Heresy

All who have sufficient knowledge of the Gospel are bound to embrace and believe it: “‘ He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned.¹ A grave sin, then, is committed by one who rejects the faith when it has been sufficiently made known to him with adequate grounds for believing, and this grave sin is called infidelity. This positive infidelity is distinguished from privative and negative infidelity. One who has the opportunity of knowing the faith, and recognizes the obligation of making inquiries about it, but neglects to do so, commits the sin of privative infidelity. This is also a grave sin if the degree of negligence be grave. One who has no opportunity of learning the faith, or who does not advert to the obligation of making inquiries, is in negative infidelity. This is not sinful, but St Thomas² teaches that it is the penalty of sin, inasmuch as if a man were faithful to the light that he has in natural reason, God would take care that he should have an opportunity of knowing the faith even if it were necessary to send him a special messenger, or an angel from heaven, to make the Gospel known to him. If, then, the Gospel is not preached to every man, not God but men are to be blamed for it.

¹ Mark xvi 16.

² De Verit., q. 14, a. 11, ad I.

Heresy is the rejection by one who has embraced the faith of some portion of revealed truth which is proposed by the Church for our belief. If the rejection is voluntary and accompanied with full knowledge that what is rejected is proposed by the Church as an article of faith, the heresy is formal. Otherwise it will only be material.

It is not heresy, though sinful, to reject what is known to have been revealed by God in a private revelation; private revelations are not proposed by the Church for our belief. Nor is it heresy, but disobedience, to reject what is proposed by the infallible authority of the Church for our acceptance, but which forms no part of divine revelation. One who 1 Mark xvi r. denied that a canonized saint is in heaven would not be a heretic, but he would be disobedient to the Church, who assures us with divine authority that he is in heaven, and bids us honour him as a saint. Formal heresy is committed not only by knowingly and wilfully rejecting a revealed truth which is proposed for our belief by the Church, but by wilfully doubting about such a revealed truth. For such a one positively doubts whether a portion of God’s revelation is true, and thereby injures him as much as if he asserted that it was untrue. Similarly one who would not submit to the Church’s decision, even if she defined some doctrine to be of faith, is a formal heretic. Negative doubt, by which assent to a revealed truth is withheld or suspended, and voluntary ignorance of the true Church or of other necessary truths of faith, are sinful, but they do not constitute formal heresy. Great numbers of baptized Christians who were born of schismatical and heretical parents, and who do not know the true Church, are material, not formal heretics. When they begin to doubt about their position, and advert to the obligation they are under of making inquiries, they sin against the faith, more or less grievously according to their negligence, if they remain as they are. They do not become formal heretics until the truth fully dawns upon them, or they are so disposed that they would not submit to the Church even if they knew that she alone is the true Church of Christ.

Heresy is punished by the Church as a crime which attacks the foundations and the very raison d’étre of her existence. In order to incur the penalties inflicted on heresy, the sin must be both formal and external, for the Church in her external forum does not take cognizance of sins of thought. The external act must be such as of its own nature, or from custom, or from the special circumstances, is held sufficient to manifest an heretical mind. The reception of the sacrament in an Anglican church, or being married in a non-Catholic place of worship by a non-Catholic minister, are considered acts of heresy and punished as such by excommunication.

A special form for the reception of converts into the Church, based on various Roman decrees, has been approved by the English Bishops.

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

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

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

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

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

2. Division. Heresy is distinguished:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Corollary II. The following is not a heretic:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

³ Van Noort, De fide divina, n. 280.

III. Acceptance of propositions condemned by a note lower than heresy. Besides the sins explained under I and II, which exclude faith, there are others by which believers who retain faith in some way sin against faith, for example if someone culpably is ignorant of things which according to the above notes must be known; likewise if someone maintains propositions condemned by a note lower than heresy; concerning these we must speak more fully.¹

I set forth first can. 1324: "It is not enough to avoid heretical depravity, but it is also necessary diligently to flee those errors which more or less approach it; wherefore all must also observe the constitutions and decrees by which evil opinions of this sort have been proscribed and prohibited by the Holy See." And can. 2317: "Those who pertinaciously teach or defend, whether publicly or privately, a doctrine which has indeed been condemned by the Apostolic See or by a General Council, but not as formally heretical, are to be barred from the ministry of preaching the word of God or hearing sacramental confessions and from any office of teaching, without prejudice to other penalties which the sentence of condemnation may perhaps have established, or which the Ordinary, after warning, has judged necessary for repairing scandal."

1. What are the lower notes? Among these:

a) Some directly signify the falsity of a proposition. Thus: 1. proximate to heresy is that which denies what is proximate to faith, that is, what is commonly held as revealed, but not yet defined as such by the Church; 2. erroneous is that which denies what is theologically certain, that is, what, by mediation of another naturally evident truth, is certainly gathered from revealed doctrine; 3. proximate to error is that which denies what is most probably deduced from revealed doctrine; 4. rash is that which is defended against the common opinion without a solid argument.

b) Others directly indicate that some proposition is brought forward incautiously. Thus: 1. savoring of heresy or suspected of heresy is that which, after inspection of the words and various circumstances, gives occasion for suspecting that some other heresy is in the author; 2. savoring of error or suspected of error is that which gives occasion for suspecting that another erroneous proposition is admitted by the author; 3. ill-sounding is that by which matters pertaining to faith and morals are brought forward beside and against the received manner of speaking; 4. offensive to pious ears is that which states something that weakens the piety of the faithful, or expresses something in such a way that a similar effect follows.

c) Others directly designate some evil influence of a proposition. Thus: 1. scandalous is that which gives those hearing it occasion of spiritual ruin; 2. contumelious is that which is opposed to the honor due to another; it is called blasphemous if it inflicts injury upon God or the things of God as such; 3. schismatic is that which is opposed to the unity of the Church.

2. To what extent must account be taken of the lower notes? Account must be taken of them as follows:

a) If some note has been inflicted on some doctrine by the Church, that doctrine must be held as such, for example as scandalous, contumelious, etc. (can. 1324, 2317). Yet one who does not take account of the lower notes, although he sins, nevertheless is not thereby already a heretic. Sometimes, however, he will easily fall into heresy, for example if someone admits a proposition which is called erroneous; for one who denies what is certainly gathered from revealed doctrine by mediation of some naturally evident truth will easily deny revealed doctrine itself. Besides this, those who externally do not take account of the lower notes must also be accused of scandal.

b) As regards doctrinal declarations issued either by the Supreme Pontiff, yet not by definitive judgment, or by a Congregation which can issue declarations of this sort, as, for example, the Holy Office, as regards these declarations, I say:

alpha) Some subjection is certainly required, as is clear from the Apostolic Letter of Pius IX to the Archbishop of Munich;² likewise from the decree of the Holy Office Lamentabili,³ which Pius X confirmed by his Motu Proprio on November 18, 1907; finally, from those things which Pius X declares in the same Motu Proprio concerning the Biblical Commission: "We declare for the present and expressly command that all, every one, are bound in conscience by the duty of subjecting themselves to the judgments of the Pontifical Council on Biblical matters, pertaining to doctrine..., just as to the decrees of the Sacred Congregations pertaining to doctrine and approved by the Pontiff; nor can all those who impugn such judgments in words or writings avoid the mark both of withheld obedience and of rashness, or therefore be free from grave fault." Besides, it seems altogether consonant that the Church can in some way delegate to others the power of the magisterium, which is not merely doctrinal but authoritative. Now to this right and faculty there corresponds in subjects the obligation of taking account of the things which are taught by those to whom the aforesaid power has in fact in some way been delegated.

beta) External subjection is certainly required; for this at least must be gathered from the documents cited. Indeed, that it is required under grave obligation is clear both from the fact that a grave matter is involved, and from the cited words of the Motu Proprio of Pius X.

gamma) Authors quite commonly teach that even internal assent is required, and it is rightly deduced from the Letter of Pius IX and the obvious sense of the other documents. Nor should you object that the Church lacks the faculty of imposing merely internal acts. It cannot impose acts of this sort by its own authority, but it can do so by vicarious authority (n. 117). Firm assent, however, is not required, because definitive decrees are not in question; rather, an opinionative assent suffices, an assent which, moreover, the said decrees truly deserve. For first, the Sacred Congregations consist of men most versed in the matters which pertain to their province. Then those men in Rome have continual intercourse both with the Supreme Pontiff and with the whole episcopate, so that the sense of the universal magisterium becomes known to them more easily. Finally, it is difficult to deny that, especially upon those to whom the Supreme Pontiff has in some measure delegated his magisterium, something of the divine assistance promised to the Church redounds. Besides this, opinionative assent seems to be required under grave obligation, because the matter seems grave. Yet:

delta) It is licit, provided internal assent is furnished, to study further the matter which the decrees regard, even with the intention of inquiring whether they are true or not. This seems to follow from the nature of the thing, since the Roman Congregations cannot settle the question. But when the question has not been settled, it is licit to undertake further inquiry, and that even with the intention that the truth may be made clear. This is confirmed by the letters given by Cardinal Vaughan to Wilfrid Ward.⁴

epsilon) It is licit afterward, for a very grave cause, to withhold assent first given, indeed even to adhere to the contrary opinion; for example, as regards a learned man, if, after the matter has been investigated further, he finds a new and grave reason; as regards the less learned, if other grave and God-fearing authors already withhold assent or adhere to the contrary opinion.

Now that reason for denying assent, indeed for adhering to the contrary opinion, will occur more easily if the matter concerns decrees of the Pontifical Council on Biblical matters than if it concerns decrees of other Congregations, in other words, if it concerns scriptural matter rather than dogmatic or moral matter. For in biblical matters, whose decision often depends on external arguments both critical and historical, new arguments are more easily found than in a moral or dogmatic matter, which is often decided by internal arguments alone. For the same reason it seems it must be said that an assent equally efficacious as that owed to decrees of other Congregations is not owed to decrees of the Pontifical Council on Biblical matters. For since it can happen more easily that new arguments are found, the fear of error is greater. Indeed I would not say that decrees of the Pontifical Council have less authority in themselves; but the condition on account of which it is licit to withhold assent will more easily exist; hence the fear of erring is greater.

zeta) Finally, it is not illicit to propose new arguments which have been found, certainly with due reverence.

¹ Cf. Waffelaert, Annotationes in tractatum de virtutibus theologicis, n. 229 sq.; besides, different authors explain several lower notes in different ways.

² December 21, 1863.

³ July 3, 1907.

⁴ Cf. The Guardian, June 4, 1897.

Contrary unbelief (see 818), which not only refuses to believe but also assents to contrary errors, has three degrees according to the greater or less number of truths denied or errors admitted in these three degrees. Some theologians see different species of unbelief, while other theologians regard them as only accidental modes or circumstances of the one species of sin.

(a) The most extensive denial of faith is found in infidelity, which rejects both Christ and His revelation. To this form of unbelief belong atheism, agnosticism, pantheism, paganism, polytheism, animism, and denials of Christ and Christianity. The chief religious bodies today that profess such errors are: Confucianism, Taoism and Shintoism (founded in China and Japan), which are polytheistic and practise idolatry and ancestor worship; Brahmanism (founded about 14 centuries before Christ), which is polytheistic or animistic: Buddhism (founded 6th century B.C. in India), which is polytheistic and practises idolatry; Zoroastrianism (founded in Persia about the 7th century B.C.), which is dualistic; Mohammedanism (founded in Arabia in the 6th century A.D.), which makes Mohammed and his religion superior to Christ and Christianity, and rejects the Trinity and the Incarnation. (b) A less complete departure from faith is found when Christ and His revelation are accepted as contained in the figures and prophecies of the Old Testament, but rejected in their fulfillment and development in Jesus and the New Testament. This is the error of Judaism, which today has about 15 million adherents.

(c) A still smaller degree of rejection of faith exists when Christ is recognized as leader and teacher, but not all of His revelation is accepted. This kind of error is called heresy, and those bodies which profess it are known as sects. The chief heresies in times past were Gnosticism and Manicheism in the first centuries; Arianism and Macedonianism in the fourth century; Nestorianism, Monophysism and Pelagianism in the fifth century; Monothelism in the seventh century; Iconoclasm in the eighth century; Photianism in the ninth century; Albigensianism in the eleventh century; Waldensianism in the twelfth century; Wicliffism in the fourteenth century; Hussism in the fifteenth century; Protestantism in the sixteenth century, and Modernism in the twentieth century. Today, the erring Christian groups outside the Church are the Orientals, called Orthodox, and the Protestants.

Heresy.—Heresy is defined as “an error manifestly opposed to faith and assented to obstinately by one who had sincerely embraced the faith of Christ.”

(a) It is called “error,” that is, positive assent given to error, or dissent from truth. Hence, those who merely act or speak as if they do not believe, but who internally do believe, are not heretics, although in the external forum they may fall under the presumption of heresy. Similarly, those who have doubts or difficulties in matters of faith, but who do not allow these to sway their judgment, are not guilty of heresy, since they give no positive assent to error (see 842 sqq.). Examples: Titus is internally convinced of the truth of the Church’s teaching; but he attends Protestant services, says he does not believe the Trinity, refuses to make a profession of faith required by the Church, separates himself from obedience to the authorities of the Church, and calls himself an independent. By his former external acts he makes himself guilty of disobedience and falls under the suspicion of heresy, and by his last external act he incurs the guilt of schism; but, since internally he does not disbelieve, he is not a heretic. Balbus has doubts before his mind from his reading or conversation, but he must immediately give his whole attention to a very pressing matter of business, and so gives neither assent nor dissent to the doubts. He is not guilty of heresy, since he formed no positive erroneous judgment.

