Dangerous Communication

34. Notions. a. A twofold communication is distinguished: civil communication, which happens in matters pertaining to social intercourse, and religious communication, or communication in sacred matters, which happens in matters pertaining to religion. This again is twofold: active, when we participate in the sacred rites of others, and passive, when we permit unbelievers or heretics to communicate in our sacred rites.

b. Active communication is one thing when formal, if someone internally, in mind and will, is present at the sacred rites of non-Catholics; and another when material, if someone assists at their sacred rites only externally and bodily.

c. Active communication is one thing when public, if someone is present at sacred rites which are instituted by non-Catholics as they are a religious assembly, of which kind are the sacred rites which happen in their temples; another when private, if someone participates with a non-Catholic in a sacred matter which he performs as he is a private person, as if a Catholic recites the Lord's Prayer with a non-Catholic.

What is established concerning communication in sacred matters also holds concerning communication in mixed matters, of which kind are marriages and funerals, insofar as these consist of religious rites and therefore pertain to religion.

35. On communication with unbelievers. 1. Civil communication with unbelievers is prohibited by no law and never has been prohibited, provided the danger of perversion is absent.

Since familiarity introduces a great danger of perversion, and banquets signify and promote familiarity, banquets with unbelievers are of themselves prohibited on account of the danger of perversion.¹

2. Active communication in sacred matters with unbelievers is prohibited of itself, because it signifies at least external profession of a false religion and denial of the true religion; therefore the apostle says: What part has the faithful with the unbeliever?²

This communication is more strictly prohibited with unbelievers than with heretics, because the worship of the former is plainly false and superstitious; therefore it is also much more difficult to permit the faithful to be present at the mixed rites of unbelievers than of heretics, especially where few faithful live intermingled with many unbelievers.

3. By both divine and ecclesiastical law it is prohibited in particular to contract marriage with an unbeliever.³

¹ S. C. de Prop. Fide, 2 July 1827.

² 2 Cor. 6:15.

³ 2 Cor. 6:14 ff.; C. Cave 15, c. 28, q. 1.

36. On communication with Jews. With Jews in particular, besides communication in sacred and mixed matters, several other civil communications are forbidden to the faithful: a. to dwell with them in the same house; b. to use the same bath with them; c. to employ a Jewish physician; d. to serve Jews or employ them as servants; e. to be present at the same banquet with Jews; f. to concede public offices to them among Christians; g. to eat their unleavened bread, etc.¹ The end of these prohibitions is both that the dignity of the Christian religion be preserved and that the danger of perversion be avoided. Today, however, since Jews almost everywhere enjoy the same civil rights with Christians, these prohibitions, insofar as they are positive, have gone into desuetude; wherefore from universal law no other communication with them is strictly forbidden except that which the law of nature or a particular statute forbids by reason of scandal or danger of perversion; yet by way of a norm the faithful should never fail to have before their eyes, outside the case of necessity, these prohibitions which show us the mind of the Church in this matter.

Therefore not even service among Jews can be prohibited in every case: for if female servants are not solicited to base or illicit things, if besides this it is permitted to them to observe the precepts of the Catholic religion, hearing Mass, abstinence, fasting, etc., and no other danger threatens, service ought not be absolutely forbidden. Indeed, even that service by which a Catholic woman acts as nurse in a Jewish family ought not now to be absolutely prohibited of itself. Yet particular circumstances of places can bring it about that serving among Jews, and especially offering oneself as nurse to the infants of Jews, is illicit.

¹ C. Nullus 13 and C. Omnes 14, c. 28, q. 1.

37. On communication with heretics.¹ 1. Passive communication in sacred matters with heretics, and the same holds concerning unbelievers and Jews, is prohibited when it must necessarily be judged a sign of religious unity, as to mix themselves in the Catholic rites themselves.

a. To admit a heretic to participation in the religious rite itself is of itself intrinsically evil, because it is a sign of union and consent between a Catholic and a heretic in religious profession, as if Catholic and heretical worship did not differ essentially from one another. Yet not always and necessarily does this intimate communication in sacred matters signify unity and consent in religious worship: for sometimes from the circumstances themselves it can be gathered that the heretic in this matter acknowledges the truth of the Catholic religion; wherefore in circumstances of this kind, from a most grave cause, this communication can be licit. Thus the Church permits the celebration of a mixed marriage before a Catholic minister.

