected; the second upon truth sufficiently proposed, but contemned; the third upon recognized truth maliciously attacked.

747. The sin of heresy is most grave (n. 737 and 739), which per se merits corporal and spiritual penalties at the same time.

Concerning corporal penalties St. Thomas teaches: "It is much graver to corrupt faith, through which there is the life of the soul, than to falsify money, through which temporal life is aided. Whence if falsifiers of money or other malefactors are at once justly handed over to death by secular princes, much more can heretics, at once from the fact that they are convicted of heresy, not only be excommunicated, but also justly killed" (a. 3). Death, however, although it can be decreed by the Church, is not to be inflicted by her herself.

Spiritual penalties are inflicted by Canon Law; according to which heretics:

1. incur by the fact itself excommunication specially reserved to the Roman Pontiff (can. 2314, § 1),

2. unless, after being warned, they recover their senses, they are to be deprived of benefice, dignity, pension, office, or other function, if they have any in the Church, are to be declared infamous, and clerics, after repeated warning, are to be deposed (ibid.),

3. indeed, if they have given their name to a non-Catholic sect or publicly adhered to it, they are by the fact itself infamous, and clerics, after warning has been premised, are to be degraded (ibid.),

4. they are irregular (can. 985),

5. they are deprived of ecclesiastical burial (can. 1240, § 1).

For incurring these penalties formal and at the same time external heresy is required, and for the third and fifth penalties public heresy in addition.²

² Those suspected of heresy incur the same penalties, who after being warned do not remove the cause of suspicion and, once punished, within six full months from the penalty contracted, have not amended themselves (can. 2315). Such persons are held as heretics. Those to be held as suspected of heresy by law are: a) those who in any way spontaneously aid the defense of heresy (can. 2316); - b) those who communicate in sacred things with heretics (can. 2316 and 1258); - c) those who are united in marriage with an explicit or implicit pact concerning the non-Catholic education of offspring (can. 2319, § 2); - d) or procure the baptism or education of this offspring outside the Catholic Church (can. 2319, §§ 3-4); - e) those who sacrilegiously treat the consecrated species according to the norm of can. 2320; - f) those who appeal from the decrees of the Roman Pontiff to an ecumenical council (can. 2332); - g) those who, with hardened mind, for a year have persisted under excommunication... (can. 2340, § 1); - h) those who are ordained simoniacally, or ordain or administer other sacraments (can. 2371).

748. Corollaries. - 1. He is not a heretic who only externally denies faith, from levity or fear, by speech or work, because he does not have an erroneous judgment.

2. Pertinacity required for heresy does not signify duration of time in denying truth; but it is pertinacity of reason, which consists in denying truth sufficiently proposed, for which one instant suffices.

3. Since he who truly doubts positively concerning the truth proposed by the Church judges erroneously (at least equivalently or implicitly) that it is not certain, it follows that he is a heretic (can. 1325, § 2).

4. He who errs from culpable ignorance, even if it is affected and sought in order to sin, yet by another sin than heresy, provided he is prepared to submit himself to the judgment of the Church, is not a heretic, because pertinacity is lacking; but if the ignorance is affected, because he has decreed not to believe the Church so that he may err more freely in faith, that is, from a will by which he has decreed not to believe even if he knew that it was proposed by the Church, he is a heretic: for he has the will not to believe everything which is proposed by the Church, and internally he already dissents from one sufficiently proposed revealed truth, namely, from the authority of the Church, to which there must be total obedience in faith.

5. He who denies that which he falsely thinks to have been defined by the Church truly denies the authority of the Church, and is a formal heretic; nevertheless not in the external forum, unless he sufficiently brought forth his mind and sin.

XI. Of how much importance it is to meet and heal the sin of heresy. - Heresy keeps Christians from the right way of salvation and separates them from the Church; hence priests ought by all means to take care that those who have fallen into heresy or are detained in it, having been converted from it, may be led back into the bosom of the Church. This work indeed presents less difficulty if they have not yet passed over to a heretical sect; but it is of longer and more prudent labor if they have already been admitted into some sect, or have been baptized or educated in it.

