Sharing in non-Catholic worship

All communication with non-Catholics in their religious rites and ceremonies is as a rule forbidden to Catholics. To take part in such rites and ceremonies is to take part in a form of religious worship which is not approved by God and by the Church; it is a virtual adhesion to a false form of worship, or it shows approbation of it. A Catholic, then, may not act as a sponsor in a non-Catholic baptism, or take an active part in 1a non-Catholic marriage or funeral. On certain rare occasions, as when in danger of death and a Catholic priest cannot be had, a Catholic may accept the ministrations of a schismatic or heretical priest, as was done by some Catholic Japanese officers who were captured by the Russians and shot in the Russo-Japanese War.

Inasmuch as: heretics and schismatics are excommunicated, the Church forbids prayers, suffrages, or Masses to be publicly offered for them (Can. 2262).

Experience shows that very little good and much harm may come from disputes and controversies about religion. Ordinarily such disputes leave the parties concerned more obstinate than ever in their convictions.

Grave scandal, too, and great dishonour to God result from the public and contemptuous denials of sacred truths and the ridicule thrown on them in the heat of controversy. ‘The mind of the Church is that, as far as possible, and except for the necessary defence of the faith, such disputes should be avoided whether they be public or private (Can. 1325, sec. 3).

Communication in Worship.—Communication with non-Catholics (as was said above in 882) is either religious or non-religious. It is clear that communication in non-religious matters does not contain a profession of error, but the same cannot be said of communication in religious services, since these are not only acts of worship, but also expressions of faith in the creed of a certain religion. We must distinguish, however, between private and public communication.

(a) Communication is private, when a Catholic and non-Catholic offer together the Lord’s Prayer or other similar prayer as a private devotion, not as an act of official worship. Private devotion is not the expression of a sectarian creed, and, if there is nothing false in it and no danger of scandal or perversion from communication between Catholic and non-Catholic in such devotion, this kind of communication is not unlawful. In the following paragraphs there will be question of public communication.

(b) Communication is public, when the rites performed are the official services of the Catholic Church or of some non-Catholic sect (e.g., the Mass, the Lord’s Supper of the Lutherans, the Evensong of the Anglicans, the prayer-meeting of other sects). Thus, public communication takes place either when non-Catholics take part in Catholic worship, or Catholics take part in non-Catholic worship.

Participation of non-Catholics in Catholic services is either by mere presence, or by reception or performance of Catholic rites.

(a) Mere presence consists in a purely material attendance at a service, as when non-Catholics assist at Mass and sit, rise and kneel with the congregation or remain seated throughout. There is no objection whatever to this kind of participation; on the contrary, non-Catholics should be invited to Catholic sermons and services, and made to feel welcome, for in what better way can the divine command of working for their conversion be complied with? Only excommunicated persons are excluded from the offices of the Church (Canon 2269, Sec.1). It is also allowed that Catholic bishops and clergy accompany a non-Catholic ruler to the church, and assign him and his escort an honorable place therein.

(b) Reception of Catholic rites is had when non-Catholics, without performing any liturgical function, receive some spiritual favor through the rites of the Church, as when a non-Catholic receives a priest’s blessing.

(c) Performance of Catholic rites exists when a non-Catholic exercises some office in a liturgical function of the Catholic Church, as when a Protestant acts as sponsor at a Catholic Baptism.

Cases of reception of Catholic rites by non-Catholics permitted by law are the following:

(a) Reception of Sacramentals.—Since the purpose of these rites and objects is to implore graces and temporal favors with a view to the illumination and salvation of the recipient, and since our Lord Himself blessed and cured even the pagans, the Church permits blessings and exorcisms to be conferred on non-Catholics (Canons 1149, 1152). Similarly, blessed candles, palms, ashes and other real sacramentals may be given to them. Examples: The Church has permitted priests to visit the homes of Mohammedans to bless and pray over the sick, and also to bless the houses of schismatics, provided they were summoned and avoided all communication in prayer.

(b) Reception of Sacraments.-Since it is possible that the salvation of a dying person may depend on absolution, good moralists, relying on decisions of Roman Congregations, hold that conditional absolution may be given to a heretic or schismatic who is dying and unconscious, or even to one such who is dying and conscious, provided he is in good faith and contrite, and danger of scandal has been removed.

(c) Reception of Fruits of the Mass.—Since Christ died for all, there is nothing in the nature of things to prevent the application of Mass to any persons who are living or in Purgatory; and from Canon 809 it appears that Mass may be offered for any living person, and also for any deceased person about whose salvation we may entertain hope. Hence, neither the divine nor the ecclesiastical law forbids the application of Mass for heretics, schismatics, or infidels. The Church also permits Mass to be said privately, all scandal removed, for excommunicated persons. Under these same conditions, then, Mass may be said for non-Catholics, both living and dead (Canon 2262, Sec.2, n. 2).

(d) Reception of the Suffrages of the Church.—Since God wishes all to be saved and public peace to be maintained (I Tim., ii), and since the Church desires that Ordinaries and pastors should have at heart the conversion of non-Catholics (Canon 1350), public prayers for the prosperity of non-Catholic rulers and officials—likewise sermons, missions and other works for the conversion of unbelievers—are not only allowed, but recommended and required.

Non-Catholics have not the same right as Catholics to receive the rites of the Church, and hence when they are admitted to them, there are certain restrictions to be observed.

(a) Restrictions as to Sacred Things.—As admission of non-Catholics to sacramentals, etc., is a favor, not a right, it should be confined to cases allowed by the Church. Thus, it is forbidden to grant indulgences or to give the nuptial blessing to non-Catholics, and only in very exceptional cases may any ceremonies be permitted at mixed marriages (Canons 1102, 1109). Non-Catholics may not receive the Pax; may not be invited to take part in the solemn services of receiving ashes on Ash Wednesday, palms on Palm Sunday and candles on Candlemas Day; may not receive ecclesiastical burial (Holy Office, June 8, 1859). Children sent by their parents to non-Catholic services may not be confirmed (Holy Office, August 28, 1780); a Catholic priest is not allowed to supply for a non-Catholic minister, by accompanying the body of a non-Catholic from the home to the graveyard, even though the body be not brought to Church, nor the bell tolled (Holy Office, January 26, 1886). It is not permissible to lend a Catholic church to non-Catholics for their services.

(b) Restrictions as to Persons.—As superstition and irreverence have to be avoided, the sacramentals may not be administered or given at all to non-Catholics about whose good faith and purpose there is doubt.

(c) Restrictions as to Mode.—The Church, while she wishes to help and benefit non-Catholics, must avoid anything that would cause scandal or have the appearance of equal recognition of believers and unbelievers. Thus, when Mass is offered for outsiders, the same publicity and pomp is not permitted as when there is question of Catholics.

As regards the performance of Catholic rites by non-Catholics, the Church disapproves of every kind of such participation, but does not refuse to tolerate the more remote kind, when there is grave necessity and no scandal is caused.

(a) By more remote participation we understand such as scarcely differs from passive assistance (e.g., to act as witness at a marriage), or such as carries with it no recognition as an official of the Church (e.g., to act as substitute or temporary organist). Hence, the Church has permitted this kind of participation in particular cases, when the authorities decided that there was urgent necessity and no scandal. Examples: Moralists hold that, when a heretic or schismatic has been designated as sponsor at Baptism and cannot be refused without grave offense, he may be allowed to act as witness. The Holy Office has also declared that heretics should not be used as witnesses at marriage, but may be tolerated as such by the Ordinary, when there is a grave reason and no scandal (August 18, 1891); that a non-Catholic organist may be employed temporarily, if it is impossible to secure one who is a Catholic, and no scandal is caused (February 23, 1820); that in certain special circumstances girls belonging to a schismatical sect might be allowed to sing with the Catholics at church functions, especially at Exposition and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament (January 25, 1906).

(b) Proximate participation is the exercise of functions connected with a sacred rite (e.g., to act as server at Mass), or that imply a recognition of the religion of the one who participates (e.g., to act as representative of some sect at a funeral and receive liturgical honors). The Church has always refused to tolerate this kind of participation. Examples: Non-Catholics may not act as sponsors at Baptism or Confirmation under pain of invalidity of sponsorship (Canons 765, 795), nor chant the Office in choir (Holy Office, June 8, 1859), nor be employed as singers of the liturgical music (Holy Office, May 1, 1889), nor carry torches or lights in church ceremonies (Holy Office, November 20, 1850). Likewise, non-Catholics may not become members of Catholic confraternities, nor assist at Catholic services as official representatives of some sect or sectarian society.

Participation of Catholics in non-Catholic services may happen today in so many ways, and it is so difficult at times to draw the line between lawful and unlawful communication, that it is well before considering these cases to state the general rules that apply here.

(a) It is lawful to perform an act from which two effects follow, one good and the other bad, if the act in itself is good or indifferent, if there is a sufficiently grave reason for performing it, if the evil effect is not intended, and if the evil effect be not prior to the good effect (see 104).

(b) Circumstances vary in different localities and countries, and communication that would signify unity of belief in a place where Catholics and non-Catholics are very unequal numerically might be very harmless in a place where there is no great numerical difference. Offense to non-Catholics should not be given needlessly.

(c) In doubtful cases the decision whether or not a particular kind of communication is lawful or unlawful pertains to the Ordinary (Canon 1258).

Participation of Catholics in non-Catholic services is either active or passive. (a) Participation is active when one takes a part or fulfills some function in an act that is an official expression of the worship and belief of a sect, even though this takes place outside a church, or is not open to the general public.

(b) Participation is passive, if one merely assists as a spectator, and not as a worshipper, at something pertaining to non-Catholic worship.

Sacred things in which communication is possible are of three classes:

(a) the chief acts of divine worship (i.e., Sacrifices, Sacraments, sacramentals);

(b) the secondary acts of divine worship (such as prayers, processions, vows, oaths, the Divine Office, hymn singing, scripture reading, etc.). In the Protestant denominations some one or other of these is, as a rule, the central or distinctive service, although some have other proper features of their own, such as the silent meeting of the Quakers, the seance of the Spiritualists, the march of the Salvation Army, the charity kiss of the Dunkards;

(c) places (e.g., churches, lodge rooms, cemeteries), times (e.g., days of feast or fast), and objects (e.g., images, badges, aprons, banners, robes), pertaining to divine worship.

It is unlawful for Catholics in any way to assist actively at or take part in the worship of non-Catholics (Canon 1258). Such assistance is intrinsically and gravely evil; for (a) if the worship is non-Catholic in its form (e.g., Mohammedan ablutions, the Jewish paschal meal, revivalistic “hitting the trail,” the right hand of fellowship, etc.), it expresses a belief in the false creed symbolized; (b) if the worship is Catholic in form, but is under the auspices of a non-Catholic body (e.g., Baptism as administered by a Protestant minister, or Mass as celebrated by a schismatical priest), it expresses either faith in a false religious body or rebellion against the true Church.

It is unlawful for Catholics to simulate active assistance in the worship of non-Catholics, for, while the non-Catholic rite would be avoided, something which appeared to be that rite would be done, and thus profession of faith in it would be given.

(a) Hence, it is not lawful to do an indifferent act which bystanders from the circumstances will have to conclude is an act of false worship. Thus, Eleazar would not eat lawful meat which was put before him in order that he might pretend to eat the meat of sacrifice after the manner of the heathen (II Mach., vi).

(b) It is not lawful to accept a false certificate of participation in false worship. Hence, the early Church condemned as apostates the Libellatics (i.e., those Christians, who, to protect themselves in time of persecution, obtained by bribery or otherwise a forged or genuine magistrate’s certificate that they had sacrificed to the heathen gods).

It is unlawful for Catholics to assist passively at non-Catholic worship, unless there are present the conditions requisite for performing an act that has two results, one good and the other evil (see 104); for even passive assistance frequently involves sin.

(a) Hence, the assistance itself must be really indifferent, that is, it must be a merely passive presence without any active participation in the service. Examples: A person who stands in the rear of a Quaker meeting house as an onlooker assists passively; but one who sits quietly among the others present, as if in meditation, assists actively. A person who sits in a pew during a revival in order to see what is going on, assists passively; but, if he joins with the congregation in bowing, groaning, etc., he assists actively.

(b) The evil effect that may result from assistance (such as scandal and danger of perversion) must not be prior to the good effect; otherwise, evil would be done for the sake of good. Examples: Titus, a non-Catholic, goes to Mass as a spectator, with his Catholic friend Balbus. He then asks Balbus to assist as a spectator at the services of his denomination, and thus see for himself that the latter is better. Balbus, in order to be courteous, consents. Here Balbus aims to show politeness, which is good, but the means he uses—namely, the impression he gives that he is not convinced of the superiority of his own religion—is bad.

(c) The evil effect (i.e., remote danger of perversion, unavoidable scandal) must not be intended or approved, but only permitted. Example: Caius, a Catholic public official, has to attend funerals and weddings in Protestant churches as a mark of the public respect for notable persons. He knows that a few will take scandal at his action, but he wishes only to do his duty as an official, and not to offend anyone (see on Scandal).

(d) The cause of assistance must be in proportion to the kind of assistance. Hence, a greater reason is required for assistance on several occasions than on one, for assistance at infidel than at heretical services, for assistance at the primary than at the secondary act of worship, for assistance by a priest than for assistance by a layman, etc. Example: Graver reason would be necessary to justify assistance at a non-Catholic funeral, if there were signs of anti-Catholicism manifested (e.g., flower designs and regalia of a hostile sect placed on the coffin), than if the service contained nothing offensive.

Cases of communication in false sacrificial rites are as follows: (a) Active participation is had in such acts as the slaying and offering of victims, the burning of incense before idols, the eating of sacrificial banquets; (b) Passive participation is had when one merely watches the rite of sacrifice without taking any part therein.

Cases of communication in the Sacrifice of the Mass are as follows: (a) Active participation is had in such acts as taking the part of deacon in a schismatical Mass, assisting at a schismatical Mass with the intention of hearing Mass formally (i.e., of offering it with the priest). If on Sunday, one is where there is only a schismatical church, one is excused from the obligation of hearing Mass, and may not hear Mass in that church (Holy Office, December 5, 1608; August 7, 1704). (b) Passive participation is had when one is present merely as a spectator, kneeling before the Blessed Sacrament, but giving no other signs of religious devotion. This is permissible under the conditions mentioned above (see 966), if there is no scandal, or danger of perversion (Holy Office, April 24, 1894).

Cases of participation in the Sacraments or sacramentals, real or reputed, are as follows: (a) Active participation takes place when one receives a Sacrament from a non-Catholic minister, or offers one’s child to receive a Sacrament from such a minister, or contracts marriage in the presence of such a minister, or acts as sponsor at a non-Catholic baptism or confirmation or as the religious witness at a non-Catholic marriage, or answers in public non-Catholic prayers, or takes ashes blessed by schismatics. (b) Passive participation is had when one merely looks on at the administration of a Sacrament or sacramental by a non-Catholic minister, without signs of approval or union in what is being done.

There are certain cases that seem to be active participations in Sacraments with non-Catholics, and yet are permitted by the Code. In reality, however, there is no active communication in those cases.