b. Therefore heretics can hear sermons in our churches, assist at Mass, be present at liturgical functions, etc., because in these things they do not communicate in the Catholic rite itself. Yet they are excluded from the sacraments, from sacramentals which are administered publicly in church to individuals, from ecclesiastical burial, and things of this kind. There are several decisions of the Holy Office concerning this matter, from which especially it is understood what the functions are in which heretics cannot licitly participate, because participation of itself signifies the consent of a Catholic with a heretic in religious profession.

a. It cannot be permitted that a heretic act as sponsor in baptism conferred Catholicly.²

b. "Therefore it is illicit in sacred functions to invite heretics into the choir, to sing alternately, to give them the peace, sacred ashes, candles and blessed palms, and other external things of worship of this kind, which by law are judged signs of an interior bond and agreement."³

c. It is not permitted to admit heretics, schismatics, or Jews, even if they are boys or girls, so that they sing in the musical choir at liturgical functions in Catholic churches.⁴ Yet it can be tolerated that schismatics together with Catholics sing in ecclesiastical functions, provided the danger of scandal is excluded and the schismatics cannot be excluded from singing without great difficulties.⁵ But it is permitted to allow non-Catholics to play the organ at liturgical functions in a Catholic church, if scandal is not to be feared from this.⁶

d. It is not permitted to allow non-Catholics to carry torches or lights at liturgical functions of Catholics.⁷

¹ What communication with heretics is forbidden by reason of the excommunication inflicted on them will be said where censures are treated.

² Holy Office, 1763; 3 May 1893; 27 June 1900.

³ Holy Office, 8 June 1859.

⁴ Holy Office, 1 May 1889.

⁵ Holy Office, 24 Jan. 1906.

⁶ Holy Office, 23 Feb. 1820.

⁷ Holy Office, 20 Nov. 1850.

38. 2. Active communication in sacred matters must be distinguished in several ways:

a. Formal active communication in sacred matters is never licit, since it is denial of faith by internal and external profession of a false religion.

Communication in sacred matters is formal in a twofold case: a. explicitly, if it happens with the intention of participating in the sacred rites and therefore with approbation of the false religion; b. implicitly, if it happens in the sacred rite itself, that is, in an action which pertains to the sacred rite, as to receive the supper of heretics, to sing with heretics in a sacred function: for from actions of this kind the depraved intention of participating in the heretical rite cannot be separated.

b. Material and private active communication in sacred matters, if it does not concern a matter evil in itself, with scandal and danger of perversion excluded, is licit.

Thus a Catholic can licitly recite the Lord's Prayer or other prayers together with a Protestant, because in this action profession of a false religion is not contained: for private worship, in which nothing false is contained, is not heretical.

c. Material and public active communication in sacred matters is of itself prohibited under grave obligation, not only by ecclesiastical law,¹ but also by the law of nature, and this from several heads: a. because of the danger of perversion in faith; b. because of scandal, both on the part of the faithful, who from it take occasion of judging badly concerning the person who communicates with heretics and of doubting concerning the true faith, and on the part of heretics, who are confirmed in their error; c. because of the approbation of the false religion and denial of the true religion, which communication of itself signifies. With the other reasons set aside, this last is chiefly to be attended to here.

d. Material and public active communication in sacred matters can sometimes become licit from a proportionately grave cause (n. 22). Namely, those actions which do not pertain to the sacred rite itself and therefore do not necessarily involve confession of the false religion and denial of the true, with scandal and danger of perversion excluded, are licit from a just cause, for example, to assist at heretical functions, to accompany the funeral of some heretic.

The graver the sacred matter in which the Catholic participates, and the nearer the action through which he participates approaches to non-Catholic worship itself, the graver a cause is required. For the rest, judgment is to be made concerning this matter from the same principles which have already been set forth concerning an action from which there follows a twofold effect, good and evil,² and which will be set forth below concerning cooperation.

¹ C. Quicunque 2, De haereticis, in VI (V. 2).

² Cf. On Principles, n. 53 ff.

39. Particular questions concerning communication in sacred matters with heretics. In three ways we can externally profess a false religion: a. by communicating in sacred matters with non-Catholics; b. by cooperating with their false rites; c. by employing signs of their false religion. Concerning this last, something was said above (n. 20); concerning the second, something will be said below, where cooperation is treated; the questions which pertain to the first are to be considered in this place.