(b) Heresy is “opposed to faith.” By faith here is understood divine faith, especially divine and Catholic faith (see 755). Hence, an error opposed to what one held to be a genuine private revelation, or to the public revelation, especially when dogmatically defined by the Church, is heretical. On the contrary, an error opposed to ecclesiastical faith alone, to human faith, or to human science, is not of itself heretical. Examples: The Saints who received special private revelations from Christ with proofs of their genuineness would have been guilty of heresy, had they refused to believe. Sempronius refuses to believe some Biblical teachings about things not pertaining to faith and morals and not expressly defined by the Church (e.g., chronological, physical, geographical, statistical data). If he really believes that what he denies is contained in the Bible, he is guilty of heresy. Balbus admits the infallibility and authority of the Church, but he does not believe that a certain Saint solemnly canonized is in heaven, that a certain non-infallible decision of a Roman Congregation is true, that certain second lessons of the Breviary or certain relics are genuine. He is not a heretic, since, as supposed, he denies no revealed truth; but in his first unbelief he sins against ecclesiastical faith; in his second unbelief, if the contrary of the decision has not been clearly established, he sins against the duty of religious assent; in his third unbelief, he sins against prudence, if he has no good grounds for his opinion, or against the respect due the Church, if he is moved by contempt for its judgment. In a conversation between A, B, C, D and E, the following opinions are defended. A thinks that any use of natural knowledge with reference to matters of faith is wrong; B, that the theologian should employ mathematics and physical science, but avoid reasoning and philosophy; C, that the method and principles of Scholasticism are not suited to our ago or to all peoples; D, that the psychology and cosmology of the Scholastics should be remade entirely; E, that many hypotheses of Aristotle in physics have been proved false. The opinion of A contains heresies condemned in the Vatican Council regarding the preambles of faith and the motives of credibility. The opinions of B and C are at least contrary to the religious assent due the authority of the Church (see Denzinger, Enchiridion, nn. 1652, 1680, 1713, Code of Canon Law, Canon 1366, Sec.2, Humani Generis, n. 11-14). The opinion of D, as it stands, contains a denial of several doctrines of faith, such as the immortality of the soul and the creation of the world, and is thus implicitly heretical. The opinion of E is true and admitted by all.

(c) By “opposed” to faith is meant any judgment which, according to the logical rules of opposition between propositions, is irreconcilable with the truth of a formula of dogma or of a censure of heresy. Examples: The Council of Trent defined that “all sins committed after Baptism can be forgiven in the Sacrament of Penance.” It would be heretical, therefore, to hold that “no sins committed after Baptism can be pardoned in the Sacrament of Penance” (contrary opposition), or that “some sins committed after Baptism cannot be absolved” (contradictory opposition), Similarly, the Council of Trent (Sess. VI, Can. 7) rejected the proposition that “all Works done before justification are sinful,” and hence according to Logic the contradictory—viz., that “some works before justification are not sinful”—is of faith, for two contradictories cannot both be false; the contrary—viz., that “no works before justification are sinful”—is not, however, defined, for two contraries can both be false.

(d) Heresy is “manifestly opposed to faith.” He who denies what is only probably a matter of faith, is not guilty of heresy. Example: The Instruction of Eugenius IV on the matter of the Sacraments is held by some authorities of note not to be a definition, and hence those who accept opposite theories are not on that account heretical.

(e) Heresy is “assented to obstinately,” This is the distinctive note of heresy, and hence those who assent to error through ignorance, whether vincible or invincible, are not heretics, if they are willing to accept the truth when known. A heretic, therefore, is one who knowingly refuses to admit a truth proposed by the Church, whether his motive be pride, desire of contradicting, or any other vice.

(f) Heresy is held “by one who had sincerely embraced the faith of Christ.” This includes only catechumens and the baptized, for others who deny the truths of faith are Jews or infidels, not heretics.

The sin of heresy (heresy before God), as just defined, differs from the canonical crime of heresy (heresy before the Church), since it is more inclusive. (a) These two differ as regards the error in the intellect, for one is guilty of the sin, but not of the crime, even without error—that is, if one denies what is really false, thinking it to be defined doctrine; (b) they differ as regards the obstinacy in the will, for one is guilty of the sin, but not of the crime, if one is prepared in mind and purpose to deny a truth not yet defined, if it is ever defined; (c) they differ as regards the truths rejected, for one is guilty of the sin, but not of the crime, if one rejects divinely revealed truths not defined as such by the Church; (d) they differ as regards the person who denies, for not everyone who merely accepted the faith of Christ can be guilty of the crime of heresy, but only those who after Baptism retain the name of Christian (Canon 1325, Sec.2).

Various Kinds of Heresy.—(a) Heresy is positive when error is accepted (e.g., the doctrine of consubstantiation); it is negative when truth is denied (e.g., the doctrine of transubstantiation).

(b) Heresy is internal, when it is in the mind alone and not externally professed. It is external, when expressed in an external way (i.e., by words, signs, acts or circumstances that clearly indicate present heresy), if this is done not for a good purpose, such as that of asking advice, but for the purpose of professing error.

(c) External heresy is occult, when it is made known to no one, or only to a few; it is public or notorious, when it is made known before a large number and cannot be concealed. Example: One who calls himself a Catholic and is known as such, but who in conversation with a few intimate friends declares himself a Modernist, is an occult heretic. One who declares in public addresses or articles that he agrees with Modernism, or who joins openly an heretical sect or has always belonged to one, is a public heretic.

(d) Occult and public heresy may be either formal or material, according as one is in good or bad faith. Heresy is formal, if its malice is known and willed by the one in error; if its malice is not known by him, it is material.

Heresy is not formal unless one pertinaciously rejects the truth, knowing his error and consenting to it.

(a) One must know that one’s belief is opposed to divine revelation or to Catholic faith. Hence, those who were born and brought up in Protestantism, and who in good faith accept the confession of their denomination, are not formal but material heretics. Even those who are ignorant of their errors through grave fault and who hold to them firmly, are guilty, not of formal heresy, but of sinful ignorance (see 904 sqq.)

(b) One must willingly consent to the error. But for formal heresy it is not required that a person give his assent out of malice, or that he continue in obstinate rejection for a long time, or that he refuse to heed admonitions given him. Pertinacity here means true consent to recognized error, and this can proceed from weakness (e.g., from anger or other passion); it can be given in an instant, and does not presuppose an admonition disregarded. Hence, if one sees the truth of the Catholic Church, but fears that assent will involve many obligations and out of weakness turns away from the truth, one then and there pertinaciously consents to error.

Examples of material heresy are: (a) Catholics who deny certain dogmas of faith, because they have not been well instructed, but who are ready to correct their errors, whenever the Church’s teaching is brought home to them; (b) non-Catholics who do not accept the Catholic Church, but who have never had any misgivings about the tenets of their own denomination, or who in doubts have searched for the truth to the best of their ability.

The sinfulness of heresy is as follows: (a) formal heresy is a grave sin, as was said above regarding unbelief in general (see 819; Tit., iii. 10); (b) material heresy is no sin at all, if the ignorance is invincible; it is a grave or a venial sin, according to the amount of negligence, if the ignorance is vincible.

Circumstances of the sin of heresy are of various kinds. (a) Circumstances that change the species. Most theologians hold that the particular article denied, or the particular sect adhered to, does not constitute a particular species of heresy, and hence that in confession it suffices for one to accuse oneself generically of heresy. (b) Circumstances that aggravate the sin. The facts that heresy is external, that it is manifested to a large number, that it is joined with apostasy and adhesion to an heretical sect, etc., increase the accidental malice of this sin. (c) Circumstances that multiply the number of sins. It seems that when several articles or defined truths are denied at the same time, so many numerically distinct sins are committed (see 219). Example: Titus says: “I do not accept the Resurrection, either of Christ or of the dead.” The act is one, but two sins are committed.

Various penalties and inhabilities are incurred through heresy, for example, excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Pope (Canon 2314), loss of the power of suffrage (Canon 167, Sec.1, n.4), irregularity (Canon 984, n. 5; 985), inhability for the office of sponsor (Canons 765, 795), deprivation of ecclesiastical burial (Canon 1240, Sec.1, n. 1). The excommunication which perhaps had been incurred by those who now wish to join the Church is absolved according to the form for the reception of converts prescribed by the Congregation of the Holy Office, July 20, 1859, and found in rituals. Rituals published after March, 1942, contain the formula of profession of faith and abjuration approved by the Holy Office.

If a confessor should meet with a case of heresy, his procedure will be as follows: (a) If the heresy was merely internal, no censure was incurred, and every confessor has power to absolve from the sin, no matter how serious it was. (b) If the heresy was external, but the person was in good faith, or even in affected ignorance of the sin, or inculpably ignorant of the penalty, no censure was incurred; for the excommunication attaches only to formal heresy, and contumacity (Canon 2242). (c) If the heresy was external and formal, but not notorious (i.e., the party did not publicly join an heretical sect), ordinarily the case should be brought before the bishop for absolution in the external or internal forum. But in urgent cases every confessor has power to absolve as prescribed in Canon 2254. (d) If the heresy was public and notorious (i.e., if the party joined officially an heretical sect), absolution is regularly to be given in both the external and internal forums. The case should be submitted first to the Ordinary, unless there is urgency (Cfr. Canon 2254), or the confessor has special powers from Rome. The Ordinary can absolve in the external forum. Afterwards, the heretic can be absolved by any confessor in the forum of conscience (see Canon 2314, Sec.2.)

The mere presence, however, of condemned matter in a writing does not cause it to fall under prohibition.

(a) Some works are not forbidden unless the author’s purpose to teach error or attack the truth is known. Hence, books on religion written by non-Catholics which contain errors against the Catholic Faith are not forbidden, unless they deal with religion ex professo (i.e., not incidentally or cursorily, but clearly for the purpose of teaching). It is not necessary, however, that religion be the main theme of the book, Similarly, books that attack religion are forbidden, not when attacks are casual or by the way, but when they are made purposely; and the same is true as regards books that insult the clerical state. The purpose is recognized from the declaration of the author, from the nature of the work, from the systematic treatment, length or frequency of argumentation or attack, etc.

(b) Other works are not forbidden, unless they contain not only agreement with error, but also argument in defense of error. Thus, books in favor of heresy, schism, suicide, duelling, divorce, Freemasonry, etc., are forbidden when they champion wrong causes by disputing in their behalf.

(c) Other works are forbidden, not because they state, but because they approve of error. Such are books that attack or ridicule the foundations of religion or the dogmas of faith, those that disparage worship, those that are subversive of discipline, those that defend proscribed propositions, those that teach and favor superstition, etc.

Comparison of Heresy and Schism.—(a) These sins are not the same, since heresy is opposed to faith, schism to charity. A person who really believes that the Church is one in its head and its body, may nevertheless out of pride, hatred, ambition, interest, self-sufficiency, etc., decide not to recognize the authority of the head, or not to communicate with the body. (b) There is an intimate union between heresy and schism, since every heretic separates himself from the unity of faith, while schism is always found to adopt some heresy as a justification for its separation (I Tim., i. 6). Thus, the Eastern Schism soon trumped up charges of heresy against the Church, and history shows that schism almost invariably leads to a denial of papal primacy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is he a formal heretic who doubts concerning some article of faith? R. Affirmatively, if he doubts positively, by judging that a truth is uncertain which he knows to be revealed by God and proposed by the Church; for he voluntarily contradicts faith sufficiently proposed, and accordingly there is truly had voluntary and pertinacious error against some truth of faith, which is the definition of formal heresy. - R. Negatively, if he behaves negatively, and suspends assent, whether this is done from formal or virtual contempt of divine revelation, or whether it is done from negligence, or because he wishes to turn his mind to other things, etc. The reason is that since he judges nothing, and affirms nothing against the infallibility of faith, as is supposed, he does not err positively in faith and accordingly is not a heretic; although he sins gravely against faith, either from contempt of the word of God, or from negligence by omitting a commanded act of faith. - Struggl, q. 2, nn. 12, 13.

Is there also given a precept of the external act of faith? As to the external act of faith, there is given a negative precept, prohibiting the denial of the true faith or the profession of a false one. Likewise there is given an affirmative precept, obliging sometimes to confess the faith even with danger to life. Proof of the first part. To deny the true faith, or to profess a false one, is to deny God and Christ. But Christ says: He who shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven. Matt. 10:33. Proof of the second part. For ordered charity, which we owe to God and neighbor, requires that, when God's honor and the spiritual utility of the neighbor would be withdrawn privatively or contrarily, for professing the faith we should sometimes spurn temporal goods and even life. - Privatively, as if therefore great honor to God and great utility to neighbor would cease. Contrarily, as if otherwise God would be affected by injury, or the neighbor by grave evil, e.g., if the conversion or perversion of others, contempt of religion, scandal, depended on it. Suarez, d. 4, s. 2; L. 10; Laymann, c. 11, n. 2; S. Th. 2. 2. q. 3, aa. 1, 2; Collectan. S. C. de P. F., nn. 1647, 1648, 1653, 1657, 1683, 1827.

