The duty of professing the faith

WE do not fulfil our duty as Christians and Catholics if we keep our religious faith concealed within our own breasts. Our duty to God, to our neighbour, and to ourselves sometimes requires that we should make open profession of the faith which we hold. When our public profession of the faith would render great honour to God, or prevent great dishonour being shown him, or prevent the true religion from being publicly despised and contemned, we must, even at the risk of great temporal loss, boldly come forward and proclaim our religious belief. We must be ready to do the same if our example would gain others to God or prevent them from falling away from him; for charity towards our neighbour sometimes requires that we should sacrifice our temporal interests for the spiritual good of others. Again, if we never made open profession of our faith, there would be grave danger of its becoming weak and altogether dying away; so we must sometimes perform external acts of our religion in order to keep the faith alive within us. The necessity of doing this is shown by the gradual falling away from their religion of Catholics who have no priests, and no churches wherein to practise their religious duties (Can. 1325, sec. 1).

The positive law of the Church requires that a solemn profession of faith be made by those who are about to be baptized, or received into the Church, or at least in their name if they are unable to make it for themselves. The occasions and persons who are bound by canon law to make profession of faith are laid down in Canons 1406-1408.

It is gravely sinful to deny the faith, or to do or say anything which is equivalent to a denial of it, or which shows that we are ashamed of it. ‘‘ For he that shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him the Son of man shall be ashamed, when he shall come in his majesty, and that of his Father, and of the holy angels.”¹ However, the obligation of professing the faith is affirmative, and so always binds but not for always. In other words, we may never deny the faith, but we are only bound to profess it openly when the divine, or natural, or positive law require it. A man might travel for months among heathen or heretics without making his faith known to anyone. As a rule, it is better openly to profess one’s religion, so that all may know that we are Catholics; but under certain circumstances it might be lawful to conceal one’s conversion to the faith for a time.

A Catholic who on being asked denies that he is one does not necessarily deny the faith. Such an answer might merely be a fitting reply to an impertinent question. It will, however, be a denial of the faith when the circumstances require that an open profession of it should be made. A Catholic who flies from persecution, or disguises himself, or eats meat on days of abstinence in order to avoid detection, does not thereby deny the faith. It is better never to enter non-Catholic places of worship, or be present at non-Catholic religious functions, and this is of obligation whenever such acts would be interpreted as countenancing a false religion, or as showing a spirit of indifferentism, or whenever there would be scandal or danger of perversion, or whenever lawful authority forbids them. Otherwise, merely to enter an heretical place of worship, or to be present at a non-Catholic religious function, such as a burial or a marriage, without taking part in the ceremony, is not sinful, and may be permitted for a good cause (Can. 1258).

¹ Luke ix 26.

I. The external act, or profession of faith, is sometimes prescribed. This is clear: 1. From Sacred Scripture. "If thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God has raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart we believe unto justice, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."¹ 2. From the fact that the Church was instituted by her Author as an external, visible society of believers. But such a society carries with it that believers also profess the faith externally. 3. The majesty of God revealing requires this, for external adherence also is owed to Him. How greatly the obligation of sometimes professing the faith presses is clear, for example, from the fact that the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, on May 28, 1635, responded that "a Mohammedan who wishes, on account of danger to life, to be a hidden Christian and to remain such cannot be admitted to baptism, but must transfer himself to places where he can publicly profess the Christian religion."²

II. The external act, or profession of faith, generally obliges the faithful "whenever their silence, evasiveness, or manner of acting would carry with it an implicit denial of faith, contempt of religion, injury to God, or scandal of neighbor" (can. 1325, § 1). Specifically, it obliges:

1. By reason of the precept of faith itself:

a) When a baptized infant attains the use of reason, or an adult embraces the faith or returns to it after public departure.

b) Several times in life, as is gathered from the arguments adduced under I. Besides, a man who lives Christianly abundantly satisfies this obligation, since hundreds of times he places acts which contain a profession of faith at least in an act exercised.

c) When the honor of God as Author of faith must be defended (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 3, a. 2); this has place: 1. if someone is questioned by public authority. Hence proposition 18 was condemned by Innocent XI: "If someone is questioned by public power, I counsel that he frankly confess the faith as glorious to God and the faith; to be silent I do not condemn as sinful per se."³ But "if a prince by a general law orders the faithful to disclose themselves, by wearing a sign, or presenting themselves, or otherwise, they are not bound, since no one is bound to speak the truth unless he has been specially asked" (St. Alphonsus, II, 14, 50), that is, the obligation of professing the faith presses only when someone is summoned before the law. Make exception if civil authority questions someone about the faith contrary to the prescription of law. Nor is the case present if someone is questioned for a merely political end, for example on the occasion of a census of the people. 2. If the faith is treated contemptuously and someone can conveniently defend it, for example by refuting objections that have been brought forward (St. Alphonsus, II, 11). 3. If, considering the circumstances, omission of profession would be taken for denial of the faith, as if, when several persons have been questioned about the faith and others are professing it, you were silent (St. Alphonsus, II, 14, 40); likewise if, when you were questioned about the faith, another, while you were silent, answered for you that you were not a Catholic. I said considering the circumstances, because per se there is no obligation of professing the faith if someone is questioned by a private person (St. Alphonsus, II, 13, 20).

d) When, unless someone professes the faith, there is grave danger that he will deny the faith.

e) When profession of faith has been prescribed by the Church. Now:

alpha) It must be made by an adult to be baptized⁴ and, if an infant is to be baptized, by the sponsors;⁵ likewise by priests in their ordination⁶ and bishops in their consecration;⁷ specifically, by a person past puberty who is to be baptized and who is converted from heresy or schism to the faith.⁸

beta) From can. 1406, those held to the obligation of making profession of faith, according to the formula⁹ approved by the Apostolic See, are:

1. Before the president or his delegate, those who are present at an Ecumenical or particular Council or at a diocesan Synod with either consultative or deliberative vote; but the president before the same Council or Synod.

2. Before the Dean of the Sacred College, the first Cardinals in the order of priests and of deacons, and the Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church, those promoted to the cardinalitial dignity.

3. Before a delegate from the Apostolic See, those promoted to an episcopal see, even a nonresidential one, or to the governance of an abbey or prelature nullius, an Apostolic Vicariate, or an Apostolic Prefecture.

4. Before the cathedral Chapter, the Capitular Vicar.

5. Before the local Ordinary or his delegate and before the Chapter, those who have been promoted to a dignity or canonry.

6. Before the local Ordinary or his delegate and before the other consultors, those taken into the office of diocesan consultors.

7. Before the local Ordinary or his delegate, the Vicar General, parish priests, and those for whom provision has been made concerning any benefices, even manual benefices, having care of souls; the rector and professors of sacred theology, canon law, and philosophy in seminaries, at the beginning of each scholastic year or at least at the beginning of the office undertaken; all who are to be promoted to the order of subdiaconate; censors of books, of whom in can. 1393; priests appointed for hearing confessions and sacred preachers, before they are endowed with the faculty of exercising those offices.

8. Before the Ordinary or his delegate, the Rector of a University or Faculty; but before the Rector of a University or Faculty, or his delegate, all professors in a canonically erected University or Faculty, at the beginning of each scholastic year or at least at the beginning of the office undertaken; likewise those who, after examination has been made, are endowed with academic degrees.

9. Before the Chapter or Superior who appointed them, or their delegate, Superiors in clerical religions (can. 1406, § 1).

10. Those who, after having left the prior office, benefice, or dignity, obtain another office or benefice or dignity, even of the same species, must again make profession of faith according to the norm of this canon (can. 1406, § 2), that is, can. 1406, § 1.

gamma) From the decree of the Holy Office,¹⁰ the anti-modernist oath, prescribed by Pius X in the Motu Proprio Sacrorum Antistitum,¹¹ must be made, until the Apostolic See establishes otherwise on this matter, and indeed according to the formula attached to the Motu Proprio, which, with their name signed, they shall give to their Ordinary:

1. Clerics to be initiated into major orders; to each of them beforehand let there be handed a copy both of the profession of faith and of the formula for taking the oath, so that they may know them accurately in advance, with the sanction, as below, for violation of the oath added.

2. Priests appointed for hearing confessions and sacred preachers, before they are endowed with the faculty of exercising those offices.¹² These, however, are not bound when their faculties are prolonged or when they transfer to another diocese.