1. On simultaneousness. a. Just as it is not permitted to allow heretics to celebrate their rites in our churches, so it is not permitted for us to celebrate ours in their churches: for this, because of the identity of the church, is to communicate with heretics in divine things.¹ Yet since to celebrate divine things in the same church at the same time with heretics is not by its nature communication in the same sacred rites, therefore from a most grave cause this simultaneousness can be permitted and in fact is permitted.² In reality at Jerusalem, in the church of the Holy Sepulchre, all sects perform their rites. b. Likewise, just as it is not permitted to allow heretics, that is, sects of heretics, to mix themselves in our prayers or rites, so it is not permitted for us to perform a liturgical function together with heretics, or in general to pour forth public prayers with them: for the worship of a sect proceeds from the faith which it professes as from its root; and since this is heretical, the worship also is heretical.

2. On communication in the baptism of heretics. a. It is never permitted for a Catholic to act in the office of sponsor in the baptism of the child of a heretic, who is baptized by a heretical minister. For a long time and much on each side it was disputed whether this action is intrinsically evil, as being communication in the heretical rite itself; the controversy was finally ended by the declaration of the Holy Office, which establishes that this is absolutely not permitted either by oneself or through others.³ For baptism solemnly conferred by a heretic is a heretical rite; but he who acts as sponsor truly participates in this rite and implicitly approves it, since he offers the child to be baptized and asks for baptism. But to be present at the baptisms of heretics merely materially as a spectator or for the sake of honor, and to act as witness or honorary sponsor, is not prohibited when a just cause exists.

b. It is not permitted for Catholic parents positively to permit their children to be baptized by a heretical minister; but if it cannot be avoided without grave inconvenience, it can be permitted negatively, by holding themselves passively.

3. On communication in the weddings of heretics. a. It is licit to be present at their wedding banquet: for this action is merely civil and therefore civil communication, which is licit with heretics. b. To be present at weddings which are celebrated by heretics before a heretical minister in a heretical rite is licit if the matter concerns a merely material presence which happens for the sake of curiosity or honor.⁴ c. To be present at the weddings of heretics in some office, for example of witness, which is required for the validity of the marriage or constitutes part of the sacred rite itself, is illicit, because it is tacit approbation of a false sect. d. It is altogether illicit for a Catholic to enter marriage with a heretic before a heretical minister: for this action is a manifest participation in the heretical sacred rites themselves and recognition of heretical worship.

Girls who, as in North America, perform the principal attendance upon the bride (first bride's maid) are judged by common estimation to perform only a civil office.⁵

4. On entrance into the churches of heretics and on assistance at their sacred rites. a. Of itself, scandal and danger of perversion being excluded, it is licit to enter the churches of heretics to view them for the cause of mere curiosity, when no sacred rite is being had there, because this entrance is an indifferent action and signifies neither explicitly nor implicitly the approbation of false worship.⁶

b. Of itself it is not permitted to assist at the sermons or sacred functions of heretics, because this assistance of itself is participation with heretics in sacred matters; yet from a proportionately grave cause assistance could be permitted, provided the one assisting is present only materially without any sign of reverence.

a. Thus, from a most grave cause and with the danger of perversion excluded, it is permitted for a Catholic female servant to accompany her mistress into a heretical church, and it is permitted for soldiers to assist a heretical king visiting a church, according to the example of Naaman the Syrian, to whom the prophet Elisha permitted that he accompany his lord the king into the temple and there bow himself with him, so that the king might lean on his shoulder while he genuflected before the idol.⁷

b. It is permitted for learned Catholic men to hear the sermons of heretics in order to refute them, with scandal and danger of perversion always excluded: for they approach only so that they may know what heretics teach. Yet it must be noted that all these things, even if they happen only materially, are prohibited in some regions, as in several dioceses of Italy, by a special ecclesiastical law.

c. But it is never permitted in the churches of heretics, when religious functions are performed there, to play the organ or other instruments, to sing hymns and psalms, etc., because actions of this kind contain participation in the false worship itself of heretics, which is formal and altogether illicit communication in sacred matters.⁸

5. If assistance which happens at the sacred functions of heretics is prescribed to Catholics by the government, a distinction must be made thus:

a. If Catholics are compelled to participate in the sacred functions themselves of heretics, as happens to boys frequenting public schools in the Russian empire, who are ordered to go to the churches of schismatics, to receive blessed breads, to pray with others, etc., this is not permitted.⁹

b. If assistance is prescribed to Catholics in hatred of the faith or in favor of a false sect, it likewise is not licit.