(a) Canons 886 and 905 allow the faithful to receive communion and absolution according to a Rite different from their own, so that one who belongs to the Latin Rite may lawfully receive in Communion a Host consecrated according to the Greek Rite, or go to confession to an Oriental priest. But in these Canons there is question of different Rites within the Catholic Church, not of those of non-Catholics.

(b) Canons 742 and 882 allow those who are in danger of death to receive Baptism and absolution from an heretical or schismatical minister, and theologians apply the same principle to Extreme Unction and the Viaticum. But there is no communication in non-Catholic ceremonies in these cases, for the Sacraments belong to the Catholic Church, and for the sake of the dying she authorizes non-Catholic ministers to act as her representatives, provided there is no scandal or danger of perversion.

Cases of participation in non-sacramental rites are as follows:

(a) Oaths and Vows.—Participation is active when one swears in words or by other signs which, according to local usage, manifest belief in the creed of some sect; it is not active, when the manner of the oath does not signify adherence to a false creed; Example: If one is required to swear, by touching or kissing the non-Catholic Bible, as a sign of approval of Protestantism or Masonry, one may not consent. But, if the Government presents a non-Catholic Bible with no thought of Protestantism, there is no approval of Protestantism in the one who swears on that Bible, although, if the custom is not general, there might be scandal if no protest were made. A Catholic may bring his own Bible with him, or ask for a copy of the Catholic Bible.

(b) Services—Participation is active when one marches in an Anglican procession, plays the organ or sings at Y.M.C.A. services, joins in the prayers or responses offered in a Protestant church, etc. (Holy Office, July 6, 1889). Participation is passive if one looks on during a rare visit, or listens by radio to the musical program broadcast from Protestant services, or if one is obliged to attend non-Catholic services habitually, not as a profession of faith, but as a matter of civil duty or of domestic discipline, as happens with soldiers or with inmates of public institutions. Participation is not active if one adores the Blessed Sacrament carried in a schismatical procession which one meets by chance and unavoidably. Examples: Titus belongs to the honorary guard of a state ruler, and has to accompany the latter to non-Catholic services on certain state occasions. Balbus is tutor in a non-Catholic family, and is expected to take his charges to their church and back home on Sundays. Claudia is a maid in a non-Catholic family, and is ordered to hold one of the children while it is being baptized by the non-Catholic minister. In all these cases the presence at the services is purely passive, since the intention of the Catholic present is not to perform any religious duty, but only some civil or domestic service (see IV Kings, v. 18). But, on the other hand, the martyrs during the reigns of Elizabeth and her successors refused to attend the Anglican services, because this was required by law as a sign of conformity to the Established Church—that is, an active presence was prescribed.

Cases of participation in religious places, times and objects are as follows:

(a) Places.—Participation is active when one orders one’s body to be buried in a sectarian graveyard, when one enters a schismatical or heretical church privately in order to visit the Blessed Sacrament or pray, when one offers up Catholic services in a non-Catholic temple, if these things are looked upon by the public as indications of identity of belief between Catholics and non-Catholics. Participation is merely passive, if one visits non-Catholic places of worship out of curiosity in order to look at the pictures, hear the music or listen to or take part in a political lecture or debate. In case of necessity, the Church permits Catholic services to be performed in the same building as that wherein non-Catholic rites are held, e.g., the Church of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem which is used by various denominations (Holy Office, 12 April, 1704).

(b) Times.—Participation is active if one observes new moons, sabbaths, and days of fast as prescribed in the Old Law.

(c) Objects.—Participation is active if one wears the uniform of a condemned society, the ring or other emblem of Freemasonry, etc., or makes use of other insignia whose sole purpose is to indicate membership in some sect, unless it be evident that these are used for some other purpose (e.g., in order to act a certain part in a play).

Cases of participation through attendance at non-Catholic religious instructions are as follows:

(a) Active participation in worship is had when one listens to a preacher, Sunday school teacher, etc., and signifies approval by joining in “Amens” or other acclamations.

(b) Participation is merely passive, if at church or over the radio, one listens out of curiosity, or in order to be able to refute errors, or for the sake of perfecting oneself in diction or eloquence, or of showing respect to a person whose funeral oration is being delivered, etc. But, even though there be no active participation, it will usually be unlawful to listen to these sectarian discourses on account of the danger of perversion to the listener or of scandal to others. Catholics who are scientifically trained and staunch in faith may for good reasons hear sectarian sermons, but the greater number would be disturbed or unsettled (see the principles given above on dangerous books and schools, 854-857, 868). Moreover, even those who have a right to listen to non-Catholic religious talks have to be on their guard against scandal, for outsiders may regard their attention as approval of doctrine or participation in cult, and Catholics not sufficiently instructed may regard their example as an encouragement to imitate (cfr. 979, 981).

Participation in non-Catholic assemblages or occasions whose character is of a mixed kind (partly religious and partly non-religious) are permitted by the Church, when due regard is had for avoidance of scandal, perversion, denial of faith, etc.

(a) Some of these occasions are chiefly religious, but are also looked on as family or civic solemnities, such as christenings, weddings, funerals. Hence, it is allowed to assist at the religious part of the occasion in a passive way for the sake of courtesy, or to exercise some function which is looked upon as belonging to the non-religious part of the occasion. Caution must be taken to ensure that the particular sect involved does not consider the exercise of the particular function as participating in the religious aspect of the ceremony. Likewise, on condition that the possibility of scandal, perversion, etc., has been removed, the following functions may be performed. One may act as a witness at the christening of a near relative who is not a Catholic; however, it is forbidden to be a sponsor, even by proxy, at baptisms performed by a heretical minister (Holy Office, decr., May 10, 1770). To be pallbearer or undertaker at a funeral, to be an usher at a wedding, to be an extra bridesmaid, etc., may be permitted. (If the function of best man or maid of honor be considered as merely attendants to the bride or groom, such participation in itself would not be illicit; but since the danger of scandal might often be present, such participation is dangerous. It is lawful for a Catholic pastor to attend the funeral of a non-Catholic friend or relative, provided he does not wear his sacred garb and takes no part in the ceremonies. Canon 1258, Sec.2 establishes the general norm regulative of these cases: a passive or merely material presence may be, for a serious reason, tolerated as a mark of esteem or social courtesy at funerals, weddings, and similar functions, provided there is involved no danger of perversion or scandal; in a doubtful case, the serious reason for this presence must be approved by the local Ordinary.

(b) Other occasions are chiefly non-religious in character, but are also partly religious, or have the appearance of being religious. Such are, for example, the coronation, birthday, wedding, or funeral of a ruler, school commencements, political conventions, patriotic meetings, civil marriage before a magistrate who is also a non-Catholic minister. When these exercises are chiefly non-religious or entirely civil, even though conducted in non-Catholic churches or by non-Catholic ministers, the Church grants permission to participate in them to some extent, if there is sufficient reason.

Among the mixed occasions just mentioned are not included such as have an anti-Catholic or anti-religious spirit, such as funerals from which all manifestations of religion are excluded on account of hatred of religion, entertainments held by forbidden societies in which the members are present in regalia, picnics under the auspices of the Orangemen, etc.

The “Ecumenical Movement” [placed at end of Volume I, after the preceding Appendix, in print edition]

On December 20, 1949 the Holy Office issued an instruction on the “Ecumenical Movement” addressed to all local Ordinaries. In its prefatory remarks the Instruction insisted upon the Church’s intense interest to attain to the full and perfect unity of the Church. It noted as an occasion of joy the desire of many separated from the Church to return to the unity of Christ’s fold, a good intention, indeed, which, however, in being put into practice has not been regulated by right principles. Accordingly the Holy Office prescribed that local Ordinaries maintain due vigilance over the associations seeking Church Unity, that they designate well-qualified priests to pay close attention to everything which concerns the “Movement,” and that they supervise publications on this matter by Catholics or by non-Catholics, in as far as these are published, or read, or sold by Catholics. The manner and method of proceeding in this work is to be regulated by the Ordinaries, who are cautioned to prevent the growth of indifference to Catholic truth and fallacious hopes of unity based upon false or impossible foundations. With regard to mixed assemblies of Catholics and non-Catholics, when there seems to be hope of spreading knowledge of Catholic doctrine, the Ordinary is instructed to designate well-qualified priests, to explain and defend the Church’s teaching. Special permission, however, must be obtained from Ecclesiastical Authority if Catholic laymen are to attend. Where no hope of good results exists, the meetings are to be ended or gradually suppressed.

The following specific instructions are given for the conduct of “Ecumenical meetings.”

All the aforesaid conferences and meetings, public and non-public, large and small, which are called for the purpose of affording an opportunity for the Catholic and the non-Catholic party, for the sake of discussion, to treat of matters of faith and morals, each presenting on even terms the doctrine of his own faith, are subject to the prescriptions of the Church which were recalled to mind in the Monitum, “Cum compertum” of this Congregation under date of 5 June, 1948. Hence, mixed congresses are not absolutely forbidden; but they are not to be held without the previous permission of the competent Ecclesiastical Authority. The Monitum, however, does not apply to catechetical instructions, even when given to many together, nor to conferences in which Catholic doctrine is explained to non-Catholics who are prospective converts, even though the opportunity is afforded for the non-Catholics to explain also the doctrine of their church so that they may understand clearly and thoroughly in what respect it agrees with the Catholic doctrine and in what it differs therefrom.

Neither does the said Monitum apply to those mixed meetings of Catholics and non-Catholics in which the discussion does not turn upon faith and morals, but upon ways and means of defending the fundamental principles of the natural law or of the Christian religion against the enemies of God who are now leagued together, or where the question is how to restore social order, or other topics of that nature. Even in these meetings, as is evident, Catholics may not approve or concede anything which is in conflict with divine revelation or with the doctrine of the Church even on social questions.

As to local conferences and conventions which are within the scope of the Monitum as above explained, the Ordinaries of places are given, for three years from the publication of this Instruction, the faculty of granting the required previous permission of the Holy See on the following conditions:

1. That communicatio in sacris be entirely avoided;

2, That the presentations of the matter be duly inspected and directed;

3. That at the close of each year a report be made to this Supreme Sacred Congregation, stating where such meetings were held and what experience was gathered from them.

4. As regards the colloquies of theologians above mentioned, the same faculty for the same length of time is granted to the Ordinary of the place where such colloquies are held, or to the Ordinary delegated for this work by the common consent of the other Ordinaries, under the same conditions as above, but with the further requirement that the report to this Sacred Congregation state also what questions were treated, who were present, and who the speakers were for either side.

As for the interdiocesan conferences and congresses, either national or international, the previous permission of the Holy See, special for each case, is always required; and, in the petition asking for it, must also be stated what are the questions to be treated and who the speakers are to be. And it is not allowed, before this permission has been obtained, to begin the external preparation of such meetings or to collaborate with non-Catholics who begin such preparation.

5. Although in all these meetings and conferences any communication whatsoever in worship must be avoided, yet the recitation in common of the Lord’s Prayer or of some prayer approved by the Catholic Church, is not forbidden for opening or closing the said meetings.

6. Although each Ordinary has the right and duty to conduct, promote, and preside over this work in his own diocese, yet the cooperation of several Bishops will be appropriate or even necessary in establishing offices and works to observe, study, and control this work as a whole. Accordingly it will rest with the Ordinaries themselves to confer together and consider how a proper uniformity of action and coordination can be obtained.

7. Religious Superiors are bound to watch and to see to it that their subjects adhere strictly and faithfully to the prescriptions laid down by the Holy See or by the local Ordinaries in this matter.

In order that so noble a work as the “union” of all Christians in one true faith and Church may daily grow into a more conspicuous part of the entire care of souls, and that the whole Catholic people may more earnestly implore this “union” from Almighty God, it will certainly be of assistance that in some appropriate way, for example through Pastoral Letters, the faithful be instructed regarding these questions and projects, the prescriptions of the Church in the matter, and the reasons on which they are based. All, especially priests and religious, should be exhorted and warmly encouraged to be zealous by their prayers and sacrifices to ripen and promote this work, and all should be reminded that nothing more effectively paves the way for the erring to find the truth and to embrace the Church than the faith of Catholics, when it is confirmed by the example of upright living.

"Insofar as schismatics accompanying the funerals of Catholics exhibit a merely material presence, for the sake of civil honor toward the deceased, not mixing themselves with the Catholic prayers or rites by which it is customary to carry out funerals and lead the dead to burial, it can be tolerated; but insofar as in that function they employ their own rites, or mix themselves with ours, it is not lawful and is not to be permitted." S. I. C. 10 May 1753.

“Whether Greek schismatics can visit Catholic churches and there assist only materially at their sacred rites and divine services. — Resp. The access of non-united Greeks to Catholic churches can be permitted, provided that the sacraments are not administered to them, that they do not in any manner communicate in divine things, and that they have not been invited to come in this manner.” Holy Office, 22 Sept. 1763.

It is lawful for Latins to celebrate Mass in the presence of Greek schismatics and to continue it when they arrive. Holy Office, 25 Nov. 1665.

“The Sacred Congregation judged that Missionaries ought not celebrate divine things in churches in which heretics at the same time have their profane and sacrilegious exercises. But so that satisfaction may be made for Catholics, the sacred rite is to be performed upon portable altars placed in private homes.” S. C. de P. F., 27 May 1627.

“The Sacred Congregation ordered that it be written to the Archbishop of Zara that he should provide that, in the church of St. John of Cartola, Diocese of Cattaro, Catholics not celebrate divine things with Greek schismatics; for although they use different altars, nevertheless, because of the identity of the church, it is to communicate with schismatics in divine things.” S. C. de P. F., 13 Aug. 1627.

“With regard to celebrating Mass in the same church with heretics, even when it is divided by an intervening wall, the Sacred Congregation judged that Father Ignatius, Missionary in Rhaetia, and his companions are to be commanded not to do this at all, but to use a portable altar, whenever it shall be necessary to celebrate, according to the privileges granted to the missions.” S. C. de P. F., 13 Feb. 1629.

“Whether the practice which the Catholic parish priests of the fortress of Lastua have of celebrating the sacrifice of Holy Mass in Catholic churches usurped and officiated by Greek schismatics, or even in those which belong purely to the schismatics themselves, is to be tolerated. — Resp. It is to be held as a universally accepted and observed rule that Catholics are not permitted to communicate in divine things with heretics and schismatics. But in certain particular cases this rule admits some exceptions, namely, if in the same church there are separate chapels and altars, of which some serve Catholics alone and others schismatics; or if parts of the same church are separated, and in one only Catholics celebrate, and in the other only schismatics. Then the shared use of the church can be tolerated. But insofar as these things are lacking, the Right Reverend Lord Archbishop can command the parish priests of his diocese to use portable altars according to the faculties imparted to them in the Formula, which His Holiness intends to give and renew again.” Holy Office, 1 Dec. 1757.

