Apostasy

Apostasy from the faith is the grave sin committed by one who throws the faith overboard entirely. The apostate not only rejects special dogmas like the heretic, but wholly abandons the Catholic faith, and becomes a free-thinker, atheist, materialist, Mohammedan, Buddhist, etc.

Canon 2369 IV. Confessarium qui sigillum sacramentale directe violare praesumpserit, manet excommunicatio specialissimo modo Sedi Apostolicae reservata; qui vero indirecte tantum, obnoxius est poenis [suspensionis a celebratione Missae, et ab audiendis sacramentalibus confessionibus vel etiam pro delicti gravitate inhabilis ad ipsas excipiendas declaretur, privetur omnibus beneficiis, dignitatibus, voce activa et passiva, et inhabilis ad ea omnia declaretur, et in casibus gravioribus degradationi quoque subjiciatur. (A confessor who presumes to violate the sacramental seal directly lies under an excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See in a most special manner; but one who violates it only indirectly is liable to the penalties of suspension from celebrating Mass and from hearing sacramental confessions, or may even, according to the gravity of the offence, be declared unfit to hear them; he is to be deprived of all benefices, dignities, and of active and passive voice, and declared unfit for them all, and in graver cases he is to be subjected to degradation as well.)] Only a confessor who with full knowledge of the crime which he is committing, and of its penalty, directly violates the seal of confession and incurs ipso facto excommunication very specially reserved to the Holy See. The penalties assigned by the Code in punishment of others besides confessors, and of confessors who presume to violate the seal indirectly, are ferendae sententiae.

Effectu.—F or the censure to be incurred, it must be certain that abortion followed from the means used. Canon 2385 V. Religiosus, apostata areligione, ipso jure incurrit in excommunicationem proprio Superiori majori, vel, si religio sit laicalis aut non exempta, Ordinario loci in quo commoratur, reservatam.

II. Heresy. 1. Notion. Heresy is the lack of faith in a baptized person; it is called apostasy if someone totally falls away from the faith. Apostasy does not differ in species from heresy, because they agree as to the formal object; namely, they reach God under the same aspect, or each is opposed to the truthfulness of God. As to the material object they differ insofar as apostasy rejects more revealed truths, or rather all revelation (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 12, a. 1, ad 3).

But heresy is usually considered as clothed with certain individuating circumstances; hence, in the ecclesiastical sense, "if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts some one of the truths to be believed with divine and catholic faith, he is a heretic; if he totally withdraws from the Christian faith, he is an apostate" (can. 1325, § 2). The customary definition of heresy agrees with these things: "A pertinacious error against divine and catholic faith." It is said:

a) "An error against divine and catholic faith," that is, it is required that something be denied or called into doubt among those things "which are contained in the word of God, written or handed down, and are proposed by the Church, whether by solemn judgment or by ordinary and universal magisterium, as to be believed as divinely revealed" (can. 1322, § 1).

b) A pertinacious error, that is, it is required that someone deny or call into doubt something which he sufficiently knows both to have been revealed and to have been proposed as such to be believed (St. Thomas, I, q. 32, a. 4; St. Alphonsus, II, 19; VII, 300).

2. Division. Heresy is distinguished:

a) Into formal and material, according as it is culpable or inculpable.

b) Into internal and external, according as it is completed by an act of mind alone, or is expressed by words or signs.

Corollary I. The following is a heretic, attending only to specific malice and therefore abstracting from individuating circumstances, which do not change the species:

a) One who does not inquire into revelation, because he does not wish to submit himself to God revealing.

b) One who rejects or calls into doubt a doctrine which he sufficiently knows to have been revealed, even if only privately (St. Alphonsus, II, 19).

c) One who indeed admits a doctrine which he holds as revealed, but not on account of the authority of God revealing, rather on account of the mere view of reason.

d) One who rejects or calls into doubt a doctrine which the Church has proposed by definitive judgment, though not as revealed, will easily become a heretic, by denying or calling into doubt the revealed truth that the Church is infallible in proposing that doctrine.

Corollary II. The following is not a heretic:

a) One who does not inquire into revelation out of levity, out of weariness, or out of fear lest, when revelation has been found out, he be bound to change his opinion. The reason is that he does not deny or call into doubt what he knows to have been revealed; nevertheless he sins gravely¹ (St. Alphonsus, VII, 301).

b) One who denies the faith only externally (St. Alphonsus, II, 19, 1).

c) One who suspends judgment, for example "turning himself to other things lest he fatigue the mind, or so that he may apply himself to another thought." Otherwise it must be said if he suspends judgment because he doubts either whether an opinion which he holds as revealed is true, or whether the Church, in proposing something as revealed, teaches what is true; in the latter case he calls into doubt the revealed doctrine concerning the infallibility of the Church (St. Alphonsus, VII, 302; II, 19).

d) One who rejects or calls into doubt a theological conclusion deduced from a truth either revealed or proposed by the Church by definitive judgment; although he will easily become a heretic by rejecting or calling into doubt the revealed premise, or the doctrine that the Church is infallible.

3. Morality. a) Heresy and apostasy are grave sin from their whole genus. For reverence due to divine truthfulness altogether requires that we assent to it, if it is clear that it has spoken.

b) Heresy and apostasy do not differ in species from positive infidelity; for they agree with it in the formal object, because they reach God under the same aspect, namely by offending His truthfulness; and they differ from it only insofar as they are found in a baptized subject.

c) Nor, as is clear, do diverse sects (Lutheranism, Calvinism, etc.) differ in moral species, although diverse species of irreligiosity, customarily exercised in the different sects, can be added.

4. Loss of faith. a) Faith (the habit of faith) is not lost except through a formal sin against faith (n. 357).

b) It is another question whether someone can bid farewell to the Catholic Church without formal sin against faith. Now strictly speaking it seems this must be answered affirmatively; namely, it seems possible that someone gradually call into doubt or even reject the truth of the Catholic Church without calling into doubt or rejecting a truth which he sufficiently perceives to have been revealed. Nor is the Vatican Council (De fide, chapter 3) an obstacle, for it only teaches that no one has an objectively valid reason for calling the Catholic faith into doubt, and that at least material sin is contained in such a manner of acting.²

c) Again, it is another question whether someone can leave the Catholic Church without any grave sin, either preceding or contained in the very defection. Now it seems it must be said as follows: No one without grave sin will come to such a point that he calls into doubt or denies those things which must be believed by necessity of means; for God abandons no one unless He is abandoned.³ Now one who without grave sin loses faith in those things which must be believed by necessity of means seems to have been abandoned by God without himself having abandoned God. As regards defection from the Catholic Church which does not include things to be believed by necessity of means, the matter is more doubtful.

d) But it can more easily happen that a Catholic without grave sin calls into doubt or even denies one or another point of the Catholic faith, namely:

alpha) Either by not noticing that an opinion admitted by him is opposed to the infallible doctrine of the Church, although he knows that it is reproved by priests, but not authoritatively.

beta) Or by persuading himself that he has reason to withdraw from the Church as regards those points, and that they are not rightly proposed by the Church as revealed: such persons do not notice that they are denying the infallibility of the Church, but rather suppose that the Church is erring in a matter which, in the opinion of the one erring, does not belong to the competence of the Church.

gamma) Or by persuading themselves that certain things are proposed by the Church as revealed which seem false to them and which they cannot believe.

The aforesaid persons regularly, at least for the sake of the common good, should not be left in good faith, nor should they be absolved unless they are willing to admit what the Church has proposed either as revealed by God or as indubitable.

¹ There are those who judge that this sin does not differ in species from heresy (p. 330).

² Vacant, Etudes sur le Concile du Vatican, II, p. 179.

³ Van Noort, De fide divina, n. 280.

Apostasy.—Apostasy (etymologically, desertion) has various meanings in theology.

(a) In a special sense, it means the abandonment of the religious or clerical state; but in its usual sense it means the abandonment of the Christian religion.

(b) Apostasy from faith in a wide sense includes both partial abandonment (heresy) and total abandonment; but, in the strict sense, it means only total abandonment of Christianity.

Example: A Christian who denies one article of the Creed becomes a heretic and an apostate in a wide sense; if he rejects the entire Creed, he becomes an infidel and an apostate in the strict sense.

(c) Apostasy which extends to infidelity is also twofold: before God and before the Church. The first kind is committed by any person who really had faith, even though unbaptized or not a Catholic; the second kind is committed only by those who were baptized and were Catholics. Examples: A catechumen who accepted Christianity and asked for Baptism, becomes an apostate before God if he abandons his belief and purpose and goes back to paganism. Similarly, a person brought up as a Lutheran becomes an apostate before God, if he abandons all belief in Christianity. But the crime of apostasy of which the Church takes cognizance is the desertion of Christianity by a baptized Catholic.

(d) A Catholic apostatizes from Christianity, either privatively (by merely renouncing all belief in Christ), or contrarily (by taking up some form of unbelief, such as indifferentism or free thought, or by joining some infidel sect, such as Mohammedanism or Confucianism).

What was said above regarding the gravity, divisions, penalties and absolution of heresy, can be applied also to apostasy.