c. If assistance is prescribed to Catholics only for the sake of domestic order, not in favor of a false sect, as sometimes happens to soldiers, captives in prisons, and sailors on public ships, all of whom are ordered to assist at sacred functions which are had there, it seems licit, provided they assist at the functions only materially.¹⁰

6. With respect to the burial of heretics: a. It is permitted for a Catholic to accompany the funeral of a heretic, even if the funeral is celebrated in a heretical rite, provided a. he is present only materially to offer civil honor, b. he cannot be absent without grave harm, at least without violation of a civil office, c. he does not communicate with heretics in sacred matters, therefore neither prays together with them, nor mixes himself in their rites, nor carries a light, nor is present at the sermon which is to be given.¹¹

b. A Catholic priest cannot, in places in which heretics do not have their own ministers, accompany the corpse of a heretic from the house to the cemetery, even if the corpse is not carried to the church and the bells are not rung.¹²

7. To frequent the religious instruction of heretics is not communication in sacred matters, because religious instruction does not have the character of a sacred rite, but of literary discipline instituted for cultivating the mind. Yet voluntary attendance is an illicit profession of a false religion; involuntary attendance, with the danger of perversion excluded, can be permitted from a most grave cause; but it is by no means permitted to repeat the false doctrines of heretics as if they were true and admitted.

8. Whether it is permitted to seek sacraments from heretics, see On the Sacraments, n. 43.

¹ S. C. de Prop. Fide, 14 Aug. 1627; Holy Office, 10 May 1753.

² S. C. de Prop. Fide, 12 Apr. 1704.

³ Holy Office, 10 May 1770.

⁴ Holy Office, 14 Jan. 1874, declares that it can be tolerated if Catholics are present only for the sake of a civil office at weddings which are contracted between a Catholic party and a non-Catholic before a heretical minister, with scandal and any danger of perversion removed, and also contempt of ecclesiastical authority, which nevertheless is generally to be feared if near relatives are present at marriages entered against the prohibition of the Church.

⁵ Sabetti, cited in Genicot, Casus conscientiae, p. 45.

⁶ Cf. Lugo, De fide, d. 14, n. 171 ff.

⁷ 4 Kings 5:18-19. Cf. Lugo, ibid., n. 173.

⁸ S. C. de Prop. Fide, 19 June 1889.

⁹ Holy Office, 26 Apr. 1894.

¹⁰ Cf. Lehmkuhl, I, n. 651, in note.

¹¹ Holy Office, 13 Jan. 1818. Cf. Lugo, loc. cit., n. 159.

¹² Holy Office, 26 Jan. 1886.

40. Whether disputation with heretics is licit.

a. Public disputation, or disputation before a numerous people, both clerics and lay persons, is prohibited without the express license of the Roman pontiff, because public disputations are accustomed to lack the desired fruit.¹

b. Private disputation, or disputation before a few hearers, is permitted to clerics if they are challenged, if some fruit is hoped for either in the one challenging or in the hearers, and if the clerics are skilled and instructed with sufficient doctrine.

c. But for lay persons even private disputation concerning matters of faith is prohibited by positive law:² for since it is much easier to propose difficulties than to solve those proposed, from the lack of skill of lay persons it could easily happen that heretics are confirmed in error, but Catholics themselves conceive doubts and waver in faith. Yet this prohibition does not extend to men truly learned and firm in faith, where great utility is hoped for or where custom has been introduced, as in Germany.

Note. By these things are presented the principles to be observed by law in religious communication with heretics or schismatics; nevertheless for practice these things are to be noted: in regions in which Catholics have already lived mingled with heretics for a long time, by custom many things are done without grave cause which of themselves are licit only from grave cause; thus from mere curiosity Catholics enter the churches of heretics, even while sacred functions are being had there, are present at funerals, etc.; indeed they even perform in good faith those things which are altogether illicit. Now because in regions of this kind the danger of perversion and scandal of the faithful is less to be feared, communication which is not illicit in itself can more easily be tolerated; indeed even in prohibiting those things which can in no way be permitted, pastors of souls ought to be very cautious and prudent, lest without hope of fruit they disturb good faith and provoke the hatreds of heretics. Therefore the Holy See itself declared that illicit communications can sometimes be dissembled in order to avoid graver harms.³ But in regions in which heretics a little before have fixed seats and erected churches, and therefore the danger and scandal of forbidden communication is greater, the norms set forth above are to be urged more severely. Therefore the Cardinal Vicar, when heretics were erecting churches at Rome, in an instruction published for the pastors of the City, declared that all those sin gravely who from mere curiosity hear the sermons of Protestants and assist, even only materially, at non-Catholic functions.⁴

¹ S. C. C., 8 Mar. 1658.