3. Parish priests, Canons, and Beneficiaries before entering into possession of the benefice.

4. Officials in episcopal curias and ecclesiastical tribunals, not excepting the Vicar General and judges.

5. Those chosen to deliver sermons during the time of Lent.

6. All officials in Roman Congregations or tribunals before the Cardinal Prefect or Secretary of the same Congregation or tribunal.

7. Moderators of religious families and Congregations before they enter office.

8. Doctors both of seminaries and of religious families, before they enter office.¹³

It is disputed whether those designated under 8 are bound to make the oath yearly. Now it seems it must be answered affirmatively; for the Holy Office declared¹⁴ that the prescriptions regarding the anti-modernist oath must remain in their full force until the Apostolic See establishes otherwise on this matter. But, considering the prescriptions regarding the anti-modernist oath, the said oath was to be made yearly by the aforesaid Doctors.¹⁵

Objection 1. The oath is intended as a complement of the profession of faith; and therefore, once the yearly profession of faith has been removed, it should likewise be held as removed. But the profession of faith must be made only at the beginning of the office undertaken (can. 1406, § 1, 7).

Response. The argument adduced seems sufficiently to prove that the reason of complement in the case should not be urged so strongly; in other words, that the anti-modernist oath must be urged even independently of the profession of faith. Besides, there is a special reason for requiring the oath, namely the combating of modernism, and this reason persists and presses, even if the profession of faith is omitted.

Objection 2. The declaration of the Holy Office can regard only the Motu Proprio Sacrorum Antistitum, which does not prescribe a yearly oath; but not the declaration of the Sacred Consistorial Congregation, which extends the sense of the said Motu Proprio to each year.

Response. Apart from the fact that it is in no way clear that the Motu Proprio does not prescribe a yearly oath, the declaration of the Holy Office is considered to regard the Motu Proprio as it had in fact been in force. But in fact it had been in force according to the norm of the declaration of the Sacred Consistorial Congregation, whether that declaration is extensive or comprehensive.

Note 1. One does not satisfy the obligation of making profession of faith, established by can. 1406, if he makes it through a procurator or before a layman (can. 1407).

Note 2. Any custom against the canons just cited is reprobated (can. 1408), that is, canons 1406 and 1407.

Note 3. One who, contrary to the prescription of can. 1406, neglects to make profession of faith without a just impediment is to be warned, with a suitable term also fixed beforehand; when this has elapsed, if he is contumacious, he is to be punished even by deprivation of office, benefice, dignity, or function; nor meanwhile does he make his own the fruits of the benefice, office, dignity, or function (can. 2403).

2. By reason of the precept of another virtue, profession of faith obliges:

a) When by professing the faith someone would have hope of converting others to the faith, or by not professing it would be a scandal to others (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 3, a. 2, ad 3; St. Alphonsus, II, 11).

b) When by neglecting profession of faith someone would expose himself to grave danger of committing some sin other than one against faith itself; which will rarely have place.

¹ Rom. 10:9 sq.; cf. Matt. 10:32 sq.

² May 28, 1635 (Collectanea, n. 84); cf. Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, June 26, 1790 (Collectanea, n. 602).

³ Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1168.

⁴ Roman Ritual, title II, chapter 2, n. 32.

⁵ Roman Ritual, title II, chapter 2, n. 17.

⁶ Roman Pontifical, On the Ordination of a Priest.

⁷ Roman Pontifical, On the Consecration of a Bishop.

⁸ Roman Pontifical, Order for Reconciling an Apostate, Schismatic, or Heretic; cf. Instruction of the Holy Office to the Bishop of Philadelphia, July 20, 1859.

⁹ This formula is found at the beginning of the Code.

¹⁰ March 22, 1918 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1918, p. 136).

¹¹ September 1, 1910 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1910, p. 655).

¹² Thus the Sacred Consistorial Congregation, September 25, 1910 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1910, p. 740).

¹³ Motu Proprio Sacrorum Antistitum, September 1, 1910 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1910, p. 655); Sacred Consistorial Congregation, September 25, 1910 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1910, p. 740).

¹⁴ March 22, 1918 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1918, p. 136).

¹⁵ Sacred Consistorial Congregation, September 25, 1910.

The Commandment of External Profession of Faith.—The third commandment of faith (mentioned in 918) has been considered so far in its negative aspect—that is, as a prohibition against the denial of truth or the profession of error. It remains to consider it in its affirmative aspect—that is, as a precept of profession of faith or of denial of error.

The ways of making profession of faith are various: (a) It is made implicitly, if one performs acts that suppose faith; explicitly, if one declares in words one’s internal belief. Thus, a Catholic professes his faith implicitly by observing the precepts of the Church; explicitly, by reciting before others an act of faith or the Creed.

(b) The declaration of one’s faith in words is made in ordinary ways, if one affirms it to others, privately or publicly, or if one teaches it or defends it in debate; it is made solemnly, if it is recited according to a prescribed form as a ceremony. Thus, a Catholic who answers to a questioner that he is a Catholic, or who explains the truths of faith to an inquirer, or who replies to the objections of an unbeliever, makes an ordinary profession of faith; one who reads before the bishop or other designated authority a formula prescribed by the Church, makes solemn profession of faith. The solemn profession of faith is usually made before the altar, on which candles are lighted; and he who makes profession of faith kneels before the authority who receives it. Sometimes witnesses are present and the profession is signed.

(c) The solemn profession of faith is sometimes an abjuration (i.e., a declaration of one’s adherence to the faith of the Church and a recantation of previous errors); sometimes it is a declaration or oath that one rejects errors or accepts truths. Thus, converts before reception into the Church abjure the errors they formerly held; officials in the Church before assuming authority make a profession of faith in which they reprobate Modernism and express their belief in the Creed and the teachings of the Church.

The existence of a divine precept of profession of faith is proved from revelation and intrinsic reasons, as follows:

(a) “If thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God hath raised Him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart we believe unto justice, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Rom., x. 9, 10). This precept obliges under grave sin, since it is required for salvation.

(b) The first reason for external profession of faith is the honor of God; for it is a mark of disrespect to God to be ashamed or afraid to acknowledge oneself as a believer in His Word or a witness to its truth, on account of what others may think or say or do.

(c) A second reason for the external profession of faith is one’s own good. It is well known that faith is strengthened by external acts, and that it grows weak and decays among Catholics who have no priests or churches or means of practising their faith.

(d) A third reason for profession of faith is the good of others, for the confession of faith is an encouragement to those who are strong in faith, an example to those whose faith is weak, and a light to those who have not the faith.

The divine precept of profession of faith, since it is affirmative, does not call for fulfillment at every moment. It obliges only at those times when the honor of God, the Revealer of Truth, or the needs of our neighbor, who is called to the truth, demand that one declare externally one’s internal belief. (a) The honor of God demands a confession of faith, when a refusal to give it signifies that one does not accept the truths revealed by God, that revelation contains error, etc. (b) The needs of our neighbor demand a confession of faith, when a refusal to give it will prevent another from embracing the faith, or will cause him to lose it or give up its practices, etc.

The honor of God or the good of the neighbor calls for an external profession of faith at the following times: (a) when a person is joining the Church or returning to it, for the Church is a visible society and membership in it should be visible; (b) when a Catholic is interrogated about his faith, for here the honor of God and the good of others require that he be not ashamed of Christ or His Words (Luke, ix. 26), and that he should cause his light to shine before men (Matt., v. 16); (c) when a Catholic is in the company of others who are ridiculing or calumniating the faith, and a protest is looked for from him on account of his authority, knowledge, etc.

The profession of faith made by one who is joining the Church must be external, but the same publicity is not necessary for every case.

(a) Secret profession of faith is made when the reception of a convert is known only to himself and the priest who received him. This is permitted only in grave necessity, when the spiritual good of the convert requires it, and no injury is done to the honor of God or the Welfare of the neighbor. Example: Titus is dying and wishes to be baptized, but for an important reason he is unwilling to have the fact of his conversion disclosed. Father Balbus, therefore, baptizes without witnesses.

(b) Private profession of faith is made when the reception of a convert is made before the priest and two witnesses, but the fact of the conversion is not made known to others on account of circumstances. This is permitted only for a short time and for serious reasons (see 932, 993), as the task of concealing one’s faith for a long time is most difficult and is dangerous to faith itself. Example: Caius is a pagan who wishes to become a Catholic, but is kept back on account of dangers from his fellow-pagans, who will persecute him as an apostate. He, therefore, asks to be received as a secret Christian, with liberty to profess no religion externally. This may be permitted for a time, until Caius can move to some other place, but it cannot be permitted permanently.