As to the comparative gravity of sins of apostasy, the following should be noted. (a) Apostasy is not a species of sin distinct from heresy, since both are essentially the same in malice, being rejections of the authority of divine revelation; but it is a circumstance that aggravates the malice of unbelief, since it is more sweeping than heresy (see 822, 824). (b) Apostasy into one form of infidelity is not specifically different from apostasy into another, but the form of infidelity is an aggravating or extenuating circumstance. Example: Paganism is further from faith than Mohammedanism; atheism further than paganism.

Could one ever have a just reason for abandoning the Catholic Church or remaining outside its faith? (a) Objectively speaking, there can never be a just cause for giving up Catholicism or for refusing to embrace it. For the Catholic Church is the only true Church, and it is the will of Christ that all should join it. (b) Subjectively speaking, there may be a just cause for leaving or not entering the Church, namely, the fact that a person, ignorant in this matter but in good faith, believes that the Catholic Church is not the true Church. For one is obliged to follow an erroneous conscience, and, if the error is invincible, one is excused from sin (see 581-583). Examples: A Protestant taught to believe that the teachings of the Church are idolatrous, superstitious and absurd, is not blamed for not accepting them. A Catholic, poorly instructed in religion and thrown in with non-Catholic and anti-Catholic associates, might become really persuaded, and without sinning against faith itself, that it was his duty to become a Protestant.

Apostasy is committed not only by those who leave the Church and join some contrary religion (e.g., Mormonism), but also by those who, while professing to be Catholics, assent to the non-Catholic principles of some society that claims to be philosophical, charitable, economic, patriotic, etc. Much more are those apostates who join societies that openly conspire against the Church. Such are: (a) Societies that are really non-Catholic sects, because they have an infidel or heretical creed—e.g., Freemasonry (which, according to its own authorities, is a brotherhood based on Egyptian mysteries and claiming superiority to Christianity), Theosophy (which is a conglomeration of nonsensical ideas about the Deity, Christ and Redemption), the Red International, whose aims are the destruction of property rights, etc; (b) Societies that are anti-Catholic sects, because their creed is hatred of the Church—e.g., the Orangemen’s Society, the Grand Orient, the Ku Klux Klan, Junior Order, etc.

What are the sins and vices opposed to faith? - To faith is opposed unbelief, which generally is the lack of faith; and specifically it is the lack of faith in one not baptized; and this is threefold: negative, privative, positive. The first is lack of faith in one who has never heard anything about the true religion. The other is lack of faith in one who neglects to procure for himself knowledge of faith when occasion has been given. The third is lack of faith in one to whom faith itself has been sufficiently proposed, and who positively rejects it. - Although negative unbelief, as is clear, is not a sin, nevertheless it is a punishment of sin; because if he had done what was in him, God would not have hidden faith from him. But privative and positive unbelief is a most grave sin. The reason is that the former indirectly and virtually, the latter directly and formally, contains grave contempt and injury of the authority of God revealing. Faith besides is the beginning, foundation, and root of justification. Trid. s. 6, C. 8. Therefore he who voluntarily deprives himself of faith likewise deprives himself of justification, and accordingly sins very greatly.

Heresy is also opposed to faith, and it is twofold: formal and material. The first is a voluntary and pertinacious error against some truth of faith proposed by the Church, in one who has received faith. But the other is that by which someone adheres to error against faith, but without pertinacity. Moreover to err pertinaciously here is not sharply and tooth-and-nail to defend one's error, but to retain it knowingly and voluntarily, after the contrary has been sufficiently proposed; or when it is known that the contrary is held by the universal Church of Christ on earth, to which someone prefers his own judgment, whether this is done from vainglory, or from the lust of contradicting, or from another cause. Merely material heresy is not a sin, for that error proceeds from invincible ignorance of the truth. But formal heresy is a most grave sin, as unbelief itself, for the same reasons.

Finally apostasy is opposed to faith, which is total defection from the truth of the Catholic faith. Therefore it is not distinguished in species from heresy. For whether more or less of the material object of faith is rejected, the formal object is always rejected in the same mode. It is reduced to positive unbelief if someone, departing absolutely from faith, passes over to unbelief. And if someone passes over to a sect in which false worship of God is had, he also sins against religion. Non-Catholics are as many as are not Catholics. Their genus is threefold: schismatics, heretics, apostates. More broadly non-Catholics are also infidels.

Heretics and those suspect concerning the faith must be denounced to the Bishop or Inquisitor from C. Noveritis of Nicholas II, and from the natural law, since such a crime tends to common harm. L. l. 4, n. 249 seqq.; l. 7, n. 248. But the Bishop has the faculty of proceeding in a cause of heresy even against regulars, although exempt, C. 9, de Haeret. - Those who wish to be converted from heresy to the Catholic Church before absolution must abjure their heresy and make a public profession of faith, according to what is prescribed by C. Si qui voluerint 8, can. 1, q. 7, and the Roman Ritual. - An abjuration made privately before someone delegated by the Bishop, such as a notary, and some persons as witnesses, suffices. S. O. 8 Apr. 1786; 28 Mar. 1900; Struggl, q. 2, nn. 1, 9; Suarez, d. 16, s. 1; Lugo, d. 16, n. 187, 291 seqq.; d. 18, n. 3 seqq.; S. Th. 2. 2. q. 5, 10, 11, 12; L. 17 seqq.; Collectan. S. C. de P. F., ed. 1, nn. 1682, 1683, 1689, and ed. 2, nn. 1341, 1496, 2079; E. M. 346.

351 bis. Note: 1. The books of Sacred Scripture whole with all their parts, as the Holy Synod of Trent, s. 4, reviewed them, are divinely inspired, and are sacred and canonical. 2. The heresies of schismatics and Orientals are reviewed in the Epistle of Pius X, Ex quo, 26 Dec. 1910, Acta Apost. Sed., v. 3, p. 117 seqq. 3. Modernism is the collection of all heresies. - Bishops must be vigilant that it be extirpated, if it has been present, and must take precautions lest it be present.

Bishops should impede the writings of Modernists from being published and read; especially they should not be permitted to adolescents in Seminaries and to hearers in Universities. - They should establish a council of vigilance, to meet with the Bishop every other month and on a stated day. It will belong to it to investigate judgments of modernism in books and in teaching; likewise to keep watch over books and periodicals, lest dangerous questions be treated in them with weak arguments and prejudged questions; finally, over all writings concerning social matters. - By Modernism there are condemned rash and false novelties against the doctrine of Sacred Scripture and constantly handed down by the Fathers and Catholic Doctors; but by no means is there condemned any modern invention which is proved by solid reason. - Those who are prone to the errors of modernism are to be excluded from Sacred Orders. Pius X, Enc. Pascendi, 8 Sept. 1907.

4. Several errors of Americanism are condemned. Its fundamental and chief error consists in this: "It is opportune, for attracting the wills of those who disagree, if certain heads of doctrine, as if of lighter moment, are passed over, or softened so that they do not retain the same sense which the Church has constantly held." Brief to Card. Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, of Leo XIII, 22 Jan. 1899, Testem benevolentiae.

I. All apostates from the Christian faith, and all and each heretics, by whatever name they are reckoned, and of whatever sect they exist, and those believing them; and their receivers, favorers, and generally any defenders of them.

Apostates are those who, utterly defecting from the Christian religion, pass over to the Mohammedan sect or another, or even to none. But understand an apostate not only by exterior work or sign, but also in soul. For he is called an apostate from the Christian faith. But one who is only externally an apostate is an apostate not from faith, but from confession of faith. Moreover the discussion is of apostasy from the Christian faith, not only inwardly conceived, but also outwardly solemnly professed in baptism.

Heretics. In order that this excommunication, imposed precisely because of heresy, be incurred, it is required, 1. that the heresy be formal, i.e., with error of the intellect and pertinacity of will. But he is called pertinacious who adheres to his opinion notwithstanding that he knows it to be opposed to the doctrine of the Roman Church sufficiently proposed to him; or who is so disposed in soul that, even if that doctrine should be sufficiently proposed to him, nevertheless he would not wish to be moved from his opinion. The reason for this last member of the disjunction is that any ignorance, even crass and affected, according to the truer and more common opinion excuses from heresy and the penalties of heretics. For someone can very well have the will of believing all things which are sufficiently proposed to him as revealed by God and as dogmas of the Church, although he does not have the will of applying diligence so that he may know what things have been revealed by God and what defined by the Church. Hence although he sins gravely against faith, nevertheless he is not formally an infidel and heretic, but a faithful and Catholic person believing all things which have been revealed by God and defined by the Church, and which are sufficiently proposed to him. De Lugo, De Fide, disp. 20, sec. 6; L. 301. It is required, 2. that the heresy of the mind be betrayed exteriorly by an external sign manifestative of internal error, from itself or from the circumstances, with a gravely culpable manifestation, although the matter becomes known to no one. L. 303-305. Hence these do not incur excommunication: 1. a merely mental heretic, or one who abstains from hearing Mass; 2. one who manifests his heresy in order to seek counsel. But a positive doubt outwardly betrayed by no means excuses, because one doubting thus judges that the truth proposed by the Church can be false. L. 302. Cf. Struggl, tract 4, q. 2, n. 12; Lugo, De Fide, disp. 20, n. 17. It is required, 3. that the heresy has not been brought to the judicial forum of the Bishop. For Bishops by themselves or by a delegate can absolve in each forum from any heresy, if it has once been brought to their judicial forum. L., appendix de Priv., n. 39; Benedict XIV, De Synodo, book 9, chap. 4. But the Constitution of Pius IX does not seem to derogate from this faculty of Bishops. Therefore Bishops have no faculty of absolving only from heresy, whether occult or notorious, which has not yet been brought to their forum. Hence all Protestants who wished to abjure their heresy, and consequently to bring it to the external forum, need not have recourse to Rome, but can be absolved by the Bishop, both for the external and for the internal forum, either by himself or by a delegate.