² C. Quicunque 2, De haereticis, in VI (V. 2).

³ Holy Office, 26 Apr. 1894.

⁴ Instruction of 12 July 1878, in Aichner, Compendium iuris ecclesiastici, Brixen: Weger, 1900, p. 156.

Dangerous Communication.—Mixed marriages are mentioned specially among the communications with non-Catholic that are dangerous to faith, because marriage is a lifelong and intimate association. But there are other communications with unbelievers that can easily corrupt faith, the less dangerous being communication in matters that are not religious, and the more dangerous being communication in religious matters. (a) Non-religious or civil communication is association with non-Catholics in secular affairs, such as business, social life, education, politics. (b) Religious communication is association with non-Catholics in sacred services or divine worship.

Non-religious communication is sinful as follows: (a) It is sinful according to natural law, when in a particular case it would be a proximate danger of perversion freely chosen, or an involuntary danger against which one does not employ sufficient precaution. Examples: Titus chooses infidels and freethinkers for his friends and intimates, understanding their character and bad influence. Balba on account of her poverty is obliged to work in a place where all her companions are unbelievers who scoff at religion and try in every way to win her over to their errors; yet she is not concerned to arm herself more strongly in faith.

(b) According to ecclesiastical law, civil communication is forbidden with those who have been excommunicated as persons to be avoided (Canon 2267). Such persons are those who lay violent hands on the Roman Pontiff (Canon 2343), or who have been excommunicated by individual name and as persons to be avoided through public decree or sentence of the Apostolic See (Canon 2258). Exception is made, however, for husband and wife, children, servants, subjects, and for others in case of necessity.

Religious communication is sinful on account of danger in the following cases:

(a) If it is a proximate and voluntary occasion of sin against faith. Examples: Sempronius goes to a non-Catholic church to hear a minister who attacks the divinity of Christ and other articles of the Creed. The purpose of Sempronius is to benefit himself as a public speaker, but he knows that his faith suffers, because he admires the orator. Balbus chooses to listen over the radio to attacks on religion and Christianity, which cause serious temptations to him.

(b) If it is a necessary occasion of sin and one does not employ sufficient precautions against it, religious communication becomes sinful. Example: Titus, a prisoner, has to listen at times to a jail chaplain, who teaches that there are errors in the Bible, that man evolved from the ape, etc. Titus feels himself drawn sympathetically to these teachings, but makes no effort to strengthen his faith.

Communication with unbelievers that is a remote occasion of sin, is not sinful, for “otherwise one must needs go out of this world” (I Cor., v. 9). On the contrary, reasons of justice or charity frequently make it necessary and commendable to have friendly dealings with those of other or no religious conviction. (a) Reasons of justice. It is necessary to cooperate with non-Catholic fellow-citizens in what pertains to the welfare of our common country, state, city, and neighborhood; to be just and fair in business relations with those outside the Church, etc. (b) Reasons of charity. Catholics should be courteous and kind to all (Heb., xii. 14), and be willing to assist, temporarily and spiritually, those outside the Church. Thus, St. Paul, without sacrificing principle or doctrine, made himself all things to all men, in order to gain all (I Cor., ix. 19). Indeed, the mission of the Church would suffer, if Catholics today kept aloof from all that goes on about them. The Church must teach, by example as well as precept, must be a salt, a light, a leaven, an example of the Gospel in practice; and surely this ministry will be weakened if her children aim at complete isolation and exclusivism.

Societies that are purely civil or profane—e.g., social clubs, charitable organizations, temperance societies, labor unions, that are not identified with any church and are neutral in religion—may be dangerous to faith. (a) There may be danger on account of the membership, even when the nature of the society is purely indifferent or good. Example: It would be dangerous to faith to join a convivial society whose members were mostly aggressive infidels, even though the purpose of the organization was only recreation. (b) There may be danger to faith on account of certain methods or principles of the society. Example: A Boys’ or Girls’ Club whose purpose is to train young people for good citizenship is dangerous to faith, if it acts as though the natural virtues were sufficient, or as though moral education belonged to itself exclusively or principally.