“Our Most Holy Lord Clement XI, Pope by divine Providence, … for more easily promoting the conversion of schismatics and unbelievers and for attracting them to embrace the Catholic faith by the sight of the sacred ceremonies, benignly granted to the Father Prefect, or Vice-Prefect, of the Missionaries for the time being in Ethiopia, that according to their judgment and conscience they can dispense with those same Missionaries and grant them the faculty of celebrating the most holy sacrifice of the Mass in the Catholic Roman rite upon an altar in the churches of heretics or schismatics in Ethiopia; in such a way that the same altars serve only as bare tables and are arranged in the manner of Catholics with a consecrated stone, cloths, an image of the Most Holy Crucified One, candlesticks, and other necessary furnishings for the use of the most holy sacrifice of the Mass according to the aforesaid rite; never, however, generally, but in particular cases in which other more suitable places are not available, so that there is urgent necessity for more easily promoting the said conversion, and furthermore for the consolation of Catholics, and for other just and most urgent causes to be judged by the same Father Prefect or Vice-Prefect of the Missionaries, concerning which he burdened their conscience.” Holy Office, 12 April 1704; C. 1808.

“In the Catholic churches of Rhaetia occupied by heretics, Missionaries can continue their exercises.” Holy Office, 13 June 1534.

1. Francisca, a noble girl, her father having died burdened with debt, fell into such poverty and misery that she is compelled to seek alms, and thus sustain her own life and that of her infirm mother. With every zeal she seeks whether she can apply herself to some art or office, and by her industry and labor provide for the necessities of her own life and her mother's. Having suffered rejection by all, she is finally sought by a Protestant minister, that she be willing, to the sound of the organ on Sundays, to sing psalms in a Protestant temple during the time of public offices. Since Francisca is very skilled in the art of music and endowed with a beautiful voice, there is offered to her a rich and altogether extraordinary stipend, by which alone she could thereafter live together with her mother in a decent and suitable state. Francisca is a fervent Catholic, and has a firm purpose of fulfilling all the duties of the Catholic religion; indeed also, so that she may fortify herself against any danger, she proposes to approach sacred Communion more frequently, and to persist more fervently in daily prayer, which she never omits. Francisca indeed has no doubt concerning the liceity of the matter; nevertheless, because she is of a timorous conscience, she manifests the matter to her confessor, seeking counsel from him, ready rather to suffer poverty than to offend God.

Q. 1. Is communication with heretics prohibited? 2. What as to the case?

R. To the first, cf. I. M. 367. To the second: for the solution of the case two things are to be inquired. The first is whether it is licit for Francisca to accept the office of singer in a Protestant temple. The other, insofar as a negative response must be given to the prior question, is whether the confessor can and ought to manifest the truth to his penitent.

Now, as regards the first question, it must altogether be answered negatively. This is clear 1. from the authority of theologians. La-Croix, l. 2, n. 68, has these words: "Lessius rightly notes that it is not licit in temples or banquets of non-Catholics to sing their psalms together; likewise that it is not licit in their temples to play the organ or other instruments, because in these things there seems to be public approbation or scandalous communication in sacred things." Philippus de Carboneano, in the appendix to the treatise of Fr. Antoine, de Virt. Theol., part 1, c. 2, says: "Secondly, by deed they deny the faith who do those things which approve and ratify a false rite and sacrilegious worship. For this is to contemn the orthodox faith, which condemns these things, and to profess a false Religion by work. But they ratify the false rite and worship who in the temples of schismatics, heretics, and infidels play organs or other instruments, sing meters, or compose things to be sung, or exercise the musical art in another way." Kenrick, tr. 13, n. 37, speaking of the temples of heretics, says: "Those who in them sing hymns, play organs, respond to the herald, become plainly participants in the worship, and therefore in some way betray the faith." Other more recent theologians commonly teach the same.

It is clear 2. from the instruction of the Eminent Cardinal Vicar for parish priests of Rome: "Most strictly, moreover, it is forbidden to enter, from mere curiosity and knowingly, the halls and temples of Protestants during the time of conferences; and all sin gravely who, from mere curiosity, listen to the conferences of Protestants and assist, although materially, at non-Catholic ceremonies; and all craftsmen who, even for the sole reason of gain, sing or play in the temples of Protestants." Enchir. Mor. 367.

It is proved 3. by reason. For then that could be licit for Francisca when her cooperation in the worship of Protestants were material. But her cooperation is formal, and that altogether illicit. Indeed, formal cooperation is had not only when someone has the explicit intention of cooperating in the evil action of another, insofar as it is evil; but also when someone, notwithstanding a contrary intention, performs some work which, by its intrinsic nature and with attention to all circumstances, is ordered solely, directly, or immediately to that evil action. For then, as is clear, by the very act exercised the prior intention is retracted, and at least an implicit intention of that evil action is had. Moreover, the singing of psalms in a church during the time of public offices is by its nature a religious act of external worship. Therefore, as the singing of psalms in a Catholic church is an external act of Catholic worship, so the singing of psalms in a Protestant temple is an external act of Protestant worship. Besides, with attention to all the circumstances of the case, although perhaps no scandal is to be feared for Francisca, nevertheless the matter is very dangerous, and scandal of others is certainly present, if it should come into notice, as is a very easy thing, that Catholic Francisca sings in a Protestant temple. She furthermore will be the cause why both Protestants become bolder, and more easily and more frequently both Protestants and also the faithful approach the Protestant temple to hear her singing skillfully and with a sweet voice.

It is confirmed 4. from the response of the Sacred Congregation, 19 June 1889. The archbishop of Mario- nople had set forth: "A certain man of that archdiocese had sought the faculty of playing the organ on feast days in the temples of Protestants to procure his own livelihood." The Sacred Congregation on prayers of this sort issued this decree: "It is illicit in the temples of heretics, when they exercise false worship there, to play the organ." Collectan. S. C. de P. F., n. 1854. But another decision of the Sacred Congregation, 23 Feb. 1820, to the third, is to be noted here: "A Catholic man being lacking to play the organ in a certain Catholic church, can a non-Catholic musician be admitted temporarily to that function? R. Scandal, or danger of scandal, having been removed, affirmatively." Collectan. cited, n. 1834.

As regards the other question, the confessor can and ought openly to declare the truth. The reason is that he is asked concerning the truth to be said, and he can prudently judge that fruit will come from his admonition. For the good, indeed the best, dispositions of Francisca are such that the confessor can conceive no suspicion concerning a bad outcome of his admonition.

2. Germanus, a missionary intending to favor the union of dissenting brethren, easily permits Catholics to go to the temples of Protestants, and Protestants to approach the churches of Catholics, so that they may hear Mass, confess, and receive the sacred synaxis; so that they may hear the sermon; so that they may be present at funerals; so that they may play the organ; so that they may also assist at marriages and baptisms. Indeed he even permits Protestants to build the Church of Catholics and Catholics to build the temple of Protestants. This manner of acting of Germanus indeed obtains this best effect, that Catholics live fraternally in peace with Protestants, and from time to time conversions of Protestants are not wanting.

Q. What as to the case?

R. Because Germanus the missionary intends to promote the union of heretics with the Catholic Church, he acts altogether well and is to be praised because of his apostolic zeal. This is that very work which Leo XIII desired and inculcated by his letters.

But that which Germanus does for this end has not been rightly done. For first, easily and positively to permit Catholics to go to the temples of Protestants is a thing which, although in itself indifferent, in the case however is practically dangerous, and certainly prohibited, since scandal follows from it. Furthermore, as appears from the whole tenor of the case, Germanus permits Catholics to go to the temples of Protestants, namely so that they may assist at their sacred functions. Moreover, communication with Protestants in divine things which smell of heresy is altogether illicit, because it is protestative of heresy. And this holds even if their sacred functions differ from Catholic rites and ceremonies only in rites and ceremonies; for this diversity of rites and ceremonies is distinctive of the heretical sect, and consequently is protestative of heresy. Only in extreme necessity is it licit to receive from them the sacraments of the dead, if they validly minister them, even though not by a Catholic rite, Albitius, de Inconst. in fide, c. 18, n. 32. - The difficulty is only if heretics perform divine things in a matter and rite altogether Catholic. There are those who affirm that this is not illicit in itself, and these are many and grave doctors; because then we are prohibited from them not as from heretics, but only as from excommunicates. Others deny it, and at least practically and regularly it must altogether be denied. The reason is the danger of perversion and scandal, which ordinarily exists in communication of this sort; and the favor which is had from this toward heresy and heretics. Furthermore, the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office and the S. C. de P. F. have constantly prohibited it. And thus Pius VI, Instruction, 1 Apr. 1794, forbade being present at the Masses of intruding priests, and performing the office of sponsor when they baptized. And the Holy Office likewise forbade accompanying or following them when they carried Viaticum. - Suarez, de Fide, d. 21, s. 3, n. 4; Lugo, de Fide, d. 22, s. 1; Albitius, cited place, c. 18, n. 30; Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 6, c. 5, n. 2.

Then Germanus permits heretics to be present at sacred things in the churches of Catholics, to receive the sacraments, and to hear a sermon. As regards hearing a sermon, there is or can be no difficulty. For although Catholics cannot assist at the sermons of heretics on account of danger of perversion and scandal, nevertheless it is not prohibited to admit heretics to the sermon, indeed also to invite them, since this is both useful to religion and a great work of charity toward heretics.

As regards hearing Mass, although likewise Catholics cannot hear the Masses of heretics and schismatics, although otherwise on feast days they cannot hear Mass, nevertheless it can be tolerated that tolerated heretics and schismatics assist at Masses. And thus this is tolerated in colleges of Catholics in which the sons of heretics are educated. S. C. de P. F., 25 Apr. 1868. But it is not licit to minister to them the sacraments of confession and Communion; for it is communication in divine things bearing before itself adherence and favor to a condemned sect, and it fosters religious indifferentism. The same must be said by proportionate reason concerning assistance at marriages, baptisms, and funerals, namely if they assist at those as witnesses, at these as sponsors, at those as fulfilling a religious office, for example, by carrying a lit candle in procession with others. But they are not prohibited from assisting at all these as fulfilling a merely civil office, if a graver cause is present, by merely accompanying the spouses, merely assisting at the baptism, merely accompanying the funeral. Because this is a civil office, from a graver cause it is licit also for Catholics with respect to heretics, and they can follow the procession as far as the doors of the heretical or schismatic temple, and more probably they can also enter. Cf. Lugo, cited place, n. 10.

Although it is altogether illicit for Catholics to play the organ in the temples of heretics or schismatics, to call them into Catholic churches to exercise this office, others being lacking, and scandal having been removed and for a time, is not illicit.

That Protestants build a Catholic church is certainly not evil, but good and consequently licit. But it is otherwise concerning Catholics building the temple of Protestants. For this, although it can be tolerated, and therefore those who build these temples are not to be disturbed, provided that there be no scandal, and it not be done in contempt of religion, but either to avoid grave harm, or from another grave cause; nevertheless, from grave sin in the case there is no excuse, since it redounds in favor of the heretical sect, because labor and expense are employed so that it may exist and persevere conveniently.

Finally, that Catholics live fraternally with heretics and associate together in civil matters is not illicit in itself, because it is not to communicate with heretics, but with citizens. Hence it is not illicit in itself even to serve heretical masters, even in a temple. But in the case, from the imprudence of Germanus, this also appears illicit in its generality, because it seems to have this effect, namely the aforesaid religious indifferentism, if no caution is employed, if, rather than being tolerated or permitted for particular cases, it is counseled and fostered indiscriminately. Hence, as appears, Germanus seems infected with the error of Americanism, namely of removing all limits and boundaries between Catholics and Protestants, so that the one approach the others in this way, and approach in all things.

3. Elpidia, a Catholic woman, taken by love of a heretical sect from the reading of Protestant books, resolved to depart from Spain into England. While she was passing through France, she fell into a lethal illness. Her Catholic husband immediately approached the parish priest of the place, asking of him that he visit his wife and dispose her for a good death, yet in such a way that he say nothing about Purgatory, Indulgences, or Confession, since the admonition would not be profitable, but would gravely harm. Soon the parish priest, having followed the husband, found Elpidia struggling with death. He recites in a loud voice acts of faith, hope, charity, and contrition. He likewise recites the Apostles' Creed. He exhorts her to sorrow for all sins, and absolves her under condition. Afterward, however, he buried her in a sacred place.

Q. Whether the parish priest acted well, absolving Elpidia and burying her in a sacred place?

R. To the first, the parish priest seems to have acted well. The reason is that he tried, in the best way in which it could be done in these circumstances, to procure the salvation of the soul, namely by disposing the sick woman both to true supernatural sorrow for sins, and also to assenting to the mysteries of faith necessary to be believed for salvation. Therefore he acted well, partly because he absolved her, lest perhaps, dying with only attrition, she should incur eternal damnation, who, with the benefit of absolution also coming, perhaps obtained eternal salvation; partly because he absolved her not absolutely, but only under condition. For whenever on the one side there shines forth a probable hope of the validity of this sacrament, and on the other side the danger of frustration is to be feared, then, the case of necessity urging, it can, indeed also must, be administered not absolutely, but under condition, in order to provide both for the salvation of the soul and also for reverence toward the sacrament. But in this case there truly was the greatest danger of the soul; and on the other side some hope of sacramental validity appeared. For Caia [i.e., Elpidia] had previously been Catholic and, as appears in the case, well instructed in the matters of the Catholic faith. Therefore, not altogether improbably, placed in so great a danger, stirred by the exhortation of the pious parish priest and aided by the grace of God, she could return to the heart, and desire sacramental absolution, and by sighs and other signs of this sort confess, although it was not noticed. - Elbel 34; G. 190; I. M. V. 2, n. 345, 346, 750 seqq.; Commentar. de Moribundorum Absolutione et Assistentia.

But what if Elpidia had also previously been non-Catholic? If Elpidia had also previously been heretical, and did not contemn the sacraments of the Church, the parish priest would indeed do well, unless something else stood in the way, to approach her and with her elicit acts of faith, hope, charity, and contrition. And, if the circumstances permitted it, he ought afterward to ask her whether she wished to embrace the saving faith, if she knew herself not to be in the true faith; likewise whether she wished to embrace and do all things necessary for salvation, to confess and to be absolved. And if she nods assent to these things, she can be absolved under condition. - La-Croix, l. 6, p. 2, n. 1866; Elbel 35; Lig. l. 6, n. 483; G. 190.

To the second. Elpidia could be buried in a sacred place, provided scandal was absent, as in fact it seems to have been absent. The reason is that she was supposed, in the article of death, really to have given signs of penitence, and consequently to have been truly absolved from sins and from the censures which she incurred. And although doubt was present, nevertheless one had to incline to the more benign part. Elbel 36; G. 141.

522. Distinctions. First of all, a twofold communication with heretics and unbelievers is distinguished: the one civil or profane, the other religious or in sacred things. Civil communication is had in matters pertaining to civil life, e.g. in commerce, cohabitation, and especially in continuous friendly conversation. Religious communication or communication in sacred things is had in matters pertaining to religion and worship. This again is twofold: positive, when a Catholic participates in heretical or unbelieving worship, e.g. when a Catholic receives the Protestant supper; negative, when a non-Catholic participates in Catholic sacred ceremonies or spiritual goods, e.g. when a heretic assists at the sacrifice of Mass. Positive religious communication is again distinguished as twofold: formal and material. The first is present when a Catholic participates in non-Catholic worship with the true intention of worshiping God according to the manner of non-Catholics. The other communication, namely material, exists if a Catholic only externally assists for sufficient reasons, without inwardly or positively wishing properly to participate in heterodox worship. This communication is called in the Code of Canon Law (c. 1258, § 2) passive and material assistance.