By whatever name they are reckoned, namely by some peculiar name of heretics. Of whatever sect they exist, "even if they do not adhere to heresy in soul, they enroll themselves even only by name in a sect, whatever name it may have, heretical or schismatical, from whatever cause this is done," according to the Declaration of the Holy Office. Diocesan Synod of Albano, year 1886, part 1, art. 6, n. 2.

Those believing, namely those truly believing heretics, whether explicitly or implicitly; those believing either in particular some false dogma of heretics, although they do not adhere to them in all things, nor are called by a particular name, e.g., Calvinists, Lutherans, etc., nor are judged enrolled in some particular sect, e.g., the Reformed Church, etc.; or those believing only generally that heretics have the true faith and religion, although they believe nothing distinctly and in particular against faith; those believing them when they say that the Catholic religion is false.

Receivers: to receive is to furnish refuge for the sake of hiding in one's own or another's place. Therefore receivers are those who receive by hospitality or conceal, even once, a heretic so that he may escape the penalties of his heresy. Favorers: to favor generally is to furnish any work to someone for his advantage and usefulness, whether by doing something, e.g., by recommending, by giving money, or by omitting what someone by office ought to have done. Therefore favorers are those who in the cause of faith favor heretics, either negatively, namely by omitting, when they can and are bound by office, to capture, guard, or punish a heretic; or positively, by helping him, as such, with praises, recommendations, money, etc., e.g., so that he may flee, etc. Hence the Holy Office, May 11, 1892, declared that excommunication is contracted by those who enter marriage before a heretical or schismatic minister assigned to sacred things. Defenders: to defend is to protect someone, so that he can do something safely and freely, or to protect something against contrary attacks. Therefore defenders of errors or of the person are those who defend their errors by words, writings, etc., although inwardly they think otherwise, or who prevent them from being captured or punished because of heresy.

Therefore these words, receivers, favorers, defenders of heretics, must be understood formally of those who favor heretics insofar as they are heretics, namely either because they profess such doctrine, or also in order to teach, defend, or do something of this kind concerning that heresy. The reason is that penalty must be understood strictly, according to the subject matter. Besides, receivers, favorers, defenders: understand reception, favor, defense as completed. And so, if you have received, defended, and favored a heretic lest he be captured, yet he was captured, you have not incurred the excommunication imposed on receivers, favorers, and defenders of heretics. Bull In Coena Domini, sec. 1; C. Sicut ait 8; C. Excommunicamus 13, 15, de Haereticis; Suarez, disp. 21, sec. 2, first excommunication; Bonacina, De Censur. in partic., disp. 1, q. 2, parts 1, 2, 3; L. 300 ff.; Ferraris, v. Haeresis, Haereticus; Schmalzgrueber, book 5, title 7; St. Thomas, II-II, qq. 10-12; Quodlibet 10, aa. 15, 16; E.M.

Public abjuration of heretics who desire to return to the faith is not necessary, but their abjuration can be made before someone delegated by the Bishop as notary, and some persons as witnesses. But they must abstain altogether from communication in spiritual things with heretics, and from every thing protestative of heresy. Holy Office, March 28, 1900; Monitor Ecclesiasticus, vol. 12, pp. 49-50.

II. All and each persons knowingly reading without authority of the Apostolic See books of the same apostates and heretics defending heresy, and also books of any author prohibited by name through Apostolic letters; and those retaining, printing, and in any way defending the same books.

Knowingly: this clause placed at the beginning affects, in the obvious and natural sense, not only those reading, but also those retaining, printing, and defending. Therefore ignorance, whether of fact or of law, even crass, and not improbably also affected, excuses from this censure. L. 296. Reading: by the name of reading here is understood reading in the proper sense, and in a human way, so that one understands the things which he reads. Moreover, reading strictly such is understood; whence it is indeed prohibited to read, but it is not prohibited to hear one reading, who perhaps has faculty; nor to recite part of the book from memory, because these things are not comprehended strictly under the name of reading. Ithur., case 39; L. 292. Reading, in a notable quantity and sufficient for grave sin. Thus commonly the doctors, who nevertheless disagree in determining the quantity of this kind. But it seems more rightly to be distinguished, because if by reading a prohibited book you immediately fall into heresy, you can incur excommunication by reading even a few lines, because there is great danger of perversion, which the prohibition of the Church intends to remove. But if you fall into matter altogether indifferent and infected by no error, even by reading a whole page, you are excused from mortal sin and therefore from excommunication. Ithur., l.c., nn. 30, 31; L. 284, 294. Say the same concerning those retaining; for one who retains a book for a moderate time, e.g., one or another day, even if he has the intention of always retaining it, does not incur excommunication. For the reason is the same for time as for matter. Nor are theologians lacking who excuse one who retains a book for a longer time while awaiting a suitable time to hand it over to a superior, or to another having license. Without authority of the Apostolic See. Therefore the Pope alone, or those to whom he has committed or delegated this faculty, can dispense concerning the reading of books prohibited by the present censure.

Books: letters, sermons, public newspapers, Holy Office, April 27, 1880, pamphlets, are not books. Nor are manuscripts books. Sheets separated from a prohibited book, fragments of a book, are not a book. Cf. St. Alphonsus, 293; Suarez, De Cens., disp. 23, sec. 7, n. 3. For a book properly is a volume of several sheets collected together, not of an altogether slight bulk, treating of one and the same argument, or even of various arguments. Whence those knowingly reading periodic publications bound into fascicles, defending heresy and having a heretical author, incur excommunication. Holy Office, January 13, 1892. Of apostates and heretics: the same is added; therefore there is question of those of whom the discussion is in the preceding excommunication, namely by whatever name they are reckoned and of whatever sect they exist; but those believing them are omitted, wherefore it seems to be required for incurring this excommunication that the heretical author be known from elsewhere, and it does not suffice that he be first manifested as such through the book itself. For such a person would rather be a Catholic believing the errors of heretics than a heretic, as is distinguished in the preceding excommunication. Yet if the author evidently and certainly defends heresy, and evidently with a pertinacious mind against the authority of the Church, by that very fact he will be judged a heretic by right and deservedly. Hence if the book is anonymous, from the book itself it can be known whether its author is a heretic, L. 283, and then the censure is incurred. This is confirmed from the constitution Officiorum of Leo XIII, de Prohib. et cens. libr., sec. 47. Defending heresy: "even if only one error is contained in the whole book, the whole is prohibited; nor, even with that error deleted, will it be lawful to retain the book, because it is absolutely prohibited by force of this clause." Suarez, l.c. La Croix, n. 330, and others deny this last point, and indeed probably, because then the book no longer contains heresy, nor does it induce any danger. L. 283. But it must be carefully noted that to defend heresy is not simply to contain heresy, but to undertake patronage of heresy intentionally and, as it were, with one's powers. Therefore books of heretics which only incidentally contain heresy are not comprehended under this excommunication, since they do not treat professedly of faith. L. 287. Nor do the books of the primitive heretics seem to be comprehended, since their heresy no longer harms, and knowledge of them is very useful for ecclesiastical history. La Croix, book 7, n. 333.

Through Apostolic letters. Apostolic letters are those which proceed immediately in the name of the Roman Pontiff, whether in the form of a Brief, or in the form of a Bull, or in any other form, provided that in them is read, by Apostolic Authority, or something equivalent. Prohibited by name, i.e., with the title of the book expressed in particular. Therefore all books which are condemned only in a general way through Apostolic letters are not comprehended by this censure. Prohibited by name: the words indeed are general; nevertheless the doctors commonly understand them of prohibition under penalty of excommunication reserved to the Roman Pontiff. Otherwise the Supreme Pontiff seems to relax to others what he does not reserve to himself, and therefore then there will not be an excommunication reserved to himself in a special manner. But by this same argument it is shown that that excommunication, although reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, is nevertheless not reserved to him in a special manner. For if the Supreme Pontiff reserves it to himself only simply, he seems by that very fact to remove the special reservation. Therefore it would rather have to be said that there is question of prohibition under penalty of specially reserved excommunication. But then this second article of the Constitution would be entirely useless. Therefore it seems that it must be said that there is question of prohibition simply made under penalty of excommunication, although no reservation is added to it. It is said under penalty of excommunication, because if the prohibition is made either with no penalty added, or with another penalty, it surely does not pertain here. For here there is question of censures. Cf. 1178.