For this in a priest there is required:

1. great charity, which inspires immense mercy toward the miserable state of a soul adhering in error, and prevents every manifestation of suspicion concerning the sincerity of the one to be converted, even if he were a perverse Catholic; unless nevertheless he gives contrary signs;

2. much patience, since a long time is often required for heretics to overcome the old life and acknowledge the truth;

3. fervent and continual prayer, to obtain divine help altogether necessary for conversion;

4. a prudent manner of acting in proposing doctrine, by which, namely, he in no way diminishes Catholic truths, but neither proclaims them unseasonably, being content to affirm those things which are necessary;

5. discretion in selecting books which clearly and opportunely set forth Catholic doctrine and are to be recommended to the one being converted;

6. untroubled serenity in refuting objections, by which he in no way shows himself burdened by them.

XII. Notions concerning heresy. - Heresy is defined as an error in Catholic faith, voluntary and pertinacious, in one who has professed the Christian faith by reception of Baptism; but if someone has totally cast off the faith, heresy is called apostasy.

It therefore contains at once contempt of the authority of God revealing, and contempt of the infallible authority of the Church proposing faith, and is therefore most grave.

Heresy is either material or formal, according as one denies the authority of the Church in proposing faith without pertinacity, because it was not sufficiently proposed; or, on the contrary, sufficiently knows it and nevertheless denies it in at least one point. It is internal if it so lies hidden in the mind that it is manifested by no external sign, or external if it manifests itself by external signs, even if no one sees them; this is occult if to no one or only to one or another, public if it is externally manifested openly and before several.

According to can. 2314, formal and external heresy incurs by the fact itself excommunication reserved to the Supreme Pontiff; and heretics, unless after being admonished they come to their senses, are to be deprived of benefice, dignity, pension, office, or any other function, if they have any in the Church, are to be declared infamous, and clerics, after repeated admonition, are to be deposed; indeed, if they have given their name to a non-Catholic sect or have publicly adhered to it, by the fact itself they are infamous, and clerics, after previous admonition, are to be degraded. Moreover all are irregular (can. 985), and are deprived of ecclesiastical burial (can. 1240, section 2). If a Catholic has fallen into external but occult heresy, namely one which has not been divulged and probably will not be divulged, and has not incurred the censure of excommunication, for example because of ignorance, any confessor can absolve him from the sin. On the contrary, if that sinner has incurred the censure, and the confessor does not have the faculty of absolving from it, and there is not an urgent case, he can seek this faculty from the Sacred Penitentiary, or even ask it from the local Ordinary, and then in the sacrament of Penance absolve from the censure and the sin (can. 2314, section 2).

XIII. How one must proceed with heretics wishing to return to the Church. - In this case several things come to be attended to, as to precautions to be employed, instruction to be given, and proximate preparation.⁸

⁸ Cf. Reuter, Neo-Conf., nn. 197-203; Aertnijs, Th. P., nn. 108-115.

1. Precautions to be employed.

a) The priest ought prudently to question the heretic wishing to be converted concerning the cause or motive of his conversion, and to watch lest under the veil of piety he chiefly seek temporal advantages, such as marriage or support, and, once these have been obtained, live badly or return to error.

b) Therefore, lest the priest be deceived, let him test by various questions made at different times whether the sayings of the heretic cohere with one another; but let him say or do nothing which he would not wish said or done if the one to be converted should perhaps return to heresy.

c) Let him strive to win the confidence of the heretic for himself, so that the latter may more willingly and more sincerely open his errors and miseries and falls, and commit himself wholly to his direction.

d) Let him place before his eyes the very great importance of this business, in which the hinge of eternal salvation turns, and therefore let him inculcate upon him the necessity of praying, and also pray fervently for him and ask the prayers of others.