(c) Public profession of faith is made when the reception of a convert is made before the priest and two witnesses, and the convert thereafter makes it known that he is a Catholic by attending Mass, receiving the Sacraments, etc. This kind of profession of faith is ordinarily required, but there is no law making it necessary for a convert to publish the news of his conversion.

A difficult case occurs when one who wishes to become a convert is unable to make public profession of Catholicity without suffering very great detriment, and is unable to make private profession without continuing in external practices of the non-Catholic religion. An example of this would be a non-Catholic girl who is threatened with destitution by her parents if she becomes a Catholic openly, and who knows that she will be forced to go to church with them if she becomes a Catholic privately. There are three courses in such a case: (a) public profession of Catholicism at once could be advised if the party showed signs of a special divine call and of a heroism equal to the difficulties the public profession would entail; (b) private profession of Catholicism could be tolerated for a time, if the party was of such age and circumstances as to appear able to cope successfully with the temptations and perplexities that beset this course; (c) delay of Baptism until things take a better turn would be the most prudent plan, if the deprivation of spiritual advantages would in the long run prove a lesser evil than the inconveniences of public or private profession of Catholicism.

Examination about one’s religious status refers either to one’s faith, or to something not necessarily connected with faith. (a) When a person is examined about his faith (e.g., whether he is a Catholic, whether he believes in the doctrine of the Real Presence, or in Papal Infallibility), profession of faith is obligatory, if its omission is equivalent to denial. (b) When he is examined about something not necessarily connected with faith, denial or concealment of the truth would not be denial of faith, and concealment might be lawful, if the question were unfair. Evasion would be sinful, if the denial or concealment contained a lie or caused scandal. Examples: If a missionary in England or Ireland in the sixteenth century had refused to admit that he was a priest or religious, or a layman had refused to confess that he had harbored a priest in his house or had assisted at Mass, these denials would not necessarily contain a denial of the faith.

Examination about one’s faith is made either by a private person or by public authority.

(a) When a person is questioned about his religious belief by a private person, he is not bound by reason of the question itself to make a profession of his faith, for a private person has no authority to call upon one in the capacity of a solemn and public witness; but he is bound to make a profession of faith by reason of circumstances, if the honor of God or the good of his neighbor requires that he declare his belief. Examples: Titius is known as a very iniquisitive and meddlesome character, who is continually asking others about their personal affairs and putting silly questions. Wherefore, those who know him are accustomed to pay no attention to his questions, or to tell him to mind his business, or to give him some humorous reply. One day Titius asked Balbus, whom he knew very well to be a Catholic: “What is your religion?” Balbus retorted: “What is yours?” and left him. Caius is studying Christianity with a view to embracing it, and asks Sempronius’ opinion on miracles. Sempronius, fearing the ridicule of some others present if he admits belief in miracles, says that he knows nothing about that subject. Balbus had a right to deny an answer to his questioner; but Sempronius should have replied for the edification of Caius and the honor of God.

(b) When a person is questioned about his religious belief by public authority, his obligation to make a profession of faith is certain, if the questioner has the right according to law to ask the question, and if it is made to one individually and out of hatred of the faith; for to this case apply the words of Christ: “You shall be brought before governors and kings for My sake, for a testimony to them and to the Gentiles” (Matt., x. 18).

In the following cases, one is not bound to confession of faith on account of the public authority that puts the question, although one may be bound on account of the circumstances:

(a) When the question is not put to an individual, but to a whole community, by a law which requires them in time of persecution to deliver themselves up as Christians or Catholics, there is no obligation to comply with this law, since it is unjust, and neither the honor of God nor the good of others requires one to make the profession of faith it demands (see 377, 552).

(b) When the question is put to an individual by one in authority but contrary to the law of the land, there is no obligation to answer. Thus, if according to civil law the magistrates have no right to examine about matters of conscience and one of them should nevertheless do so, the party questioned could treat the question as out of order and deny any answer.

(c) When the question is made according to law, but does not proceed from hatred of the faith, one is not obliged positively to profess one’s faith, unless the omission would seem to those present to be a denial of faith. Thus, a person might remain silent, or say that he did not wish to answer, that he did not wish to say what his belief was, etc., and in the circumstances it would seem that he would not be denying his faith, but merely for some reason refusing to discuss it when he thought there was no necessity.

The third case mentioned above (see 991), in which one is obliged to profess one’s faith publicly, is when the faith is. being attacked in one’s presence. The honor of God and the good of the neighbor then require one to speak out. (a) Thus, if the doctrines of the faith are being blasphemed or ridiculed, one should defend them, if one is able. Otherwise, one should protest or leave the company, if this will be advantageous to religion. (b) If sacred things are being profaned, one should resist physically, if one is able to prevent what is going on.

Debates on religion between Catholics and non-Catholics are not in themselves wrong, but as a rule they are useless and inexpedient.

(a) That such debates are not essentially wrong, is clear from the fact that a suitable defender of the faith is able by argumentation to show the misconceptions that are entertained about the faith and the fallacious objections that are made against it. This is honorable to God and profitable to the neighbor: “Saul confounded the Jews that dwelt at Damascus, affirming that this is the Christ .... He spoke also to the Gentiles and disputed with the Greeks” (Acts, ix. 22, 29).

(b) That controversy is generally unprofitable is a matter of experience. Religious debates often lead to bitterness, and seldom effect conversions. There is, moreover, an ever-present danger that the sophistry or eloquence of an adversary may give him the appearance of victory to the discredit of the faith, for even a foolish person can raise difficulties which only a wise man can answer.

Consequently the rule governing religious disputations is that they should be avoided, unless ecclesiastical authority deems them useful at times. (a) If no provocation is offered, or if no good seems likely to result from a debate, it should be avoided. (b) If one is attacked and it seems that the honor of God and the good of souls will be served by a debate, then capable and prudent speakers are permitted by the Church to defend the faith, provided permission is secured from the Holy See, or, in case of urgency, from the local Ordinary (Canon 1325, Sec.3). The prescriptions of this Canon were reaffirmed recently by the Holy Office and applied especially to “ecumenical” conventions convoked to promote church unity. Catholics, both lay and clerical, may in no way be present at such meetings without the previous consent of the Holy See (Holy Office, Monitum, June 5, 1948). See Appendix II.

The divine precept of profession of faith so far considered obliges on account of the virtue of faith itself, that is, on account of the external honor or service due to the Word of God. There is also a divine precept of profession of faith which obliges on account of other virtues that may require such a profession of faith to be made (e.g., on account of charity or justice). The omission of the profession of faith in these cases, however, is not a sin against faith, but against the other virtues, and should be confessed as such.

(a) Justice requires a profession of faith when, by reason of his office, a person has the duty of teaching others in the faith, for to teach the faith is to manifest one’s own belief in it. Hence, bishops and other pastors are obliged to preach: “Woe is unto me, if I preach not the Gospel” (I Cor., ix. 16); and their teaching is a manifestation of faith: “Having the same spirit of faith, as it is written: I believed, for which cause I have spoken; we also believe, and therefore we speak also” (II Cor., iv., 13).

(b) Charity requires a profession of faith when a person has not the office of teacher, but has a suitable opportunity to impart instruction to one who is in great ignorance about religion. For, as charity requires one to perform corporal works of mercy for the suffering and destitute, so it requires one to perform spiritual works of mercy for the spiritually indigent, such as to instruct the ignorant, to counsel the doubtful. Thus, a lay person who can prudently do so (the circumstances of time, place, person, etc., being duly considered), ought in charity to instruct in faith and morals the neglected children around him.

One is not bound to give instruction about matters of faith or morals when this would lead to more harm than good; but misrepresentation must be avoided.

(a) The purpose of instruction is to fulfill the will of God and to benefit others; therefore, if these ends are not obtained but rather defeated by an instruction, it should be omitted. The truth is always good in itself, but its communication may not be expedient on account of the recipient, who, being immature, may be harmed by the wrong impression he will receive, or who, being badly disposed, may use knowledge as a means to wrongdoing. Strong meat should not be given to infants (Heb., vi. 11-14); pearls should not be cast before swine (Matt., vii. 6). Examples: The mysteries of the faith (e.g., transubstantiation), should be explained with caution to those who are not well instructed, lest they be overwhelmed with the brightness and misunderstand. Difficult matters (such as predestination) or dangerous subjects (such as sex duties) should not be discussed indiscriminately with all kinds of persons. It is not right to instruct those who are in ignorance of their duty, if this is not absolutely necessary and one foresees that instruction will not prevent them from continuing in evil ways but will only add to their guilt. It is wrong to put the Bible into the hands of those who will use it for bad purposes.