Retaining. "He is said to retain who has a book with himself, whether he has it borrowed, deposited, belonging to another, for binding, for selling, for adorning a library, whether in his own or another's house; so that in whatever way, and wherever he has the book, he incurs the censure imposed against those retaining. And so it is not lawful for you to sell or give them.... Yet I myself would think this must be limited, unless you sell or give to one having faculty to read them; for then I believe that the tacit or interpretative faculty of superiors is present, who are not reasonably judged unwilling.... You would not sin if, accommodating another who has faculty, you yourself were to carry with you some prohibited book bought at Rome, e.g., to Fano; just as the bookseller would not sin who kept the book longer in his shop for binding, because all these things are accessory to the faculty itself conceded and are understood as conceded through it." Ithur., case 39, n. 40. Printing: in the obvious sense, those printing are generally all who cooperate proximately in printing, such as those who compose the type, ink it, moisten the sheets, turn the press, etc. Those who arrange sheets and books already printed are not properly printers; those selling and carrying elsewhere are rather retainers. The owner of the typography and the publisher, in the obvious sense, are not printers, but those commanding printing. Regularly they are both readers and also retainers. Defending in any way, namely defending either by words or by deeds; either the depraved doctrine which they contain, or the material book itself, namely if they prevent the book from being burned or handed over to the Bishop or Inquisitor. L. 285. But one who approves and praises good and true doctrine contained in the book is not comprehended by this censure, provided nevertheless that he is not judged absolutely to approve the book itself; nor even one who praises the style, eloquence, phrase, or genius, provided that this does not argue praise and approval of the book. Bull In Coena Domini, sec. 1; Lugo, De Fide, disp. 25, n. 94; L. 281-299; Bouix, De Cur. Rom., part 3, sec. 3, chap. 11; Suarez, disp. 21, sec. 2, first excommunication; Bonacina, disp. 1, q. 2, part 4; E.M.

663. 1. Concerning apostasy in general. Apostasy (apo, histemi, I depart) is a total withdrawal from the Christian faith received through baptism. It therefore differs from heresy in this, that it rejects the whole faith, while heresy denies only one or certain truths. Yet for someone to be an apostate it is not necessary that he pass over to a false religion, for example, Judaism or Mohammedanism; but it is enough that, after having received baptism, he externally bids farewell to the Christian faith, by slipping, namely, into deism, positivism, atheism, indifferentism, etc. If a catechumen, not yet baptized, who had conceived faith in his mind, deserts it totally, he will indeed be an apostate before God, who looks upon the heart, but not before the Church, to which he had not yet been externally joined.

Those things which we said concerning the malice and penalties of heresy are true also concerning apostasy, since it radically tears out the foundation of faith, and recedes farther from God than heresy. But among apostates, those are certainly worse and more pernicious who withdraw more fundamentally from the Christian faith, such as atheists, positivists, monists, or materialists, whose number increases day by day.

664. 2. Concerning apostasy by adhesion to Masonic sects.² But among these Masons (francs-macons, free-masons) stand out, who, scattered through the whole world, not only defend naturalism, but show themselves the most hostile enemies of the Christian name, and promote with all their strength the universal apostasy of nations from the faith.³

² Deschamps and C. Jannet, Les societes secretes et la societe, Paris, 1880; Copin-Albancelli, La franc-maconnerie et la question religieuse, Paris, 1892; P. Nourrisson, Le club des Jacobins sous la troisieme Republique, Paris, 1900; idem, Les Jacobins au pouvoir, Paris, 1904; Prache, La petition contre la franc-maconnerie; Goyau, La Fr. Maconnerie en France, Paris, 1904; M. Le Francois, Le Plan Maconnique, Lille, 1905, where you will also find other works cited, p. 145.

³ The origin of this sect is very obscure. It is certain that it flourished in England already in the year 1717, and was very swiftly propagated in the principal regions of Europe in the middle of the eighteenth century. But also around the end of the preceding century certain Masonic assemblies had been held in Scotland and Sweden. It is very probable that these sects arose from associations of workers who gave their labor to constructing buildings: in the sixteenth century men were enrolled in these associations who were not workers, but furnished patronage to them; among these, however, there were found some who, imbued with philosophical and religious errors, changed the nature and character of these associations. Cf. Gyr, La Franc-maconnerie, Paris, 1859, pp. 238-250; Findel, Les principes de la franc-maconnerie.

(A) In order that they may more easily deceive the incautious, they declare themselves patrons of philanthropy, democracy, and the fraternal solidarity of all, and defenders of workers and the oppressed: "They have readily on the tongue zeal for a more cultivated civility, charity for the poorer people: they claim that they wish only to seek better things for the multitude, and to share with as many as possible the advantages which are had in civil society."⁴ Besides, they skillfully accommodate themselves to the morals and opinions of different nations:⁵ where the Christian religion has many and strenuous followers, they do not openly attack Christianity, but advocate a liberal form of religion; elsewhere they favor deism and acknowledge God as the Great Architect; but in some regions, as in France, they openly favor atheism. Everywhere, however, they veil their purposes with the seal of secrecy, and manifest them not to all associates, but only to a few initiates, so that many Masons are entirely ignorant of them. Yet all by oath promise blind obedience to the leaders,⁶ and thus, unknowingly, cooperate toward a most evil end.

⁴ Thus Leo XIII, Encycl. Humanum genus, concerning the sect of Masons, Apr. 20, 1884. Concerning secret societies in the United States of America, cf. Council of Baltimore III, nn. 244-245.

⁵ This is openly established from the Masonic convention held at Geneva in the year 1902; thus it is read in the periodical Revue maconnique l'Acacia, Dec. 1902: "It is certain that Masonry is not understood everywhere in the same way. The Anglo-Saxons have made of it an aristocratic and conservative confraternity from the double political and religious point of view... As for Latin Masonry, it owes its distinctive character to the struggle which it sustains against Catholicism." - In the French general convention, in the year 1903, F. Mayoux said: "We say that a Freemason can be a materialist, yes; that he can be a positivist, yes; that he can be a deist, a spiritualist, yes; but that he be Catholic, Protestant, or Jew, never, never, never. (Applause.) I know well that, in past centuries, there were priests who formed part of Freemasonry, I know well that even today Freemasonry raises to its highest functions dignitaries of Protestant and Jewish churches, but that, my brothers, is the past." (Apud P. Nourrisson, Les Jacobins au pouvoir, pp. 249-250.)

⁶ Concerning this oath Leo XII said, Constit. Apost. Quo graviora, Mar. 13, 1825: "That nefarious oath, which has already been mentioned, and which must be sworn even in that lower enrollment, is sufficiently of itself, so that you may understand that it is unlawful even to be enrolled in those lesser grades."

665. (B) That this end is the overthrow of Christianity is established from the open declarations of the leaders, at least in those regions where they have become more daring.⁷ In order to pursue this more securely, first indeed with all their strength they take care that neutral schools be instituted by the State, by which the way is prepared for indifferentism and naturalism; afterward, however, they endeavor gradually to overthrow religious schools by various vexations, indeed they wish that the education of the young be committed to the State alone; finally they take care that in public schools positivism or agnosticism be taught.⁸ By means of denunciation, they gradually remove Christians from public functions and offices.⁹ They tear apart the foundations of the family by promoting divorce and free union.¹⁰ They do not hesitate to favor the disturbance of society, joining forces with socialists, so that they may be able to obtain the votes of workers.¹¹

⁷ For recently, May 30, 1904, F. Leon Martin, in the convention of Masons of the Parisian region, said: "Freemasonry must pursue the dechristianization of France, by ceaselessly extending its moral and philosophical influence." (Compte-rendu, p. 31.) - Cf. A. Leroux, La Franc-Maconnerie sous la 3e Republique, t. I, pp. 168, 173; that these places, where the existence of God is denied, were excerpted from genuine Masonic documents, F. Mouret, our colleague, had as certain and established, who himself examined these texts.

⁸ How impious doctrines of this kind are scattered in schools, colleges, and universities was set forth by G. Goyau, L'Ecole d'aujourd'hui, Paris, 1899. - In reality books are already used in certain schools, written by Masons, in which it is asserted that neither the existence of God nor the immortality of the soul can be demonstrated.

⁹ M. Le Francois, Le plan Maconnique, Lille, 1905, pp. 108-118.

¹⁰ Thus, in the Masonic Ritual, by F. Blatin, p. 20, it is read: "The spouses will understand by this symbol (a glass rod which is broken before their eyes), that their union can be voluntarily and legally broken by them, just as this rod has just been. We do not admit, among free citizens, indissoluble bonds and contracts without a resolutory clause." (Ap. M. Le Francois, op. cit., pp. 54-55.)

¹¹ Thus, in the year 1896, F. Rouanet, addressing Masons, said: "If Masonry wishes to continue its role, it will be socialist. Masonry has killed God and emptied Heaven, but if Heaven is empty, the earth is not yet yours. Neither God nor Master, such will soon be the Masonic formula." (Ap. M. Le Francois, op. cit., p. 134.) Likewise, in the general convention in the year 1900, F. Bedarride asserted "that in socialism alone, and socialism applied in its integrity, is found the key of the social question... the logical conclusion and the only consequent crowning of the ideas of solidarity of universal Masonry." (Ap. Nourrisson, Les Jacobins, p. 32.)

Indeed not all, nor everywhere, openly pursue all these things; but experience establishes that they gradually become more daring, and publicly manifest what before they had conceived in mind, but had carefully dissembled.¹²

¹² You will find many examples of this dissimulation in the conventions of Masons; thus, for example, first they advocate neutral education, lest they offend the ears of deists, but a little afterward they declare that the same ought to be anti-religious, indeed atheistic, and therefore they earnestly demand that the name of God be banished from all books which are handed to pupils. (Cf. M. Le Francois, op. cit., pp. 10-13.)