By positive law all to be baptized are bound to profession of faith, either by themselves or through sponsors; converted heretics; Bishops before consecration, and before the dispatch of letters of their own provision, Trid. s. 25, C. 2, de R.; Sixtus V, C. Romanus; Gregory XIV, C. Onus Apostolicae; all regular Prelates, Pius IV, C. Iniunctum nobis, id. Nov. 1564; nevertheless this Constitution has not been received in use as to those regular Prelates who are not immediately set over government by the Holy See, but either by chapter or by a higher superior, Thesaurus, de Poenis, c. 1, v. Fides, cf. 550; those about to have ecclesiastical benefices, and those who must assemble in a diocesan synod, Trid. l. c.; likewise those provided with a benefice with care of souls, within two months from possession obtained, before the Bishop himself, or if he is impeded, his vicar general, otherwise they do not make the fruits their own; canons and dignities of a cathedral church, who likewise within two months from begun possession are bound to do this also in chapter; otherwise neither do they make the fruits their own, although they can gain distributions for their choir assistance, S. C. C. 1726; Trid. s. 24, C. 12, de R.; Primates, Archbishops, Bishops in the first provincial synod which they attend, Trid. s. 25, C. 2, de R.; those to be chosen for the government and chairs of Universities and public gymnasia; and also those to be promoted to scholastic degrees of doctor, master, etc., Pius IV, C. In Sacrosancta, 13 Nov. 1654, § V. But Doctors and Masters of Universities at the beginning of any year must issue a solemn oath by which they are bound to hand down orthodox doctrine, Trid. s. 25, C. 2, de R. It belongs to the Rector or Prefect to see that this is observed. - Profession of faith can be emitted immediately after institution or collation of a benefice, and before possession, S. C. C. 11 May 1782; but cf. here below, paragraph Non manet, and it must altogether be made in the form proposed by Pius IV, C. Iniunctum nobis. But a few things are to be added, so that account may also be taken of the Decrees of the Vatican Council, S. C. C. 20 Jan. 1877. Made otherwise, it will not profit toward avoiding the canonical penalties laid against those who omit this profession. Conc. Rom. Bened. XIII, tit. 1, c. 1; Bened. XIV, Inst. 60; Ferrar., v. Fidei professio; L. 41; Collectan. cit., n. 1670; E. M. 364.

Those who are announced as doctors in Sacred Scripture are bound to furnish an oath according to the prescribed formula approved by the Motu Proprio of Pius X, 29 June 1910. Likewise an oath, according to the prescribed formula, must be furnished by all those who are listed in the Motu Proprio of Pius X, Sacrorum antistitum, 1 Sept. 1910, a profession of faith having been premised; - and also, by reason of office, synodal examiners and parish-priest consultors and those who are listed in C. Sapienti consilio, Order of Service in the Roman Curia, and others, concerning all of whom cf. below n. 550. This obligation of profession of faith seems grave, unless it has been derogated by legitimate custom. The penalty of restoring the fruits probably needs a declaratory sentence of the delict. Sanchez, l. 2, c. 5; Tamburini, l. 2, c. 1, D. 12, n. 4. The faculty made by the Council of Trent no longer remains, by which those provided with any benefices whatever can emit profession of faith within two months from the day of possession obtained; and consequently in the future profession of faith must be emitted before possession of the benefice. S. C. Cons. 1 Mar. 1911.

In external confession of faith and divine worship, the rite of one's own church, Latin or Oriental, is to be observed. Cf. for the Ruthenian rite constituted in the United States of North America, Apostolic Letter of Pius X, 18 Kal. 1907, and for the same rite constituted in the Canadian region, Decr. S. C. de Pr. I., 18 Aug. 1913. E. M. 365.

Blasphemy is opposed to confession of faith. For by it man in heart or mouth, according to intellect or affection, attributes to God things which do not befit him, or denies things which befit him. The vice of blasphemy thus pertains to unbelief. Speech concerning it will occur in the second precept of the Decalogue. S. Th. 2. 2. q. 13.

What is excommunication, and how many kinds are there? Excommunication is a censure through which someone is deprived of communion with the Church. "It is a penalty, the gravest which the Church can inflict, and in itself it contains by force the other censures of suspension and interdict, as those which deprive one not so fully, but only partially, of the goods of the Church, or of their use." Pichler, book 4, title 39, n. 23. An excommunicated person who, after legitimate warnings, has not repented, and has grown filthy in excommunication for a year, or has persevered obstinately, incurs suspicion of heresy, because he seems to despise the authority of the Church. Council of Trent, sess. 25, chap. 3, de Ref. It is twofold: one is minor, the other major. This major excommunication is evident in two ways. For one is that by which someone is an excommunicated tolerated person, whom the faithful are not bound to avoid; the other is that by which someone is an excommunicated person not tolerated, whom they are bound to avoid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q. What as to the case?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

208. • DEFINITION. Heresy, properly taken, is a voluntary and pertinacious error against some truth of Faith proposed by the Church, in him who has received the Faith. In a broad sense it is even an involuntary error against some truth of Faith.

DIVISION. Heresy is distinguished:

1º Formal, which is heresy properly so called, or in the strict sense, or material, by which someone adheres to an error without pertinacity.

2º Internal, or external or manifested, or purely external, according as it is had internally, or only externally, or in both ways.

3º Occult, or notorious, according as it is known to no one or only to few, or to many.

To heresy is referred apostasy, which is a total defection from the Christian Faith. Therefore one must determine concerning it as concerning formal heresy.

209. Principles. - I. Formal heresy is always a most grave sin, just like infidelity itself. The reason is, 1º because the virtue of Faith, as theological, is one of the chief virtues, and therefore a sin directly opposed to it is one of the gravest. 2º Faith is the foundation of justice, without which it is impossible to please God; therefore heresy, by expelling Faith, deprives man of all justice. 3º Because heresy is contempt of the authority of God revealing; and thus it is directly and immediately against God.

II. Purely material heresy is free from all fault. The reason is plain from its definition: for someone here and now is supposed to err from invincible ignorance of the truth; but sin with such ignorance is impossible. Therefore, etc.

210. Questions. - Q. 1º What are the signs of material and formal heresy?

Resp. to the first. One is to be judged a material heretic only, 1º who is ready to submit himself to the judgment of the Church, when he has recognized the error. - 2º Who has known nothing about the true Faith and has never doubted about his Religion. - 3º Who, while doubting, has studied to know the truth as much as he could.

Resp. to the second. One is to be reputed a formal heretic: 1º who doubts and does not wish to inquire further. 2º Who maliciously turns the intellect away from motives of authority, so that he may adhere to his own sect ¹. - 3º Who, when the truth has been recognized, still contradicts the Church.

¹ For formal heresy, as is said below, q. 3, pertinacious assent against faith is required, that is, against a truth which is known as revealed. Now he who merely doubts whether something is revealed does not have that pertinacious assent, however much he neglects to inquire, indeed even if he culpably turns the intellect away from those things which could lead to the truth being recognized. Therefore the preceding words of A. must be taken in a certain broader sense; or certainly they must be understood of a man so disposed that even if the truth should shine upon his mind, nevertheless he bears an obstinate mind of persevering in his false sect.

Compare De Lugo (De Fid. Disp. 20. n. 197. seqq.), who excellently shows that even he who either affects ignorance concerning the dogmatic definitions of the Church, or even concerning the infallible authority of the Church in defining controversies, is indeed a heretic if he is of that mind that even if the authority as well as the definitions of the Church should be clear, he does not wish to be moved from his opinion, and meanwhile wishes to be ignorant of these things either so that he may avoid remorse, or so that he may have an excuse; but otherwise, if he affects ignorance for this reason, because otherwise he would not dare to oppose himself to the authority of the Church, and meanwhile wishes to be ignorant so that he may adhere to his own opinion without obstacle. The reason for the distinction is that in this latter case the man certainly sins, and indeed most gravely, against the precept of faith; yet that sin can be joined with the will of believing, if the revealed doctrine is sufficiently proposed to him; but otherwise in the preceding case, since the will is supposed to be one of not believing revelation however sufficiently proposed. But pertinacity against faith is present only then, when the will is prepared to deny assent to revelation sufficiently proposed. Therefore we indeed have a formal heretic in the former case, but not likewise in the latter.

Q. 2º Is he a formal heretic who doubts concerning some article of Faith?

Resp. Affirm. The reason is that he who doubts deliberately suspends the assent of the intellect concerning a truth which he knows to have been revealed by God ², or judges to be uncertain what God commands to be believed as certain; therefore he defects from Faith by denying the supreme truth of God and the infallibility of the Church.

² But one must speak otherwise concerning him who doubts whether something is revealed; since he could not even elicit an act of faith concerning it, as is also clear from the 21st proposition condemned by Innocent XI: The assent of supernatural faith, useful for salvation, stands with only probable knowledge of revelation, indeed with fear, by which one fears lest God has not spoken. Therefore this one will sin against the precept of faith, if, adverting to the necessity of inquiring, he does not inquire concerning the truth; for the precept of faith, just as it obliges to believing, so also obliges to learning, and therefore to inquiring: yet he is not a heretic, since there is no pertinacity against a seen revelation. Hence it can be inferred that many of those who are outside the Church can indeed be guilty of inquiry neglected concerning faith; but they are not so easily to be judged formal heretics.

And hence also the reason is plain for the condemnation of Proposition 4 by the same Innocent XI: An infidel not believing, led by a less probable opinion, will be excused from infidelity. For although an infidel is not bound to believe so long as revelation does not appear evidently credible to him; nevertheless he can by no means be exempt from fault, because he has contemned a prudent suspicion in so grave a matter, and therefore a grave obligation of inquiring.

Q. 3º Is he a formal heretic who denies the Faith only externally?

Resp. Neg. For in no way is he a heretic, because in him there is not pertinacious assent against Faith, and therefore in the forum of conscience he does not incur the penalties of heretics, although he sins gravely against the precept of Faith.

See more concerning heresy in the Treatise on Censures, where it will also be said concerning the prohibition of books, and also concerning the Index.

981. • Excommunication on account of heresy is the first and principal one of the Bull Apostolicae Sedis ¹. Not only heretics incur it, but also their supporters.

¹ See above, no. 972, I.

With respect to heretics themselves, for excommunication to be incurred, it is required that true heresy be present, that is, a voluntary error, externally manifested and pertinacious, against some article revealed by God and proposed by the Church. Hence:

1. Even vincible, indeed crass, ignorance excuses; but more probably affected ignorance does not excuse, because contumacy is present. St. Alphonsus, no. 301 ², nevertheless holds the contrary as more probable on account of the defect of contumacy.

² This judgment is not that of St. Alphonsus alone, but is almost common. See the things said in volume I, in the Note to no. 210.

2. A positive doubt externally disclosed does not excuse, because one who doubts judges positively that the truth proposed by the Church can be false. St. Alphonsus, no. 302.

3. One who holds heresy within his mind, or who, while manifesting it externally, dissents internally, is excused from the censure. A fortiori, one who manifests his heresy in order to seek counsel is excused, because he does not manifest the error with the intention of professing it. St. Alphonsus, no. 304.

I. A Bishop can absolve from heresy which is notorious and brought into the judicial forum, either by himself or through a delegate. Benedict XIV, On the Synod, book 9, chapter 4.

II. The Pope alone can absolve from heresy, whether notorious or occult, which has not yet been treated in the judicial forum. But an occult heretic is said to be one who, although he has exchanged heretical conversation with another, is nevertheless not notoriously held as such; or one who, although he has communicated his heresies to no one, has nevertheless performed some external acts from which he could be recognized as a heretic. Benedict XIV, Constitution Pastor bonus, 13 April 1744.

Hence it is clear that no one guilty of heresy can be absolved by an inferior judge before he has been summoned into the judicial forum or has spontaneously presented himself to it. A Bishop, however, can receive the abjuration of Protestants in either forum.

According to Laymann, a usage is in force in Germany of not sending to the Bishop Protestants who wish to embrace the Catholic Church; but after they have been taught the true Faith and have abjured heresy, they are admitted to sacramental confession and the reception of the Eucharist. A practice of this kind also obtains elsewhere.

But with respect to the rite of absolving heretics in the external forum and receiving their abjuration, see the rules which Father Maurel gives in the excellent work entitled Guide pratique de la Liturgie romaine.

982. • It was said above (no. 972, II) which books after the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis are forbidden to be read under penalty of censure, namely, that all and each knowingly reading, without authority of the Apostolic See, books of Apostates and heretics defending heresy, and also books of any author, even one not a heretic, prohibited by name through Apostolic letters, are punished with excommunication reserved to the Roman Pontiff. Therefore the penalty of excommunication incurred by the act itself, although not reserved, has ceased, by which according to the Rules of the Index there were prohibited all books of heresiarchs, or of those who are considered the chiefs or leaders of heretics, and also books of heretics treating expressly of Religion; or even books of an author, whether a heretic or not a heretic, condemned and prohibited on account of heresy or the suspicion of false dogma.

With respect to writings whose reading we have said is forbidden under censure, several teach that those reading a letter or sermon separately printed do not incur excommunication, because it is not a book. But St. Alphonsus, no. 293, rightly notes that in the Roman Expurgatory issued from the Tridentine Decree, all writings, even brief ones, were prohibited under excommunication, which we have said has ceased. But because public journals, commonly les journaux, are subject to ecclesiastical censure, it is evident that they are included under the aforesaid law if they are written by heretics and defend heresy. This is evident from the following Response of the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, directed in the year 1832 to the Bishops of Switzerland:

QUESTION 1. Whether newspapers or journals ought to be subject to the censure of the Ordinary, and whether also with respect to political opinions?