2. In the instruction to be given the following things are to be observed:

a) Before all things it must be investigated whether he was a material heretic, from simplicity, ignorance, or sinister information; or formal, from sufficient knowledge and pertinacity.

b) Likewise it must be inquired how much he has been instructed in the doctrine of his sect, so that his errors may be known and the mode by which he is to be instructed may be determined: for if he is simple and unlearned, he needs right instruction in Christian doctrine, but not in controversies of faith; but if he is more skilled, satisfaction must be given to him as to the individual articles and all difficulties.

c) Since the assent of faith is prudent and reasonable and firm, the priest ought to set forth the motives of credibility of the dogmas, which are to be believed if the Catholic Church alone is the true Church of Christ. Hence let him not descend at once to particular dogmas, but first show the true Church of Christ.

This can be done in a twofold way; hence the circumstances must be considered so that it may be judged which method is to be employed. Namely, it can be done:

1. from the notes of the Church, by successively showing: that the true faith is necessary for salvation; that there is only one true religion and Church of Christ; that it is the secure rule of faith, indeed that it is infallible; that it ought to be distinguished by certain notes by which it is discerned from the false; that the notes of the true Church are four; and finally that these are found in the Catholic Church alone;

2. from facts, perhaps more easily and more suitably to the capacity of many:⁹ by showing that the Catholic Church is a fact naturally inexplicable, but divine, and therefore the true religion: because of her stability unconquered by adversaries, her inexhausted fecundity in goods and the heroic sanctity of many in her, her universal unity in faith from the obedience of all to one head, and the many miracles performed in her favor.

⁹ The prior method ordinarily is proposed in theological or apologetical treatises; the other was especially employed by Cardinal Dechamps.

d) Afterward let the priest descend to the individual articles, especially those in which heretics differ from Catholics, such as the necessity of good works, the number of the sacraments, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the cult of the Blessed Virgin and of the saints, the Roman Pontiff and his infallibility.

e) Finally, when access to conversion already appears near, rather than permit objections against the truth, it is better to suppress this cause of temptations, and to require total submission toward the ecclesiastical magisterium for the full expulsion of the spirit of free examination.

3. Proximate preparation. - When he has been fully instructed in matters of faith, the petitioner is to be prepared for making the profession of faith, which is to be explained to him, and for reception of the sacraments; wherefore he is to be instructed concerning Baptism, concerning Penance with confession, and concerning the Eucharist and their fruits. But since neoconverts for the most part vehemently dread confession, therefore let there be explained:

a) the obligation strictly binding the priest to observe the sacramental seal;

b) that this confession, which God wished us to undergo by confessing our sins to one man, is part of penance and satisfaction;

c) that it is no wonder if a heretic has failed in many things, since he has lacked the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist and the other helps which are wont to be supplied to Catholics;

d) nevertheless, that in examining conscience he is not to torture himself, since the confessor will supply by questions, to which it is enough to respond sincerely.

Let the priest admit no notorious heretic, or one enrolled in any sect, into the bosom of the Church, unless the matter has first been brought to the local Ordinary, and the knowledge and firmness in religion of the one to be converted have been well explored. Moreover, in his reconciliation with the Church, a threefold order is to be observed according to the various case.

A. If it is certain that the convert was not baptized, or that his Baptism is certainly invalid, only Baptism will have to be ministered to him, without abjuration of heresy or absolution.

According to can. 744: "the Baptism of adults, where it can conveniently be done, is to be referred to the local Ordinary so that, if he wishes, it may be conferred more solemnly by him or by his delegate"; and according to can. 755, section 2, "the local Ordinary can, for a grave and reasonable cause, grant that the ceremonies prescribed for the Baptism of infants be employed in the Baptism of adults."