523. General rules. 1. Civil communication between Catholics and non-Catholics (whether heretics or unbelievers) is now not prohibited by ecclesiastical law;⁴⁶ often, however, from natural and divine law it is illicit, as being full of dangers of perversion.

It is established by experience that from such civil communication (at least if it is frequent and familiar) there arise doubts about faith, indifferentism, and other manifold inconveniences, indeed not rarely total defection from the Catholic faith. Therefore unless some necessity or great utility compels, that communication is to be avoided according to the admonition of St. Paul: "Avoid a heretical man."⁴⁷ Hence parents should take care that sons and daughters not have special familiarity with non-Catholic companions. Likewise, unless true necessity exists, Catholic workers should not give their name to so-called interconfessional societies (interkonfessionelle Gewerkschaften).⁴⁸

⁴⁶ Civil communication with pagan unbelievers was never prohibited by ecclesiastical law; but communication with Jews and heretics in antiquity was forbidden, and indeed communication with notorious heretics under the penalty of minor excommunication (cf. c. 2, X 2, 25; c. 31, X 5, 39). - Martin V (Const. "Ad evitanda," 1418) permitted civil communication with tolerated excommunicates and excluded from this communion only excommunicates to be avoided and public assailants of clerics. According to present discipline an even milder practice obtains, since civil communication even with excommunicates to be avoided is licit, provided, however, a reasonable cause is present (Cod. iur. can. c. 2267). - According to the old ecclesiastical discipline Christians could not cohabit with Jews in the same house, nor be present at their banquets, use a common bath, serve them, employ them as physicians, and Christian women were prohibited from being nurses of Jewish infants. These prohibitions indeed were very good, but the Church never persecuted the Jews, as modern Antisemitism does.

⁴⁷ Tit. 3, 10.

⁴⁸ Pius X, "Singulari quadam," September 24, 1912.

524. 2. Negative religious communication with heretics (except excommunicates to be avoided), speaking generally, is licit.

The reason is that from such communication prudently admitted, not inconveniences but rather precious advantages are accustomed to arise. Therefore non-Catholics can be present at Catholic sacred ceremonies, e.g. they can assist at Mass, hear sermons in our churches, etc. Indeed the Church desires that non-Catholics devoutly be present at our religious functions; for in this way, seeing the beauty of our worship, they will more easily be converted to the true religion. Nevertheless non-Catholics cannot publicly participate in the sacraments, in sacramentals, in indulgences, and in other graces, because favors of this kind are not conceded except to true members of the Church. But nothing prevents non-Catholics from privately receiving sacramentals, blessings, e.g. holy water, blessed medals, etc.,⁴⁹ provided abuse is guarded against.

⁴⁹ Cod. iur. can. c. 1149, 1152.

525. The following statutes of ecclesiastical law are to be noted:

a) A heretic cannot validly be admitted as sponsor in baptism; indeed baptism is rather to be administered without a sponsor than with a heretical sponsor.⁵⁰ But nothing prevents a heretic from being present at baptism, e.g. as a witness.

b) With a grave cause being added and scandal being absent, non-Catholics can be witnesses in the marriage of Catholics.⁵¹ But "it is illicit in sacred functions to invite heretics into the choir, to sing alternately, to give them the peace, sacred ashes, blessed candles and palms, and other things of this kind of external worship, which are rightly and deservedly judged signs of an interior bond and agreement, both in an active sense, namely by giving similar things to them, and in a passive sense, by receiving them from them in their sacred rites."⁵² Today a milder discipline is in force concerning sacramentals.

c) It is not permitted to non-Catholics to carry torches or lights at liturgical functions,⁵³ nor to be enrolled in confraternities or pious associations.⁵⁴

d) The custom of employing non-Catholic singers in liturgical chant the Holy Office on May 1, 1889, declared to be an abuse to be removed;⁵⁵ but on January 24, 1906, taking account of peculiar circumstances, it permitted schismatic girls together with Catholics to sing in the parish church at ecclesiastical functions and especially at exposition and benediction with the Most Holy Sacrament.⁵⁶

e) After solemn Mass and at benediction of the Most Holy Sacrament it is licit to sing publicly for the king of England: "Lord, save our king," etc., and to pray for him by name.⁵⁷ Likewise the bishop and clergy can accompany a non-Catholic king to a Catholic church, provided the king does not mingle himself with Catholic prayers and rites.⁵⁸

f) If a Catholic organist is lacking, a non-Catholic musician can temporarily be admitted to the office of organist in a church, provided the danger of scandal is removed.⁵⁹

From all these decisions it appears that the Church without great difficulty sometimes permits to heretics negative communication in our sacred ceremonies, provided scandal is absent.

⁵⁰ Holy Office, June 27, 1900 (Anal. eccl. IV [1901] 14); Holy Office, May 3, 1893 (Collect. de Prop. Fide n. 1831). Cod. iur. can. c. 765, n. 2.

⁵¹ Holy Office, August 19, 1891 (Collect. de Prop. Fide n. 1765).

⁵² Holy Office, June 22, 1859 (ib. n. 1176).

⁵³ Holy Office, November 20, 1850 (ib. n. 1053).

⁵⁴ Cod. iur. can. c. 693.

⁵⁵ Cf. also Holy Office, June 30 and July 7, 1864 (ib. n. 1257).

⁵⁶ Collect. de Prop. Fide n. 1703 and 2227.

⁵⁷ February 23, 1820 (ib. n. 739).

⁵⁸ Holy Office, June 22, 1864 (ib. 1256).

⁵⁹ Holy Office, February 23, 1820 (ad 3).

526. 3. Formal communication in sacred things, positive and active, is by no means licit.

The Code of Canon Law c. 1258, § 1 has these words: "It is by no means licit for the faithful in any way actively to assist or to have a part in the sacred rites of non-Catholics." For often such positive assistance is nothing other than a denial of the Catholic faith through internal and external profession of a false religion. Hence, e.g., it is not licit to perform circumcision according to the manner of the Jews; but it is licit to procure a surgical operation similar to circumcision for the sake of health.

Even when denial of faith is absent, communication of this kind is prohibited, a) because often there is present danger of perversion; b) because scandal easily arises for the faithful; c) because at least some external approbation of heretical worship is included in such communication. Hence the following decisions of the Holy Office were issued:

a) It is absolutely not licit, either by oneself or through others, to perform the office of sponsor in baptisms which are administered by heretics to the children of heretics.⁶⁰ The reason is obvious. For the sponsor offers the one to be baptized for baptism and therefore in the case would offer the infant to a heretical minister, which certainly is not licit. Besides, the sponsor must according to his powers take care that the baptized person be educated in the Catholic faith; which would be impossible for him. But it is licit that a Catholic be a witness in a non-Catholic baptism, because this seems to be nothing other than a civil function.

b) It is not licit to contract marriage before a non-Catholic minister; moreover he who nevertheless does this incurs an excommunication reserved to the Ordinary.⁶¹ The Holy Office on January 14, 1874, declared that it can be tolerated that Catholics be present at heretical marriages and also mixed marriages contracted before a non-Catholic minister only for the sake of a civil office, "scandal and every danger of perversion and contempt of ecclesiastical authority being removed."⁶²

c) It is licit that Catholics be present at the funerals of heterodox persons,⁶³ provided there is no question of those merely civil obsequies "from which, for the display of unbelief and in contempt of religion, every sacred rite and minister is deliberately excluded."⁶⁴ But those Catholics act gravely illicitly and are suspect of heresy who call a non-Catholic minister to perform the funeral of a Catholic parent or relative deceased, to whom ecclesiastical burial has been denied, e.g. on account of cremation of the body.

d) It is not licit in the churches of heretics, when false worship is exercised there, to play the organ,⁶⁵ or to pray and sing, although in the prayers and songs nothing heretical is found.

e) Religious sisters serving in the care of the sick cannot call a minister of false religion for a non-Catholic sick person who has requested the same minister,⁶⁶ but they must conduct themselves passively. For in those cases it is better that the religious sister help the sick person to elicit an act of contrition than that she call a non-Catholic minister, who has no power of administering the sacraments. But if the sick person absolutely demands that the non-Catholic minister be called and great inconveniences arise from refusal made by the sister, then the religious sister can by herself or through another person announce this desire of the sick person to the non-Catholic minister. The reason is that such an announcement is only an action indifferent in itself, which it is licit to posit from a reasonable cause.⁶⁷

f) From a grave cause the bishop can permit so-called simultaneity, i.e. that Catholic rites be performed in a church which also serves a heterodox rite. Thus in Jerusalem in the church of the Holy Sepulchre all sects perform their rites. Certain cautions, however, are customarily attached in such simultaneity.⁶⁸

g) It is licit to swear by touching and kissing the Bible of heretics, as is the custom in England.⁶⁹

h) Catholic pupils who in Russia were being compelled together with non-Catholic pupils to participate in non-Catholic rites, to kiss the cross presented by a non-Catholic minister, to genuflect, to receive blessed loaves, etc., were bound according to their powers to abstain from all these things, but they could be left in good faith if, having been admonished, they did not avoid these actions on account of the necessity imposed on them.⁷⁰

i) It is prohibited to laymen to dispute publicly with heretics about matters of faith, since from disputes of this kind rarely does anything good, but most often something very bad, come forth.⁷¹ But Catholics provoked to this can indeed have private disputations, i.e. before a few hearers, about faith with heretics, but not public ones without express permission of the Supreme Pontiff, or, if the case urges, of the local Ordinary.⁷²

⁶⁰ Holy Office, May 10, 1710 and July 7, 1864 (Collect. de Prop. Fide n. 478 and 1257).

⁶¹ Cod. iur. can. c. 2319.

⁶² Collect. de Prop. Fide n. 1410. Cf. also Cod. iur. can. c. 1258, § 2. Wherefore in these cases and under these conditions it is licit for Catholics to perform the office of maid of honor, etc., commonly bride's-maid or best man.

⁶³ Cod. iur. can. c. 1254, § 2.

⁶⁴ Holy Office, May 11, 1892.

⁶⁵ S. C. de Prop. Fide, June 19 and July 8, 1889 (Collect. n. 1713).

⁶⁶ Holy Office, December 19, 1898 (ib. n. 2030).

⁶⁷ Thus also Genicot, Cas. consc. I, 204. Indeed Lehmkuhl (Theol. mor. n. 810-811) thinks that from a wholly grave cause it is licit that a sister can, in similar circumstances, prepare for a non-Catholic minister the table on which he wishes to perform his rite, and during the rite itself present the utensils, bread, and wine. - Yet not all these things seem to be admitted. Certainly a sister can prepare the table, because this is an indifferent action, but during the heretical rite itself she cannot licitly minister actively, because this is proximate cooperation in the heretical rite itself, which does not seem to be licit. For if it is not licit in the churches of heretics, when false worship is exercised there, to play organs, a fortiori it seems illicit to cooperate so proximately in the Protestant supper. Besides, according to the prescription of the Holy Office repeated several times, sisters must conduct themselves passively in such a case. Is to cooperate so proximately to conduct oneself passively?

⁶⁸ Cf. Holy Office, June 5, 1889 (Collect. n. 1707).

⁶⁹ Holy Office, February 23, 1820 (ib. n. 739).

⁷⁰ Holy Office, April 26, 1894 (ib. n. 1868).

⁷¹ c. 2, V, 2 in VI. If, however, there is hope of fruit either in those provoking or in the hearers, a layman can privately dispute with heretics to defend the Catholic faith.

⁷² Cod. iur. can. c. 1325, § 3. On the unhappy result of several religious disputations see Wetzer and Welte, Kirchenlexicon, s.v. "Disputation."

527. 4. Material communication, which is by accident and passive, is licit, provided a sufficient cause is present.

The reason is that such communication is an action honest in itself or at least indifferent, to which it happens that it is joined with some heterodox rite.

Hence the following actions are licit for a Catholic, provided sufficient reasons are present and scandal is absent: to visit churches of heretics for looking at paintings, statues, and other works of art, or for listening to music; to hear, when occasion is given, sermons of heretics, if danger of perversion is absent (nevertheless in practice in this case every danger of perversion is in reality rarely absent, even if such a sermon is heard by means of the new invention which is called "Radio"); to assist at other liturgical functions, if a sufficient cause is present. Thus, e.g., soldiers or pupils who are led in a group to such functions and cannot withdraw without grave inconvenience assist licitly. On this matter the Holy Office teaches on January 13, 1818:⁷³ "To go to the churches of heretics is an act indifferent in itself, which becomes evil only from an evil end or from circumstances. Namely it becomes evil: 1. if someone goes to them with the intention of assisting at the sacred functions of heretics; 2. or even without such intention, if the entrance itself into the churches of heretics brings in, or seems to bring in, some communication with heretics in divine things, and hence gives occasion of scandal; 3. or if such going is ordered by a heretical government as a protestation of the same faith and religion between Catholics and non-Catholics; 4. or if each is commonly regarded as a token of one and the same communion of Catholics and non-Catholics."

Note. Since today almost innumerable cases can happen in which Catholics communicate with heretics, and since it is not easy to determine in each case whether licit or illicit communication is present, the rules concerning the indirect voluntary must be kept before one's eyes: It is licit to posit an action from which a double effect follows, one good and the other bad, if the action is honest in itself or indifferent, if a sufficient cause is present, and the bad effect is not intended. Especially also to be guarded against are both danger of perversion and scandal of one's neighbor. From these things said it follows that it is not licit to infer, e.g.: Visiting a Protestant church is licit in such a place and for such a person. Therefore the same thing is licit for anyone and in any place. It belongs to a prudent man, and especially to a confessor or bishop, to judge whether in a particular case all the conditions necessary for rendering some communication with heretics licit are present.

⁷³ Collect. de Prop. Fide n. 727.

447. Communication is either RELIGIOUS or in sacred rites, or CIVIL or political. The former is prohibited by reason of itself, by divine and ecclesiastical right, on account of scandal and cooperation in sin; namely insofar as it is simulation of false faith, or approbation of false religion (see n. 432). - The latter is prohibited chiefly by reason of the danger of perversion which it induces.

PRINCIPLES. I. Civil communication with unbelievers, heretics, and apostates is forbidden by the natural and divine law, if it is dangerous to those communicating. This is established from the things said at n. 374, and from several places of Sacred Scripture, for example the Epistle to Titus (3:10): Avoid a heretical man, and Romans (16:17, 18): Decline from them. For men of this kind do not serve Christ our Lord, but their own belly: and by sweet speeches and blessings they seduce the hearts of the innocent (cf. de Prohib. lib., c. 1).

Note. 1. From civil communication a threefold danger arises: a) lest the Catholic religion suffer detriment; b) lest someone make shipwreck of his own faith; c) lest others take scandal.

2. Apostates, free-thinkers, and heretics entice more to their errors than unbelievers do; because their speech creeps like a cancer (2 Tim. 2:17), and because Satan, so that he may more easily deceive the simple and unwary, with their help and work, is transfigured into an angel of light. The danger grows in places of heretics or unbelievers where there does not exist some church with a Catholic priest to whom it is free to exercise our rites publicly.