Reply. Affirmatively, with respect to both parts.

QUESTION 2. Whether not only doctrinal articles, but also articles in which facts are narrated, are subject to the same censure ³?

³ By the name censure in this Response of the Sacred Congregation there does not appear to be meant the penalty either of excommunication or suspension, etc., but merely the ecclesiastical examination and approval which is required by law before books are printed. Wherefore from it, in itself and directly, it is not proved that the aforesaid newspapers are subject to excommunication. Indirectly, however, it pertains to the matter in some manner, insofar as it sufficiently indicates that the care concerning books or writings to be published, which ecclesiastical power exercises by its own right, extends also to this kind of writing; and thus that with respect to these also it can appear not incongruous that it use the customary remedies for forestalling dangers to the faithful.

On this matter, that which we observe in the Decrees concerning books prohibited but not expressed by name in the Index is plainly worthy of notice. For in section 1 the title is prefixed: Books Written or Published by Heretics; then in no. 6 there is read: Poems, Orations, Images; and in no. 9: Confessions, Articles, or Formularies of Faith. Therefore in the Decrees concerning the reading of Books the name BOOKS extends also to these. Say the same of section 2, whose title is: BOOKS of Certain Subjects Prohibited. Nevertheless, see mentioned therein, in nos. 5, 6, and 7, Pamphlets, Letters, Ordinances, Arrests, Decrees, Epistles. Therefore, if in Decrees which condemn the reading of books even under censures it must be judged that the name Books is used in that sense in which it is generally accustomed to be employed in Decrees of this kind, the argument sought by others from the common appellation of a book, by which, namely, the reading of a letter, poem, oration, or some newspaper is exempted from the condemnation and added penalties, could appear empty. And this can be confirmed by another reason. For, after the Decrees have been inspected, it is sufficiently evident that by the name of a book there is understood anything whatever whose reading contributes to the detriment and corruption of faith and morals. But this belongs not only to writings which commonly have the name of books, but to any little writing. Therefore.

It is useful here to subjoin those things which the Rieti Commentary adds after relating the contrary opinion of Bouvier: The most learned writers of the periodical whose title is La Civilta Cattolica think otherwise (series VIII, volume VI, from page 648), being led chiefly by this reason, that newspapers differ from books in this: the former are issued from individual sheets or leaves on individual days, while the latter coalesce into books from several joined sheets published at the same time; a brief and pressing reason. However that is altogether indubitable, that newspapers whose reading is dangerous to faith or morals are forbidden under grave obligation by the natural law itself. And this is most certainly so after the Letters of Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius IX given to the Most Eminent Vicar of the City on 30 July 1871....

Reply. Affirmatively.

But one who hears another reading does not incur excommunication, at least probably, because he does not read. Nor does one who reads some small portion, on account of paucity of matter. But the gravity of matter cannot be strictly determined; sometimes a few lines suffice if heresy occurs. St. Alphonsus, no. 284. Nor does one who reads from necessity in order to refute a heretic incur it, if recourse to the Superior is not available. St. Alphonsus, no. 283. Nor one who retains a book for a short time, for example, one or two days. St. Alphonsus, no. 295. Nor if he retains a book while awaiting an opportune time to hand it over to the Superior; but otherwise if he retained it for a long time, even though he abstained altogether from reading it. St. Alphonsus, ibid.

983. • The Index was composed and promulgated by command of Paul IV in the year 1558; Pius IV perfected it with the Council of Trent and published it in the year 1564. Clement VIII enlarged it in the year 1595. The Congregation of the Index was instituted by St. Pius V. See St. Alphonsus, Appendix On the Prohibition of Books, book 1, at the end, no. 17, etc.

The Index presents three principal classes of prohibited books. The first class contains all books of heretics which contain heresy or treat expressly of Religion. The second class embraces books of Catholics against the Faith or good morals. The third class contains books published without the name of the author which hand down depraved doctrine. St. Alphonsus, no. 289.

Books of the first class, which by the ancient law were all prohibited under penalty of excommunication, still all remain prohibited; but which are now forbidden under penalty of excommunication, and indeed a reserved one, was said above. Books of the second and third class are not considered prohibited unless they are specially designated in the Index, unless nevertheless they pertain to certain general classes of matters which are designated in the Rules of the Index. Furthermore, in the Index all books of heresiarchs are prohibited generally in hatred of the author, even if they do not contain heresy or treat of Religion ⁴.

⁴ Avanzini notes (Commentary, no. 8) that, with account taken of penalties, books prohibited or to be rejected can be divided into three classes, namely: 1. books prohibited under penalty of excommunication reserved to the Roman Pontiff, concerning which above, no. 972, II; 2. books prohibited under penalty of fault according to the Index of Prohibited Books and its rules in force. To this class can also be referred books or writings forbidden only by the law of nature, although not yet placed in the Index, which nevertheless can otherwise easily be referred to certain general classes of prohibited books; likewise, books prohibited by Bishops in individual dioceses. That Decree, however, both as regards the force of a positive precept and as regards the censure, if any were added, would bind only the subjects of each diocese. 3. Books which, according to the ancient usage in the Church, we shall call apocryphal, which, namely, we hold as destitute of all that authority, force, or use to which they might appear to be ordained. In this class we call a monument, canon, testament, decree, etc., apocryphal; but the Church simply repudiates these books without any sanctioned penalty. Of this kind are books treating of sacred matters but printed without the approval of the Ordinary. To this class can be referred all books of indulgences, journals, summaries, pamphlets, and sheets in which their concessions are contained but which were published without permission of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences; likewise ritual books issued without the approval of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, etc.

984. • 1. All books condemned before the year 1515 are prohibited, even if they are not found described in the Index.

2. All books of heresiarchs are altogether forbidden, even if not erroneous or not treating expressly of Religion. Other books of heretics which are not erroneous and do not treat of Religion can be permitted, provided they have been examined and approved ⁵.

⁵ This clause does not appear now to be in force.

3. The Scriptures and books of controversies in the vernacular language cannot be read unless they have been approved by the Holy See or published with notes taken from the holy Fathers of the Church or from learned Catholic men ⁶.

⁶ POSTULATUM. Since it has been reported with certainty to the Sacred Congregation of the Index that in some places the most sacred books of the Bible are printed in the vernacular language without the most salutary laws concerning this matter being observed, and since it is therefore to be feared that, such being the conspiracy of wicked men especially in these times, errors wrapped in the more sacred array of the divine word may be insinuated perversely, the same Sacred Congregation judged that those things which were otherwise decreed must again be recalled to the memory of all: namely, that vernacular versions of the Bible are not to be permitted unless they have been approved by the Apostolic See or published with annotations taken from the holy Fathers of the Church or from learned Catholic men. 13 June 1757. Likewise, 7 January 1836.

4. Books treating expressly of obscene things are absolutely prohibited, although they are not found in the Index.

656. 1. Notion. Heresy (Greek hairesis, selection) designates a sect which selects certain truths and rejects others; in the ecclesiastical sense, it signifies error in faith.

(A) Heresy properly so called, or formal heresy, is a voluntary and pertinacious error of a baptized man against some truth of the Catholic faith. Hence for heresy properly so called several conditions are required:

(a) That he who falls into it has been validly baptized; if he has in no way received baptism, for example, if he is still a catechumen, he is not a heretic in the forum of the Church, although in the forum of God he is held as such; for the Church does not judge concerning those who have not yet entered the body of the Church through baptism. - But if someone has been baptized invalidly, he is held not as a heretic, but as an infidel.

(b) A voluntary and pertinacious error, that is, a false judgment of the intellect by which some truth of faith is knowingly and willingly denied or positively called into doubt. Therefore he who, from levity, fear, or some other motive, denies a truth of faith only externally, by speech or work, while faith is retained internally, is not truly a heretic, although he can be held as such in the external forum; likewise he who is agitated by doubts and remains uncertain is not properly a heretic, because he does not render a judgment: otherwise, however, if he positively judges some dogma to be doubtful. - For pertinacity it is not required that someone be admonished several times and persevere long in his obstinacy, but it is enough that knowingly and willingly he denies assent to a truth sufficiently proposed, whether this is done from pride, or from desire of contradicting, or from another cause. Therefore he is not pertinacious who denies a truth of faith from ignorance, even vincible and affected ignorance, provided he is so prepared that he would give assent if he knew it as revealed and defined.

(c) Against some truth of the Catholic faith, that is, a truth divinely revealed and proposed as such by the Church, by either solemn or ordinary magisterium. Therefore he is not a heretic who denies a truth which many recognize as revealed, but which has not yet been proposed by the Church; nor all the more he who rejects a theological conclusion, or a truth indeed proposed by the Church, but not as revealed: in which case an error is indeed incurred rashly, but not against faith. It was said against some truth: for if all are rejected, then it is not heresy but apostasy.

657. (B) Material heresy, or involuntary heresy, is that which proceeds from ignorance, without pertinacity of the will, and exists in him who is prepared to submit himself to the authority of God revealing and to the infallible judgment of the Church, as soon as he shall know that such a truth has been divinely revealed.

(a) Many Protestants and schismatics are materially heretics, who, having been born in heresy or schism, have conceived no serious doubt concerning the truth of their religion, because the Catholic religion has either in no way, or insufficiently, been proposed to them. Converts testify that there are not a few, even among the more learned themselves, who persevere in good faith, as do those who have frequented heretics.⁴

⁴ Thus, when a Catholic priest on a certain day wondered how learned men could believe in good faith that the Anglican sect was the true Church, Manning, a Protestant minister converted to the Catholic faith, said: "You are in a profound error. It is only after much time, prayer, and study that many minds, the best and the most gifted, but born in heresy, come to understand that their church is not the true one. When you propose to someone, even one very intelligent, a riddle of which you yourself have the solution, you are astonished to see your interlocutor hesitate, search, and not find a solution which seems to you of childish simplicity. Give him the explanation sought; he himself will be astonished at not having found it at once. So it is with the most instructed heretic and one of the best faith; he can study and pray for a long time without being enlightened; and it is only at a certain moment, marked by grace, that he discovers the truth, and is astonished that he had not recognized it earlier." (Apud Abbe de Broglie, Les fondements intellectuels de la Foi, Paris, Bloud, 1905, p. 223, note 1.)

658. (b) Likewise certain Catholics, instructed only imperfectly in religion and living among non-Catholics, sometimes in good faith deny certain defined truths, because they do not clearly perceive that these are revealed. - But whether they can depart from the Catholic Church without formal sin against faith is controverted.

Some deny it, because, on the one hand, there is no just cause of calling faith into doubt, and, on the other, God deserts no one unless He is first deserted, and therefore assists Catholics by His grace lest they fall into heresy. Others affirm it; for there are younger Catholics who, insufficiently instructed and strengthened in faith, hear many things against the Catholic religion from heretics or rationalists which they are not able to solve; thus little by little and insensibly they conceive some doubts, and soon lose faith in the authority of the Church, without, however, having formally committed grave sin against faith, because they find no one who sufficiently solves the difficulties proposed.

659. If it is permitted to open our mind in so difficult a matter, we indeed think that no one can depart from the true faith once received without some fault, at least of imprudence;⁵ but this fault is not always mortal, nor against faith, and therefore does not necessarily expel the habit of faith. We judge this to be the mind of the Vatican Council; for the Vatican Council says:⁶ "For the most benign Lord both arouses and assists those who are erring by His grace, so that they may be able to come to the knowledge of the truth; and those whom He has translated from darkness into His admirable light, He confirms by His grace in this same light, not deserting unless He is deserted. Wherefore the condition of those is by no means equal who have adhered to Catholic truth through the heavenly gift of faith, and of those who, led by human opinions, follow a false religion; for those who have received faith under the magisterium of the Church can never have any just cause for changing, or for recalling this same faith into doubt." From these words two things may be gathered: (a) that God assists us by His grace so that we may persevere in faith, so that, if we faithfully cooperate with divine help, we are able to retain it; (b) that no objectively just cause exists for recalling faith into doubt or for denying it.

⁵ He is guilty of imprudence, for example, who, little instructed in religion, does not hesitate to frequent non-Catholics and to hear them, who reads journals and books attacking faith, and does not have recourse to a learned priest when doubts against faith occur.

⁶ Vatican Council, sess. III, cap. 3, Denzing., n. 1642.

Yet we observe, after Granderath,⁷ that it was not defined by the Council that it can never happen that a Catholic man, without formal sin against faith, may call into doubt the divinity of the Church or fall away from her. For the Vatican Council here wished only to condemn the error of Hermes, who taught that there is an objectively just cause of doubting, indeed recommended doubt to the learned, as is openly declared by the very writers of the schema proposed to the Fathers of the Council: "Nor, moreover, in the proposed declaration of doctrine and condemnation of error is that touched upon which some older theologians do not hesitate to concede, that it can happen by accident, and in certain circumstances, that the conscience of some rude Catholic man may be so led into invincible error, that he embraces some heterodox sect without formal sin against faith; in which hypothesis he would not lose faith, nor would he be a formal heretic, but a material one (Tanner, de fide, q. 2, dub. 5, n. 139; Platelius, de fide, n. 61). These things indeed, unless they are explained most cautiously, are disputed dangerously; but they are very alien from the heresy which is proposed to the sacred Council to be examined."