B. On the contrary, if he was certainly validly baptized: a) before the local Ordinary or his delegate and at least two witnesses (Holy Office, 8 Apr. 1786, 28 Mar. 1900), let there be made only the abjuration of heresy with absolution from censures in the external forum, by the local Ordinary himself or by a priest delegated by him for this, in the case in which the convert is of puberty (can. 2314, section 2); or only the profession of faith, if he is before puberty (can. 2230); b) confession of sins; c) absolution from sins in the internal forum.

C. Finally, if the Baptism previously conferred is doubtful, whether positively or even negatively: a) let there be made the abjuration of heresy with absolution from censures or the profession of faith, in the same manner as was said in the preceding case; b) confession of sins, always prescribed,¹⁰ and exhortation to contrition (Holy Office, 17 Dec. 1868; S. C. de P. F., 12 July 1869); c) Baptism to be renewed under condition, which by the indulgence of the Ordinary can be done privately according to can. 759, section 2; d) confession summarily repeated and absolution from sins under condition. Thus Holy Office, 20 July 1859; 20 Nov. 1878; 2 Dec. 1874.

¹⁰ That confession is to be required from those doubtfully baptized was called into doubt by some, because the obligation is uncertain. But the Holy Office constantly requires confession from converted heretics to be rebaptized under condition, as is established directly from the decrees of 14 June 1715 and 17 Dec. 1868, which expressly establish this, and indirectly from the decrees of 20 July 1859 and 2 Dec. 1874, which suppose that one must act in this way generally. Therefore the decrees contain a universal law, as moreover the Prefect of S. Cong. P. F. declared, 12 July 1869. Hence by far the greater part of theologians teach that confession is certainly to be required, even in the more benign school of St. Alphonsus, to which among others belong Lehmkuhl, Noldin, Pesch, Ferreres, Arendt, etc. Nevertheless certain others, as formerly Ballerini and Bucceroni, to whom even today Vermeersch in some measure approaches, attribute a certain probability to the denying opinion; and De Smet would not dare to call it improbable, because the decrees of the Holy Office are particular, as for the decree of 17 Dec. 1868 was declared by the Secretary of the Holy Office, but about 30 years after that decree was issued. We do not deny that the decrees are particular; but since in diverse circumstances the Holy Office always gives the same response and since it supposes that one must act generally in that way, the decrees depend on common reasons, not on particular reasons, and therefore must be said to contain a universal law. Namely, the Holy Office judges that the denying opinion is not probable; otherwise it would not respond so constantly. For Baptism is presumed valid until the contrary is established, and therefore the Church urges upon the baptized the observance of the obligations of divine law and ecclesiastical law, from which the repetition of Baptism under condition, done as a mere precaution, does not exempt. And it would be imprudent to act otherwise. Some would wish not to urge the precept of confession, lest, namely, heretics to be converted be deterred. But if at the very moment of conversion it were to be feared that confession could not be obtained, it would be obtained far more difficultly afterward. Therefore it is altogether imprudent and inopportune to postpone this obligation.

It would indeed suffice before Baptism to stir up to contrition, and to postpone confession until after Baptism is renewed under condition; nevertheless it is better if it is made already before Baptism, for the sake of greater facility and opportunity (Holy Office, 2 Dec. 1874).

In the confession itself let the confessor treat the neoconvert kindly, take away from him, as far as can be done, every fear, inculcate confidence that all sins are to be blotted out, and help him by his questions, yet taking care lest he make a rigid examination. First of all let him discreetly inquire whether he was a material or formal heretic: if he was formal, let him inquire from what time he was such, whether he thought himself to sin by not observing the precepts of the Church, whether he said blasphemies or calumnies against the Catholic Church, whether he perverted others. If he was doubtful concerning his own religion, let him ask whether and how long he contemned or neglected to inquire after the truth. If the penitent has committed many and grave sins, let him not chastise them with a rigid rebuke, but exhort him to try henceforth to begin a truly Christian life. Let him also not impose a very grave penance, lest the penitent be frightened away.