From these things it is gathered that one of the principal causes of apostasy is the adhesion of the young to Masonic sects: as soon as they have given their name to secret societies, they fall into the danger of withdrawing totally from faith, and indeed permanently; for they fear lest, if they return to faith, they be punished with dreadful penalties as violators of an oath.

Therefore deservedly they incur the excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Supreme Pontiff: "those giving their name to the Masonic or Carbonarian sect or to other sects of the same kind, which plot against the Church or legitimate powers either openly or secretly, and also those furnishing any favor whatsoever to the same sects, and those not denouncing their hidden chiefs and leaders, until they shall have denounced them."¹³

¹³ Bull Apostolicae Sedis, § II, n. 4. - Besides Masons and Carbonarians, the Fenians are subject to this excommunication, from the decree of the Holy Office, Jan. 12, 1870, nihilists and anarchists, and probably socialists properly so called, insofar as they plot against the Church and legitimate powers.

666. Therefore with all their strength priests and upright laymen should strive to turn the young away from entering secret societies of this kind, by opportunely revealing "what are the arts of societies of this kind in flattering and enticing, and what is the depravity in their opinions, and the turpitude in their actions."¹⁴ But in order that they may be removed from these more effectively, honorable societies are to be instituted everywhere: for since strength and consolation are found together in associations, and in our days adolescents are prone to joining leagues, it is altogether necessary that honorable societies be opposed to depraved societies.¹⁵ In France especially, where Masons, although few in number, rule everything today, the Catholic religion will not be able to flourish again unless the faithful and priests, vain complaints being altogether put aside, join forces and strenuously and constantly institute the good combat against the most hostile haters of the Christian name.¹⁶

¹⁴ Leo XIII, Encycl. Humanum genus, which should be read wholly and attentively.

¹⁵ To the point Council of Baltimore III, n. 257: "For the young, because they are exposed to greater dangers, we wish greater care to be spent; accordingly we establish that in every parish or mission, where a sufficient number of them is found, special societies for them be instituted by the rector and fostered by every effort." In reality in most places societies of this kind have been instituted, for example, in the United States the society called Knights of Columbus, in France Le Sillon, L'Assoc. cath. de la jeunesse francaise, etc.

¹⁶ That hope is in Masons of overthrowing the Catholic religion, and of openly preaching their wicked errors in our churches, is established from this declaration of F. Blatin, in the convention of 1883 (Bul. du G. Orient, p. 645): "In these edifices, raised on all sides to religious superstitions and priestly supremacies, perhaps we shall be called in our turn to preach our doctrines, and instead of the clerical psalmodies which still resound there, it will be the gavels, the batteries, and the acclamations of our Order, which will make their broad vaults and vast pillars resound." The same words F. Masson uttered, Feb. 25, 1884, as can be read apud Bull. Mac. de la grande Loge symbolique, t. V, p. 63.

512. Apostasy, which by force of the name signifies the same as departure (apo-histamai, aphistamai), is threefold, namely apostasy from faith,¹⁶ apostasy from order, and apostasy from religion, according as someone culpably withdraws either from orthodox faith or from the clerical state or from the religious state. Here only apostasy from faith is treated; and this can be defined: total¹⁷ defection from the Christian faith once voluntarily received. It is called total defection; for if someone denied one or another article of faith, he would be rather a heretic than an apostate. Nevertheless, since any Catholic man who denies even one article of faith consequently must also deny the infallibility of the Church, by that very fact he totally withdraws from the Church and the Catholic faith and becomes a true apostate. Hence the true essence of apostasy seems to consist in this, that someone voluntarily rejects the Catholic faith which he previously had.¹⁸ Therefore he who from infancy has been baptized and reared in heresy is not an apostate, but a heretic. But for apostasy it is not required that a man adhere to some determinate false sect, e.g. that he pass over to Judaism or Mohammedanism; rather, it is sufficient that after baptism received in the Catholic Church he fall away wholly from faith. Hence rationalists, atheists, free-thinkers, and Freemasons (at least very many) are in reality apostates from faith. What we shall say afterward about positive and formal heresy, about its malice and penalties, holds a fortiori of apostasy, which, as was said above n. 509 from St. Thomas, is nothing other than an aggravating circumstance of infidelity and heresy.

¹⁶ It is called by St. Thomas: apostasy of perfidy (S. theol. 2, 2, q. 12, a. 1).

¹⁷ Thus authors commonly define apostasy, e.g. Busenbaum apud St. Alph., Theol. mor. 2, 17; Laymann, Theol. mor. l. 2, tr. 1, c. 12; Billuart, De fide diss. 5, a. 4; Lehmkuhl, Theol. mor. I, 413; Noldin, De praec. n. 28. The Code of Canon Law, c. 1325, § 2, speaks in the same way. A few authors also call a partial recession from faith apostasy. Cf. Lugo, De fide disput. 18, sect. 4, n. 96.

¹⁸ Cf. Billuart, De fide diss. 5, a. 4.

513. On apostasy to the Masonic sect. The Masonic sect and other similar sects pursuing the same end have been dispersed through the whole world and already have inflicted many evils on true religion. Apparently and speciously, indeed, the Freemasons proclaim that they intend philanthropic ends and mutual assistance; but in reality they overthrow every positive religion.¹⁹ In England and in North America the Masonic sect does not seem to plot so vehemently against true religion as in France, Spain, and other regions; but nevertheless it is never licit for any Catholic to give his name to that Masonic sect; indeed, those who give their name to the Masonic sect or to other associations of the same kind, which plot against the Church or legitimate civil powers either openly or secretly, incur an excommunication simply reserved to the Supreme Pontiff.²⁰ Clerics and religious giving their name to associations of this kind are besides punished with other penalties and must be denounced to the Holy Office.²¹ All secret sects as such are already prohibited, even if they do not directly plot against the Church or civil government. Hence the sect whose name is "Independent Order of Good Templars" was proscribed by the Holy Office on August 9, 1893, although its principal end seems to be good, namely abstinence and temperance to be promoted.²² The Society of Fenians ("Fenians and Invincibles"), as plotting against legitimate civil authority, was proscribed by the Holy Office on January 12, 1870, under the penalty of excommunication in the same way as the Masonic sect.²³ Notorious Freemasons cannot be admitted as sponsors in the sacrament of baptism or confirmation,²⁴ nor can they be granted ecclesiastical burial unless due retraction has preceded.²⁵ The faithful are to be deterred from marriages with them; moreover the pastor cannot assist at these marriages without the permission of the Ordinary.²⁶ What things are to be required from Freemasons wishing to return into the bosom of the Church will be said in the treatise on censures.²⁷

¹⁹ In a Masonic convention held at Geneva in the year 1902 Mayoux exclaimed: "We say that a Freemason can be a materialist, yes; that he can be a positivist, yes; that he can be a deist, spiritualist, yes; but that he be Catholic, Protestant, or Jew, never" (applause). Cf. Tanquerey, Synopsis Theol. mor. II, n. 666.

²⁰ Cod. iur. can. c. 2335.

²¹ Ib. c. 2336.

²² Collect. de Prop. Fide n. 1845.

²³ Collect. de Prop. Fide n. 1350.

²⁴ Holy Office, July 5, 1878; Collect. n. 1495.

²⁵ Holy Office, l. c.; Cod. iur. can. c. 1240.

²⁶ Cod. iur. can. c. 1065.

²⁷ Cf. below III, 516.

514. Heresy (Greek hairesis = selection) designates a sect which selects certain truths of faith and rejects others. Heresy considered objectively is a proposition which contradicts some article of faith, e.g. confirmation is not a sacrament; but heresy taken subjectively, or formal heresy, with which alone we are dealing here, can be defined: the pertinacious error of a Christian man against some truth of Catholic faith. Hence for formal heresy there are required error in the intellect and pertinacity in the will, so that a Christian man, i.e. one baptized, knowingly and voluntarily denies or calls into doubt some truth which the Catholic Church teaches as a dogma of faith. Hence a formal heretic is not:

1. He who from fear, levity, or another motive outwardly denies the faith, but inwardly retains the true faith. (But in the external forum even merely external heresy is gravely punished, because by it the precept of confessing faith is gravely injured.)

2. He who from ignorance, even gravely culpable ignorance,²⁸ errs in faith; for pertinacity is lacking.

3. He who denies some truth which is indeed held by many as revealed, but which the Church has not yet proposed as revealed. Much less is he a heretic who denies some proposition which is only a theological conclusion.