3. Formerly a more severe prohibition, even general, was had against civilly communicating, without just cause, with heretics and others denounced by name (cf. n. 1295). It was forbidden to Christians (cf. title de Judaeis in Canon Law) to dwell with Jews in the same house, to be present at banquets, to use a common bath, to employ them as physicians ... or to serve Jews. But these things, says Tanquerey, have passed more or less into desuetude, and today attention must rather be given to the danger of perversion (II, n. 677, note). Cf. Gury-Ferreres, I, n. 210; D'Annibale, I, n. 110.

4. For ITALIANS Clement VIII, Const. Cum sicut, established: a) That under whatever title they dare not dwell in places of heretics where there does not exist a church with a Catholic priest. b) That they not depart to dwell in the aforesaid places except after opportune admonitions have been received from the Ordinaries or inquisitors for guarding against the danger of subversion. c) That they not use heretical physicians if a suitable Catholic is present (Scavini, II, n. 820).

448. II. Religious communication with unbelievers, heretics, and apostates is of itself illicit and prohibited by the Church. It is established from reason and from the decisions cited above.

Note. 1. The prohibition is absolute in those things which contain heresy, as happens in active, public, and formal communication; it is only conditioned in those things which are administered in the Catholic rite, for example in mixed marriages, provided the dangers of religion are absent and ecclesiastical prohibition does not urge (cf. D'Annibale, l. c.; Gury-Ferreres, I, n. 209). The reason is clear, for the first is the same as truly to deny the true faith, to profess and simulate a false one (cf. n. 429), which is never licit; the other contains only the appearance of adhesion to a condemned sect, although it brings danger; yet all these things can and ought sometimes to be removed.

2. It can more easily be admitted that heretics communicate with us in our rites; for this has less danger than if we communicate with them.

3. It is more strictly prohibited to communicate in sacred rites with unbelievers, because besides other inconveniences there is almost always present participation in superstitious worship (cf. D'Annibale, l. c., and above n. 432).

449. IT IS ASKED. Whether DISPUTATION with heretics is prohibited?

It must be noted beforehand. A twofold disputation is given: public, which, with day and hour fixed, has place before a multitude and judges appointed; private, which is made before a few hearers.

Resp. 1. For laymen, Alexander IV (c. 2, § 1, de Haeret., in Sexto) established thus: "We prohibit that it be licit for any lay person to dispute publicly or privately concerning the Catholic faith. But he who shall do contrary, let him be bound by the snare of excommunication" (excommunication ferendae sententiae). The law is founded on the presumption that laymen are not sufficiently taught. Therefore exception must be made if the controversy is made by learned men with the Bishop's permission, or in a case of great usefulness, or of introduced custom, as in Germany.

2. "Disputation is prohibited to clerics by no right, provided that they are suitable, and from the circumstances a happy outcome can be hoped; but public disputation with heretics cannot be made without permission" (namely, of the Supreme Pontiff). Thus the Sacred Congregation of the Council, March 6, 1625, and several times the S. C. Prop. Fide. Yet in a case of necessity, if there is danger in delay, the Ordinary of the place can grant this license (Konings, n. 255).

Disputations with socialists are subject to the same rules, the Sacred Congregation for extraordinary affairs declared, January 27, 1902 (A. S. S., 38, p. 107. Cf. Canon. Cont., XXV, p. 335; Etudes, August 20, 1905, p. 480; Ami du Clerge, 1905, p. 354).

450. From these things you will resolve: 1. Marriages with heretics and unbelievers, as being generally dangerous for the Catholic party and offspring, are, regularly speaking, gravely illicit. Yet sometimes, for a grave cause, and every danger being removed, the Church permits marriages of this kind to avoid a greater evil (II, 19). See the treatise on Matrimony (n. 1986).

2. It is not licit to serve heretics when there is danger of perversion. The same must be said if the servant is for the most part impeded from fulfillment of the precepts of the Church; but otherwise if he is only rarely impeded.

3. To send little children, young men, or girls into schools of heretics or of impious men is a great sin and a very great evil, ordinarily never repairable (cf. n. 713 seqq.). See the Instruction of the Eminent Cardinal Vicar to the pastors of the Fair City, July 12, 1878 (A. S. S., vol. 11, p. 176). Likewise, parents sin gravely who for the sake of gain send their still tender children, or allow them to go, to places of heretics, without any necessity and due cautions.

4. Also with the greatest caution must young people be permitted to frequent associations called scholastic or postscholastic, or associations of Popular Universities, because often faith runs into danger there. See the things said at n. 432.

S. Th. II-II, q. 10, aa. 7 and 9.

752. Communication with infidels and heretics is distinguished as twofold:

1. civil, in profane and civil matters pertaining to social commerce, such as purchases, sales, banquets, cohabitation, conversation, familiarity, service, etc.: this is lawful, provided scandal and danger of perversion are absent;¹ and provided the heretics are not excommunicates to be avoided, in which last case can. 2267 would apply.

¹ "If some have been firm in faith, such that from their communication with infidels the conversion of the infidels can be hoped for more than the turning away of the faithful from faith, they are not to be prohibited from communicating with infidels.... But if they are simple and weak in faith..., they are to be prohibited from communion with infidels" (St. Thomas, q. 10, a. 9).

2. religious, in sacred things pertaining to religion, such as rites, dogmas, sacrifices, prayers, etc., and in mixed things insofar as they regard religion, for example, in the religious rite of marriage or of funerals. This can be considered either on the part of infidels and heretics, or on the part of the faithful, and on each side it can be active or passive.

753. Concerning the communication of infidels and heretics with Catholics it must be said: Infidels and heretics can passively assist not only at the preaching of the word of God, but also at other offices of public worship; yet they cannot actively participate in them, because that would rightly be considered as a sign of religious unity. Hence they are excluded from the sacraments (can. 731, § 2), from sacramentals which are publicly administered to individuals in church,² from ecclesiastical burial (can. 1240), from enrollment in pious associations (can. 693), and things of this kind; consequently it is also generally prohibited that they use the same church simultaneously with Catholics, or vice versa. But if they are apostates or heretics, and therefore excommunicated, can. 2259 also applies.

² Private prayers, however, can be made for all and for individuals, even the Mass, but only privately and with scandal removed (can. 809 and 2262, § 2); likewise blessings, not indeed consecratory, but merely invocative, for obtaining the light of faith, or, together with it, health of body (can. 1149). Yet public prayers cannot be made for them individually, that is, with the name of a singular person expressed, unless for a public person as such, for example, for a king, that is, for the prosperity of society: thus it was tolerated to pray nominally for the king of England after Mass, in the formula "O Lord, save the king" (February 23, 1820). Catholics can also pray privately together with heretics, provided the prayers are good and there is no scandal, for example, if the heretic is about to die.

There are many decisions of the Holy Office concerning this matter, which does not establish a positive ecclesiastical law, but interprets or applies in this matter and in similar questions the natural and divine law itself:

a) It is unlawful, in sacred functions, to invite heretics into the choir, to sing psalms alternately with them, to give them the peace, sacred ashes, candles and blessed palms, and other things of this kind of external worship, which are rightly considered indications of an interior bond and agreement (June 8, 1759).

b) It is not lawful to admit heretics, schismatics, or Jews, even if they are boys or girls, so that in Catholic churches they may sing in the musical choir at liturgical functions (May 1, 1889); nevertheless, considering special circumstances, this can be tolerated for schismatics (January 24, 1906). But it is lawful to permit non-Catholics to play the organ at liturgical functions in a Catholic church, if scandal is not to be feared from this (February 23, 1820).

c) It is not lawful to permit non-Catholics to carry torches or lights at the liturgical functions of Catholics (November 20, 1850); likewise to serve Mass (ibid.; June 30 and July 7, 1864); or to act as sponsor (May 3, 1893; June 27, 1900; can. 765); likewise to be used as witnesses in the marriage of Catholics, although sometimes it can be tolerated with scandal removed (August 19, 1891).

d) It is not lawful to permit heretics or schismatics to celebrate their rites in Catholic churches (May 10, 1753), nor for Catholics to perform sacred rites in their temples (can. 823, §§ 1 and 2): for this is equivalent to consenting to their rites, or at least to offering Catholics the occasion of communicating with non-Catholics in sacred things (May 10, 1753; August 13, 1627; June 5, 1889). Nevertheless this can sometimes be tolerated if it is impossible to do otherwise and the conditions render confusion of religions impossible, and scandal is absent (June 5, 1889). Thus, for a graver cause, in order more easily to promote the conversion of schismatics and infidels, with a view to sacred ceremonies, missionaries are sometimes permitted the faculty of celebrating Mass in the Catholic rite upon altars in the temples of heretics or schismatics, "so that the same altars serve only as bare tables, and are arranged according to the manner of Catholics with a sacred stone, linens, an image of the Most Holy Crucified One, candlesticks, and other necessary furnishings for the use of the sacrifice of the Most Holy Mass in the aforesaid rite" (April 12, 1704).

754. Concerning the religious communication of the faithful with infidels or non-Catholics it must be said:

Active communication, or participation in sacred things themselves, namely, of public worship, is unlawful, because it is an implicit approval of the exercise of worship and an acknowledgment of the sect; but passive communication is generally unlawful, yet sometimes can be lawful on account of a grave reason. Hence:

a) If it is done with heretics (or schismatics), by natural and ecclesiastical law it is per se and regularly gravely unlawful for the faithful, "either on account of the danger of perversion in Catholic faith, or on account of the danger of participation in a heretical rite, or on account of the danger and occasion of scandal or seduction,"³ or on account of the appearance of adherence to the false sect which it of itself signifies (Rom. XVI, 17; Tit. III, 10).

³ Thus according to the rule given to missionaries by the S. C. de Prop. F., 1729.

b) Nevertheless, per accidens and extraordinarily, it can be lawful, provided the action is not intrinsically evil and there is a proportionate cause, which is required to be the graver the more important the sacred thing is in which communication occurs, and the nearer the action approaches to worship.

c) With infidels, a fortiori, it is unlawful, especially because their worship is wont to be false and superstitious.

Hence canon 1258: "§ 1. It is not lawful for the faithful in any way actively to assist or to have part in the sacred rites of non-Catholics.

§ 2. Passive or merely material presence, for the sake of civil duty or honor, can be tolerated, for a grave reason to be approved by the Bishop in a doubtful case, at the funerals, weddings, and similar solemnities of non-Catholics, provided the danger of perversion and scandal is absent" (cf. can. 2316).

755. Specifically as regards the Sacraments, the general principle is that they are unlawfully sought from a heretical minister (schismatic or juring), because such a petition is an implicit acknowledgment of the authority of the minister and of the sect itself. Hence:

1. It is never lawful to ask them from one who is going to administer them in a manner alien from the Catholic rite and by which such persons are distinguished from the Church, because it would be an immediate participation in unlawful worship and an implicit profession of a false sect.

2. Nor is it lawful, if he administers in the Catholic rite, except in extreme necessity for Baptism (that is, if a layman is lacking) and Penance only (Holy Office, July 7, 1864), and, when this is lacking, for Extreme Unction, provided nevertheless that the circumstance of necessity brings it about (as ordinarily happens) that the petition is no longer considered as an acknowledgment of the sect; otherwise it would still be unlawful.⁴

⁴ Likewise it is not lawful to give an alms to a heretical (or schismatic) priest to celebrate Mass (S. C. P. F., March 12, 1789); or formally and freely to go into a temple to hear his Mass, even if on a feast day one would be deprived of Mass (Holy Office, December 5, 1668; August 7, 1704).

3. It is never lawful in the Baptism of heretics, personally or through a procurator, to act as sponsor, because in the name of the one to be baptized he asks Baptism from the minister (May 10, 1770; July 7, 1864; January 3, 1871).

4. Indeed, regularly it is not lawful to assist at such a Baptism or materially to hold the infant in it, except for a grave motive and with scandal removed (May 10, 1770).

756. As regards sacramentals and the nuptial blessing, the same principle holds; they are unlawfully sought from a non-Catholic minister as such, because such a petition is an implicit acknowledgment of the authority of the minister. Hence:

1. It is never lawful to seek sacred things, such as blessings, prayers, etc., from a heretical (or schismatic) minister, nor the nuptial blessing, nor to give or renew matrimonial consent before him, even if the marriage had already been contracted before the parish priest (January 29, 1817), and this under penalty of excommunication reserved to the Ordinary (can. 2319; 1063, § 1).

2. To enter a civil contract before a heretical minister acting only as a civil minister is lawful (November 29, 1762; can. 1063, § 3).

3. It is never lawful, in a marriage celebrated before a heretical minister, to fulfill the office of witness, whether of the paranymph leading the bride, not to the bridegroom, but to the altar or to the minister, because by participating in the ceremony itself, and by lending the authority of a witness to the contract, he implicitly acknowledges the authority of the minister.

4. It is regularly not lawful to assist at such a marriage except for a grave motive, with scandal and contempt of ecclesiastical authority removed, and only for the sake of civil honor and duty⁵ (May 10, 1770; January 14, 1874; can. 1258, § 2).

⁵ Those things which regard marriage also hold for marriage between a Catholic party and a non-Catholic party against the prohibition of the Church.

757. As regards disputations with infidels and heretics:

1. To dispute as one doubting concerning faith and intending to test the truth of faith by arguments, for a member of the faithful, is a sin, and indeed a sin of infidelity.

2. To dispute privately for exercise is per se lawful, unless it is dangerous for the one disputing or for the hearers.

3. To dispute in order to refute errors is per se lawful, provided the disputant is firm in faith, sufficiently learned, and the disputation is judged likely to profit at least the hearers; yet in practice this will rarely happen.

4. Nevertheless, by positive law a public disputation⁶ is prohibited to all, unless with the consent of ecclesiastical authority (can. 1325, § 3). Cf. S. C. de Prop. Fide, March 8, 1625; February 7, 1645; December 18, 1662; Holy Office, January 19, 1664; S. C. Conc., March 6, 1625; and March 8, 1658.

⁶ A disputation is public when it is held on a fixed day and hour, before a multitude and judges of the controversy. - The prohibition also holds concerning disputation with socialists (Cong. de Neg. extr., January 27, 1902).

758. As regards entrance into the temples of heretics and assistance at their offices, the general principle is that it is not lawful to participate in the offices, yet sometimes it is lawful to assist materially (can. 1258). Hence:

1. Simple entrance into a temple is per se an indifferent thing; hence it is lawful if it is done (with scandal removed) to visit the temple, to avoid rain or assault, etc. (Holy Office, January 13, 1818).

2. Participation in the offices, psalmody, prayers, rites, by which someone conducts himself as heretics do and joins himself to them, is never lawful, even if it is required by public authority (S. C. P. F., August 6, 1764; Holy Office, January 13, 1818; April 26, 1894). Yet it is lawful privately to pray before the Most Holy Sacrament or the statues of the Saints, or to show reverence to the Most Holy, provided it sufficiently appears that the one who acts thus does not formally unite himself with those standing by; likewise, to pray privately together with heretics, if the prayers are good.1

3. Cooperation in the offices themselves of heretics, whether by singing, or by directing the chant, or by musical instruments, even done spontaneously or only from greed for gain, is never lawful, because it pertains to the very exercise of worship, or is even a simulation of false faith2 (Holy Office, June 19, and S. C. P. F., July 8, 1889).