XV. Observations. - 1. The zealous priest, when opportunity is given, will study to lead heretics back to the Church. For this end he will pray and exhort them to pray, will lead them when occasion is given to flight from sin, likewise that they frequent churches and sermons, and read books setting forth Catholic doctrine; and in friendly conversation he should uncover their false dogmas, not by attacking directly, but by showing for what causes they seem difficult to believe.

1°. Apostasy from the faith is total defection from the Christian faith; heresy is the voluntary error of some Christian against some truth of faith; schism is voluntary withdrawal from the unity of the Church and from obedience to the Head, the Roman Pontiff.

We must now treat of the punishments of heretics, and first of the spiritual ones.

The first and most ancient spiritual punishment of heretics is excommunication, as is clear from the chapter Achaina, 24. q. 1, the chapter Ad abolendum, the chapter Excommunicamus, 1. and 2. de haeret., the chapter Quicunque, eodem titulo in 6., the chapter Noverit.

Moreover, in the Bulla Coenae an excommunication is imposed, and renewed yearly, reserved to the Supreme Pontiff. Now this is the most ancient of all excommunications, as Azorius notes, Tomo I, lib. VIII, cap. 10, quaestio 1.

It is incurred for external heresy, not for mental heresy, as the Doctors of Law teach commonly, whom Sanchez reports, Lib. II, cap. 8, num. 2. The Church does not judge of merely occult things, that is, of merely internal ones; but the external heretic, though occult, incurs it, as is taught commonly, as reported by Hurt., sect. 4, n. 36.

Yet Arez, disp. 21, sect. 2, reports that some held that in general censures are not incurred for an occult crime, which Croufers teaches concerning heresy in reg. S. Francisci, cap. 7, sect. 4, fol. 518, as reported by Diana, 6. parte, Tract. 6, miscel. resol. 51. But a great question concerns absolution from heresy, which question depends on knowing the quality of this censure.

I shall therefore set out the Anathema hurled by the Bulla Coenae against heretics, according to the modern exemplars of Urban VIII, and also according to the Bulls of Paul V and Gregory XV. Moreover, from the aforesaid sentences, no one can be absolved by anyone other than the Roman Pontiff, unless he be in articulo mortis; nor even then, unless he gives caution of standing by the mandates of the Church and of making satisfaction, even under pretext of any faculties and indults whatsoever granted by us and the said See, and by the decrees of any Council, to any Ecclesiastical secular persons, and of any Orders, even Mendicant, even military Regulars, even those endowed with Episcopal or any other greater dignity, etc. See disp. 17, quaest. 10, sect. 3, tom. 4, de actibus humanis.

A grave question however arises, because in the Council of Trent, sess. 24, cap. 6, Bishops are granted the faculty of absolving from occult heresy and other occult cases reserved to the Apostolic See.

Two celebrated opinions exist: The first is that the faculty granted to Bishops by the Tridentine Council still exists, and was not removed by the Bulla Coenae: Sanchez reports the Doctors, Lib. I, Decal., cap. 21, who admits that opinion to be probable. Others are reported by Diana, p. p., Tract. de Absol. ab haeresi, resol. 2, to whom he adds others in 4. p., tract. 4, miscel. resol. 239, and 5. p., tract. 13, miscel. resol. 43. Suarez called it probable, Tract. de censuris, disp. 21, sect. 3, though afterwards he attacks it. Hurtado defends it most strongly, disp. 84, sect. 2, §. 11, and Fagundez, lib. I, cap. 15, reporting twenty Doctors on the second precept of the Church, lib. VIII, cap. 8; Bass., V. Haeresis, num. 18, reporting many.

The second opinion asserts that the faculty was taken from the Bishops by the Bulla Coenae.