(b) Misrepresentation or suppression is a lie, and in matters of doctrine a denial of faith; hence, it is never lawful. The rule to be followed, therefore, in teaching the faith is that one communicate the same doctrine to all, but according to the capacity of his hearers—to some in outline and to others more fully. This was the method of Christ, who “with many parables spoke to them the word, according as they were able to hear” (Mark, iv. 33).

The Church has the duty not only of keeping the faith untarnished among Catholics, but also of spreading it among non-Catholics, Protestants, Jews and infidels, as far as circumstances will allow. For God “Will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (I Tim., ii. 4). Those, therefore, who assist missionary work for unbelievers at home or abroad, do a work thrice blest, for (a) it is a thanksgiving offering to God, testifying our appreciation of the gift of faith which we have received from Him, (b) it is a work of charity to ourselves, for by helping others to receive the faith we strengthen our own faith, and (c) it is an act of supreme mercy to those who are sitting in darkness and the shadow of death.

In addition to the divine precepts, there are also ecclesiastical laws prescribing profession of faith.

(a) Ecclesiastical precepts of profession of faith for various officials are contained in Canon 1406 and in the Sacrorum Antistitum of Pius X (September 1, 1910), and Canon 2403 decrees that those who contumaciously refuse to make the profession of faith of Canon 1406 may be deprived of their office. Converts to the faith who are received without absolute Baptism make an abjuration (Holy Office, July 20, 1859), and persons who have incurred excommunication on account of apostasy, heresy or schism are absolved in the external forum after juridical abjuration (Canon 2314).

(b) The purpose of these ecclesiastical laws is to prevent the acceptance of spiritual or temporal jurisdiction or authority in the Church, or the commission of teaching or the benefits of membership by those who are unbelievers. Hence, the purpose is grave, and the laws themselves are held to bind under grave sin.

(c) The persons bound by these ecclesiastical laws are both ecclesiastics and laymen, namely, those who are about to be received into or reconciled with the Church, and those who are about to be admitted to some dignity, order, office or function (such as candidates for the ranks of Cardinal, bishop, canon, parish priest, religious superior, professor, preacher, confessor, doctor, etc).

(d) The form of the profession of faith is the Tridentine or Pian given in the Bull of Pius IV, Injunctum Nobis, of November 13, 1564, with additions referring to the Vatican Council. The oath against Modernism prescribed in the Sacrorum Antistitum of Pius X, of September 1, 1910, is also obligatory.

(e) The times when these professions of faith must be made are at admission into the Church and at the reception or renewal of an office.

The affirmative precepts of profession of faith, divine and ecclesiastical, oblige only at the proper time and place, and therefore on other occasions one is not obliged to make profession of faith. (a) Hence, one may avoid a profession of faith by evading interrogation in time of persecution—for example, through the payment of money to be exempted from examination, or through flight. As these acts indicate that the person is unwilling to deny his faith, but has reasons for wishing to preserve his life or to avoid the danger of apostasy, they are not of themselves unlawful, and may be a duty. (b) One may omit a profession of faith by concealing one’s religion, when prudence calls for concealment rather than publication.

Flight in time of persecution is lawful or unlawful according to circumstances, since in itself it is something indifferent, being simply the act of moving from one place to another.

(a) Flight is unlawful, if one’s circumstances are such that one will do an injury to justice or charity by departure. Hence, a pastor would sin against justice if he fled in time of persecution, leaving his flock who stood in need of his presence: “The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep. But the hireling and he that is not the shepherd, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep and flieth” (John, x. 11, 12). Hence also, one who has no care of souls but whose presence is necessary to a persecuted community should prefer out of charity their spiritual good to his own bodily safety: “We ought to lay down our lives for the brethren” (I John, iii. 16).

(b) Flight is necessary, if one’s circumstances are such that one will do an injury to justice or charity by remaining. Hence, if a pastor’s life is necessary for his flock, while his absence can be supplied by others who will take his place, justice to his subjects requires that he save his life for their sake. Thus, for the good of souls St. Peter escaped from prison (Acts, xii. 17 sqq.); St. Paul fled from Damascus (Acts, ix. 24, 25); our Lord Himself hid when the Jews took up stones to cast at Him (John, viii. 59). Similarly, if a person is very fearful lest his courage may fail him if he is brought before the persecutors, charity to self requires that he take flight so as to escape the danger of apostasy.

(c) Flight is permissible, if there is no duty to remain and no duty to depart: “When they shall persecute you in this city, flee into another” (Matt., x. 23). Hence, if one’s presence is useful but not necessary in time of persecution, it is lawful for one to flee. Some authorities hold that the desertion of Jesus by the disciples during the Passion was not sinful flight.

To refuse to flee when flight is permissible, is usually not advisable, for this is dangerous for most persons. It would be advisable, however, if a person had strong and prudent confidence of his victory, had the right intention, and used the means to prepare himself for the struggle.

Concealment of one’s faith is lawful, if the requisite conditions are present.

(a) Thus, it is not lawful to conceal one’s faith at times when a profession of it is called for by divine or ecclesiastical law (see 991, 1003); at other times it is lawful. Example: Titus is travelling in a country where there are no Catholic churches, and where no one ever asks him about his religion. He never tells anyone what he is.

(b) It is not lawful to conceal one’s faith from a dishonest motive. Example: If Titus conceals his religion in order not to be unjustly discriminated against, his motive is good; but if he wishes to be taken for a non-Catholic, his motive is evil.

(c) It is not lawful to conceal one’s faith in a sinful way. Example: If the means of concealment employed by Titus imply deception or denial of the faith (such as lying about his origin and active participation in non-Catholic worship), he is guilty of sinful concealment. But, if the means employed are permissible (such as silence about himself, omission of grace before and after meals, eating meat on Fridays in virtue of dispensation, etc.), his method of concealment is not sinful.

Generally speaking, concealment of one’s religion is not advisable. (a) The reasons for concealment are often imaginary, rather than real. We see that Catholics who are not ashamed of their religion, or afraid to have it known that they practise it, are respected for their sincerity and conscientiousness even in bigoted regions, while on the contrary those who are apologetic or who do not live up to their religion are looked down on as cowards or hypocrites. (b) The means employed for concealment will cause endless doubts and scruples, for it is often difficult to decide what means are lawful and what unlawful.

Cf. n. 353.

Cf. n. 353.

— 1. By leading a Christian life, the faithful person in reality sufficiently signifies his faith and makes that profession of it which is called material.

2. From c. 1325 § 1: "The faithful of Christ are bound openly to profess the faith, whenever their silence, evasiveness, or manner of acting would carry with it an implicit denial of faith, contempt of religion, injury to God, or scandal of neighbor."

Therefore: formal profession, by the law of nature, is to be made when, unless it were made, great honor due to God or great utility to be procured for the neighbor would be withdrawn, privatively or contrarily. - Privatively, I say, if for that reason great honor of God, or great utility of the neighbor, would cease; which case will be rare. Contrarily, if, because of the omitted profession of faith, God would be affected by injury, the neighbor would suffer grave detriment: for example, religion would be contemned, the neighbor would thereby be turned away from conversion. Charity then commands the profession; indeed faith itself does so, if the detriment would be to faith itself.

Therefore, as often as silence or evasiveness would be equivalent to denial, or would denote fear or inconstancy or shame, faith is to be professed by us, lest we fall into that saying: "He who shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him the Son of man shall be ashamed when he shall come in his majesty" (Luke 9, 26. From the parallel place itself, Matt. 10, 33, it appears that there is question of shame which is morally equivalent to denial). Wherefore, to signify that necessity of fortitude, the Christian to be confirmed is anointed with sacred chrism on the raised forehead. Cf. Lugo, De fide, d. 14, n. 377. To manifest mere fear is not of itself grave, contrary to giving an indication of denial or inconstancy.

Wherefore they regularly judge that an answer is to be given with open profession of faith to a public authority questioning concerning religion, at least if the legal order is observed by the one questioning. Cf. proposition 18a condemned by Innocent XI: "If anyone is questioned by public authority, I counsel that he ingenuously confess the faith as glorious to God and to faith; to be silent I do not condemn as sinful per se" (Denz., n. 1168). For if the law itself has forbidden inquiries into matters of conscience, it will be enough to decline an answer for this reason. And a private man who asks about religion can also be repelled.