⁷ Granderath, Constitut. C. Vaticani explicatae, 1892, p. 61; cf. Vacant, op. cit., t. II, nn. 731-737.

660. 2. The malice of heresy. Heresy properly so called, or voluntary heresy, like apostasy and infidelity, is a most grave sin, of itself graver than all other sins, one excepted, hatred of God; for to deny the assent owed to God revealing implies a certain contempt of divine authority. Besides, heresy radically tears out not only habitual grace, but also the habit of faith, which is the root of justification.⁸

⁸ Those guilty of formal heresy are absolute Liberals, who profess the full independence of the State from the Church (De Ecclesia, n. 910); and also Modernists who embrace the whole system condemned by Pius X or some opinions of this system which are truly heretical. Cf. Motu proprio, Nov. 18, 1907 (A. S. S., t. XL, p. 723).

Therefore the Church strikes with excommunication latae sententiae, reserved in a special way to the Pontiff, "all apostates from the Christian faith and all and individual heretics, by whatever name they are reckoned and of whatever sect they may exist, and those believing them, and their receivers, favorers, and generally any defenders of them."⁹ To incur this excommunication, it is necessary that heresy, conceived internally, be manifested externally by word, writing, or deed, because the Church does not judge concerning merely internal things; but it is not required that this manifestation be made before others, nor that the heretic join himself to some sect.

⁹ Constit. Apostolicae Sedis, 1869, § I, n. 1.

661. 3. Corollary: concerning doubt in faith. (A) With regard to Catholics. When doubt occurs concerning a truth of faith, the mind can hold itself in different ways: (a) if the will does not consent to the doubt, but promptly repels it, it performs a meritorious act; if it shows itself negligent in repelling it, without danger of consent, it sins only venially. (b) If someone doubts concerning an article of faith from ignorance, prepared to assent as soon as he shall know that the matter is revealed, he commits no sin of heresy, but sins or does not sin according as the ignorance is vincible or invincible. (c) He who doubts concerning an article sufficiently proposed by a merely negative doubt, that is, who suspends judgment, without positively consenting to the doubt, - for example, because he wishes to divert the mind to other things, or to inquire into the motives by which he may be more sweetly inclined to believing, etc., - is not properly a heretic, because he does not render a false judgment, but only abstains from judging; yet sometimes he acts imprudently, and falls into the danger of positively doubting. (d) He who deliberately and positively doubts concerning some article of faith sufficiently proposed by the Church, and known as such, is truly a heretic, because he positively and erroneously judges that this article is not certain, and consequently that the Church errs while proposing the same article to our faith.

662. (B) With regard to non-Catholics. Most non-Catholics recognize private judgment as the proximate norm of faith, for detecting revealed truths contained in the sacred Scriptures. These indeed cannot, without sin, doubt concerning the authority of God revealing, or of the books which they recognize as inspired. But when there is question of such and such a truth to be believed, they are not bound to accept the authority of ministers or synods, since they do not admit their infallibility. Therefore, according to their principles, they can conceive some doubts concerning such and such a truth, indeed concerning the truth of their own sect. But when doubt has arisen, they are bound seriously to investigate the truth, and at the same time to pray that they may be able to discover and embrace the truth. If they purposely neglect this duty, they commit a sin more or less grave according to the degree of negligence. Not a few are deterred from further inquiry by an innate contempt of the Church; but others by fear of temporal harms which they foresee they will suffer from conversion; to these must be recalled these words of Christ:¹ "And do not fear those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul; rather fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell."

¹ Matt. 10:28.

66. By the superior law, with the quality of the writer more observed, all books of heresiarchs were proscribed, but of heretics at least those which expressly treated religion.¹ Now, in this article, the writer or his mind is not regarded, provided the clause obtains. Now:

What is an apostate

1. An apostate, who, as is clear, is here understood as an apostate from the Christian faith,² is anyone who not only the Catholic but the Christian faith externally (even secretly) and at the same time internally casts away completely, whether he passes over to the "errors of Mohammed, etc.," or merely becomes a perfect "free thinker." Avanzini, loc. cit., p. 8. Think, for example, of E. Renan, Laurent.

What is heresy

2. Understand heresy as an error opposed to a truth sufficiently proposed by the Church, whether through the ordinary magisterium or through a formal definition; namely, that error which, if externally proposed with pertinacity, makes one guilty of heresy in the canonical forum, and is punished by excommunication latae sententiae specially reserved to the Roman Pontiff through the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, n. 1.

Schism

3. Schism, taken perfectly, entails withdrawal from the communion of the universal Church, which practically will happen by rejecting the spiritual authority of the legitimate Supreme Pontiff. For if you refuse subjection to a legitimate Bishop, the schism will not be perfect unless you separate yourself from him because he himself preserves communion with the Roman Pontiff. Cf. Schmalzgrueber, book 5, title 8, n. 12.

To defend

4. To defend says more than to assert, or merely to praise without demonstration; rather, it is to uphold by reasons being added.

Foundations of religion

5. By the very foundations of Religion we understand only the truths which either found natural religion itself, or are necessary for an adult unbeliever so that he may be led to embrace the faith; but not at the same time the principal dogmas of the faith itself. These are less properly called the foundations of Religion, and are already touched by the earlier words of the article.³ These truths are: the existence of God, the spirituality of the soul, the force of proof of miracles, the motives of credibility in general, and anything of this kind.⁴

To overturn in any way

6. To overturn in any way, or in whatever way it is done. Therefore by a serious attack, or one made through ridicule; directly or indirectly, for example by defending universal skepticism, from which God can no longer be demonstrated; from formal intention or objectively, from the subject matter of the work. There are so many books of this kind from the philosophy of materialists, positivists, rationalists.

Earlier heretics

7. Already formerly it was likely that by the severe proscription of heretics, books of earlier heretics, such as Tertullian, Pelagius, and those of this kind, were not comprehended, so that the reading of such books was permitted especially to theologians and students of ecclesiastical sciences.⁵

The benign intention of our Constitution allows us to preserve this exception of the law. So the common opinion. Indeed, nothing seems to prevent us from saying the same of other heretics who are not now so ancient, indeed, but whose errors have plainly become obsolete and are merely historically reported without danger of contagion. We would say this of heretics prior to the Protestant Reformation.⁶ For the argument is similar. Of itself the danger has ceased; therefore the reason of the law has been removed, not in some particular case but commonly; indeed, at least in part, it has ceased contrariwise, since the reading of them brings very many advantages for investigating the ancient morals of Christians or philosophical systems.

Collection of Labbe, Migne

Therefore, without scruple, one can have the collections of Councils which take their name from Labbe; the collection of patrology of Migne,⁷ where these works are inserted so that the monuments of ecclesiastical tradition may be possessed more fully.

What of debates of Parliaments?

For a somewhat different reason, that is, because they are not books properly so called, and at the same time with parts which attack the faith they contain others by which it is defended, it is lawful also not to refer to proscribed works the reports of speeches and disputes which are customarily held in Parliaments, as they are set forth in a public periodical (Journal Officiel, Annales parlementaires), or in private collections, such as Questions actuelles. A certain force of usage is added.

¹ From Rule 2 of the Index.

² For they distinguish apostasy from faith, from order (for example the sacred order of the diaconate), from religion (from a regular order).

³ With us Hollweck, op. cit., p. 31; Péries, op. cit., p. 64, note 2; Planchard, Revue Théologique Française, loc. cit., n. 21.3; against Gennari, op. cit., p. 30, note 1; and Piat, Nouvelle Revue Théologique, vol. 30, p. 53, n. XIII.

⁴ But not the divinity of Christ, against Pennacchi, who otherwise agrees with us. Op. cit., n. 40.

⁵ Cf. Cardinal de Lugo, De Fide, disp. 21, n. 29.

⁶ Going farther, Boudinhon, op. cit., p. 316, thinks the same should be said of books and writings which defend Jansenism.

⁷ Cf. Pennacchi, op. cit., n. 39.

What non-Catholics are

67. 1. Non-Catholics, taken closely - as if deprived only of the Catholic faith - seem to us to be those who, outside the Catholic Church, contend that they profess true Christianity. They are therefore only baptized persons who, through heresy or schism, are reputed plainly alien from Catholic communion. For the word non-Catholic is opposed not so much to the Christian genus as to the Catholic species. And when the word must receive a broader use, the Pontiff himself indicates this by a word, as he did, for example, in articles 5 and 8, where he treats of non-Catholics of any kind whatever. Besides, they are worthy of special mention both because the Christian truths retained by them create a greater danger that the faithful be deceived and seduced by the honorable appearance of their works, and because they give a greater hope that sometimes certain arguments, even religious ones, for example concerning God, concerning the divinity of Christ, may be treated in a way that can also benefit Catholics. Therefore the Legislator wisely establishes a presumption against their books which expressly treat religion, while at the same time conceding that this same presumption can be destroyed by contrary proof.

Pennacchi,¹ Génicot,² Péries,³ and Ciolli⁴ are with us. Others, however, also include Mohammedans, Jews, unbelievers.⁵

Therefore, in our opinion, books on religion written by an unbeliever or by a rationalist who was formerly Catholic are not governed by this article, nor are they prohibited unless they defend heresy or schism, or overturn the foundations of religion.

Expressly

2. Which expressly, so that religion is, by design, the subject matter, not indeed necessarily of the whole book, but at least of a notable part, for example of one chapter.

On religion

3. On Religion, that is, on sacred matter, on natural or positive religion, on Sacred Scripture, dogmatic and moral theology, liturgy, canon law, ecclesiastical history; on moral philosophy itself, insofar as it embraces duties toward God or religious society, or by its principles seems to attack the dogmas themselves. Suarez;⁶ Lugo;⁷ St. Alphonsus;⁸ Arndt;⁹ Piat.¹⁰

They treat

They treat. To treat, according to Lugo, loc. cit., is not to say one's meaning incidentally, but to defend something, to prove it, to solve the contrary.

How far they are reproved

5. Unless it is established. When they expressly treat religion, they are prohibited from the presumption of an evil character, until it is morally established, for example by the testimony of a trustworthy man, that nothing is contained in them against the Catholic faith. Nothing can be taken morally. Therefore understand: nothing which is of any moment.

What if the mind is not hostile

But what if nothing is said formally, or from a hostile intention, against the faith, yet some things are put forward which are materially opposed to it? Objective opposition seems entirely sufficient. Wernz, n. 111, note 56.

NB. What if Catholic notes have been added to the book of a heretic, or the contrary

NB. Certain Catholic notes added below do not prevent the book from being that of a non-Catholic; nor do certain notes added by a heretic to the book of a Catholic man cause it now no longer to be judged a book of a Catholic writer.¹¹ But if the scholia are so great that the book is judged rather to consist of these, it will receive its denomination from the author of the scholia.

¹ N. 41.

² Op. cit., I, 52, 3.

³ Op. cit., p. 70.

⁴ Op. cit., n. 15.

⁵ So Cardinal Gennari on this article, except that he does not here include schismatics; Hollweck, Das kirchliche Bücherverbot, p. 31; Planchard, Revue Théologique Française, loc. cit., n. 23; and Wernz, loc. cit., n. 111, note 55. The use of this probable doctrine will be this: that you extend the faculty positively made by this article to books of unbelievers which treat a religious subject in such a way that they contain nothing notable against the Catholic faith; but the other opinion gives the faculty of reading books of unbelievers who treat of their own religion and commend it, so long as they do not defend heresies or overturn the foundations of religion.

⁶ De Fide, disp. 20, n. 16.

⁷ De Fide, disp. 21, n. 51.

⁸ Book 7, n. 283.

⁹ Op. cit., pp. 121-123.

¹⁰ Nouvelle Revue Théologique, vol. 30, pp. 55-56.

¹¹ Cf. Laymann, Theologia moralis, book 2, treatise 1, chapter 15, n. 2; Piat, ad Van der Velden, p. 621. Arndt speaks more severely, op. cit., pp. 123-125, n. 103.

Prior law

74. 1. The first part renews the disposition of the prior law, by which, in the General Decrees, § 2, n. 13, all writings of this sort were punished. Cf. Arndt, p. 148, n. 119.

Whether it is required that it be done of set purpose

2. Because words are to be taken properly, and the Legislator is accustomed to express the clause of set purpose wherever he requires it; indeed because in this same article, in the third part, he inserts the expression by designed effort, we cannot agree with the distinguished Pennacchi, who thinks that clause is to be understood here. With us are Génicot,¹ Card. Gennari,² Moureau.³

Yet practically we do not differ much. For, arguing from the inscription of this fifth chapter, "On Certain Books of Special Subject Matter," we think it necessary that the book be injurious to God, etc., sufficiently notably, although not yet of set purpose, so that it can be said to be of this special subject matter.⁴ Otherwise, moreover, contrary to the mind of this Constitution, this condemnation would extend itself to too many books. Finally, as Génicot, cited place, observes, scarcely will those books be apt gravely to wound or diminish the just esteem of God, etc., unless they are books in which the detraction is developed to some extent. But that grave wounding seems altogether necessary. Therefore it is necessary either that the detraction "be made in a notable manner,"⁵ or that from those detractions the work itself be morally reputed impious. Desjardins elegantly translates: "impious works, which attack God," etc.⁶

Wherefore a work in which detraction against the Blessed Virgin Mary is continued through two or three pages, even if in other parts honorable, we judge to be prohibited by this article.