The Sin of Blasphemy.—So far we have spoken of the sins of unbelief that are contrary to the internal act of faith. We now come to the sins that are contrary to the external act, or profession of faith. These sins are of two kinds: (a) The less serious sin is that of ordinary denial of the faith, that is, the assertion that some article of faith is false, or that some contrary error is true. This sin will be treated below in 913 sqq. on the commandments of faith. (b) The more serious sin is blasphemy, that is, the denial to God of something that is His; or the ascription to God of what does not belong to Him. Of this sin we shall speak now.

Blasphemy etymologically is from the Greek, and signifies damage done to reputation or character; theologically, it is applied only to insults or calumnies offered to God, and is threefold according to the three stages of sin described above (see 168). (a) Blasphemy of the heart is internal, committed only in thought and will. So “the wicked man said in his heart: There is no God” (Ps. xviii. 1), and the demons and lost souls blasphemed God without words (Apoc., xvi. 9). (b) Blasphemy of the mouth is external, committed in spoken words, or in their written or printed representations. (c) Blasphemy of deeds is also external, committed by acts or gestures. The action of Julian the Apostate in casting his blood towards heaven was intended as a sign of contempt for Christ.

“According to the present discipline introduced by Martin V in the celebrated Extravagant Ad evitanda, Catholics are permitted freely to associate with heretics, provided that they have not been expressly and by name denounced, and to communicate with them in merely profane and civil matters.” Holy Office, 10 May 1873; A. S. S., vol. 27, p. 449 ff.; C. 1816.

— 1. Who in this place are understood to be unbelievers. The question is posed concerning those who profess a false worship or have adhered to a non-Catholic sect. For concerning unbelieving Catholics no special prohibition exists. The common laws of prudence are to be observed.

2. But communication signifies a common action. Therefore to ask concerning licit communication with non-Catholics is to ask whether it is lawful or not for Catholics to perform certain things in common with them. Communication, therefore, is a certain genus of cooperation which consists in moral participation in some action. Thus in the celebration of Mass those communicate who have asked for that Mass by stipend, who minister to the priest, who respond to his prayers or chant, who formally hear it. But they do not formally communicate, but merely cooperate, per se, who during Mass play musical instruments or the organ, who announce Mass by bell, words, or writings, nor those who assist the chant with the organ. In this place we are treating only of communication; afterwards we shall consider cases of cooperation.

3. What communication is attended to. Today communication in civil matters with non-Catholics is forbidden by no law per se. Therefore the question is restricted to communication in sacred matters. But the matters can be the sacred functions of Catholics, private Catholic prayers, and the sacred things of non-Catholics. It is useful here to separate carefully positive law from natural law.

a) In the sacred things of Catholics. These things can be private prayers: scandal being excluded, today we are in no way forbidden to pour forth with non-Catholics private prayers which are good in themselves.

They can be solemn functions. In these, no more than other excommunicated persons, non-Catholics can have a formal or active part. Wherefore we cannot admit them to minister at sacred things, to respond to the prayers of the priest. Observe, however, that baptized persons before the completed age of fourteen years are not formally held as non-Catholics. - To passive assistance we are not forbidden today to admit non-Catholics. Thus it is tolerated that in Catholic colleges, where non-Catholics are instructed mixed with Catholics, the former be present at the sacrifice of the Mass. But they can be formally invited to hear sermons. They are not prevented from playing musical instruments or the organ. From receiving the sacraments they are per se excluded, except matrimony and danger of life. Cf. III, 195.

b) In the sacred things of non-Catholics. alpha) By the very law of nature, it is intrinsically evil to celebrate a rite properly non-Catholic or erroneous worship, or to profess or seriously simulate erroneous worship, or formally to ask for the celebration of erroneous worship. For in a rite, insofar as it is heretical, superstition properly so called is contained. But if non-Catholics perform certain things altogether rightly, just as Catholics do, grave authors deny that communication in these sacred things as such is illicit. Cf. Suarez, De Fide, 21, 3, 4; Lugo, De Fide, 22, 1 and ff.; Benedict XIV, De Syn., 6, 5, 2.

beta) Because of connected harms, whether one's own or the neighbor's, the same communication will be illicit. But the evils to be feared are: authority added to heresy or falsity, propagation of indifferentism. These evils per se are those of many: which must be observed in estimating an excuse.

gamma) Then by positive law, because of the common good, more severe prohibitions accede.