This doctrine is confirmed by the cited c. 1325 § 1.

— By ecclesiastical law (cc. 1106-1408), a contrary custom being reprobated, the following must personally and according to the formula approved by the Apostolic See (such as is exhibited at the beginning of the Code) profess the faith:

1. Before the presiding officer, or his delegate: all who are present at a council or synod, even with merely consultative vote; but the presiding officer before the same council or synod;

2. Before the Dean of the Sacred College, the first Cardinals in the order of priests and of deacons, and the Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church: those promoted to the cardinalitial dignity;

3. Before one delegated by the Apostolic See: those promoted to an episcopal See, even non-residential, or to the government of an abbacy or prelature nullius, of an Apostolic vicariate, or of an Apostolic prefecture;

4. Before the cathedral chapter: the capitular Vicar;

5. Before the Ordinary of the place, or his delegate, and before the chapter: those who have been promoted to a dignity or canonry;

6. Before the Ordinary of the place, or his delegate, and before the other consultors: those assumed to the office of diocesan consultors;

7. Before the Ordinary of the place, or his delegate: the Vicar general, pastors, and those for whom provision has been made concerning any benefices, even manual benefices, having the care of souls; the rector, professors of sacred theology, canon law, and philosophy in a seminary, at the beginning of each scholastic year, or at least at the beginning of the office undertaken; all who are to be promoted to the order of subdiaconate; censors of books ex officio in diocesan curias (c. 1393); priests destined for receiving confessions and sacred preachers, before they are endowed with the faculty of exercising those offices;

8. Before the Ordinary or his delegate: the rector of a University or Faculty; but before the rector of the University or Faculty, or his delegate: all professors in a University or Faculty canonically erected, at the beginning of each scholastic year, or at least at the beginning of the office undertaken; likewise those who, after examination, are endowed with academic degrees;

9. Before the chapter or the Superior who nominated them, or their delegate: Superiors in clerical religious institutes.

N. B. "Those who, after relinquishing the former office, obtain another office or benefice or dignity, even of the same species, must again emit the profession of faith" (c. 1406 § 2).

Although c. 1406 now imposes the direct obligation of professing the faith, nevertheless from the old law it can still be said that the Superiors before whom the profession is to be emitted are primarily held by the obligation of seeing to it that the promise of faith be made (Genicot, 197; Arregui, n. 121). Indeed if they themselves refuse to receive the profession of faith, the subjects will be excused by impossibility.

— From the response of the Holy Office, 22 March 1918, the abjurations of modernism prescribed by the decrees of Pius X continue in force until the Holy See shall determine otherwise. Wherefore, the profession of faith having been premised, the following must abjure modernism and hand over the signed formula of the oath:

To the ordaining Bishop: those to be ordained in sacred orders, at least before the subdiaconate; - to the approving Ordinary: future confessors and sacred preachers, before they are endowed with the faculty of exercising those offices (but not when the faculty is prolonged for them); - to the nominating Ordinary: pastors, canons, beneficiaries before entering upon possession of the benefice, and consequently as often as they accede to a new benefice; Lenten preachers; - to the Ordinary of the place or to the Cardinal Prefect or Secretary: officials of the episcopal curia, not excepting the Vicar general; of ecclesiastical tribunals, not excepting the judges; of the Roman Congregations; - to the nominating Superior or chapter: moderators of religious Families and Congregations, before they enter upon the office, and consequently as often as they undertake a new office; - to their own superior: doctors, or lectors, in seminaries and religious institutes, each year, before beginning the lectures. - This obligation primarily affects Superiors: they ought to call those bound to fulfill the obligation. Those who are unwilling to swear are to be reported to the Holy Office at once.

(These things are gathered both from the Motu Proprio, 1 September 1910, and from various declarations of the Sacred Consistorial Congregation, 25 September, 25 October, 17 December 1910. - All are proposed in our Periodica, t. 5 and 6).

You ask whether the profession of faith through the formula of Pius IV, with the definitions of the Vatican Council added, must necessarily be premised to the abjuration of modernism.

There is no doubt that this is laudably done. Yet since in the Motu Proprio itself of 1 September 1910 the profession of faith is distinguished from the formula of the oath, and the Code c. 1406 defines by whom and when the profession of faith is to be made, this profession does not seem strictly to be appended to the abjuration, except when the profession of faith itself is prescribed by the Code. Besides, only the oath is mentioned in the declarations of 25 September 1910, by which annual abjuration is prescribed for Doctors who, from the earlier Motu Proprio Sacrorum Antistitum, had to swear only at the beginning of their office (Cf. Per., V, 200 and 229).

— In no case, whether by voice or by nod, is it lawful exteriorly to deny the faith.

But when profession is not prescribed, it is per se lawful, and sometimes expedient, to conceal the faith, and consequently to do so honestly and without a lie: as if, hidden among heretics or unbelievers, you could accomplish more good, or if more evil is to be feared from confession: disturbances, killings, the exasperation of a tyrant, danger of defection under tortures. Hence voluntarily to offer oneself to the persecutor is for the most part rash. - Nor must one per se obey a general edict by which the faithful are commanded to betray themselves, except, as has just been said, if he who does not appear is commonly regarded as an apostate. Nor is anyone forbidden to obtain by money that no inquiry be made concerning his faith. Much less does he deny the faith, but rather confesses it, who flees persecution. But the pastor must examine what is more advisable for the good of souls: either by the example of fearless confession, or at least by his presence, to confirm the others; or, on the contrary, to withdraw himself for a time so that from a safe place he may administer the territory and reserve himself for the good of more persons.

— It is no more permitted by clothing than by words or by another sign to profess superstition, or adherence to a condemned sect. Wherefore it is not lawful to use clothing which, neither of itself nor from the circumstances, has another immediate signification. But if the immediate signification is diverse, or this is ambiguous or twofold, there will be place for the prudent use of the principle concerning double effect.

Hence they distinguish sacred clothing from profane; among profane clothing, some garments which, as Lehmkuhl says, I, 405, by showing the inhabitants of an unbelieving region, materially distinguish unbelievers from the faithful; others which bear signs for recognizing unbelievers, and by which therefore unbelievers are formally distinguished from the faithful: as the distinctive garments of the Jews were in the City and in Poland. A graver cause indeed is required for using these latter than for the former profane garments. Yet the wearing of such clothing carries another explanation than apostasy. Wherefore only the garments which are used in superstitious functions fall under a sufficiently absolute prohibition, unless a different explanation is positively present.

Lehmkuhl, l. c., and also Genicot, I, 197, assimilate Masonic insignia to garments of sacred use. But we would wish this also to be understood prudently, when they certainly show adherence to a condemned sect. For garments, since in themselves they are indifferent things, easily have an uncertain signification. What, for example, if, to deceive Freemasons, many others momentarily adopt those signs so that true sectarians are not distinguished from false ones; what if, in a city where he is unknown, some traveler, without any scandal, wears the insignia so that he may observe the sectarians; what if, in a dangerous hour, when life is to be feared for, an unknown Catholic, not specially asked to manifest adherence by this sign, protects himself with those insignia in order to flee persecution? Does not the signification become ambiguous from the circumstances themselves, and consequently will it not be able to be tolerated for a proportionate cause?

This is the rule. The less the signification is definite of itself, the more easily, from the circumstances themselves, it is rendered uncertain. Genicot himself, I, 197, whom others follow, allows that whether to deceive them, or to obtain their benevolence, you may use gestures by which sectarians recognize one another, "because it does not seem equivalent to a profession of the sect."

— Since the eating of meats of itself says no profession of religion, and for various causes meats are eaten even by Catholics on a day of abstinence, it is altogether lawful, for declining grave danger - not however for fleeing mockery ¹ - to dissemble the faith by eating meats. Indeed, to avoid rashness, this per se is to be done. Except if that eating is demanded in hatred of the faith. Then, without protestation, they cannot be eaten. Suppose it to be established by the guests that he who is an enemy of Catholicism should eat meats: it would not be lawful to eat them unless by protesting the faith.

Nor otherwise, if in conversation someone presents you as an adversary of the faith, could you be silent, unless your whole bearing betrayed a different cause of silence.

¹ According to the cause or form of mockery, that shame could be opposed to faith or to religion.