What it is to disparage? Formal detraction is required

3. Furthermore, to disparage is to take away, diminish, the fame or esteem of someone by words. In French you would say: vilipender, dénigrer, discréditer. Thus detraction differs from heresy, by which a dogma is not derided but denied. But detraction is to be taken as formal, flowing from a depraved intention, not merely material or beyond intention.

Examples

4. God, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the saints, the Catholic Church, and her worship or sacraments. Pennacchi, cited place, and C. Gennari⁷ report many examples of detractions of this sort, and well selected ones. Yet we do not, with Pennacchi, take the worship of the Church concerning the honor due to the Church, which would make that clause plainly useless, but concerning the divine worship which is exercised through liturgical actions. Thus the obvious sense has it, thus also the structure of the words which joins worship with sacraments: "and her worship or sacraments"; and with us say Desjardins, cited place, Son Culte; Gennari, cited place, Il sacro Culto; Hollweck, Ihr Cult; Planchard.⁸

What worship is

5. Apostolic See. This is not the person of some Pontiff as such. Yet if, from the intention of attacking the Holy See, reproachful narrations against various Supreme Pontiffs are heaped together, the present clause will obtain.

¹ Cited work, I, 452.

² On this place, p. 43.

³ Rev. des Sciences Eccl., t. 6, pp. 100, 101.

⁴ C. Gennari, cited place, sins here by excessive severity: "in whatever measure it is done (provided it is in grave matter)"; and Moureau, cited place: "it suffices that it be [injurious] in fact in some place."

⁵ Wernz, n. 111.

⁶ Études, t. 71, p. 208.

⁷ "He disparages God who blasphemes God or denies His goodness, justice, omnipotence, or any other attribute. He disparages the Blessed Virgin Mary who denies her virginity, divine maternity, sanctity, mercy, or in another way calumniates her excellence. He disparages the Saints who holds them as vicious or useless men, who are unworthy of honors, or who contemns their virtues and supernatural gifts. He disparages the Catholic Church who attacks some note or endowment of hers, or her divine origin, or equates her with other human institutes. He disparages sacred worship who exposes Catholic rites, as divine honors, to mockery, or detracts from their necessity and reasonable fittingness; he disparages the Sacraments who denies that they are necessary or useful, makes them ridiculous, or holds suspect the intentions of the Church administering them (that seems to us rather to be referred to detraction of the Church). He disparages the Apostolic See who contemns its supreme authority, divine institution, sublime and infallible magisterium." Thus nearly C. Gennari, on this place.

⁸ Desjardins, cited work, p. 34; Planchard, Rev. Th. Fr., n. 41.

Former law

125. By this article, in the same words, the Excommunication borne in the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, n. 2, of the first series, is repeated. Therefore in itself it will receive a similar interpretation. Hence:

What "knowingly" means

1. Knowingly. By this word the case of any ignorance is excepted, even, probably, affected ignorance. Moreover the word is referred also to those retaining, etc.¹

Reading books. Whether periodic fascicles are books of heretics

2. Reading books, in a notable quantity. Cf. here above n. 57. But who are readers was said in n. 57, 50. Also before, n. 33 and following, we weighed what comes under the name of book, and in what manner periodic publications are to be regarded as books. From this, in order that they be judged to protect heresy as a book, it is required that the periodic publications themselves rather generally stain themselves with this vice.

What apostates are

3. Of apostates. We defined these above as those who entirely cast off the Christian faith externally and internally, whether they pass over to the errors of Mahomet, etc., or simply profess themselves to be perfect "free thinkers." Cf. Avanz., p. 8.

Heretics and a heretical book

4. And of heretics. It is necessary that the heresy be plainly established, either from the heretical sect to which the writer belongs, or, when the book is anonymous, or by an author hitherto Catholic, from manifest doctrine,² and proposed pertinaciously.

Therefore books of this kind are not those which principally belong to a Catholic author, although a heretic has appended scholia, unless these are the greater part of the book; nor those which report some text of heretics "even if you read with the mind of learning heresy." Laym.³ Cf. Piat,⁴ against Arndt.⁵

Nor books of infidels, Jews, schismatics, at least as such.

Nor are books of heretics which pertain to the first centuries of the Church, as now altogether harmless, comprehended here. Lehmkuhl, II, 923. Cf. above n. 66, where we transferred the same rule also to medieval heretics.

To defend heresy

5. Defending heresy. Not merely containing, or briefly defending as if while doing something else, but of set purpose, by bringing forward reasons. But it is not necessary that the subject matter of the book be religious. It is enough that the book defend one heresy in this way.

6. As well as books of any Author prohibited by name through Apostolic Letters. This clause requires:

Through Apostolic Letters

a) Apostolic Letters, or letters proceeding immediately from the Supreme Pontiff: a Brief, Bull, Encyclical, etc. Piat, on V. der Velden, p. 623.

Made by name

b) A prohibition made by name, that is, one by which a book is designated by its proper title. Yet a singular designation, for example of the author, is not demanded. Indeed, a generic indication of title seems to suffice. Hence B. P.⁶ judges that the clause is verified in the Constitution Ecclesiam, by which, in 1821, there were prohibited by Pius VII, under excommunication reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, "the catechisms of the Carbonari, the books by which they describe the things which are customarily carried on in their meetings, statutes, codes." But a disposition is not enough by which, for example, Innocent XI condemned all books and writings of Michael Molinos.⁷ Cf. Avanz.-Penn., Appendix III.

It is required that it be made under excommunication reserved to the Holy See

c) A prohibition under excommunication reserved to the Holy See. Thus the common opinion: Avanzini, Lehmkuhl, Bucceroni,⁸ etc. The reason is drawn from the end of the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, by which this censure was borne. For Pius IX wished to narrow censures. Therefore it would in no way be likely that under the gravest censure (specially reserved) he prohibited books which his predecessors had condemned without reserved excommunication.⁹ Cf. Avanzini, cited place. Wherefore if, for example, you read without faculty the work of Lamennais, Les paroles d'un croyant, you will have committed no pontifical censure, since the apostolic letters by which it is reprobated contain none. The same is the case with the works of Jacob Frohschammer.

Those which were proscribed under another penalty latae sententiae have now been simply condemned, unless they are heretical and at the same time have defended heresy. Except those which, for the causes indicated elsewhere, have fallen from the Index.

d) Yet it is not necessary that those letters bear the penalty of excommunication specially reserved; otherwise the present clause would effect nothing special. Thus the authors.

e) Finally, the disposition affects future proscriptions equally with past ones.

Therefore in a few words: from article 47, those books which the Supreme Pontiffs formerly proscribed by name through apostolic letters under excommunication latae sententiae reserved to themselves are now prohibited under excommunication specially reserved.

What concerning future proscriptions?

Must it be said in the same way if certain books are hereafter condemned by the Supreme Pontiffs through apostolic letters by name? We think it must be said in the same way.

And Hollweck¹⁰ and Wernz¹¹ judge that in this article no times are distinguished. Nevertheless, since the legislator merely uses the past tense, while he could so easily have said prohibited or to be prohibited, the matter seems uncertain to us.

But if future proscriptions are touched, there is no cause why in these you should require mention of reserved excommunication, unless there is a cause on account of which the Pontiff must be judged to have been unwilling to refer himself to the present article, but to pronounce absolutely concerning the sanction.

What books are touched by this clause?

N.B. Because other apostolic letters by which works are condemned either do not bear the penalty of reserved excommunication, or indeed bear it but one afterwards removed, or do not indicate books by name, in reality this clause today has force only concerning 82 books which in the eighteenth century were proscribed by apostolic letters,¹² concerning the work of Fr. Vigil,¹³ and concerning two books of J. Nuyts,¹⁴ which Pius IX condemned by Briefs of June 10 and August 22, 1857. Wherefore in sentences of this kind inquiry must be made only from the beginning of the eighteenth century.¹⁵

Yet it easily happens that, on account of another cause, because they have been written by a heretic and defend heresy, they are prohibited by law under the penalty of excommunication specially reserved.

When those retaining are punished

7. And retaining the same books: knowingly and in that manner in which it is prohibited under grave obligation. Cf. above n. 51 and 58.

Who those printing are

8. Printing, in the commentaries on the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, were understood as all who cooperate proximately, by mortal cooperation, toward "printing." Cf. Lehmk., II, 924.

But, from the general canon which we proposed at the beginning, we are not forbidden, the former law having been put aside, to explain this censure according to the benignity of the present Constitution. Now it seems sufficiently discordant that the same word "Printing" be taken in a different sense in two articles, of which one excepts the other. But in article 48, unless we wish, without a compelling reason, to interpret the words more strictly than formerly, the printer is he who undertakes the work to be printed: namely the impresser, whom in French we properly call l'Imprimeur. From another side it agrees very much with our benign law not to strike with censure those workers who cannot pass judgment on the books toward whose printing they cooperate, will for the most part be ignorant of the penalty borne, and not rarely are excused from contumacy by moral necessity. Wherefore the sentence of Hollweck¹⁶ is not displeasing to us, according to which those printing are only the editor and the "impresser." The corrector, however, will be punished as reading. With us concerning workers is Boudinhon.¹⁷

Those defending. Inefficacious defense suffices

9. And defending in any way. Cf. n. 48 and 55.

Observe, since the censure strikes readers, retainers, printers, and defenders in the same manner, namely directly and principally, defense is considered as a delict consisting in itself. Wherefore it is not necessary that the effect of the defense have been obtained, or that in reality, for example, you snatch the book from the flames. The act is judged consummated by the defense itself. Cf., for example, Lehmk., cited place.

What force special reservation has

10. By the fact itself an excommunication specially reserved to the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover this special reservation operates:

a) So that neither Bishops can for this case, even an occult one, use the faculty which they hold from chapter Liceat of the Council of Trent; nor is the case judged contained in the faculty simply given of absolving from reserved cases.

b) So that he who without faculty shall have presumed to absolve someone from that excommunication commits an excommunication simply reserved to the Holy See from the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis (after the first series).

c) So that one absolved, even in danger of death, by an inferior (that is, by one who did not have at least delegated faculty), must, under the penalty of falling again into censures, after he has recovered, within a month either seek a new absolution from one having faculty, or, either himself by himself or through the mediation of a Confessor, have recourse by letter to the Holy See and obey its commands.

¹ Cf. Hollweck, Die kirchl. Strafgesetze, sec. 107.

² Lehmk., II, n. 923; Bucc., II, p. 339; B. P., t. 7, n. 424.

³ L. 2, tr. 1, chapter 15, n. 1.

⁴ On V. der Velden, p. 621.

⁵ P. 124, 3, n. 103.

⁶ De Cens., t. 7, 456. Yet against this, Piat, cited work, p. 625, because works published after this Bull cannot be said to be prohibited by name through it.

⁷ Yet this cause has that peculiar thing, that there is only one work of Molinos, Guida spirituale, besides two little works which afterwards were published together with the former work. Nevertheless we judge that the nominal indication is lacking which is required for incurring excommunication. The propositions of the work were proscribed as heretical; but since the writer retracted the errors, the work does not seem to be that of a heretical author.

⁸ Appendix III, pp. 126, 129; II, n. 923; p. 340.

⁹ Nothing prevents our present Constitution, although in itself it softens the former laws, from increasing their sanction accidentally. From September 5, 1757 to November 11, 1784, by seven letters in the form of a Brief, works were proscribed under the penalty of reserved excommunication latae sententiae for laymen, and of suspension latae sententiae for clerics. In the same way, on August 2, 1851, two works of J. Nuyts were proscribed. That suspension is suppressed by our law; but, as it seems to us, now for all, even clerics, who unduly read those works, there remains, from our article 47, the penalty of excommunication which is specially reserved to the Supreme Pontiff.

¹⁰ Das kirchl. Bucherverbot, in this place.

¹¹ Ius Decretal., t. 3, n. 121, note 117.

¹² Cf. Hilgers, Der Index, p. 90 and following. He diligently explored this matter and afterwards accurately exhibits it in his valuable chronological Index of proscribed works (same place, pp. 418, 475). The same warns that those books can be found with difficulty, so that they can now do little harm.

¹³ Defensa de la autoridad de los gobernios y de los obispos contra las pretensiones de la curia romana (6 vols.).

¹⁴ Institutiones ecclesiasticae; Tractationes in ius ecclesiasticum universum.

¹⁵ Thus Avanzini, cited work, pp. 130, 131.

¹⁶ Cited work, pp. 48, 49, notes 1 and 2.

¹⁷ Cited work, p. 304. Wernz, n. 121, note 118, seems to favor us sufficiently.

To omit here penalties ferendae sententiae:

I. Excommunication of Apostates and Heretics. — From c. 2314, § 1, all apostates from the Christian faith and all and individual heretics incur, by the very fact, an excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See in a special way.

Apostates are all those who, after baptism has been received, totally withdraw from the Christian faith. Thus from c. 1325, § 2. Therefore even one who has been enrolled in a heretical sect can canonically become an apostate. And, for someone canonically to be an apostate, it is not necessary that he embrace a pagan religion, say Buddhism or Islamism: it suffices that he become a theosophist ¹, pantheist, rationalist, or completely unbelieving.