Navarr. holds this, summa Latina nova, cap. 27, num. 275, adding that Pius V and Gregory XIII so declared; Peña, in directorio Inquisit., 3. p., quaest. 92, com. 141, saying it was so often declared in the supreme Roman General Inquisition; and Azorius says Clement VIII so declared; Suarez says the Congregation of the Most Eminent Cardinals so declared. Many others agree, as reported by Diana, and Castrum Palaeum, Tract. 4, disp. 4, p. 3, § 1.

Cardinal Lugo, disp. 23, sect. 3, §. 1, thus reconciles the opinions: if a Bishop does not believe that the Pontiff wished to revoke the faculty, he may probably embrace the first opinion, which has so many, and therefore weighty, authors; but if he believes it, he must stand by the second opinion. He himself, however, testifies that he cannot agree with the first, because morally he is certain that the will of the Apostolic See is contrary. But Fagundez says Gregory XIII declared the opposite, and that this is not established by the S. Congr. Bass. adds that in the S. Congr. in the year 1639 it was permitted.

For my part it does not appear whence derogation was so immediately made from so great a Council; for what is said, Etiam si concessum virtute alicuius Concilii Generalis, does not sufficiently distinguish what was withdrawn from the Tridentine faculty; a later law speaking indistinctly and generally must be limited by the earlier one specially contrary to it, as Fagundez says, also praec. 2. eccl., lib. VIII, cap. 8.

He adds that nothing certain is established concerning the Oracles of Pius V, Gregory XIII, or Clement VIII, or of the former Congr., which would exclude even the Most Reverend who hold this faculty from the Council, which Lugo, n. 87. The distinction of Fagundez, that it was derogated in law but not in fact, is empty, because the law is uncertain.

Included in this faculty are Prelates having quasi-episcopal power: thus Rodr., tomo 2, c. 10, and tom. p. 99, reg. quaest. 24, art. 16, and quaest. 61, art. 9; Henriq., lib. 4, de irreg., cap. 18; Sanchez, lib. 2, decis., cap. 11; Sayrus, lib. 11; Auil., de cens., p. 7, disp. 10; Flor. de mena, lib. 3, var. quaest. 23. For the Bulla Coenae does not take from them that faculty which they had before, as Fagundez says, num. 21.

These PRELATES, I say Ecclesiastical ones having a diocese, not regulars, as the authors cited note.

That regular Prelates do not have this by law Suarez proclaims, lib. 4, de Poenit., disp. 30, sect. 2; Garc., de benef., p. 7, cap. 11; Armenda, addit. ad recopil. Nauar., tit. 18; lib. 7, de irreg.; Fagundez, num. 21. For before the Council they did not have that right, nor is it given them by the Council.

AS FOR privileges, our P. Bonagratia, published in the year 1667 at Cologne, reports: the privilege of Pius V given to the Preachers, that they may do what the Bishops also can, in this matter. And from Suarez, Tom. 4, de Relig., tract. 8, lib. 2, c. 20, and from Urban ab Ascens., tract. 2, cap. 3: regular Prelates can absolve their subjects from all censures from law or from man, even public ones, Clement IV and Sixtus IV excepted, namely the 4 cases of the Bulla Coenae: relapse into heresy, schism, falsification of Apostolic letters, carrying prohibited things to infidels. But the other cases, even simony, are included. See Com. Priv. mend., tit. Absol., where this is granted to Ministers, VICs, and Custodes. Sigism. de elect., num. 2, disp. 66, extends this to the contentious forum, an author of the Rota, per Pluteum, decis. 90 — except the cases of the S. Officii.

MOREOVER Gregory XIII grants the 4 cases adduced together with the others to the Society of Jesus, as Suarez reports, loc. cit. But the ample privilege granted by Pius V to the Cassinese Prelates is reported by Tamburin., de cas. reserv., t. 1, §. 1; which privilege is extended to those sharing with them; that they may absolve all their own, even persevering novices, from all cases, censures, punishments incurred through them before, as well as after entry, and even those of the Bulla Coenae to be incurred. Hence, he says, this is extended to the notorious in the forum of conscience.