4. Merely material assistance at offices or sermons, had from mere curiosity and without any cause, because it has the appearance of evil, is a sin (Holy Office, August 7, 1704; May 10, 1770; instruction of the Cardinal Vicar of Rome, July 12, 1878), yet probably only light, unless peculiar circumstances are added, or a special prohibition, as was made in Rome (Cardinal Vicar of Rome, July 12, 1878). Hence, with scandal removed, if it is done for a good end it will be lawful, for example, in order to refute heretics.

Hence a) in places in which Catholics have for a long time lived mixed with non-Catholics, such assistance is commonly not judged a grave fault, provided scandal is absent, as well as participation in rites or prayers, and danger of perversion.

b) In places altogether Catholic, in which heretics, almost unknown a little before, have now established seats, erect temples, and seek disciples, such assistance easily causes scandal and is taken as favor toward the sect or a sign of communion with it; hence it will easily be gravely evil and must be more strictly prohibited.

c) If it is required by a private person or by public power in hatred of religion or in favor of heresy, it is never lawful: for thus the very thing which is required by the superior would be judged to be fulfilled. - But if it is required for another reason (for example, for servants, sailors, soldiers, those incarcerated), it is lawful for avoiding grave inconvenience (Paul V, 1606).

Infidelity, taken generally, is lack of faith, and a threefold kind is distinguished, namely: 1st. positive or formal, which is lack of faith in him to whom faith itself has been sufficiently proposed, and who positively rejects it; 2nd. negative or material, which is lack of faith in him who has never heard anything concerning the true religion, or indeed has heard, yet not sufficiently; 3rd. privative, which is lack of faith in him who, when the occasion has been given, neglects to obtain for himself knowledge of faith.

I Say. As infidelity both positive and privative is a most grave sin, so negative infidelity is no sin, but only the penalty of sin. The reason for the first is that in positive infidelity there is had explicitly, and in privative infidelity virtually, contempt of the first truth and of the authority of God revealing. But the reason for the second is both because no sin can exist where invincible ignorance is had, and because the following proposition, which is the 68th of Baius, "Purely negative infidelity in those among whom Christ has not been preached is a sin," was condemned by St. Pius V and Gregory XIII.

[The Latitudinarians, under the specious pretext of entering into mutual concord among all Christians, rise up sharply against Catholics because their intolerance fosters dissentions, and impiously contend that communion must be held with all those who have in any way received divine revelation, even if they have received only some of the things contained in it — persons whom they assert can attain salvation by a faith, though but a halved one, no less than Catholics. And hence has arisen the absurd distinction of the articles of faith into fundamental and non-fundamental ones, although not even they themselves have yet agreed among themselves on assigning them. But from what has been said it is clear how impiously these things are proposed: for without faith it is impossible to please God and to attain eternal life; but a halved faith can in no way be called divine faith. For, as the Apostle says, 2 Cor., VI, 15: What concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath the believer with the unbeliever? Therefore

I say 1°: The true religion can tolerate no other religion diverse from itself, and the intolerance of the true religion ought to be its proper character.

Before the proof, I suppose that there can be only one true religion — a point on which both the Latitudinarians and the other sectaries ought to agree, since, as they themselves confess, that is the true religion which follows divine revelation, which rests upon the truthfulness of God revealing, who can neither deceive nor be deceived. That alone, therefore, is the true religion which follows divine revelation in the way that is fitting. And so, if any religion exceeds or falls short in admitting revealed things, or admits things that are not true, or does not admit things that are true, it cannot itself be true. Just as, therefore, if truth be mixed with falsehood, it ceases to be truth and can no longer be called simply true; so, if falsehoods be mixed with the dogmas of the true religion, it ceases to be the true religion and can no longer be called simply true.

I prove, therefore, the conclusion. Tolerance carries with it some association. But the true religion can have no association with the dogmas of another religion diverse from itself, as is clear from the supposition stated above. Therefore the true religion can tolerate no religion diverse from itself.

Nay, just as the proper note of truth is to admit no association with error, so also the intolerance of any other religion ought to be the proper character of the true religion.

Yet it does not follow from this, as the Latitudinarians babble, that men's minds are divided against one another and each becomes an enemy to the other. For Catholics keep before their minds the command of Christ, that they love also those from whom they have received evil. Therefore they ought to conduct themselves on the same ground toward those from whom, although they follow dogmas different from theirs, they receive no harm. Indeed the errors of such men are hated by those who profess the true Christian religion, and they would wish, if they could, to recall them to the way of salvation and of truth; but so far is it from being the case that any traces of alienation of mind appear, that quite the contrary it appears most evidently that nothing is dearer to them than to procure for those men their true and solid welfare. Who does not know that already from the beginnings of the Church the professors of the true religion have taken care, at how great peril to themselves, to lead barbarians and unbelievers to the knowledge of God and to eternal salvation, and still take care? And when they do this, they serve the salvation of men who differ from them in religion, even at the cost of their own life.

I say 2°: Such is the condition of a false religion that, as regards dogmas, it can enter into association with other religions diverse from itself.

Proof. Although truth is opposed to every falsehood, this is not so with falsehood, and nothing prevents two equally false religions from joining in association with each other. And indeed, if it is once laid down that divine revelation proceeds from divine authority, and yet that some revealed things can be rejected by certain Christians, how will those be able to be condemned who have despised and rejected other things handed down and revealed by God? For one must permit others also to use the same right that he himself uses. And hence not only ethnics introduced into their own religion the superstitions of other religions, but Christians too who declined from the truth of the faith either decreed that all sects whatsoever, or at least some, were to be tolerated; and the true Christian religion alone judged that no association with other sects could be entered into as regards dogmas.

Locke objects that it suffices for eternal salvation to believe Christ to be the Messiah and the Son of God, and he tries to prove this by several testimonies of Sacred Scripture in which Christ required this of all. Yet almost all the sects of heretics admit this dogma of faith. Therefore.

I answer with a distinction. That Christ first required this of all, namely that they believe him to be the true Son of God, and that the Apostles were especially solicitous to persuade all of this first, I concede; that Christ required faith in this dogma only, I deny.

Christ, as Son of God, had come to promulgate a new law. Therefore, in order to establish his authority, whereby he was the Son of God, he had first to see to it that all believed him to be the Son of God, and the Apostles likewise strove for the same. The divinity of Christ is therefore, as it were, the base and foundation of evangelical revelation. Yet did not Christ himself will that all should have faith also in everything else that he handed down? He commanded the Apostles to teach all men what they had heard from him, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Mark, I, 15, Christ says: The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe the Gospel. After the resurrection he commanded the Apostles, Mark, XVI, 15: Going into the whole world, preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned. And the Apostles, obeying his commands, went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working withal and confirming the word with signs that followed, ibid., 20.

The Latitudinarians object, together with Bayle, Rousseau and Voltaire: It must be said that a man does not reverence God more than another because he understands Holy Scripture better than the other; it is enough that both accept Holy Scripture as their rule, even though one of them departs from the will of God in particular points and through error. For just as he who receives Holy Scripture in the sense in which he ought receives this sense because he thinks it true, not because it is true in itself, and because, were he to receive another sense, he would think he displeased God; so he who receives Holy Scripture in a false sense prefers this sense, not because it is false, but because it seems true to him, and he judges that he would displease God if he received it in another. Therefore he who follows the sense of Holy Scripture which he thinks to be true can please God and attain eternal salvation.

I answer by asking the Latitudinarians whether they wish Holy Scripture to be the rule of men's own senses, or rather the senses of men the rule of Holy Scripture? If Holy Scripture, as it truly ought to be, is the rule of men's senses, and men ought to accommodate themselves to it in their senses, he fails most shamefully who does not attain its sense and understands it otherwise than he ought. For a rule is the norm to which one must conform, to which one must be subject and upon which one must depend, just as the measure is the norm of the thing measured, not the thing measured the norm of the measure itself. Does he equally reverence his lawgiver — he who not only shows veneration to the law promulgated, but moreover with study and diligence attains its legitimate sense and acts according to it — and he who reverences the law generically as a rule, yet, on account of his malice, obstinacy and culpable ignorance, does not attain its sense and acts against it? Therefore the true sense of Holy Scripture is attributed to it when it is conformed to the mind of God speaking; nor is it true for that reason because he who rightly understands it thinks it true, but because it is right in itself and has conformity with God speaking. Indeed, to avoid deception, it is required that this sense also be thought true; yet it does not for that reason become true because it is so thought. Hence it comes about that he who attributes a false sense to Holy Scripture, although he himself thinks it true, nevertheless does not attribute the true sense, nor does his false judgment make it conformed to the mind of God speaking. Nor does it matter that he intends to please God, both he who rightly and he who wrongly understands Holy Scripture; for he who employed all diligence to attain the true sense of Scripture, and consequently attained it, truly pleases God; but he who, on account of his malice, obstinacy and culpable ignorance, did not attain the true sense of Scripture, although he thought he pleased God, nevertheless thought falsely and impiously.]

I. Communication is twofold: one religious, the other civil. The first is forbidden: all communication in prayers, rites, sacrifices, and other exercises of Religion is a sin against the faith. The civil is absolutely licit, unless there occur a danger of subversion.

II. Hence it is not lawful for Christians to sell those things which serve their sacrifices and the rites of their vain religion. Wherefore Christians would sin who should build synagogues for the Jews, and, for the other Infidels, temples, idols, altars, priestly vestments, shrines, and other things of that kind. But other things which are indifferent, which the Infidels can use ill or well, can licitly be sold.

III. There are ten cases in which, by decree of the Church, communication with Infidels is prohibited to Christians: 1. Cohabitation. 2. Attendance at their banquets. 3. Eating their unleavened bread. 4. Entering the bath with them. 5. Receiving medicines from them. 6. Using their Physicians. 7. The nursing of the children of Jews by Christians. 8. Rendering them domestic service. 9. Subjecting oneself to them under the yoke of servitude. 10. Instituting them as legatees.

IV. As to the first case: that habitation is prohibited which carries with it true familiarity. To have Jews and Saracens as servants for laborious works is not absolutely forbidden to Christians, yet it is not expedient to retain them at home, on account of the appearance of familiarity. Access to the banquets of the Jews is forbidden, because the Jews discriminate among foods, and reject many as unclean. To eat unleavened bread by the Jewish rite is interdicted, but not when necessity impels. Entrance into the bath by agreement is forbidden, but not if it happen by fortuitous chance. In the fifth and sixth cases it is prohibited to summon Jewish Physicians for the care of Christians, when urgent necessity is absent. What is said of the Physician must likewise be said of the Jewish Surgeon. For Christian women to suckle the children of Jews, whether in the houses of the Jews or in their own houses, is absolutely prohibited: since in both cases familiarity intervenes. Of domestic service, in the eighth and ninth cases, it has already been spoken. Yet to till the lands of Jews does not carry the character of domestic service; wherefore tenant-farmers and other workmen are not comprehended under this prohibition. The institution of Jews as heirs or legatees is forbidden, whether the legacy or inheritance be left to Universities, or to Colleges, or to Persons. Yet to those placed in grave necessity something can be bequeathed by title of alms. Catechumens are exempt from this law, because they are held as Catholics.

XXV. In a case of extreme necessity, namely in the article of death, it is lawful to seek from heretics, schismatics, and those cut off from the Church the two sacraments of Baptism and Penance, as was declared by Trent, session 14, chapter 7. That the sacraments may lawfully be sought from an evil but tolerated minister, grave necessity suffices — say, of fulfilling the paschal precept, when nevertheless no upright priest is at hand. For in such a case the petitioner affords no occasion of sinning, but only consults his own eternal salvation.

Soto ASSERTS it, 4. dist. 25. quaest. 1. art. 1. et 3. and dist. 20. quaest. 1. art. 5.

The COMMON opinion, however, denies it, as long as the heretic has not been juridically declared and denounced, because the Council of Constance indulged communication with all excommunicates, except those denounced by name and public strikers of clerics. So the authors in Sanchez Lib. 2. decal. cap. 9. So Henriquez with others, Lib. 13. cap. 5. Suarez 3. p. Tract. 5. disp. 9. sect. 2. Toletus Lib. 1. summae, cap. 9. Tannerus disp. 1. quaest. 9. dub. 5.

Whence it is to be noted that the Seraphic Doctor, in 4. dist. 18. p. 2. q. 1. asserts the opinion of Soto, but before the Council of Constance: at that time, however, it was the common opinion.

The DIFFICULTY, however, is: whether it is sufficient for someone to be declared a heretic; or whether it is also required that he be declared excommunicate.

TO ME it seems sufficient that he be declared a heretic; for excommunication is infallibly linked to heresy. So both Soto, Medina, Henriquez, and others, whom Sanchez reports, Lib. 2. cap. 9. who however holds the opposite with others; and Suarez, de censuris, disput. 9. thinks it probable with Card. Lugo disp. 22. sect. 1.

WE MAY also communicate with them in sacred things, namely by assisting at Mass together with a heretic. So all the Doctors in Sanchez, dicto cap. 9. against Basilium Poncium, in Appendice de matrimonio Catholici cum haeretico, cap. 9.

WE MAY also receive the Sacraments from a heretic, in the manner of our Church, in necessity, unless scandal arise from another source. See Sanchez num. 10.

Many other things on this matter Sanchez discusses, Lib. 2. in Decal. c. 9. Card. Lugo disp. 14. sect. 5. §. 5. and d. 22. sect. 2.

I shall touch upon SOME doubts which I find discussed in the Seraphic Doctor. The first is: Whether marriage with a heretic, or heretic woman, is valid.

On these, Thomas Sanchez Lib. VII. de matrim. disp. 72. Ferrarius, opusc. de matrim. Catholici cum haeretico. Basilius Poncius in his Appendice, post Lib. XII. de matrim. In common, however, the Doctors of Law and the Theologians assert with D. Bonaventure, 4. dist. 39. quaest. 1. whom Sanchez reports, num. 2. and Poncius, and it is gathered from cap. decernit de haereticis, in 6.

But if the heretic promise to convert, and there be moral certitude, the marriage will be not only valid but even licit, as is had in the C. Chalcedonensi cap. 14. So Hurtado disp. 76. §. 229. Sà, under the word matrim. num. 8. Card. Lugo disp. 22. sect. 1. Although Sanchez denies it, disp. 72. num. 4. Poncius in Appendice, capite 8.

The second is, whether a spouse may put away a spouse fallen into heresy; and indeed it was defined in the C. Trident. sess. 24. cap. 5. that marriage is not on that account dissolved.

That they may be separated, however, is certain; for besides fornication, the Tridentine defines other causes for which they may be separated, sess. 24. can. 8. The same is evident from cap. Quanto, de divortiis, and from cap. litteras at the end, and cap. transmissa, de restit. spoliat. and cap. 1. ut lite non contestata.

The sectarian heretics urge the place of Matth. 5. and 19. But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.

Cardinal Lugo RESPONDS, disp. 22. sect. 3. with Sanchez Lib. X. disp. 15. cap. 14. Bellarmine Lib. I. de matrim. cap. 14. that Christ speaks of perpetual separation, and by his own authority, without the consent of the wife put away.