4. Can. 1258 § 1 has this: "It is not lawful for the faithful in any way actively to assist or to have part in the sacred things of non-Catholics." Therefore, at least by positive law, that commerce in the sacred things of non-Catholics, even when rightly performed, is forbidden, which several approved theologians and canonists deny to be illicit per se.

Corollaries. — 1. Not even in the agony of death is it lawful to admit a non-Catholic minister who in his own non-Catholic rite brings or ministers sacraments even validly.

2. Outside danger of death, in which, scandal being excluded and another being lacking, this will be lawful, we are forbidden to ask from non-Catholics sacraments administered in the Catholic rite, for example baptism; to hear the Mass of a schismatic; to receive communion from his hands; to confess our sins to him. Wherefore, neither is it lawful to act as godfather in a baptism which a heretic confers: for the godfather asks for baptism.

Matrimony is excepted, which, after dispensation has been obtained for a grave cause, is permitted to be contracted with a non-Catholic, although, if both have been baptized, both spouses, and consequently the non-Catholic, are ministers one to the other. Yet this is not lawful to contract before a minister as such (otherwise if before him as a civil official). But if this is done, a Catholic cannot be a witness properly so called.

On Merely Material Presence. — 1. From c. 1258 § 2: "Passive or merely material presence can be tolerated, for the sake of a civil office or honor, 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."

Therefore in acts which d'Annibale, I, 110, calls mixed, because they are also accustomed to be performed for the sake of a civil office, passive presence can be tolerated for a grave cause. But if, with attention given to the quality of the person, for example of a priest, or to the circumstances, honesty, because of scandal, has become doubtful, the Ordinary of the place will have to resolve the doubt.

That doubt will more easily occur in merely civil funerals of those who, having been baptized Catholic, have rejected the sacraments, especially if the insignia of a condemned sect are also displayed, or, what is worse, are placed upon the bier itself. The ceremony itself then not rarely ends in formal impiety. And it is clear that in cases of this kind it belongs to a Catholic soul that we incline toward abstention, as far as can be done. Once the signification of impiety is excluded, concerning merely civil funerals the things said concerning the funerals of non-Catholics are valid.

A grave cause of assistance can be furnished by service itself, provided that the non-Catholic temple is not frequented in such a way that the servant or maidservant appears to be non-Catholic. Cf. Lehmkuhl, I, 809. Wherefore Genicot, I, 200, and R. P. Wouters, Ned. Kath. St., 1919, permit that a Catholic maidservant hold a little child while he is baptized by a minister.

Passive assistance is tolerated. Therefore it is not lawful actively to cooperate in the rites themselves. Yet genuflection before a tabernacle where there are true consecrated hosts is not participation in a non-Catholic rite; nor is private honor rendered to a sacred image of the Blessed Virgin Mary; nor even, as it seems to us, an act indifferent in itself which urbanity itself almost demands: as if in a temple you bare the head, or rise when others rise, lest by sitting you be judged injurious. Wherefore, in non-Catholic places, all scandal being excluded, a visit to the Most Holy Sacrament in a church of schismatics can be made privately. And if someone, for a grave reason, assists at a funeral function of which a Mass is a part, he will not be able to omit the reverence due to Christ present at the consecration and after the consecration, while taking care that, as to the rest, he separate himself sufficiently from the minister.

2. Even where a grave reason is lacking, he who, scandal, danger of faith, and active participation being excluded, should wish from curiosity to be present at the functions of non-Catholics and to observe a sermon, will have committed nothing grave per se, although regularly this is not lawful.

But the circumstances can suggest a stricter prohibition. Thus the Instruction of the Cardinal Vicar of the City, 12 July 1878, n. 5, most strictly prohibited anyone knowingly, from mere curiosity, from entering the halls and temples of Protestants at the time of conversations or conferences; and declared that those sin gravely who from mere curiosity hear the conferences of Protestants, or even purely materially assist at non-Catholic ceremonies. Observe that, in that decree, schismatics are not named.

— Concerning the admonition to be made when we are asked, and concerning the good faith not to be disturbed of those who in very difficult circumstances do, without danger of their own ruin, things which in themselves are not lawful, the general rules are to be applied. And the Holy Office applied them on 26 April 1894 to children who in Russia were compelled to participate in non-Catholic rites (Coll. P. F., n. 1868).