Illicit Concealment. — Because faith must sometimes be professed, every concealment of faith which betrays the shame concerning which the Lord says in the Gospel is to be condemned: "He who shall be ashamed of me and of my words: of him the Son of man shall be ashamed, when he shall come in his majesty and that of the Father and of the holy angels" (Luke 9, 26). Nor is it lawful to receive into the Church someone who would wish to be merely a hidden Christian through his whole life. But the circumstances can be such that even a merely individual exterior profession would give occasion to excessive evil; indeed, that the public good would command silence. As long as such circumstances remain, it will be lawful to be a hidden Christian and to satisfy the debt of Christian profession through a posthumous revelation, committed to a trustworthy man, as soon as this can be done without common or prevailing harm.

— I. Besides the material profession of faith which a Christian life led entails, formal profession is to be made: 1. by the law of nature, when it is required lest God be deprived of great honor or the neighbor of great utility; much more lest God be affected by injury, or the neighbor by grave harm. The obligation is of charity, indeed of faith, if the detriment to be avoided would be of faith. Therefore as often as silence or evasiveness would be an indication of denial or inconstancy, faith is to be professed: this regularly happens when public authority, the legal order being observed, asks about religion (cf. c. 1325, § 1); - 2. by ecclesiastical law, a contrary custom being reprobated, those indicated in c. 1406 must personally profess the faith. Moreover, from the response of the Holy Office, 22 March 1918, the abjurations of modernism prescribed by Pius X continue in force until the Holy See shall determine otherwise. The profession of faith must be placed before these abjurations, whenever c. 1406 commands it to be made.

II. It is never lawful exteriorly to deny the faith; to conceal it is per se lawful and sometimes expedient. Wherefore it would be wrong to use garments which neither of themselves nor from the circumstances had another immediate signification than that of superstition. If the signification were ambiguous, the principles concerning double effect will have to be applied prudently. Nearly the same is to be said concerning Masonic insignia. Unless the eating of meats is demanded in hatred of the faith, to dissemble the faith by eating meats is not forbidden. - But, on the other hand, it is not lawful for one converted to the faith to conceal his conversion perpetually, at least from a private cause: he would sin against the obligation of professing the faith.

505. The divine precept of professing faith obliges: 1. when from the omission of this confession the honor due to God is withdrawn; 2. when the utility of one's neighbor demands it. Thus the Angelic Doctor⁴⁶ establishes rules which are admitted by all theologians.

1. The honor of God to be preserved demands the profession of faith: a) when someone is questioned about his faith by public authority; b) when someone is moved in hatred of religion to deny faith by word or deed.

To a) Theologians commonly teach that a Catholic man is bound (even with danger of life) candidly to confess his faith if he is questioned by public authority in a cause of faith, because otherwise great scandal and grave irreverence against God are committed. And therefore on March 2, 1679, Innocent XI condemned the following proposition (18): "If someone is questioned by public power, I advise ingenuously confessing faith as glorious to God and faith; I do not condemn silence as sinful per se."⁴⁷ But if someone were questioned not about faith, but about his state, e.g. whether he is a priest, monk, etc., and concealed the truth, he would not sin against faith, but perhaps against truth, or also against charity, if his neighbor were to suffer scandal from it. But if public authority, by persecuting religion, commands by general edict that the faithful present themselves or betray themselves by a certain sign, no one is bound to obey, because such a law is altogether unjust and therefore does not bind in conscience. Wherefore, in persecutions of Christians, the faithful and priests can conceal themselves, indeed also flee, as is clear both from the words of Christ: "If they persecute you in this city, flee into another,"⁴⁸ and from his own example and that of the Apostles.⁴⁹

505. But pastors of souls then would have to remain even with danger of life, if their flight would expose the people committed to them to grave danger of apostasy. For "the good shepherd gives his life for his sheep; but the hireling ... sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf catches and scatters the sheep."⁵⁰

If someone is questioned about faith by a private person, he is not bound (at least per se) to confess the truth, but can be silent or give an evasive response. The reason is that in this case silence or an evasive response is not irreverence toward God, but rather slighting of the questioner, who has no right of putting questions of this kind. But by accident, even in this case of a private question, the one questioned would have to confess the truth, if namely "from this it would be believed either that he did not have faith, or that faith was not true, or that others through his silence would be turned away from faith."⁵¹

To b) If someone, in hatred of religion or faith, is moved by public or even private authority to act by word or deed against faith, certainly he cannot obey, but must profess the true faith. Thus, e.g., if a master out of hatred of the Catholic religion wished to compel servants to eat meat on prohibited days, then they could not silently obey, but would have to either refuse obedience absolutely, or say openly to the master: We venerate our Church and obey her; but, placed in great necessity, we eat meat, because in these circumstances the Church herself dispenses us from her law.⁵²

⁴⁶ S. theol. l. c. This precept is expressed in the Code of Canon Law, c. 1325, § 1, in these words: "The faithful of Christ are bound openly to profess faith whenever their silence, evasion, or manner of acting would carry with it an implicit denial of faith, contempt of religion, injury to God, or scandal of neighbor."

⁴⁷ Denz. n. 1168.

⁴⁸ Matt. 10, 23.

⁴⁹ John 8, 59; 10, 39; 2 Cor. 11, 33; Acts 12, 8 sqq.

⁵⁰ John 10, 11 sqq.

⁵¹ S. theol. 2, 2, q. 3, a. 2.

⁵² Cf. St. Alph., Theol. mor. l. 2, 15 at the end; Konings, Theol. mor. n. 137; Aertnys, Theol. mor. l. 2, n. 8, q. 6.

St. Thomas, II-II, q. 3.

711. Confession of faith is its external manifestation through some sign suitable for this. It is an external act of the virtue of faith, because it is produced immediately by faith, with no other habit mediating; whence confession of faith according to object and species is directly ordered to faith as to an end.

From natural-divine law there is given a precept, obliging under grave obligation, of confessing faith outwardly; this precept is at once affirmative and negative (can. 1325, § 1).

712. Insofar as it is negative, the precept of confessing faith prohibits, in any case or danger whatever, even of death, expressly or tacitly, by word or sign or deed (by silence, for example), outwardly to deny the faith or to profess or simulate a false faith. For he who acted thus would at least implicitly say either that God reveals false things or that He did not reveal the dogmas of the Christian faith, each of which is most injurious to God. Hence Christ: "But he who shall deny me before men, I also will deny him before my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. X, 32, 33; cf. Luke IX, 26; XII, 8-9; II Tim. II, 12).

This can happen in two ways: a) directly and explicitly, when someone knowingly denies the faith or professes a false one; b) indirectly and implicitly, if without the intention of denying he places an action which is held by others as a denial of faith, such as assisting at or participating in heretical rites can be (for example, receiving the Calvinist supper).

Therefore they sin against faith:

1. by words, who openly, seriously or fictitiously, deny even one article of faith, or deny that they are Christians or Catholics, or say that they are disciples of another sect (Old Catholics, rationalists, positivists, Mohammedans), or deny that they are papists, ultramontanes, clericals, ... in regions in which those words signify nothing except a Catholic by religion;

2. by deeds: those who for concealing faith employ the rites or ceremonies of false worship, such as burning incense, genuflecting or sacrificing before an idol (S. C. de Prop. F., September 12, 1645), receiving the Calvinist supper, using circumcision as a religious rite, etc.;

3. likewise those who with money buy a certificate that they have professed a false religion (libellatici);

4. likewise those who place an action which from itself or from circumstances signifies the profession of a false religion, for example, to drink to the death of Papists or to the health of the enemies of the Church, to pray, sing, etc., together with them, to give one's name to a heretical, schismatic, Masonic sect, to an anti-Catholic or biblical society, for whatever cause;

5. generally those who use garments, gestures of the hands, or signs specially professive of a false religion, such as sacred garments which display honor to the Prophet, to an idol, etc. (S. C. P. F., March 23, 1844), and insignia or signs professive of Freemasons;

6. generally those who, when questioned concerning the faith by name and personally by public power, are silent or use ambiguous words (which, for example, are taken by the questioner as a denial): for this, on account of the circumstances, according to common estimation, is considered as denial or shame of faith, or fear of imminent punishment (prop. 18 condemned by Innocent XI).

I said generally, because, if on account of certain altogether peculiar circumstances it were manifest to all that those things are not a denial of religion or shame concerning it, for example, if silence were held by those present rather as a confession of faith, or if the law openly established that no public power is permitted to insert itself into the conscience of citizens, it would not be illicit. But when this happens is left to be determined by prudent estimation.