All and individual. The Legislator seems to have used this abundance of words so that he might reach not only the followers of various sects (who seem to be designated by the words all heretics), but also those who separately and privately err pertinaciously in faith (individual heretics).

Heretics are not only those who deny a truth of faith, but also those who hold it as doubtful (c. 1325, § 2).

Yet only external heresy or apostasy is punished by ecclesiastical penalties. But because the penalty is contracted by the very fact, altogether hidden heresy externally and culpably expressed (as if someone utters it alone in a room) gives place to excommunication. Culpably expressed, I say, because he who, for the sake of seeking counsel, should manifest his internal heresy would escape excommunication.

Moreover, only canonical heretics are struck with excommunication. Therefore it is necessary that they have erred pertinaciously concerning a truth which the Church proposes as revealed. But before God, or in reality in conscience, only formal heretics are struck, while those enrolled in a heretical sect are presumed formal in the external forum and are treated as such.

In the same external forum simple ignorance (not crass) also excuses from contracting the censure.

Absolution in the internal forum per se requires a faculty for cases specially reserved to the Holy See, with the general norms remaining firm which permit all confessors to give absolution with the burden of recurring within a month to the Holy See, or to a Superior furnished with power, or to a privileged confessor; and with the exception of danger of death.

Yet because the Ordinary of the place is also the judge in criminal matters in first instance, the delict of heresy can be brought to his external forum. A voluntary exterior confession of the guilty person also suffices for this. But then one repenting (for withdrawal from contumacy is necessary for absolution from censures) can be absolved in the exterior forum by the Ordinary of the place himself (not however by the Vicar general without a special mandate) or by an ecclesiastical man whom the Ordinary has specially delegated. This absolution, from c. 202 § 1, also removes the censure in the internal forum, so that the sin can now be remitted by any confessor. Juridically performed abjuration is required before absolution: for this it is enough that it be made before the Ordinary of the place, or his delegate, and two witnesses. Those things which must be observed by law are to be observed: salutary penance to be imposed, reparation of scandal, separation from the sect, denunciation, if any has been prescribed, for example, from c. 2336, § 2.

Nor can only one's proper Ordinary, but any Ordinary of a place, impart that absolution (Cappello, De censuris, n. 68).

¹ By the name of theosophy there comes a certain rather little-defined syncretism, which, from religions or religious experiences explored and compared among themselves, attempts to extract, as it were, what is fundamental to religion, what is essential and consequently common to all religions, and thus to exhibit a synthetic account for the only true, universal, perpetual, and wholly human religion. Cf. Giovanni Busnelli, S.I., Manuale di Teosofia, 4 vols., Rome, 1909-1915; Dottrine teosofiche e dottrina cattolica, Rome, 1919; Ill. D. Janssens: Peut-on etre a la fois, chretien et theosophe?, Paris, 1923.

II. Those Suspected of Heresy. who, after they have been juridically admonished, have not removed the cause of suspicion, and for that reason have been prohibited from legitimate acts, or, as clerics, have been suspended from divine things; who, I say, within six months from the penalty contracted, have not amended themselves, are held as heretics, and consequently contract the same excommunication explained above.

Those suspected of heresy are understood as juridically such, from an express canonical disposition. They are enumerated III, n. 916.

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

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

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

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

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

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

²⁰ Cod. iur. can. c. 2335.

²¹ Ib. c. 2336.

²² Collect. de Prop. Fide n. 1845.

²³ Collect. de Prop. Fide n. 1350.

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

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

²⁶ Cod. iur. can. c. 1065.

²⁷ Cf. below III, 516.

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

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

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

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

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

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

²⁹ Cf. Holy Office, July 20, 1898.

³⁰ De fide, Conference I, n. 35.

³¹ Cod. iur. can. c. 731, § 2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

³² S. theol. 2, 2, q. 10, a. 6.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

³³ Cod. iur. can. c. 2314, § 1, n. 1.

³⁴ Ib. n. 2.

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

³⁶ Ib. c. 2314.

³⁷ Ib. c. 985, n. 1.

³⁸ Ib. c. 984, n. 5.

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

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

Propositions opposed to Catholic doctrines are called:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

⁴¹ Denz. n. 1684.

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

⁴³ Cod. iur. can. c. 2317.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

^44a Cf. Cod. iur. can. c. 1325, § 2.

⁴⁵ S. theol. 2, 2, q. 13.

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

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

1. the material element:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. they are irregular (can. 985),

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For this in a priest there is required:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Precautions to be employed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the Care of Non-Catholics:

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

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

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

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

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

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1094, n. 28.

What is heresy, and how manyfold?

Heresy is a Greek word importing choice, because the heretic by his own judgment chooses to believe what he wills.

I say 1°: Heresy is « a pertinacious error manifestly contrary to the faith, in one who has professed the faith of Christ in truth. »

It is called error, that is, a positive assent to the false, or dissent from the true.

It is called manifestly contrary to the faith, because if anyone held something contrary to the faith about which it were not certain and manifest that it was contrary to it, he would not be a heretic, at least a formal one. That, moreover, is certainly and manifestly of the faith which is manifestly and certainly revealed by God, whether privately, or in Scripture, or in the definitions of the Church, and which all Catholics hold as of faith.

It is called pertinacious error. Pertinacity is an obstinate adhesion to one's own opinion against the faith sufficiently manifested: for this neither length of time is required, nor that one be canonically admonished several times; but voluntary dissent from the faith sufficiently proposed by the Church suffices, which can occur in an instant.

That such pertinacity is required for heresy is clear partly from the very name; for it is, as we said, a choice: partly because, just as for faith there is required the pious motion of the will inclining the intellect to assent with certainty to truth obscurely revealed, so for heresy, which is opposed to faith, there is required the perverse affection of the will to dissent pertinaciously from the truth proposed by the Church: partly from the law, cap. Dixit, cap. Qui in Ecclesia, cause 24, q. 3, and Clement. Ex gravi, book V, title 5, on usuries, where those only are acknowledged as heretics who have been pertinacious in denying some article of faith. Hence that saying of Augustine: « I may err, but I shall not be a heretic, » namely through want of pertinacity. The same St Thomas, q. 8 de Malo and on chapter 11 of I Cor., lecture 4. Hence you will infer that one who through ignorance, even culpable, crass, and supine, yet not affected, withstands the faith, being ready to assent if instructed, is not a formal heretic; for although he sins mortally against the affirmative precept of the faith by voluntarily ignoring what he ought to know, he would not nevertheless be pertinacious. Nay, he would not even sin, if his ignorance were involuntary and inculpable, as happens among uneducated Catholics, or those neglected through the carelessness of parents and pastors, and even among those brought up among heretics, who have never heard anything of the Catholic faith except mockeries and blasphemies against it, nor are they beset by any doubt in this matter; so that, if they hold what must be believed under necessity of means, and are disposed in mind to believe the rest if duly proposed, they do not seem to be outside the way of salvation. Nor does it stand in the way that outside the Church no one is saved; for these, by reason of baptism, likewise of the faith which they have, and of their interior disposition to believe the rest, can be said to be in the Church.

Nor does it stand in the way that for other sins voluntariness in the cause suffices: thus one who kills a man through culpable ignorance is truly a homicide. For the disparity is that other sins are not said to arise from election, as heresy is, for which the common voluntariness, whereby every sin must be voluntary, does not suffice, but there is required a special and pertinacious voluntariness opposed to the faith.

You will ask whether one doubting in the faith is a heretic.

It seems that he is not; because the doubter has no error in the intellect, since he neither assents nor dissents; for doubt is a suspension between assent and dissent.

Before the resolution, a twofold doubt must be distinguished: one negative, the other positive. Negative, which some call in actu exercito, is when someone, having apprehended both opposite sides, whether this be true or false, assenting to neither, remains suspended without any positive act. Positive, which others call in actu signato, is when someone likewise, having apprehended both opposite sides, assenting to neither, judges by a positive act that the thing is doubtful and uncertain.

I answer. 1°. Whoever deliberately doubts with a positive doubt concerning some article of the faith sufficiently proposed by the Church, v. g., whoever judges it doubtful whether there is a Purgatory, whether Christ is in the Eucharist, while knowing that it is so handed down and believed by the whole Church, is formally a heretic; because, although he does not deny the truth about which he doubts, he nevertheless judges positively that it, and the infallibility of the Church, are not certain: and thus he has a positive and pertinacious error in the intellect, if not explicitly against the truth of faith about which he doubts, at least against the firmness and certitude of the Church's infallibility, which is of the essence of the faith. By which the argument set down at the beginning is answered. And of one so doubting is verified what is said in the law: « Doubting in the faith, he is an unbeliever, » and he incurs the excommunication reserved to the Pope, no otherwise than other heretics.

I answer. 2°. Whoever doubts with a merely negative doubt about some article of the faith sufficiently proposed by the Church, that is, precisely suspends judgment without any positive act, because, v. g., he wishes now to attend to other things, or does not wish at the moment to fatigue his head in a matter so great, or wishes to inquire more fitly and agreeably into the motives for assenting, or on account of like motives, is not formally a heretic; because, since he has no judgment, for he suspends it, he has no positive error in the intellect. Nor does he seem to sin of itself, at least mortally, setting aside the danger of consenting to a positive doubt, unless the affirmative precept of the faith then press.

If, however, such suspension of judgment proceeded from a motion of the will on account of difficulties propounded by the intellect, which nevertheless does not judge, as though terrified by them and beguiled about the truth: some hold, not improbably, that the malice of heresy is included therein, so that the suspension ensuing upon that evil motion of the will is a kind of virtual and implicit judgment concerning the uncertainty of the object of faith. Moreover, the matter is exceedingly perilous, and there is no doubt that voluntary negative doubt can easily pass into positive, or arise from it.

[That every doubt concerning things that are of the faith is grave sin the Vatican Synod defined by the following canon: « If anyone shall say that the condition of the faithful and of those who have not yet attained to the one only true faith is equal, so that Catholics may have a just cause for calling into doubt, with suspended assent, the faith which they have already received under the magisterium of the Church, until they shall have completed a scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith: let him be anathema. »]

I say 2°: Heresy is divided 1° into material and formal. Formal is that which we defined and have explained hitherto. Material is the error of a baptized man against the truth of the faith arising from ignorance, and without pertinacity. This is clear from what has been said.

2° Heresy is divided into internal only, external only, and internal and external together. Internal only is the voluntary error against the faith abiding in the mind alone and manifested by no exterior sign. External only is when one denies by mouth or by deed the faith retained in the heart. Internal and external together, which is complete heresy, is that which, conceived in the mind, is outwardly manifested by word or sign, even if no one be present; provided only the sign be such that, if anyone were present, he would straightway understand that an article of the faith is denied, of which more presently.

3° External heresy is divided into occult and manifest. Occult is that which becomes known to none or to few; manifest, that which is known to many.

§ II. On the punishments of heretics.

The punishments of heretics are of twofold genus. Some are spiritual, as excommunication, irregularity, deprivation of every benefice, jurisdiction, and ecclesiastical dignity, likewise of ecclesiastical burial. Others are corporal, as confiscation of all goods, exemption of subjects from the oath of fidelity, infamy, and capital punishment. The temporal punishments belong to the secular forum. Wherefore, omitting these, we shall speak only of the spiritual ones.

I say 1°: Neither the material heretic, nor the merely internal, nor the merely external heretic incurs the excommunication and the other spiritual punishments of heretics.

The first part is clear; for the material heretic is not truly and formally a heretic, because he is not pertinacious.

The second part is likewise evident; because, although the merely internal heretic is in the forum of conscience and before God truly a heretic, he is not such in the external forum and before the Church, which does not judge of interior things, and therefore he is not subjected to the punishments decreed by her against heretics.

The third part is likewise evident; because the merely external heretic, as one who either through fear, or hope of gain, or anger, or some other like motive, retaining faith in the heart, utters a heretical proposition, tramples upon the crucifix or the images of the saints, exhibits worship to an idol, shares in the banquets of heretics, etc., although he sins most grievously, is not nevertheless truly a heretic; because heresy is an error of the mind. Ecclesiastical punishments, however, are inflicted only upon those who are truly heretics.

Nor does it matter that one who kills a man through fear or hope of gain is truly a homicide. The disparity is that for homicide the slaying of a man without legitimate authority suffices; for heresy, however, error in the mind is required.

And all these consequently can be absolved by any confessor; unless the external heretic has been publicly denounced as a heretic by the Church (which judges nothing but exterior things, and from exterior things presumes the interiors); for then, on account of scandal, he would have to be avoided, nor ought he to be absolved unless reconciled to the Church.

I say 2°: The internal heretic, by this very act whereby he manifests his heresy outwardly, distinctly, and assertively, even if no one hear or see him, incurs excommunication reserved specially to the Pope alone. Cap. Excommunicamus, de haereticis; cap. Noverit, de sent. excommunicat.; and in the Bulla Coenae.

I said: « Even if no one hear or see him; » for it suffices that the sign be such that, if anyone were present, he would straightway understand that the faith is denied. For such heresy belongs to the outward forum of the Church, and thus it lies under excommunication, which is of the external forum; but that it cannot be proven is not because of itself it is not of the external forum, but per accidens, through defect of witnesses.