BUT IF it were probable that the privileges of the Mendicants were not derogated by the year of the publication of the Bulla Coenae, as Rodriq. teaches, tomo 1, qq. quaest. 10, art. 9; Suarez, de relig., tom. 4, tract. 10, lib. 9, cap. 20, num. 18; Diana, p. 1, tract. 5, resol. 6; Sousa, in Bulla coenae, cap. 23, disp. 100; Bonagratia, V. Absolutio; Eligius Bassaeus, V. haeresis, num. 18, and others as reported by these, then approved Mendicant religious, according to the form of law, could absolve seculars from the cases of the Bulla Coenae, and even from heresy, provided it be occult; and this latter part is proved by them first from the concession of Urban IV, as reported by Rodriq., tom. 1, qq. quaest. 61, art. 3, Compend. Privileg. mendic.

V. Absolutio, as to seculars, num. 19, in which he grants to the Carmelite Brothers that, by the license of the Ecclesiastical Prelates — that is, as Sixtus IV declared, provided confessors presented according to the form of law — they may hear the confessions of all Christ's faithful, on account of the devotion of those recurring to them, unless they have committed such things for which the Apostolic See would deservedly need to be consulted. But for a mere relapse, after heresy abjured before a Judge, the Apostolic See must be consulted, because Sixtus IV, as is had in the Monum. ordinum, concession 348, declares that only relapsed ones are to be sent to the Apostolic See, together with Schismatics, falsifiers of Apostolic letters, and those carrying forbidden things to infidels: Therefore, from occult heresy, that probability being posited, it would be lawful for the aforesaid to absolve.

IT IS PROVED secondly from the concession of Sixtus IV made to the Order of Minors, as is had in the aforesaid Comp., num. 20 of the same title, in which he grants to those mentioned the faculty of hearing confessions, and of absolving from all cases of excommunication, suspension, interdict, and any irregularity whatsoever reserved to the Ordinary both by law and by man, as often as necessary, of dispensing, of commutting and relaxing any vows whatsoever, and of enjoining a salutary penance, just as the Diocesan can. But heresy, at least occult, or not yet brought to judgment, is reserved to the Ordinary both by the old law and by the new of Trent: Therefore. The minor is proved from the Tridentine, sess. 24, cap. 6, as Sanchez notes, lib. 4, moral., cap. 54, num. 27; Diana, part. 1, tract. 11, resol. 28, and p. 3, tract. 3, resol. 13. Further, he says, p. 4, tract. 4, resol. 239: it can rightly be said that the Bulla Coenae only prohibits the absolution of heresy and other crimes when they are public, and therefore does not derogate from the Tridentine faculty, which speaks of occult crimes.

Bassaeus ADDS at the place cited that the aforesaid opinion was seen and tolerated on 18 July 1629 in the Consistory of the S. Congregation of the Most Eminent Cardinals, and admitted even by many Doctors of S. Theology of the royal Academy of Douai.

But he says, V. Irregularitas, 11, num. 5, that that crime is occult which is not notorious by the sentence of a Judge, or by a confession of the crime made in judgment, or by fame among the people, in a College, or in the neighborhood; or if it has not yet been brought to the contentious forum; and Bassaeus says, from the sense of others, that this last seems to be the sense of the Council of Trent, loc. cit.

BUT indeed a Decree has now been published by Alex. VII, in the year 1665, 24 Sept., in which among other propositions he condemns this one: The opinion asserting that the Bulla Coenae only prohibits the absolution of heresy and other crimes when they are public, and that this does not derogate from the Tridentine faculty, which speaks of occult crimes, was seen and tolerated on 18 July 1629 in the Consistory of the S. Congr. of the Most Eminent Cardinals.

YET P. Bonagratia says, V. Absolutio, as to seculars, num. 44, at the end, that the Pontiff makes no mention of revoking the privileges of the regulars, and that those privileges still remain in force; see what was said in session 11, quaest. 10, disp. 17, de conscientia, tom. 4, de actibus humanis.