Those who err in faith without pertinacity are accustomed to be called material heretics, provided, however, they are prepared to correct their error as soon as they have certainly recognized it. Not a few non-Catholics who from infancy have been reared in heresy and have never had any serious doubt about their religion are indeed materially heretics, but in reality belong to the Catholic Church, because they are validly baptized. In doubt whether someone is a material or formal heretic, he is to be judged a material heretic, and therefore in the article of death he can, provided scandal is absent, receive sacramental absolution,²⁹ though not Holy Communion. Hence, e.g., if a confessor is called to a dying non-Catholic, he could with him elicit an act of faith in God one and triune, in Jesus Christ the redeemer and rewarder, then an act of contrition for all sins committed, and afterward conditionally impart absolution to him. Thus Lacroix apud Elbel, who says:³⁰ "If a Catholic priest understands that a non-Catholic man has been brought to his last extremity, he acts prudently (unless something else should prevent it) by going to him, and with the same man eliciting acts of faith, hope, and charity, remaining in those [truths] which are common to us with heretics. If, however, the circumstances permit, he can afterward ask whether he would wish to embrace the saving faith, if he knew that he was not in the true faith; likewise whether he would wish to embrace all things necessary for salvation, to confess and to be absolved." On the contrary, if it is a question of heretics or schismatics who are not dying, it is forbidden to minister the sacraments of the Church to them unless first, their errors having been rejected, they have been reconciled to the Church.³¹

²⁸ Several authors, such as Lugo (De fide disp. 20, sect. 6, n. 174), Banez, Suarez, Azor, etc., thought that any ignorance, even crass and affected ignorance, excused from heresy and the penalties of heretics. But such ignorance certainly is gravely sinful and injures the precept of knowing those things which are of faith, nor today does it excuse from the penalties laid against heretics.

²⁹ Cf. Holy Office, July 20, 1898.

³⁰ De fide, Conference I, n. 35.

³¹ Cod. iur. can. c. 731, § 2.

515. Divisions. Heresy is divided: a) into material and formal, about which it has already been said above. The first is involuntary error, or at least error without pertinacity; the other is voluntary and pertinacious error of a baptized man in faith.

b) Into internal and external. Internal heresy is error against faith existing in the mind alone, without being manifested by any external sign. External heresy is error against faith manifested by word or by another external sign.

c) Into occult and public. Thus external heresy is subdivided; it is occult if it becomes known to no one or to few; but if it is known to many, so that it can no longer be concealed, it is called public.

Note. For incurring the guilt of heresy internal voluntary heresy suffices; but for incurring the ecclesiastical penalties laid against heretics, external heresy at least occult is required and suffices. The reason is that the Church is not accustomed to punish except external acts. Hence if someone, e.g., freely and culpably thinks that the Supreme Pontiff lacks the gift of infallibility, he incurs grave guilt of heresy; but if he expresses the same heresy by some sign, even occult, he incurs besides the penalty of excommunication (the other requisites being posited).

516. Malice of heresy. 1. Formal heresy is a sin mortal from its whole genus, and therefore it does not admit smallness of matter.

The reason is that it contains formal contempt of the truthfulness and authority of God. Wherefore St. Thomas rightly writes:³² "Someone sins more gravely against faith who resists faith received than one who resists faith not yet received, just as one sins more gravely who does not fulfill what he promised than one who does not fulfill what he never promised.... Hence, speaking simply, the infidelity of heretics (and a fortiori the infidelity of apostates) is worst." Apostasy does not differ specifically from formal heresy, but is its very aggravating circumstance (as was already said above n. 509), especially if it is apostasy to Judaism or paganism.

2. Material heresy is not a sin, because it is not voluntary.

³² S. theol. 2, 2, q. 10, a. 6.

517. Ecclesiastical penalties. Formal heretics and apostates who have manifested heresy publicly or at least externally incur:

1. Excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Supreme Pontiff in a special manner.³³

2. Privation of benefices, dignities, pensions, offices, or other ecclesiastical functions, unless, having been admonished, they repent.³⁴

3. Infamy of law and incapacity of giving a vote in ecclesiastical elections, if they have given their name to a heretical or schismatical sect or have publicly adhered to it.³⁵

4. Deposition or degradation for clerics who, having been admonished, have not repented.³⁶

5. Irregularity, both from delict³⁷ and from defect, if they have given their name to a non-Catholic sect or have publicly adhered to it, on account of infamy of law.³⁸

6. Privation of ecclesiastical burial. For notorious heretics are judged to be public sinners, to whom ecclesiastical burial is to be denied. The reason is that heretics, as being externally separated from the Church in life, also in death and in the cemetery cannot be joined with the Christian faithful.³⁹

There are or have also been other penalties laid against heretics, which nevertheless are nothing other than consequences of the aforesaid penalties, and today are not reduced into practice, e.g. confiscation of goods, incarceration, beating. To judge and punish the crime of heresy, tribunals of the Inquisition had been instituted in antiquity. Not a few judges of those tribunals were slain by heretics in hatred of the faith (St. Peter Martyr, Bl. Antonius Pavonius, Bl. Bartholomaeus Savilianus). According to modern discipline, such tribunals of the Inquisition now no longer exist in the diverse parts of the world, but it belongs to bishops to watch in their own diocese over the purity of faith. But at Rome there exists the Congregation of the Holy Office, to which causes pertaining to faith are committed.

On absolution from the sin of heresy see the treatise on censures.

³³ Cod. iur. can. c. 2314, § 1, n. 1.

³⁴ Ib. n. 2.

³⁵ Ib. and c. 167, § 1, n. 4. On account of infamy of law such heretics incur also other penalties, e.g. they are incapable of ecclesiastical offices and benefices (c. 2294), of the function of sponsor (cc. 765 and 795), of the personal right of patronage (c. 1453, § 1).

³⁶ Ib. c. 2314.

³⁷ Ib. c. 985, n. 1.

³⁸ Ib. c. 984, n. 5.

³⁹ c. 8, X 5, 7. Cod. iur. can. c. 1240, § 1, n. 1.

518. Scholion 1. On propositions qualified by a theological note. A formal heretic is he who pertinaciously denies some revealed truth, as has already been said. But sin is committed not only when a certainly revealed truth is rejected, but also when that is rejected which is, as it were, a consequence of those truths; and therefore the Vatican Council says: "Since indeed it is not enough to avoid heretical depravity, unless those errors also are diligently fled which more or less approach it, we admonish all of the duty of observing also the constitutions and decrees by which perverse opinions of this sort, which are not expressly enumerated here, have been proscribed and prohibited by this Holy See."⁴⁰ The same thing Pius IX had already said before in the letter to the Archbishop of Munich, December 21, 1863, in these words: "Since there is question of that subjection by which all Catholics are bound in conscience, ... therefore the men of the same convention ought to recognize that for learned Catholics it is not enough that they receive and venerate the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that there is also need that they subject themselves both to decisions which, pertaining to doctrine, are set forth by the Pontifical Congregations, and to those heads of doctrine which are retained by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions so certain that opinions opposed to the same heads of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless merit another theological censure."⁴¹

Propositions opposed to Catholic doctrines are called:

a) Heretical, if they are directly opposed to a certainly revealed truth.

b) Proximate to heresy, which, although they are not opposed to a certainly revealed truth, nevertheless are opposed to doctrine which most theologians defend as pertaining to faith, e.g. he who asserts that the Pope errs in the canonization of saints.

c) Erroneous, which are opposed to a theological conclusion deduced from two premises, of which one is of faith and the other is certain by the light of natural reason, e.g. the Blessed Virgin descended carnally from Adam. Therefore she had the debt of contracting original sin (although by a special privilege she never in fact contracted original sin).

d) Proximate to error, which are opposed to a conclusion deduced from two premises, of which either the one is not certainly revealed or the other is not certainly evident, e.g. if someone asserted that no other sin excludes from heaven except sin committed from obstinate malice.

e) Temerarious, which either are opposed to the common doctrine of theologians or which the institutions and customs of the universal Church disapprove, e.g. if someone asserted that some other saint besides the Blessed Virgin was conceived without original sin.

Not rarely also other censures have been branded upon false propositions; e.g. they are called: offensive to pious ears, scandalous, blasphemous, seditious, captious, etc.⁴² All these indeed are understood easily enough. The general rule is: He who pertinaciously defends as true some proposition proscribed by the Church undoubtedly sins and is subject to ecclesiastical penalties⁴³ (e.g. he is kept away from the ministry of preaching), yet he is not a heretic unless he voluntarily assents to a proposition truly heretical.

⁴⁰ Const. "Dei Filius" at the end (Denz. n. 1820).

⁴¹ Denz. n. 1684.

⁴² Cf. De Groot, Summa apologetica q. 10, a. 5; J. Mayol O. Pr., Summa mor. circa Decal. disput. praelimin., a. 3.

⁴³ Cod. iur. can. c. 2317.

519. Scholion 2. On the decisions of the Sacred Congregations in matters of faith. The Supreme Pontiff does not always judge about matters pertaining to faith and morals directly by himself, but quite often through the Roman Sacred Congregations, especially through the Holy Office; e.g. about the authenticity of the Johannine Comma, about the unlawfulness of craniotomy, etc. Certainly no Roman Congregation has the gift of infallibility; nevertheless, since according to the Code of Canon Law, c. 244, § 2, any resolutions of those Congregations, if they are of greater moment, receive Pontifical approbation, it would be temerarious and sinful either inwardly not to assent to them or outwardly to contradict them. Indeed, even those decisions of the Sacred Congregations which are not expressly approved by the Supreme Pontiff are to be received with great reverence, since they have been issued by most worthy ecclesiastical assemblies or tribunals.