Concerning these points, the following are to be read attentively in Coll. Prop. Fid.: Instr. P. F. 1729, n. 311; and S. Off. 1752, n. 384; resp. 22 Aug. 1900, n. 2093; and the things which Lehmkuhl has, I, 809 ff.

— Not indeed for investigating the truth, but for persuading others of it or for vindicating its honor, it is lawful to dispute concerning faith with heretics, when the circumstances of doctrine and persons are such that fruit can be hoped for at least among the hearers.

Yet because imprudent disputation can harm greatly, c. 1325 wisely enacts this: "Let Catholics beware lest they have disputations or conferences, especially public ones, with non-Catholics, without permission of the Holy See, or, if the case urges, of the Ordinary of the place." Already in the seventeenth century the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide more than once responded that, without consulting it, formally public disputations were not to be held even by clerics. And it is clear per se that the prohibition ceases when necessity, or, as it seems, great utility of faith, demands something else, and the Ordinary of the place cannot be approached. Nor rarely today will it be expedient, by a wittily spoken word, to blunt the audacity of the impious; yet per se it will be less opportune to admit longer controversies before witnesses, which take place without any intention of learning anything: in these, self-love itself impedes fruit. But the Code treats of a disputation which is entered into expressly concerning a dogmatic matter which non-Catholics deny. Disputations are not touched which occur incidentally, on the spur of the moment, when an occasion is given; nor private conferences which are directed not to conquering a person but to converting him. Concerning controversial writings, only the rules concerning the censorship of writings will have to be observed. Thus also Genicot-Salsmans, I, n. 201, VI.

— Much less do simultaneous exhibitions of religions, as they are called, regularly seem to be approved, in which each in his own order sets forth his own tenets, and then, without any refutation, they calmly hear apologies of other doctrines. For by these per se indifferentism is fostered, and, at least in appearance, truth and counterfeit religions are held with equal right and honor. Cf. the letter of Leo XIII to the Apostolic Delegate of the United States of America, 18 September 1895 (Nouv. Rev. Theol., 28, p. 79). The Holy See greatly opposes this assimilation. Wherefore by decree of the Holy Office, 4 July 1919, Catholics were ordered to abstain from a society for procuring the unity of Christianity, and the letters of 8 November 1865 on a similar argument were again published (A. A. S. 1919, XI, 309).

— Besides the prescribed professions of faith, the rules of the Index, and condemnations of propositions, the legal safeguards of faith are:

I. Penalties latae sententiae. 1. Apostates and canonical heretics who in a culpable way express exterior heresy even secretly are struck with excommunication which, in the internal forum, is specially reserved to the Supreme Pontiff. Yet in the external forum, the guilty person confessing the delict can be absolved by any Ordinary of a place or delegate, those things being observed which must be observed, so that afterwards his sin can be remitted by any confessor.

2. Those who are canonically suspected of heresy, unless they are amended within six months, to be counted from the sentence which, after admonitions, punished them, contract the penalties of heretics.

II. Prohibited communication with non-Catholics. 1. Non-Catholics are understood here as all those who, baptized or not baptized, are outside the Church because of the sect to which they have adhered. But formal adherence is not judged to have been completed before the completed years of puberty. Communication signifies not every cooperation, but an action done in common. Today, communication with non-Catholics in civil matters and in private prayers is lawful per se. Non-Catholics cannot actively participate in Catholic sacred things or receive the sacraments (outside the necessity of danger of life), if you except matrimony. Today they can be admitted merely to assist at sacred things, indeed even, with attention also given to ancient laws, be invited to hear sermons. It is never lawful to receive sacraments in a non-Catholic rite, or actively to participate in the sacred things of non-Catholics. By natural law it does not seem forbidden per se that you communicate in sacred things which non-Catholics perform rightly, as Catholics do. But this is forbidden by positive law, outside danger of death, in which the sacraments are to be received. Except also matrimony contracted with due dispensation, which, however, is not lawful to celebrate before a minister as such. Passive presence of Catholics in the sacred things of non-Catholics is permitted for a grave cause, to be approved by the bishop in a doubtful case; indeed one who from curiosity is present at them commits nothing grave per se.

2. Disputation with non-Catholics concerning a dogma which they deny cannot be entered into expressly, especially publicly, without permission of the Holy See, or, if the matter urges, of the Ordinary of the place (c. 1325, § 3).

Nor, because of the danger of indifferentism, is a simultaneous exhibition of religions regularly approved.

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.

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).

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.

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.