713. Insofar as it is affirmative, the precept of confessing faith commands, even sometimes with danger of life, the external confession of faith, and indeed in a twofold case: 1. when by the omission of this confession, privatively a great honor due to God would be subtracted, or positively or contrarily God would be affected by a great injury; hence not only one questioned concerning faith, who by silence is held as an infidel, must confess and procure great honor for God, but also he who sees sacred things trampled upon by infidels or heretics is bound to prevent it if he can, and he who hears the faith attacked must contradict if he can or impose silence on those attacking, or profess the faith, if these are judged useful or likely to profit; 2. when, by not confessing faith, grave spiritual harm would arise for one's neighbor, such as contempt of religion, the perversion of the faithful, scandal, for example, if, with someone being silent, others would believe that the faith was not true and would be turned away from the faith, or would be delayed for a long time, or would not be converted to the faith. Hence Rom. X, 9, 10: "If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart..., you will be saved: for with the heart one believes unto justice, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."

For faith itself obliges us to confess it when, by omitting confession, injury is done to God in faith or one's neighbor suffers detriment.

714. Applications. - Since an affirmative precept does not oblige for always, hence per se and generally they do not sin, at least against faith, by words, signs, or acts:

1. who conceal or dissemble faith but for a grave cause;

2. who, when questioned by a private man, out of contempt either are silent or use equivocal words;

3. who deny or are silent that they are priests, religious, etc.;

4. a fortiori who, lest they be recognized as Catholics, eat meats, or do not assist at Mass, do not pray before or after lunch, unless this were expressly demanded in hatred of religion, disobedience to the Church, profession of a false sect;

5. indeed who for a graver cause use garments or signs distinctive of a nation, and also probably of a false religion only;

6. likewise those who flee in time of persecution (Matt. X, 23); pastors of souls are excepted, who would flee with the spiritual harm of these souls (John X, 11);

7. who pay money so that others may not harm them or inquire concerning their faith;

8. who, when the prince commands that Catholics betray themselves or appear, are unwilling to appear or betray themselves.

I say generally, for if the aforesaid actions from special circumstances were held by others as denial or shame of faith, or if great honor would be subtracted from God, or grave scandal would arise, they would be sinful against faith and must be abandoned. But when this happens is left to be determined by prudent estimation.

715. Observations. - 1. From other precepts or virtues we are also sometimes obliged to external confession of faith, for example, in the reception of Baptism (cf. ritual) or of another sacrament, by reason of external worship and adherence to the Church, from the precept of the Church (Holy Office, July 20, 1859; can. 1406-1408), etc. But in those cases it is not the precept itself of faith which obliges us.

2. Sometimes it is necessary to conceal faith, whenever, the precept of confessing faith not urging, from its confession religion would be more blasphemed, or disturbances would arise, or danger of death would have to be undergone, or other grave harms would follow (St. Thomas, a. 2, ad 3).

3. Concerning communication with infidels and heretics, it will be said in the fourth part.

4. Noldin notes: "If somewhere political power prohibits conversion to the true faith before a certain year of age (16 or 18), the law is impious, nor is it lawful for him who is persuaded concerning the truth of the Catholic religion to defer the profession of faith longer on account of civil law. Pastors of souls are bound to admit to the profession of faith those who ask to be enrolled in the bosom of the Church, notwithstanding whatever temporal evil, proper or alien. But to avoid the evils which from civil law would threaten both the parish priest and the one to be converted, it can be permitted that by mutual consent conversion be deferred to lawful age, or that a conversion already made be concealed until that age, if it is already close at hand," Theologia Moralis, II, n. 14. But internal adherence must immediately be given to faith, nor can it be deferred.

5. Yet union with the Church and profession of faith per se must be made publicly, nor must they be concealed at least perpetually, as the constant praxis of the Church bears. Whence:

a) "Outside the case of necessity it is not lawful to baptize an adult or admit him to conversion secretly, with only the priest knowing, but this must be done publicly before others, at least two witnesses. Therefore the Church prescribes that the abjuration of heresy, which is required from neoconverts, be made before two witnesses and that the conversion made be inserted into the parish books, both so that satisfaction may be made to the obligation of professing faith, and so that the convert may be subject to the jurisdiction of the Church in the external forum...

b) Therefore it was established that a Mohammedan cannot be admitted to Baptism who, on account of danger of life, wishes to be and remain a hidden Christian, but that he must transfer himself to places where he can publicly profess the Christian religion (S. C. de Prop. F., May 28, 1635).

c) In the case of necessity, where namely a dying person from a reasonable grave cause refuses public conversion to the faith, he can be received into the Church altogether secretly by any priest, so that his salvation may be provided for, unless the reason of preventing scandal or promoting the salvation of one's neighbor demands otherwise, as in a man of great dignity and authority. But even in this case conversion can be made before two witnesses only, who can afterwards divulge the matter, if there is need" (ibid., n. 16, 2; cf. Holy Office, July 25, 1630).

d) Likewise "some heretic or pagan, who wishes to embrace the true faith but cannot accomplish this without great temporal inconveniences, can secretly before two discreet witnesses be received into the bosom of the Church (and conceal this for a time). But after conversion he can no longer perform acts which are a profession of heresy or paganism, for example, receive the Protestant supper, contract marriage before a non-Catholic minister, wear signs signifying idolatry, etc. But he could perform other things which are not a direct profession of heterodox faith, as, for example, visit the temples of heretics, assist (merely) at a non-Catholic funeral, indeed once or twice assist at a non-Catholic sermon, provided nevertheless that danger of perversion or scandal is absent," Prummer, Theologia Moralis I, n. 507, resol. 1.

6. Prummer notes, ibid., n. 507, 5: "In practice it cannot always easily be distinguished whether concealment of faith is lawful or not. Generally speaking, it is much better to profess faith candidly, because the harms arising from profession are not wont to be so great as they appear at first sight. On the contrary, from an honest profession of faith the greatest goods are wont to be produced both for the one professing himself, and for others admiring his good example."

VI. Question IV. Are those who have the care of souls bound to make public profession of the faith? Answer. All affirm it; and this the Council of Trent decreed, session 24, chapter 12. The Tridentine decree Pius IV confirmed and amplified in his motu proprio whose beginning is Injunctum nobis. And again St. Pius V, in his constitution which begins In sacrosancta, etc., commands that all Doctors, Masters, Regents, Lecturers, Preachers, etc., make the profession of faith. And these decrees oblige under grave fault, as the common opinion teaches. Beneficiaries having the care of souls are bound, within two months from the day of peaceful possession, to make the profession of faith in the hands of the Bishop or his Vicar; otherwise they do not make the fruits their own, and are bound to restitution, as the more common and more probable opinion teaches. See Tome I on the Decalogue, book 1, dissertation I, chapter 13. To the aforesaid constitutions are subject also Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops.

Faith exacts from us the duty of the heart and of the tongue, as D. August. says lib. de fide, et Symb. cap. 1. I have already treated of the Acts of the heart; now of the Confession of faith.

But it is certain concerning the faith that there exists a divine precept against denying the faith. So D. Bonaventure ad 9. Lucae, which he proves from there: Whoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words: of him the Son of man shall be ashamed, when he shall come in his Majesty. There follow D. Thom. quaest. 3. art. 1., Valencia quaest. 3. p. 2., Fagundez lib. 1. cap. 3. So the Councils teach: Nicaenum can. 11. et 12., Ancyr. almost entirely, and Elibert. can. 1. et 2., where they testify that innumerable Martyrs underwent torments and deaths on account of the confession of the faith, which we are bound rather to undergo than to deny the faith. Therefore it is said Matth. 10. Whoever shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father. Fear not those who kill the body, as the Holy Doctor notes in 3. dist. 39. art. 3. quaest. 2. et sermone 18. de pluribus Martyribus. See Valencia quaest. 3. p. 1., Fagundez cap. 3., Tanner disp. 1. quaest. 7. dub. 5., Fuliensis lib. 3. cap. 5.

Observe that some acts of a virtue are produced by the habit itself, and are physical, and in this way only the internal acts are acts of FAITH; for they are produced by the same habit, of which this is the sign, that they reside in the same potency in which the habit is. Secondly, some are acts of the virtue only morally, because they have praise on account of the formal object of the Virtue, and are ordered to it as to their end; and in this way even the external confession of faith is an act of the virtue of faith. It is proved: for it is ordered to the same end and the same object, as is had in 2. Corinth. 4. Having the same spirit of faith, we believe, for which cause we also speak. Hence it can be said that the Confession of faith pertains to various virtues; for instance to Religion, insofar as it begets honor for God: and to fortitude, insofar as on account of imminent peril it can be arduous, as the Holy Doctor teaches de Dono fortitudinis.