520. Scholion 3. On doubt in faith. Since Catholic faith is most certain, there can never be present a just cause for calling it into doubt;⁴⁴ and therefore every voluntary doubt about it is gravely sinful. Nevertheless the following things are to be attended to:

a) A Catholic who positively doubts some proposition which he certainly knows to have been proposed by the Church as an article of faith is a heretic.^44a It is clear; for by such doubt the formal object of faith is destroyed, namely the infallibility of God revealing. Hence that adage: "One doubtful in faith is an unbeliever."

b) A Catholic who negatively doubts some article of faith, e.g. who suffers difficulties and grave temptations in believing which he does not sufficiently overcome, is not yet a heretic, since he is not pertinacious; nevertheless he is bound according to his powers to evade doubts of this kind. But if he conducts himself remissly, he sins venially or mortally, according to the danger of losing faith.

c) A non-Catholic who positively doubts about the truth of his sect is bound seriously to investigate the true religion. But if he neglects this, he does indeed sin, but he does not yet seem to be a formal heretic, since pertinacity in his error is lacking. Therefore he can be held as a material heretic (and consequently not bound by excommunication) as long as he has not certainly recognized the falsity of his sect and nevertheless refused to embrace the true faith. Since it is often difficult to determine whether error in faith is really pertinacious, to heretics returned into the bosom of the Church absolution is accustomed to be given from censures which perhaps they incurred.

Scholion 4. On blasphemy. As a sin opposed to confession of faith, blasphemy is adduced by the Angelic Doctor.⁴⁵ But since blasphemy is also opposed to the virtue of religion, below II 529 sqq. in the treatise on the virtue of religion we shall deal with it.

⁴⁴ Conc. Vat. sess. 3, cap. 3 (Denz. n. 1794).

^44a Cf. Cod. iur. can. c. 1325, § 2.

⁴⁵ S. theol. 2, 2, q. 13.

749. Apostasy (afvalligheid), according to etymology, is defection; whence it signifies a retrocession from God. Moreover, in several modes we can be united to God: by faith, obedience in precepts, or by a special bond not commanded (but pertaining to counsel), namely, religion and Order. Hence there is given a fourfold apostasy:

1. from Order, when a cleric constituted in major orders transfers himself to the lay state;

2. from religion, when someone withdraws from the religious institute or order which he has professed;

3. from obedience, when someone altogether withdraws himself from the law of God and from obedience to the divine mandates;

4. from faith, when someone totally withdraws from the faith which he previously professed. This alone is a sin against faith and is apostasy strictly so called: for while the other apostasies exist, man can still remain joined to God through faith; but if he withdraws from faith, then he seems altogether to retrocede from God.

Apostasy from faith is defined: a total withdrawal from the Christian faith (can. 1325, § 2). Apostasy of itself indicates only the term from which: the faith which is abandoned; but not the term to which the apostate approaches, whether it is idolatry, or deism, or Judaism, etc., or even whether he passes over to no religion and remains indifferent. Hence it is not a species of infidelity, but adds to its various species an aggravating circumstance, namely, that faith is abandoned (a. 1, ad 3).

750. Observations. - 1. Apostates per se are punished with the same penalties as heretics (can. 2314, § 1); sometimes, however, special and graver penalties can be enacted against them: thus in certain places it is a sin specially reserved to the Ordinary.

2. Those are rightly to be held as apostates who from conviction adhere to the Masonic sect, which under the veil of philanthropy, solidarity, and mutual aid, craftily opposes true religion. Indeed all who (even without internal adherence) give their name to that sect, as to other associations of the same kind which plot against the Church or legitimate civil powers, contract by the fact itself excommunication simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff (can. 2335); but clerics and religious are in addition punished with special penalties and are to be denounced to the Congregation of the Holy Office (can. 2336).

3. Formerly there existed a positive precept of denouncing to the Ordinary heretics or those suspected of heresy, but this has fallen into desuetude. But by force of natural law one must denounce whenever it is a question of avoiding grave harm of souls, to which a superior can bring a remedy; this also holds for regions where heretics are mixed with Catholics, for example, if it is a question of an unusual danger which would threaten the Catholic religion, the superior being ignorant of it. Clerics, however, seem to be denounced in every case, so that the bishop may meet the harm both of the people and of the clergy committed to him.

4. Concerning the reconciliation of heretics and reception into the bosom of the Church, we spoke in the little work De Variis Peccatis in sacramentali confessione medendis, c. 2, q. 1, XI-XV.

Heresy is error against some truth of faith proposed by the Church, in one who received the faith through baptism. But it is: 1st. formal, which is heresy properly so called, and is had when the error is voluntary and pertinacious, or material, by which someone ignorantly adheres to error; 2nd. purely internal, or purely external, or manifested, according as it is had only internally or externally, or in both ways; 3rd. occult or notorious, according as it is known to no one or to only a few, or to many.

To heresy is referred apostasy, which is total defection from the Christian faith.

I Say. Formal heresy is always a most grave sin, but material heresy is free from every fault. The reason for the first is both because heresy is opposed to one of the chief virtues, namely faith, and because heresy tends directly and immediately to contemning God. The reason for the second is that a material heretic, as is supposed, errs from invincible ignorance.

Question. What are the signs of material and formal heresy?

Response. He is to be judged a material heretic only: 1st. who is prepared to submit himself to the judgment of the Church as soon as he shall have known it; 2nd. who, born among heretics, has known nothing concerning the true faith and has never doubted concerning his own religion; 3rd. who, doubting, has studied to know the truth as much as he could, and has not yet arrived at it. - But he will be reputed a formal heretic: 1st. who doubts, and from pertinacity does not wish to inquire further; 2nd. who again from pertinacity maliciously turns his intellect away from the motives of truth, so that he may adhere to his own sect; 3rd. who, having acknowledged the truth, still contradicts the Church.

Canon 1325, § 2, most clearly indicates who is and is to be judged a heretic, who an apostate, who a schismatic:

§ 2. After baptism has been received, if anyone, while retaining the Christian name, pertinaciously denies some truth from among those to be believed by divine and Catholic faith, or doubts concerning it, he is a heretic; if he totally withdraws from the Christian faith, he is an apostate; finally, if he refuses to be subject to the Supreme Pontiff or refuses to communicate with the members of the Church subject to him, he is a schismatic (Can. 1325).

Those who submit themselves to Christian Science for being healed sin gravely, because they formally participate in that damnable superstition, whose characteristic and special act is to heal. As is evident, he would deny the faith who gave his name to such a superstition.¹

It is not enough to avoid heretical depravity, but it is also necessary diligently to flee those errors which approach it more or less; wherefore all must also observe the constitutions and decrees by which evil opinions of this kind have been proscribed and prohibited by the Holy See (Can. 1324).

On the Care of Non-Catholics:

§ 1. Let local Ordinaries and pastors hold as commended to themselves in the Lord the non-Catholics dwelling in their dioceses and parishes.

§ 2. In other territories the whole care of missions among non-Catholics is reserved solely to the Apostolic See (Can. 1350).

Let no one be compelled unwillingly to embrace the Catholic faith (Can. 1351).

With relation to discussions, especially public ones, can. 1325, § 3 establishes thus:

§ 3. Let Catholics beware lest they have disputations or conferences, especially public ones, with non-Catholics, without permission of the Holy See or, if the case presses, of the local Ordinary.

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1094, n. 28.

Apostasia in Greek means the same as discessio or desertio, departure or desertion, in Latin. It is taken here for a withdrawal from a good which one has solemnly professed. And apostasy is threefold: from the faith, from religion, and from order^{45 45} This q. 12, a. 1, o.

I say 1°: Apostasy from the faith is the desertion of the whole of the faith. And by this it is distinguished from heresy, which is a desertion of the faith as to a part only.

[Nor indeed does the crime of apostasy require the profession of some false religion. Hence under the name of apostates come those who vindicate to themselves the liberty of thinking and of admitting whatever pleases them, by that very fact rejecting Catholic doctrine: among whom must be numbered rationalists, deists, naturalists, pantheists, spiritists, and in general all who, after receiving baptism, have withdrawn entirely from the Christian faith, even if they have not passed over to Protestantism, or Judaism, or Mohammedanism, or paganism.

From what has been said it is clear that apostasy does not differ from heresy essentially, but only according to more and less, which does not diversify the species. For, as the Angelic Doctor says, this q. 12, a. 1, ad 3, « apostasy looks to infidelity as the term to which the movement of one withdrawing from the faith tends. Hence apostasy does not import a determinate species of infidelity, but a certain circumstance aggravating it, according to that of 2 Pet., II, 21: It had been better for them not to have known the way of truth, than, after they have known it, to turn back. »

Apostates are bound by the same excommunication as heretics, as was related above, de Poenis haereticorum.]

I say 2°: He who abandons an approved religion which he has professed tacitly or expressly, without the legitimate license of his superiors, with the intention of not returning, even if he does not lay aside the habit, is an apostate⁴⁶; because, as the habit does not make the monk, but the profession of the religious life, so the laying aside of the habit does not make the apostate, but the withdrawal from the religious life. Those who laid aside the habit were formerly excommunicated by that very fact, by the chapter Ut periculosa, tit. Ne clerici et monachi, in 6°, lib. III. But he who does not lay aside the habit is not excommunicated by the common law; each one, however, ought to consult the laws of his own Order. In our Order of Preachers he is excommunicated by that very fact, dist. I, cap. 20, litt. A. Likewise, if he rashly lays aside the habit, that is, with the mind of wandering about, even though with the will of returning, he is indeed not an apostate, yet he is excommunicated by that very fact by the cited chapter, Ut periculosa. ⁴⁶ Ibid.