FOR MY PART, with the things reported from the mind of others, I judge that nothing is safe in these absolutions, and accordingly I do not embrace the first opinion. For since the value of absolution hangs on the will of the Pontiff, and that appears to me to refuse it, I exhort no one to use it in the meantime.

Card. Lugo, disp. 23, sect. 4, Fagundez, and Suarez, at the places cited, enumerate THESE.

THE FIRST is, that they be not buried in sacred ground: cap. Quicunque, de haeret. in 6. Yet Suar., de Cens., disp. 12, sect. 4, num. 13; Coninch., disp. 14, dub. 8, mem. 64; Hurtad., disp. 76, sect. 1, subsect. 1; Lugo, disp. 14, sect. 5, §. 5, num. 159, understand this text of those alone condemned by sentence. Whence he infers that now the Church is polluted only by the burial of those to be avoided.

The SECOND punishment is irregularity. See Sanch., lib. 1, cap. 15; Suar., disp. 21, sect. 5, and disp. 43, de Cens., sect. 1; Diana, 2. p., tract. 1, misc. R. 24, and others as reported by these.

Yet others judge it probable that the occult heretic is not irregular. Diana reports them, p. 1, supr. R. 114, and 2. p. supra, resol. 24, and p. 4, tract. 1, de Irreg., resol. 46.

The third punishment is infamy: cap. Excommunicamus, l. §. Credentes, and cap. Statuimus, eodem tit. de haeret. in 6, and cap. Infames, 6. quaest. 1, and Authent. Gazaros, C. de haeret. initio, and L. Cunctos populos, de Summa Trin. See Suar., disp. 21, sect 5.

The fourth punishment is, that the heretic be deprived of benefices and offices acquired, and be rendered incapable of future ones. See Lugo, disp. 23, sect. 4, §. 2.

The first punishment is the confiscation of goods L. Manichaeos Authent. Gazaros, C. de haereticis L. Quisquis, and L. ult. C. ad legem Iul. Maiest. and L. ult. de bonorum praescript. in cap. vir. gentes de haereticis.

The general Rule, however, is, that all the stable and movable goods, even the rights and actions of the heretic, pass to the fisc, and in general all and only those things which the heretic himself could have transferred to an extraneous heir, if he could freely make a will. The Doctors establish this rule, as reported by Sanchez, Lib. 1, cap. 14; Suarez, disp. 22, sect. 5; Card. Lugo, disp. 24, sect. 1, §. unicos — see them.

The second punishment is capital. This controversy against heretics is eruditely treated by Bellarmine, Lib. 3, de Laicis, cap. 21 and 22; Valentia, disp. 1, quaest. 11, p. 3. And it is established from the Extravag. Unam Sanctam, de maioritate, et obedientia, and cap. ad Apostolicae, de sententia, et re iudicata, in 6.

The Reason is, because an ordered Republic must punish the most atrocious crimes of its subjects. Lugo uses this reason, disp. 2, and it is that of D. Bonavent., dist. 18, p. 2, quaest. 1. Hence also the secular Princes imposed this punishment on heretics, L. Quicunque and L. Arrian. Cod. de haeret. See other laws in Farinac., de haeresi quaest. 178, 193, and 196.

Above all, the relapsed are to be handed over to the supreme punishment: cap. Accusatus, and cap. super eo, de haeret. in 6, and L. commissi, and cap. ad abolendam, extra de haereticis.

Otherwise we assert that far greater punishments must also be inflicted on heretics, for instance perpetual imprisonment: cap. excommunicamus, de haeret. See Cardinal de Lugo, disp. 24, sectione 3.

In the Bulla coenae receivers, favorers, and defenders of heretics are also included. See Sanchez, Libro secundo Decalogi, capite 10; Cardinal de Lugo, disputatione vigesima quinta.