The Confession of FAITH therefore binds in two cases. First, when the worship due to God would otherwise be withheld. Secondly, if a grave spiritual benefit would be withheld from the people.

It is proved by D. Thom. ad primum. The act of some Virtue is necessary then, when it is necessary for the end of charity toward God or neighbor. But in those two cases the confession of faith is necessary for the end of charity. Therefore. The major is proved, for the end of every virtue is ordered to charity. The minor is proved; for, when one can attend to the honor of God or the salvation of his neighbor, and does not wish to, he is not judged to provide for charity. Add the times assigned by the Council of Trent for the profession of faith. See Fagundez lib. 1. cap. 4., Bassaeum verb. fides 2. num. 5.

The first question therefore is: Whether in some case one can deny that he is a believer. But this can be denied in two ways. First, lest it be believed that he is a Christian or Catholic by those who understand by that name some wicked and odious nation; and in this sense it is not a sin to deny that one is a Catholic or Christian, by which someone of such a wicked nation is understood. Valencia brings examples: see him. But in the second way, to deny oneself a Christian to one who understands rightly, is not licit. So commonly all the Doctors with D. Bonaventure 3. dist. 25. et p. 6., Breuil. cap. 8., D. Thom. 2. 2. quaest. 3. art. 2., where Cajetanus, Aragon. and other Thomists; Azor lib. 8. cap. 27., Suarez disp. 4. sect. 1., Sanchez lib. 2. cap. 5., Becanus p. 2. cap. 9. n. 30. and others, cited by Fagundez lib. 1. cap. 3., Tanner. loc. cit.

It is proved from the Holy Doctor in the places cited, and ad 22. Lucae, et 19. Ioannis from the fault of Peter, who denied Christ out of fear of death, and sinned gravely, as the Fathers confess, especially those cited by him, Chrysost. homil. 82., August. tract. 113., Gregory homil. 21. in Evangelia.

Next it is doubted: Whether one who is questioned about the faith by a Tyrant out of hatred for it can keep silence or change the subject.

D. Thom. quaest. 2. art. 2. denies it, as often as by that silence or answer he could be judged not to have the faith. Others follow him. The foundation is taken from the chapter Nolite timere 11. quaest. 3. It seems D. Bonaventure holds it ad 12. Lucae on those words: Be not terrified by those who kill the body. And he brings 1. Machab. 2. for it: Fear not the words of a sinful man. Take courage, and act manfully in the Law.

Others say he can keep silence or change the subject. So Aragon. quaest. 3. art. 2., Roder. cap. 119. Summae.

Others bring forward that one is bound to confess clearly, if he be a grave person, such as a Bishop or Doctor. So Valencia disp. 1. quaest. 3., Sanchez lib. 2. cap. 4.

Others say one is bound, if he is questioned publicly by a Tyrant. So Valencia loc. cit., Azor. cap. 27. quaestio 1., Tanner. num. 120., Aragon. quaest. 3. art. 2., Bannes q. 3. art. 2. et others cited by Fagundez cap. 5. The reason is; because then honor is detracted from God, if you do not confess. This the Holy Doctor seems to hint serm. 18. Martyrum. Accinit Fuliens.

It is asked thirdly. Whether through feigned external acts of a false religion it is licit to conceal the true faith, for instance by bending the knee to an Idol.

ADRIANUS in 4. Tract. de Baptismo, quaest. 1. art. 1. ad 5. says it is licit when a most grave cause urges. He brings D. Hieronymum 2. ad Galat. et epist. 89. ad August., where he teaches that the Apostles by cautious simulation exercised the ceremonies of the Law, now deadly.

It is PROVED first from 1. Reg. 5., where Naaman petitioned Eliseus: But this only is that for which you shall beseech the Lord for your servant, when my master goes into the temple of Remmon to adore, and he leans upon my hand: if I adore in the temple of Remmon, when he adores in the same place, that the Lord may forgive your servant for this thing, to which Eliseus answered: Go in peace, signifying that it was licit.

SECONDLY from 4. Reg. 10. the example of Jehu, who feigned that he wished to sacrifice to Baal, that he might draw the priests of Baal into the snare, and he seems to be praised by God: Diligently you did what was right, and pleased in my eyes. This example D. Bonaventure brought 3. dist. 38. quaest. 1. ad 3., where he says that the simulation of Jehu, feigning that he wished to adore Baal, is not a lie, but a simulation of prudence. On account of these words some draw the Seraphic Doctor to the opinion of Adrian. But the Holy Doctor does not exempt Jehu from sin against faith.

The true opinion therefore is, that it is not licit: So it seems to D. Bonaventure 4. dist. 33. dub. 8. litt. et loc. cit. Brevil. and D. Thom. quaest. 3. art. 2., where Cajetanus, Valencia quaest. 3. p. 2. dub. 4. and other Interpreters, Ales. 3. p. quaest. 183. membr. 2., D. Antonin. 2. p. tit. 22. cap. 6., Sylvest. verb. fides, quaest. 5., Armil. ibi num. 9., Ang. verbo Infidelitas, num. 8, Nauar. cap. 11. num. 23., Toletus lib. 4. summae, cap. 2., Vasquez disp. 182. cap. 5., Suarez de fide disp 14. sect. 4. et lib. 9. de leg. cap. 17. et in defensione fidei, lib. 6. cap. 9., Becanus 2. p. summae, cap. 9. quaest. 5., and others commonly, Fagundez lib. 1. cap. 6., Caspens. disp. 3. sect. 7. num. 61., Tanner. quaest. 7. disp. 5., Morand. quest. 11., Sanchez lib. 2. cap. 4. num. 14., who condemn the opposing opinion as error. And because they involve the Seraphic Doctor in it, I shall bring other passages in which he holds this second opinion absolutely. The first is prima parte Centil. sect. 26., where he wills that idolatry is committed absolutely by genuflecting, or evaporating incense to an Idol. The same he teaches ad caput 15. Sap. on these words: They are worthy of death who hope in such things.

It is proved first from that 1. Cor. 10. I would not have you become partakers of demons: you cannot drink the chalice of the Lord and the chalice of demons. The same is gathered from chapter 10.

It is proved by the reasoning of D. Bonaventure, because external worship contains superstitious worship intrinsically, because it was instituted for religious use.

To D. Hieronymus it is answered, that those ceremonies were for the worship of the true God, and were not yet declared harmful. See Tract. de Legibus, disput. penultima.

To the example of Jehu it is answered with D. Bonaventure loc. cit., D. August. lib. cont. Mendacium, and D. Thomas 2. 2. quaest. 3. art. 1., that Jehu is not excused from lying, or from the simulation of religion. Therefore he is not praised thus: Diligently you spoke. But: you did it, by killing the sons of Achab. See Vasquez num. 70., Tanner. 104, Fulsensem loc. cit.

Therefore he is excused only with respect to the prudence directed to the worship and obedience of God, not with respect to the sheer falsehood and simulation.

As to Naaman it is answered, that he asked only that he might show political deference to his lord, as Abul. quaest. 20. explains it, Cajetanus, Lyra, and Burgen. ibi. Then, even supposing he had asked to worship the Idol with external worship. Valencia and Fagundez answered: Eliseus did not consent, but only said: Go in peace, which could also have the sense of one reproving.

I answer more easily, that he asked that Eliseus should pray for him on account of the sin of entering the temple of Remmon, for which he ought to have been rebuked by Eliseus, and he did not improve. Therefore he says: Go in peace, as if to say: Since there is no hope of amendment, I shall pray for you: Go. Certainly Eliseus had admonished him as an idolater about this superstitious worship; for why else would his stricken conscience say to him that he should pray for him on account of this sin? Therefore the prophet does not retract, but only dismisses him; just as a poor man is dismissed to whom you do not wish to give alms: Go in peace: For prayer is a spiritual alms.

From what has been said it is gathered that neither can garments expressing superstitious worship be used, which are the sign of a Sect (although Fulsens. hints otherwise). As to garments signifying only politically a false sect, such as the yellow cap of the Hebrews, there are various opinions: some affirm; others deny. See Fagundez cap. 7., where he cites ten authors for the affirmative, namely that it is licit; and the same number for the negative. But garments which signify only the usage of a people are not forbidden. It is licit even to go to the temples of heretics, to confute their sermons. See Valencia quaest. 3. p. 2., Azor. cap. 27. quaestio 5., Tanner. num. 123. Not, however, where worship is presumed, as in England, by the Decree of Paul V.