But if he lays aside the habit not rashly and for the sake of wandering about, but for a legitimate cause, either within the cloister, for instance for the sake of sleep, rest, infirmity, etc., or outside the cloister, for instance for fear of death while traveling through the lands of the infidels, or for the sake of avoiding scandal while traveling by night, or for some other reasonable cause, he does not sin, nor does he incur excommunication; because the celebrated canon is directed only against the rash laying aside of the habit, whereby there would be matter apt for wandering about.

[By the constitution Apostolicae Sedis, « regulars or nuns who presume to contract marriage after a solemn vow of chastity » incur excommunication latae sententiae reserved to their Ordinaries, that is, their major superiors. This crime includes not only a violation of the vow of chastity, but also involves apostasy from the religious life. — It must be observed that this censure was decreed only against those solemnly professed.]

I say 3°: He who withdraws from sacred orders back to the secular state without legitimate dispensation is an apostate and sins mortally; because he abandons the state to which he had been solemnly bound over by the Church, and which many canons forbid him to abandon, penalties being imposed against transgressors.

[The aforesaid constitution, with excommunication latae sententiae reserved to bishops or ordinaries, punishes « clerics constituted in sacred orders who presume to contract marriage ». For such men despise more than the law of chastity, and are held as apostates. And it suffices for incurring this censure that the attempt at marriage be made before a civil magistrate, in places where the Tridentine decree on clandestinity is in force. So pronounced the S. Congregation of the Holy Office on December 22, 1880.]

I. Heresy is a voluntary and pertinacious error of the intellect against some truth of the catholic faith, in one who has received the faith. It is called an error of the intellect, because faith resides in the intellect, and therefore the error contrary to it must be found in the intellect also. Voluntary, because without liberty there is no sin. Pertinacious, because, since heresy signifies a choosing, it requires an obstinate deliberation in the error. That anyone be called pertinacious, he must knowingly and advertently hold some error deliberately against the definition of the catholic Church. Wherefore, just as for true faith the condition of the Church proposing is required, so for true heresy the contempt of that same Church is demanded. It is not required, however, that one will to contemn the Church directly; but it suffices that he know that he holds an error against the definition of the Church. This pertinacity is taken for a deliberate election of the will, whether it arise from infirmity or from an impulse of fury; nor is delay necessary, but in a moment of time the crime of heresy, like other crimes, can be committed. In one who has received the faith. Error in one who has not received the catholic faith can constitute an Infidel, a Pagan, a Jew, but not a Heretic.

II. Heresy is twofold: one formal, the other material. Formal is that which I have now defined. Material is when someone believes or utters something against the faith, not knowing that it pertains to the faith. If the ignorance be invincible, the material heresy is without fault; if vincible, with fault — provided, however, the error be not affected, for the end of speaking and living more freely, or of contradicting the authority of the Church: for then it is formal heresy. There is also material heresy when someone exteriorly pronounces an error against the faith, without internal consent. Again, heresy is divided into mental, or merely internal, and into internal-and-external together. The former halts within the mind and soul, and is manifested by no exterior sign. But when it comes forth outwardly, then it is at once internal and external. Again, formal heresy at once internal and external is divided into that which is manifest per se — which is also wont to be called public — which has been uttered not only by signs and words, but also before many hearers; and into that which is hidden per accidens — which is also called private — which, though uttered exteriorly by words and signs, has yet happened with no one hearing or seeing. Finally, one heresy is affirmative, when someone openly professes before all, by word or sign, an error against the faith conceived in the mind; and another negative, when someone, juridically convicted of heresy, pertinaciously refuses to confess his heresy.

III. Question I. Is one doubting in the faith to be held a Heretic? Answer. The Theologians dispute on both sides; but the disagreement is of words rather than of the thing. It is agreed among all that a doubt arisen from infirmity does not savor of heresy, nor constitute a heretic. The question is of pertinacious doubt alone. If the doubt be regarded according to the laws of Metaphysics — according to which the intellect, remaining suspended and undecided, elicits no assent or dissent — then it is certain that one so doubting is not a heretic. But because in practice it can scarcely, nay hardly at all, happen that anyone pertinaciously doubts without passing some reflex judgment by which he judges the things of faith to be doubtful, therefore in practice they are commonly heretics who with pertinacious mind doubt about the things of faith. Hence has arisen the common axiom: One doubting in the faith is an Infidel. Those who doubt on account of the difficulties which arise in the articles of faith, and who, pressed by the weight of these difficulties, command a suspension of assent, sin against the faith: since, while they deliberately withhold assent, by that very fact — if not explicitly, yet in very deed — they approve the weight of the difficulties against the faith, contemn the definition of the Church, which they know to have defined such an article, and dare to measure the things of faith by their own judgment. But if they withdraw the intellect from the contemplation of the articles of faith for this reason, that they may decline weariness and labor, and remove themselves from the danger of doubting, they in no way sin. He who feels himself agitated by these straits should elicit acts of faith, and desist from the conflict. The disposition and state of the one doubting must always be regarded. If he who doubts is distressed by scruples, let him count the doubts as nothing, and turn his mind elsewhere. He who deliberately doubts on account of difficulties which occur to him, prepared to be corrected not on account of the authority of the Church, but on account of reasons which may satisfy his difficulties, is to be held as a heretic. For such a one gives faith neither to God, nor to the Church defining that such an article is from God; but trusts solely in his own brain.

IV. Question II. What is apostasy? Answer. Apostasy is the withdrawal of a baptized man from the whole faith, as St. Thomas says, II-II, q. 12, art. 1. The Apostate differs from the Heretic. For the latter knowingly and stubbornly denies some one evangelical truth, admits many others, and boasts that he professes Christ and his Religion; but the Apostate bids farewell to Christ and to his whole Religion, as is evident in Julian the Apostate. They also are called apostates who withdraw from some Order which they have professed. But these do not by that very fact fall away from the Christian Religion.

V. Question III. What are the penalties enacted against Heretics? Answer. There are two kinds of penalties. The first kind of penalties is spiritual: namely, excommunication; irregularity; the privation of spiritual power in those who are attached to sacred orders. The fourth penalty is the privation of dignities and benefices, and inability to obtain them thereafter. The fifth is the privation of burial.

VI. There are four temporal penalties. The first is the confiscation of all goods. The second is infamy, by which Heretics become unworthy of any honor and dignity whatsoever. The third is the penalty of prison. The last is capital condemnation.

VII. Question IV. Who are subject to the penalties enacted against Heretics? Answer. The Heretic who has conceived a merely internal heresy is not subject to the penalties recounted, because, as the common axiom has it, the Church does not judge of internal things. Similarly the merely external Heretic is immune from these penalties, because he is not a true Heretic. Now the excommunication has been enacted against true Heretics. And this is understood of the interior forum: for if the external Heretic be brought before the tribunal, the judges judge him as guilty of heresies. Any Confessor, therefore, can absolve one who is either a merely internal or a merely external Heretic. But he who is a Heretic both internal and external, though most hidden — who in his own chamber, no one being present, pronounces the heresy conceived in his mind — is liable to the excommunication, and cannot be absolved by any Confessor whatever. Now the heresy is external when words or signs expressly and completely betray the conceived heresy, so that bystanders could truly conceive the heresy. If the external action be light, it does not suffice for manifesting heresy. Similarly, equivocal words do not suffice in the exterior forum for constituting a truly external heresy. An internal Heretic does not become external if, sleeping, he pronounce the conceived heresy in his sleep.

VIII. Question V. Has excommunication been enacted against the believers, favorers, receivers, and defenders of Heretics? Answer. Those are called believers who give faith to the errors of the Heretics; and if they betray this faith by signs and words, they are subject to the excommunication enacted against Heretics. Those are called favorers, receivers, and defenders of Heretics who conspire in their errors, or bring aid lest they be apprehended by the Judges, or extend help in the propagating of the heresy; and this both by omission — as if someone, interrogated by the Judges, should refuse to reveal a Heretic, or, one being consigned to his custody, should neglect to guard him — and by commission, when someone praises with words, or with aid helps the Heretic to escape. Receivers are named those who receive with hospitality, in their own house, dominion, or kingdom, a Heretic fleeing or hiding himself.

IX. Question VI. Is it permitted to Catholics to dispute with Heretics? Answer. To laymen, even learned ones, it is forbidden to enter upon a disputation with heretics about matters of faith, whether publicly or privately. Some contend that learned Laymen are not comprehended in the chapter Quicumque, § Inhibemus, On heretics, in the Sixth Book: because, they say, when the Laymen are learned, the end of the Law ceases. The contrary opinion is to me the more probable. If the law regarded the unlearned alone, it would be fruitless, because by the natural law the unlearned are interdicted from disputing. Yet cases can occur in which Laymen may — nay, ought, if they be truly learned — to undertake a disputation with Heretics. For if the Heretics, by sermons or disputations, should attempt to pervert Catholics, and apt Clerics were wanting, then they ought to descend into the arena and defend the Catholics. Under this decree are comprehended also lay Religious, since the reason of the Law is the same.