This exposition, however, as to his own authority, D. Bonaventure refutes, in 4. dist. 35. quaest. 3. where he shows from usage that the judgment of the Church is necessary.

Therefore the holy Doctor RESPONDS, quaest. 1. ad 5. that fornication is there expressed as the cause of separating himself perpetually, because among the causes it is evident, since it is against the faith directly belonging to marriage; but the remaining causes he holds are to be litigated: And that he speaks of perpetual separation is proved; for there, cap. 5. he had premised the use of divorce, which was toward perpetual separation. The holy Doctor observes also that the divorce of the Church now used is different from that old repudium. See the holy Doctor, q. 1. On these things, however, I shall treat in the Tractate on marriage.

In a certain town, when the Anglican elementary schools needed money, the Anglicans decided to sing, on a certain Thursday in their church, the oratorio which is called Messiah, to the hearing of which the people would be admitted for a price, and the proceeds would be applied to the needs of the schools. But since the Anglican singers were not sufficient, they asked certain Catholics, among others Caius, to furnish help.

To Caius, who asked whether any religious function was to be performed at the same time, the reply was made that the Anglican minister would pour forth a general prayer at the beginning, and that nothing else besides Messiah would be done. Caius does not wish to deny help to his fellow citizens, especially since they themselves often help Catholics; nevertheless, he does not know whether in this case it is lawful to assent to the request. Hence it is asked:

1. What is participation in sacred rites, and to what extent is it prohibited with heretics?

2. Is it lawful to cooperate in promoting a false religion?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. What is participation in sacred rites with heretics, and how far is it forbidden?

Participation in sacred rites means joining in religious functions, rites, ceremonies, with heretics and non-Catholics generally. Such an act is in general prohibited by divine and natural law as well as by positive ecclesiastical law. God has established one form of worship. He desires men to use that form when they worship Him; any other worship is displeasing to Him. That form of worship is used exclusively in the Catholic Church, the only true Church of Christ. For a Catholic, then, to take part in non-Catholic worship of God is to commit a sin against religion and the Faith. Such an act is also likely to cause scandal, and is wrong on this account. Moreover, the Church’s positive legislation must be considered. Heretics and schismatics are excommunicated, or cut off from communion with the faithful. Before the Council of Constance (1414) the faithful were forbidden to hold communication with heretics either in religion or in civil matters. By a decree of that Council (Ad Evitanda) Catholics were allowed to communicate with heretics as far as ecclesiastical law is concerned, unless such heretics had been censured by name. Heretics censured by name are to be avoided still, at least in all religious matters; intercourse is allowed with others who are tolerated, except in so far as divine and natural law forbids it.

2. Is it lawful to co-operate in furthering the cause of a false religion?

It is never lawful to co-operate formally with such a cause; but to co-operate materially with it is not wrong, provided that there be a sufficiently grave cause, provided that what is done is not in itself wrong, and provided that the intention be good.

3. The case. The Anglicans in a certain town determined to perform Handel’s Messiah in their church on a Thursday, and to admit the public on payment, in order to provide funds for the Anglican elementary schools of the town. They had not sufficient singers, and they asked Caius, a Catholic, to help them. They told Caius that there was to be no religious function besides a general prayer offered by the parson at the commencement of the oratorio. As the Anglicans have often helped Catholics in similar circumstances, Caius would like to help them in return if it is not wrong.

It is better to avoid taking any part in non-Catholic functions which in any way are connected with religion as far as possible. All the more must this be done, if scandal would be caused by such action. In some countries and circumstances such an action would be considered as a favoring of heretics and wrong; and in some it would be forbidden by positive law. This being supposed, let us see whether Caius is bound, under pain of sin, to refuse his help, supposing that there would be no scandal, and that there is no special prohibition of the Church, as might easily be the case in countries like England. Under these circumstances, we think that Caius might take part in the oratorio without committing sin. The object is to provide funds for Anglican elementary schools, but such an object is not directly religious. Caius takes no part in any distinctively Anglican religious service. His reason is, because he wishes to make a return for a similar service.

Titius, a missionary priest, is asked by Paul, a man most highly regarded among the parishioners, whether it is lawful for Catholics to be present at the weddings of heretics. For Paul has been asked by a most eminent friend, although a non-Catholic, to permit his daughter to stand as bridesmaid at the marriage of the latter’s daughter. Before giving an answer, Titius consulted recent authors, some of whom appear to permit it, while others affirm it to be unlawful. Hence Titius asks:

1. What is participation in sacred rites with heretics, and to what extent is it lawful or unlawful?

2. Is it lawful for Catholics to enter the churches of heretics and to be present at their marriages?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. See the answer to this question, p. 147.

2. Are Catholics allowed to visit non-Catholic places of worship, and to be present at non-Catholic marriages in such places?

Catholics are not allowed to visit non-Catholic places of worship whenever such visiting is looked upon as an adhesion to, or as a favoring of, a false religion, or when it causes scandal, or danger of perversion, or when it is forbidden by lawful authority. In other cases, it is not unlawful. With regard to being present at marriages in non-Catholic places of worship, as a general rule it is not allowed, but for a good reason it may be tolerated if there is no scandal, no danger of perversion, nor contempt of ecclesiastical authority, as the Holy Office answered, Jan. 14, 1874.¹

1 Collectanea S. C. de P. F., n. 1410. 2d ed.

3. The case. Titius, a missionary priest, was asked by Paul, one of the principal members of his congregation, whether Catholics may be present at non-Catholic marriages. Paul asks the question because he has been requested by a non-Catholic friend who holds a high position to allow his daughter to act as bridesmaid, on the occasion of his own daughter’s marriage. Titius finds that recent authors are at variance on the point. Marriage celebrated in a non-Catholic place of worship is a religious rite, and so, inasmuch as Catholics are not allowed to take part in non-Catholic religious rites, they may not take part in such a marriage. Under the conditions mentioned above it is tolerated that Catholics should be present merely materially and passively, as onlookers at the function, as an act of courtesy. But a bridesmaid takes part in the function, and so such an action goes beyond what is allowed. This is confirmed by an answer given by the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, March 12, 1789, that it not lawful for a Catholic to act as best man in a marriage of Greek schismatics.² However, an instruction of the Holy Office, June 22, 1859, allows a non-Catholic to act as best man in a Catholic marriage.³

2 Collectanea S. C. de P. F., n. 600. Cf. Tanquerey, De Fide, n. 681.

3 Collectanea, n. 1176.

IV. The Scientific or the Religious Ideal. Scientific and Religious Liberty : Their

Alleged Antagonism.

Summary : Is the scientific ideal opposed to the religious ? —Error of M. Bouché-Leclercq.—Exact notion of scientific theories : their object and their ambition.— The complete work of the scientist. — Though not disregarded by religion, scientific theories can neither confirm nor contradict it.—Impossibility of conflict between religion and natural sciences.—Objection founded on the alleged conflict with history and philosophy. — Incomplete answer. — Science is not the supreme good.—Sacrifices often asked of it.—Insignificance of those which religion asks of it accidentally.—Abundant compensation. — Parallel functions of science and religion. — The habit of faith not inconsistent with the scientific spirit.—Humanity needs both science and religion.—The problem of their reconciliation difficult, but important.

The copious literature of Tolerance has been recently enriched by a book written in France by a professor of the Sorbonne, entitled L’Intolérance Religieuse et la Politique. We have already quoted it. Its author, M. Bouché-Leclercq, is one of the survivors of rationalistic Liberalism. Though he repudiates religion, he does not approve of the open war between the Church and the State ; and he even proposes a modus vivendi, pressing rather heavily, it is true, on Catholics. However, he augurs very ill for the future of the faith and positive religions. No reconciliation between science and revelation appears to him possible, for he declares that there is “ an essential contradiction between the scientific ideal, which is the unremitting pursuit of truth through a succession of temporary or provisional theories, and the ideal of positive religions, which is the preservation of truth already acquired, and henceforth unassailable.”¹

¹ Op. cit., p. 354. 2 Quoted above, p. 232.

If the conflict between science and positive religions were as implacable as he declares, the modern world, which is entirely on the side of science, and the State which represents it, instead of begging concessions of tolerance from religion, would set to work to persecute it; or at most they would grant a temporary and, so to speak, compassionate tolerance to the Church and to Catholics, as to a set of old-fashioned persons, clinging to a transitory expression of religious sentiment: their good-nature would go no farther.

Happily this is not the case—the essentiality of the contradiction is imaginary ; so, indeed, is the contradiction itself, as we shall endeavour to prove. M. Bouché-Leclercq is mistaken, both as to religion and as to science.

What does he mean by his provisional theories ? Is he using unsuitable and inexact language ? Does he wish, in the interests of science, to associate himself with M. Payot2 in proclaiming the necessity of the relativist principle ? He cannot do it without falling into that absolutism of statement which he so unreasonably condemns. Relativism is no more a postulate of science than stagnation is a postulate of religion.

Does M. Bouché-Leclercq speak of the provisional theories of the natural sciences in the proper sense of the word ? The ideal of these sciences does not by any means consist in the pursuit of a truth which is continually escaping from our grasp ; and, on the other hand, the religious ideal is not the mere preservation of acquired truths. The acquired truth of religion is composed of a limited number of dogmas, derived from Divine revelation; but their clear understanding has sometimes taken centuries of work and preparation. Similarly, every science has its acquired truths¹ and its provisional theories. But these do not imply any attitude with regard to truth, different from the attitude of revealed religion, for the good and sufficient reason that, being entirely directed to the exact representation of external phenomena, they do not aim at the acquisition of absolute truth.

¹ Such are the results derived from experiments ; and such, also, is a part, very difficult to define, of physical theories, of which M. Duhem says : “ By a continuous tradition, every theory of physical science transmits to that which follows it that part of natural classification which it has been able to construct ” (La Théorie Physique, son Objet et sa Structure, p. 48. See also Physique de Croyant, p. 41).

Poincaré similarly says : “ At first sight it seems as if theories lasted only for a day ; but there is something in them which survives. If one of them has enabled us to discover a real relation between two things, that relation is finally acquired, and we shall find it again in a new form in the later theories which follow to take the place of the former ” (La Valeur de la Science; Paris, 1905).

Formerly, no doubt, and even fifty years ago, scientists put forward their theories as explanations, some certain and others conjectural, of the real truths concealed beneath the phenomena whose laws they recorded. Acoustics asserted and demonstrated the undulations which produce sound ; with reference to the propagation of light, various hypotheses were made, the most important of which were the emission or corpuscular theory and the undulatory theory. According to the latter, all bodies were supposed to be filled by an extremely subtle elastic medium called ether, through which waves of light were constantly throbbing ; but since then modern scientists, tired of fruitless strife and defeat, have ceased to look to their methods of observation for what those methods cannot teach them. Their theories are constructed, not to explain phenomena, but to represent and classify and generalize them, and to foresee the conditions of their recurrence, and thus to group them into rational systems, by which much mental labour is saved and the investigators are put on the track of new discoveries. They do not go deep enough to discover real causes, but in their places put symbols between which the same relations exist as would exist between the realities which are represented by those symbols in their statements and calculations.

For example, the theory of luminous vibrations does not assert any real motion, but it provides an excellent basis to express in figures the experimental laws of light. Its value consists in the precision with which it represents a great number of laws. It establishes between luminous phenomena a logical connection which gives it its beauty, and it exhibits its fecundity in the various deductions which are drawn from it. Though superior to other theories less simple, less complete, or less exact, it does not profess to exclude them as false, so long as they remain in sufficient correlation with the phenomena of which they are the signs and symbols ; for the vibratory theory, like the electro-magnetic theory, which tends to replace it, not pretending to tell us anything of the real causes of the luminous phenomena, does not present itself as objectively true or objectively false. “ The object of Fresnel was not to know whether there is such a medium as ether, whether it is formed of atoms or not, or whether these atoms move in this or that direction: it was to foresee the optical phenomena.”¹ This conception of scientific theories attracts scientific men of the sceptical school like H. Poincaré,² and of the Christian school like M. Duhem.³ The scientific ideal ceases, then, to be the pursuit of ontological truth, and becomes the reduction of all partial theories to unity ; and these succeed one another provisionally, because they are symbolical, and they must necessarily be continually modified and completed to fit in with new discoveries.

¹ H. Poincaré, La Science et l’Hypothèse, pp. 189, 190. Before this he had said : “ We are not concerned whether ether really exists ; that is the business of metaphysicians ” (Leçons sur les Théories Mathématiques de la Lumière, Preface ; Paris, 1889).

² See Sur la Valeur Objective des Théories Physiques (Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, 1902, p. 263). “ The scientific fact,” says Poincaré, “ is nothing but the bare fact translated into appropriate language.” And again : “ Science is principally a classification, a way of connecting facts ... a system of relations ” (La Valeur de la Science, pp. 231, 265, 266).

³ See the work, La Théorie Physique, son Objet et sa Structure ; and the pamphlet, Physique de Croyant, written in answer to the article of M. Rey, quoted below, p. 288.

With these remarks, we may take leave of M. Bouché-Leclercq. His assertion holds good only as long as he⁴ clings to an antiquated scientific ideal, now almost abandoned. But modern conceptions furnish us with new material, which may be utilized to put an end to the old quarrel between science and religion.

⁴ In company with M. Le Dantec, who, with thorough Breton tenacity, seeks to know from biology what life is, and so puts forward his Biologie destructive in opposition to religion. See his Conference, Biologie Constructive et Biologie Destructive, given at the jubilee of the University of Brussels (Revue de l’Université de Bruxelles, 1909-10, pp. 308-318). “ When a scientific theory professes to tell us what heat is, or what electricity is, or what life is, it is condemned beforehand ” (Poincaré, La Valeur de la Science, p. 267).

Science is one thing, the scientist another. In practice the latter oversteps the limits of the former ; for who is there who does not yield to what M. Rey¹ calls the common temptation to do a little metaphysics ? And so we may say that the scientist proceeds by three stages, which we may compare to the three stories of a building. In the first we have the exact observation of facts and experimental laws—facts and laws which have their phenomenal reality, and communicate their objective value to the statements in which they are expressed ; in the second, we come to the rational classification of these facts and laws— the theoretical interpretation. Without expressing any opinion on the real facts, this interpretation supplies a logical, convenient, and suggestive representation by symbols. This is the work which properly belongs to science, and secures all its benefits. Lastly, these same theories, and sometimes also extra-scientific prejudices, lead scientists to set up a second series of hypotheses concerning the reality underlying the phenomena, so much the more clearly cherished because they seem as if arising spontaneously from the representative theories founded on experience. The scientist will thus become an atomist or a dynamist in cosmology ; a materialist or a determinist in natural history ; a transformist in biology. But we must remark that not one of these hypotheses is strictly contained in the physical theories or their manifold applications. They are formulated only by the aid of metaphysical principles or postulates, and the philosophic scepticism of many scientists leads them to neglect the prudent counsels of this other branch of human knowledge. They hope to deduce everything from experience, but unconsciously they overstep its teaching, and for want of philosophic discernment they proceed by guesswork to fill up the gap, which is sometimes very wide, between the theories and their hypothetical conclusions on man and the universe.

¹ La Philosophie Scientifique de M. Duhem (Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, 1904, p. 699).

Take, for example, the naturalist, and watch him at his work. He will apply himself in the first place to the careful consideration of actual organisms and reproductions. Comparative studies of living beings will lead him to a theoretical systematization, in which all the species observed by him will occupy their logical place, in which compartments will be reserved even for intermediaries not yet discovered, but which the series of beings seems to demand, as the calculations of Leverrier postulated a new planet. That is strictly scientific work—the only work indispensable to progress in scientific discovery. The naturalist, however, following his natural inclination to announce as an established fact what is really only a hypothesis, will easily discover ontological relations between species which seem logically to be connected, and will proclaim that one is derived from the other. He will declare himself a transformist, but he will make this declaration, not as a scientist, but in the name of a parasitic philosophy which he has grafted on his science.¹

¹ It is much less as a scientist that M. Le Dantec declares that he “ abandons the language of humanity in the strictest sense ” and reduces man, soul included, to a mere piece of automatic machinery. He boasts of his destructive biology, which, as he says, does not teach him to live well, but only to live without the fear of death (Biologie destructive, Biologie constructive, Conference quoted above). There is neither science nor philosophy here. The two preceding speakers, Poincaré and M. Lanson, had used much more reserved and more scientific language.

These preliminary explanations suggest a very important question : At what stage are those contacts produced which are so incorrectly called the conflicts between science and religion ?

On the first story of our scientific building peace and good understanding prevail. Nothing appears possible beyond a little friction, a slight temporary and accidental irritation. In fact, no philosophical or religious doctrine could for long deny or contradict observations founded on palpable evidence. Poincaré wittily observes that Galileo and the Grand Inquisitor were not at issue on a question of fact;² but the same scientist is wrong in saying that a man, when he puts on his working clothes and enters his laboratory, must leave his faith behind him.³ It will be a delicate task to discover the points of intersection between observation and the scientific theory which accompanies it, for the proposition which formulates a scientific fact or law “ is generally a mixture of experimental discovery, possessing objective importance, and of theoretical explanation, simply symbolical, without any objective significance.”¹ M. Duhem adds that if a natural philosopher desires to speak of an optical phenomenon, he will speak of the vibrations of ether ; in other words, he will express the phenomenon in the language of his favourite theory.

² La Valeur de la Science, p. 231.

³ Le Libre Examen en Matière Scientifique, Conference at the Jubilee of the University of Brussels (Revue de l’Université de Bruxelles, 1909-10, pp. 285-295). The reference is specially to p. 288.

¹ Duhem, Physique de Croyant, p. 27. 2 Ibid., p. 19.

On the second story — that is, in the stage of theories—science and faith cannot come into conflict, because the scientific theory affirms nothing concerning objective reality. “ By its own nature and essence every principle of theoretical physics is useless in metaphysical or theological discussions.”2 And in this sense we may assent to the statement of M. Lanson : “ If there is not a German science, or a French science, or a Belgian science, but one science common to all nations, still less is there a science of a party, a monarchist or Republican science, a Catholic or Socialist science.”³

³ L’Esprit Scientifique et la Méthode de l’Histoire littéraire. Conference at the Jubilee of the University of Brussels (Revue de l’Université de Bruxelles, 1909-10, pp. 296-307 ; see p. 306).

Does this mean that the philosopher or the theologian can despise scientific theories ? Poincaré would perhaps condemn the pretensions of metaphysical research, for, according to him nothing can enable us to know the nature of things.⁴ As for ourselves, who give its due place to philo-sophy, we believe also in a harmonious correspondence of the classifying genius with the Spirit which has created that genius and all other things. We admit instinctively and, as it were, necessarily between the reality of things and their ideal classification certain analogies, closer and more probable according as the classification is more comprehensive and perfect. The plan which is formed as the result of scientific observations tends to reproduce the original plan on which all things were created. “ Every branch of learning appears to me a praiseworthy effort directed towards knowledge of the order which presides over a determinate category of phenomena.”¹ Thus the scientific theory creates a prejudice favourable or unfavourable to a philosophical or religious doctrine, but nothing more. We remember that in these scientific theories the scientist treads ground on which he is independent, in which he need not hope for or fear any clashing with religion.

⁴ La Valeur de la Science, p. 266.

¹ A. de Lapparent, La Recherche Scientifique, et la Foi. Letter to the Revue Pratique d’Apologétique, t. 2, p. 267.

The highest story only is the stage on which science and religion are brought into contact and relation, and sometimes into conflict.

This is enough to reassure mere unscientific mortals. This upper story, as we have seen, is not one of discoveries or inventions ; the scientist has not constructed it as a scientist. Even if the atmosphere there is troubled, and a wind of discord blows through, there is no reason to tremble for that earthly happiness or progress about which human nature shows such eagerness and anxiety. It is never with science properly so called that religion can find itself in conflict, but with something that we may call meta-science. The pretended conflicts of science and religion have never existed, except between religion and a certain philosophy that calls itself scientific.

This is enough to show that impiety has only misused the popularity of science in order to attack the faith or to make unlimited tolerance an essential condition of progress. Neither the act of faith nor submission to doctrinal authority need disturb the scientist in his truly scientific work.

There remains, it is true, his metaphysical work. For those branches of natural science which are devoted to the exploration of the material world with such valuable results, this is negligible, or of only secondary importance. It engages the attention principally of conceited inquirers, who hope to bring out of the facts of science either speculative answers on the nature and origin of life, ideas, and morals, or practical rules for the direction of our individual and social energy, the formulae of our duties, the key to our happiness.¹ Certainly, in all departments of knowledge strictly scientific inquiries and objective perceptions remain independent of metaphysical or religious doctrines. This remark applies also to psychology, and even to mysticism, in so far as they are experimental.² Nevertheless, hitherto the interest of observations of the psychical order has been identified with that of spiritualist or determinist teachings, and of supernatural or naturalistic explanations which inquirers rightly or wrongly professed to deduce from them. Few biologists or psychologists, and perhaps no sociologist, have confined themselves within the special limits of science.

¹ To this class belong those attempts to form a so-called “ scientific ” code of morality, which professes to do without the help even of philosophy. But these are no longer in fashion, and at present M. Durkheim is almost the only person to plead the cause of a moral code founded exclusively on science.

² “ The object of experimental psychology,” Father Maréchal forcibly remarks, “ is to deduce the laws of the relations of mental phenomena, but not to discover the ontological causes of the phenomena themselves ” (Le Sentiment de Présence, chez les Profanes et les Mystiques). Speaking of mystical phenomena, the Abbé Pacheu adds : “ The observation and description of facts, if men are well informed, cannot but be the same for all ” (L’Expérience Mystique et l’Activité Sub-consciente, p. 301). M. Delacroix, the secular writer who has the reputation of being the best informed on these sacred matters, writes to the author : “ As you say, it is not the part of psychology either to acknowledge or to deny the supernatural ” (ibid., p. 305).

There remain also history and historical criticism, in reference to which Renan says : “ Religions present themselves as facts, and must be discussed as facts.”¹ How can we gainsay this ? The speculative, moral, or social conclusions of certain writers who have a great reputation as philosophers or scientists, and also their historical conclusions, frequently come into contact with religious dogmas or assertions which necessarily depend on those dogmas, or at least with theories, beliefs, and opinions which are accredited and in favour in the Church, and these contacts are by no means always friendly.

¹ Discourse in answer to Pasteur’s discourse on admission to the French Academy. M. Bouché-Leclercq similarly says : “ However high they soar, revealed religions take their standing-ground on the earth, and they are bound to show the time and place at which the revelation they assert was made. And it is on this point that they have to justify themselves before historical criticism.”

Full liberty of expression and diffusion is claimed for every formal declaration put forth in the name of science, and the intolerance of the Church refuses it to science. Every scientist is called upon to give up preconceived ideas. The Catholic has his freedom of thought limited by his faith. Here is intolerance, here is slavery, which furnish the modern world with weapons against all authoritative religion.

Is it sufficient, in order to dispose of the first objection, to answer that a true dogma cannot contradict a truth of reason, and that therefore the religious barrier forbids nothing to scientists but error ? There is a double reply at once. Man can only make progress by groping his way. He fails before he succeeds ; he passes through error to arrive at the truth ; he must be allowed freedom to make unsuccessful attempts, or even wrongly to contradict articles of the Creeds. And, on the other hand, religious authority does not impose dogmas alone. It blocks the way by propositions not yet defined, but which it considers important to its cause ; it makes us subject not only to an infallible Pope, but also to Commissions and Congregations which are liable to error ; and in this connection men will triumphantly point to a small number of censures passed upon propositions which are nowadays universally accepted.

The page which bears the names of Catholic men of science is very glorious to the Church, and very useful for our argument ; but it is going a little too far to profess that it supplies a complete refutation of the objection. Certainly, we thoroughly appreciate the warning which Poincaré gave to an assembly of freethinkers : “ Do not imagine that I wish to deny science to men of faith, and especially to Catholics. God forbid ! I should not be such a fool as to deprive humanity of the services of a Pasteur.” And we are glad to hear him admit that “ believers have as much of the critical spirit as any other men.” “ I know many,” he added, “ and Pasteur is only the most illustrious among them.”¹

¹ Conference quoted, p. 288.

Again, it may be asked whether these Christians were not scientists in spite of their religion ; whether they have not had to overcome difficulties and obstacles in order to gain their reputation ; whether they do not owe their distinction to the emancipating influence of their environment. Perhaps, also, they are famous in those branches of science which have nothing to do—at least, at the present day—with religious questions, such as pure mathematics and astronomy. In such matters there would be no possibility of conflict with religion.

For this reason these answers appear to us incomplete, though we do not say that they are entirely devoid of truth. Some concession seems to be required, and our mind cannot be satisfied except by rising to a plane higher than that in which the difficulty lies.

It may be that in some departments of science in which the interests of religion are directly involved religion requires from scientists precautions which may entail sacrifices. It may call upon them to move slowly and carefully, and not to throw things into complete disorder ; and thus it to some extent hampers their investigations, and puts some restriction on their movements. Will it never go farther than is required ? Will the judgment of those who speak in the name of religion be so sound, so comprehensive, and at the same time so promptly given, as to place no unnecessary restriction on liberty ? Will their intention even be always so pure and honest as to take no counsel but from the light of reason ? We cannot expect such perfection of judgment and intention in every case without looking for a miracle which is nowhere promised, and forgetting the traditional symbol of the Church—a boat tossed on the waves of a stormy sea. The qualified representatives of the Church, and still more its self-constituted defenders, are but men. Their knowledge may be small, their prudence may be outwitted, even their virtue may fail. Their interference will sometimes be awkward, inopportune, or exaggerated. Excessive zeal, after all, should surprise us less and distress us less than the moral scandals from the pain of which God has not spared His Church.

This we grant freely and sincerely, but in making this admission we feel that we are the more justified in protesting against the absurd pretension implied in the complaint against religion and the Church. Science and all its branches and all its advances are represented as blessings so precious that they are worth purchasing at the price of any loss or sacrifice, while religion is a useless thing that is not deserving of the least attention. Unless they maintain some such proposition, our readers will admit that the famous objection as to the conflict between religion and science cannot be sustained, and that it leaves untouched our principles and our conclusions on the subject of tolerance and religion.

To explain. On a concrete question, let us reason without passion or prejudice—in other words, let us adopt what is called a scientific attitude.

If Science impersonate could appear before us, Religion and Science might well join hands, for what would religion have to fear ? Science, in the full light and in peaceful possession of truth, would not sin by impatience, or be in too great a hurry to reveal her secrets; but instead of a personification, we have only the disciples of Science, the best of whom call themselves eternal beginners, always labouring at the construction of a monument which is never completed, and in which every successive course of stones is only laid finally after many fresh beginnings.

If scientists themselves (all dogma set aside) had that interior liberty of which Poincaré makes a duty ; if they possessed those qualities which M. Lanson eloquently describes—“ disinterested desire for information, sincere probity, laborious patience, submission to facts ; if they were not too ready to believe either in themselves or in others ; and if they had a continual desire for criticism, control, and verification,”¹ we should be almost ready to vote with the famous philosopher for the suppression of all barriers. Not a single barrier is raised without cost, and all are irksome. Men of the character we have just described would give to religion and to society itself guarantees of perfect security. But, unfortunately, Poincaré dare not promise us or even expect complete freedom from prejudice among scientists. He recognizes the frauds which have given Haeckel such an unfortunate notoriety ;¹ while Madame Curie has shown us that scientists, in their pursuit of truth, do not necessarily forget all other desires; and the orator who followed Poincaré at Brussels condescended to go into details : “ Scientists and ourselves have in common all the same human weakness, the same short sight, the wavering attention, the blind passions, the same inability to put ourselves in another person’s place, the perpetual risk of deceiving ourselves and of being deceived.”2

¹ Lanson, Conference quoted, p. 299.

¹ Conference quoted, p. 290. 2 Ibid., p. 298.

There is no close corporation of scientists : the first comer is permitted to usurp the title ; and these are the men who claim entire freedom to write or say anything they please.

It must be admitted that entire freedom is no longer insisted upon with the same distinctness, and when to the question whether there are doctrines which are socially dangerous, and of which society can get rid as it gets rid of criminals, Poincaré replies, “ No lie can be ultimately advantageous,”³ he practically assumes without any justification that all doctrines are so many truths.

³ Ibid., p. 290.

We also think that no lie can be ultimately advantageous, and precisely for that reason we would not refuse to the civil power the right to protect itself against the propagation of falsehood and error.

Is not the remark which M. Lanson makes as a literary critic equally applicable in other matters ? He says : “ We have been too much inclined to believe that it was sufficient to have ideas, and have not fully realized that literature, like everything else, requires ideas that have been proved to be true.”¹

¹ L’Esprit Scientifique et la Méthode d’Histoire Littéraire, p. 304.

But if this is the fact, and if it is really impossible to identify scientists with science and ideas with truth, then all the liberty which Poincaré claims for science and all the good that he says of harmless truth unfortunately does not apply, even from the scientific point of view, to those who call themselves scientists or to what they call their ideas.

It is perfectly natural and intelligible that a Government anxious for the public welfare should be disturbed by the social repercussions of so many fanciful theories, that are labelled “ scientific ” just as easily as London merchants used to label their English goods “ made in Germany,” because German goods were in fashion. And how much more is the prudent and even protective action of the Church justified ! Charged with the spiritual interests of a multitude easily scandalized and easily led away, is she wrong in taking care that scientific novelties shall not be introduced without any control or examination ? Is she wrong in refusing to risk the higher life of souls for an advantage which is always less important, and sometimes problematical ? The personal dignity of every man forbids that dangerous experiments shall be made even on the vilest bodies in the interests of medicine or surgery. Is it not the part of a wise democracy to forbid the dangerous experiments in social or educational matters which modern sociologists or educators would like to try, as it were in anima vili, on the people or their children ?

This argument is not weakened by the optimistic view which prophesies a final victory for truth, for, while we are waiting for that victory to be won, error will have disturbed many souls, driven many more to utter ruin, and produced irreparable disasters.

But do not the restrictions of liberty tend to embarrass and retard the progress of science ? Granted ; but even then they are not necessarily condemned, unless we regard the least important scientific discovery as the supreme good of humanity.