[From the constitution of the Apostolic See, 4° idus octobris 1869, promulgated by Pius IX, « all apostates from the Christian faith, and each and every heretic, by whatever name they be accounted and of whatever sect they exist; their believers, their receivers, favorers, and generally any defenders whatsoever of them, » lie under the excommunication latae sententiae reserved in a special manner to the Roman Pontiff. The Bulla Coenae, § 1, accords plainly. — Likewise, by the same constitution, « all and singular those knowingly reading, without the authority of the Apostolic See, the books of the same apostates and heretics upholding heresy, as well as the books of any author prohibited nominatim by apostolic letters, and retaining, printing, and defending those same books in any way whatever, » are excommunicated. So the bull Coenae, § 1, and reg. X of the Index. — The articles mentioned above will be expounded in the treatise on Censures.]

As to the other spiritual punishments of heretics, some hold that manifest heretics are not by this very fact deprived of their benefices, but that the sentence of a judge is required, because in cap. Ut commissi, de Haeret., in 6°, the Pontiff says they are to be deprived, or declared deprived. Others hold that by this very fact they are deprived of the title of benefice, but not of the possession.

[Indeed, from the prefaced chapter it seems that deprivation of all dignity, benefice, and office is incurred by the law itself, but that only after a declaratory sentence is this deprivation to be brought into execution⁴³] ⁴³ Marc. Institut. Alphonsianae, n. 442, quaest. 2.

As to ecclesiastical burial, Sylvius here holds that a manifest heretic ought to be deprived of it before the sentence of a judge; because in cap. Quicumque, de Haereticis, in 6°, it is decreed indefinitely that heretics, believers, harborers, defenders, and favorers are to be deprived of burial, and that those who presume to do otherwise are excommunicated. Yet, supposing the truth of this opinion, I judge it must be understood of heretics and of the others designated insofar as they are so manifest that by no tergiversation and by no plea of law could they be excused, which I deem rare in practice; otherwise material would be furnished for lawsuits and contentions.

[This interpretation agrees with the text of the chapter; for the punishment of excommunication is decreed against those who knowingly presume to hand over heretics to ecclesiastical burial. Now only they truly violate this law knowingly who concede ecclesiastical burial to manifest heretics. The aforesaid excommunication is not enunciated so generically in the constit. Apostolicae Sedis, but is comprehended limitatively in the following, which is the 17th among the excommunications simply reserved to the supreme Pontiff: « Clerics knowingly and spontaneously communicating in divine things with persons excommunicated nominatim by the Roman Pontiff, and receiving them in offices. » This excommunication, therefore, is incurred, and by these alone, who knowingly and spontaneously concede ecclesiastical burial to heretics excommunicated nominatim by the Roman Pontiff, because they receive them in liturgical offices, of which mention is made here.

By the same constit., « those ordering or compelling notorious heretics, or persons excommunicated or interdicted nominatim, whether by the Pope or by the bishop, to be delivered to ecclesiastical burial, » lie under excommunication latae sententiae reserved to no one. Alexander VI, cap. Quicumque, de Haereticis, in 6°; Clement V, cap. Eos qui, de sepult.

But whoever admitted to ecclesiastical burial one excommunicated nominatim by a bishop would be punished with simple interdict, according to the same constit.: « Those knowingly... admitting those excommunicated nominatim... to ecclesiastical burial incur by the law itself interdict from entrance into the church, until they have made due satisfaction to the arbitrament of him whose sentence they contemned. »]

As to irregularity, some hold that it is incurred as soon as heresy becomes external, although it remain occult, from the same chapter Quicumque. Others hold that it must be noted and manifest, because Boniface VIII, cap. Statutum 2, on the same title de Haereticis, seems to interpret the praised chapter Quicumque, as regards irregularity, of manifest and proven heretics.

Nor do heretics alone incur irregularity, but the believers themselves, their harborers and favorers, nay, even their children, unto the second generation, if the father die in heresy; unto the first, if the mother die in heresy, from both chapters cited above, Quicumque and Statutum.

[It must be noted, however, that in regions where heretics are constituted in religious society, and heresy is not held as an infamous crime, the children of heretics are not irregular from this source^{44 44} Ferraris, v. Haereticus, D. 75.

Irregularity arisen from heresy is reserved to the supreme Pontiff.]

As to the deprivation of jurisdiction, the difficulty is graver. It is certain by the ancient law that all manifest heretics are deprived of jurisdiction. Thus St Thomas resolves it, below q. 39, a. 3, o. But the question is of the more recent law in the Council of Constance. Hence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As among the Turks (as is commonly noted) that man is the most bitter enemy of the Christian name who, born of Christian parents, is enrolled into a Mahometan family: so among infidels none more cruelly assaults the Church than he who, having been for some time nourished in it itself, and formed by the Sacrament of faith, pertinaciously adheres to his error, and is thrust the deeper into darkness the more the ray of truth shines around him, willingly blinding himself. This heresy works, building for itself, after the likeness of an Ape, a Synagogue, which it strives to dignify with a counterfeit title of religion; of its nature, state, and condition something must be said here as the subject matter requires.

The NAME of Heresy has its origin from eligo, in Greek αἵρεσις, and it signifies an Opinion which one voluntarily and pertinaciously elects for himself, as they commonly teach with D. Bonav. here. Whence it is also called a Sect, because we follow it; and in that sense the various sects of the Philosophers were so called, because, withdrawing from the common body, they erected new Schools, as S. Bonaventura says here.

But the name of Sect was once in a good sense, as Act. 24. et 26. Now however the name of sect must be abstained from for indicating our religion, as Suarez says disp. 19. sect. 2. Lugo disp. 20. sect. 1. because it avails for expressing only alien religions, as Beda notes ad 24. Act. and we now call heretics Sectaries, and we derive sect not from following, but from persecuting, as S. Doct. notes here.

Heresy is DEFINED: Est error, fidei Catholicae contrarius, cui pertinaci animo inhaereat is, qui est professus fidem in Baptismo. It is an error contrary to the Catholic faith, to which he who has professed the faith in Baptism adheres with pertinacious mind. Thus Turrecremata defines it, lib. 4. Summae, p. 2. cap. 1. from the common mind of the Doctors in 4. dist. 13. where D. Bonav. dub. 4. D. Thom. quaest. 11. art. 2. ad 3. and his Interpreters. And more safely D. Bonau. in speculo animae, cap. 1. and p. 1. Centil. sect. 26. But in the former place D. Bonau. defines a heretic in these words: Haereticus est qui divinae legis ignorantia, vel contemptu, pertinax inventor proprii erroris, aut alieni sectator, Catholicae veritati mavult adversari, quam subiici. A heretic is he who, through ignorance or contempt of the divine law, a pertinacious inventor of his own error or a follower of another's, would rather oppose the Catholic truth than submit to it. Concerning this definition many questions occur.

The FIRST is: Whether error from ignorance is heresy: whether doubt, or merely probable assertion about matters of faith is heresy. What pertinacity is required for heresy: Whether it is required for heresy that it be in a baptized person, and other similar questions, which we shall run through.

Meanwhile I note that heresy is divided into Formal, and Objective. Formal is that actual sin by which someone is formally denominated a heretic: Objective indeed is the object which is falsely believed or asserted by the heretic, v. g. that Christ is not God, etc.

The FIRST opinion is negative. Cited by Cano lib. 12. de locis cap. 9. Tannerus disp. 1. quaest. 8. dub. 5. num. 83. Diana follows it primo Tom. 2. p. tract. 2. miscell. resol. 53. Many say the same with these, concerning one suspending the act of judgment. Sanch. consents T. 1. lib. 2. cap. 7. Portel addit. ad dub. Reg. v. Haeresis, Puteanus 2. 2. quaest. 21. art. 2. disp. 2. Ballaeus num. 3.

BUT the common opinion proclaims as a heretic him who voluntarily and pertinaciously doubts concerning the faith, judging that thing to be doubtful, or that it can be otherwise, (which judgment Sanchez, Vasquez 1. 2. disp. 65. and Tannerus loc. cit. with Maldeno call wrongly reflexum; for an actus reflexus has another act for its object, as Coninch. notes disp. 18. dub. 7. num. 86. and Card. Lugo disp. 17. sect. 5. num. 85. but these judgments have the thing itself for their object, saying that that matter of faith is uncertain. Villalob. consents tom. 2. tract. 1. disp. 10. Sylu. 2. 2. quaest. 1. Faber de Sacr. ord. disp. 3. cap. 4. num. 112. Homob. de exam. Eccl. p. 2. tract. 12. cap. 16. Molf. 1. 1. tract. 8. cap. 8. Lara 2. 2. quaest. 11. art. 3. disp. 42. and sixteen others cited by Sanch. Therefore D. Thom. and others proclaim this voluntary judgment pertinacious [to be] heresy, whom Suarez follows disp. 19. sect. 3. Hurtad. disp. 80. sect. 4. §. 21. Coninch. dub. cit. num. 102. Lorca disp. 42. Castro Palao Tom. 1. tract. 4. disp. 3. p. 2. num. 9. and others besides these, with whom Card. Lugo subscribes disp. 20. sect. 1. num. 17. Fulienfis lib. 3. de fide, cap. 7.

I suppose from D. Bonau. in 3. dist. 17. dub. 3. that doubt is properly called the indifference of the judgment of reason, with respect to either part of the contradiction, so that it prefers neither to the other.

I SUPPOSE secondly, from the same D. Bonau. in 4. dist. 13. dub. 4. that Heresy, so called from eligere, is that in which a false opinion is deliberately elected. From which he deduces that to opine is not heresy; just as neither is to doubt. And so he seems [to side] with the former opinion.

S. Doct. also TEACHES in opusc. de profectu religios. cap. 3. that certain doubts about the faith are often assailed by the devil, which are rather to be despised; because, the more we are indignant with ourselves, and dispute with them, the more their rage is kindled. Gerson attends to this admonition tract. de foeda tentatione, alph. 62. lit. O. usque ad T. Sanchez lib. 2. decal. cap. 7. num. 13. and all the others also of the second opinion.

I ASSERT first, with D. Bonau., that one doubting concerning matters of faith is not properly a heretic.

It is PROVED first by the authors of the prior opinion, by the argument of D. Bonau. loc. cit. in 4. taken from D. August. lib. de utilitate credendi, cap. 1. and it is cited cap. Haereticus, 24. quaest. 3. and by D. Hieronymo cap. 5. ad Galat. et ad Tit. 3. and it is cited cap. Haeresis, 24. quaest. 3. and D. Thom. also uses it 1. Corinth. 11. lect. 4. et 2. 2. quaest. 11. art. 2. ad 3. Of the nature of heresy is the pertinacious election of doctrine contrary to the faith: but one doubting precisely does not elect, etc. but is suspended: Therefore.

It is CONFIRMED; for heresy is an error contrary to the faith; but error implies assent, or dissent. It is confirmed, because heresy is opposed to faith; but doubt is a mean.

I ASSERT secondly, that one doubting is an infidel privatively, because he is deprived of the certainty of assent, necessary for retaining the habit of faith.

It is PROVED; for in this sense cap. 1. de haereticis it is said, that one doubting in the faith is an infidel, not contrarily, as if he had an assent contrary to the faith, but privatively, because he lacks the necessary assent. Thus doubt of the faith can be condemned, just as those are condemned who deny that the soul is the form of the body, or doubt about it, as is found Clem. 1. §. Porro; and those who doubt of the immortality of the soul are condemned by Leo X. in Conc. Later. In the same sense the Fathers spoke, whom Franciscus Suarez adduces num. 12. Lorca num. 5. From which the text cap. 1. de haeret. remains exposed [to objection], which is of Pope Stephen, to whom others answer, that one doubting in the faith is called an infidel with respect to the external forum.

A third opinion of OTHERS says, that it is true when he reflects upon his own doubtful thought, and in fact elicits an erroneous judgment concerning matters of faith, so that he may judge them only probable. But these men confound the questions.

The SERAPHIC Doctor, loc. cit. in 3, whom Suarez follows disp. 19. sect. 4., and Cardinal Lugo disp. 17. sect. 5. n. 96., distinguish two ways of taking a probable opinion. First, as one that rests only on probable reasons. Second, as one that has joined to it a fear of the opposite. And indeed they declare that one who opines with fear is a heretic — Suarez and Lugo, following D. Bonaventure here; but in the former sense, by no means.

OTHERS, however, call one who opines about matters of faith a heretic absolutely. So Castro, Aragonius, and Azorius, as cited by Suarez, Coninck. disp. 18. dub. 7. num. 105., Castro Palao Tomo 1. tract. 4. disp. 3. p. 2. num. 12.

I ASSERT first, with D. Bonaventure, that one who opines with fear about matters of faith loses faith.

IT IS PROVED first from D. Bonaventure in corpore, et ad 3. et 4., by the reasoning which others employ: What denies the certitude of the object of faith removes it: Such is fearful opinion: Therefore.

I ASSERT second, that one who opines about matters of faith from probable reasons, without excluding a more certain assent from elsewhere, is not a heretic.

IT IS PROVED from D. Bonaventure, because Theology deals with matters of faith, and proceeds opinionatively with probable reasons, by which we are bound to be ready to render a reason to those who ask, as it is said in 1 Peter 3.

INDEED, if anyone were to say that the object, that God is, is probable, he would err, understanding that it ought not to be believed with certainty. And this alone do the arguments of Coninck show, as the Most Eminent Lugo observes.

I SEE that the dispute is more about the word than about the thing, and that it is sufficiently resolved by the distinction of the Seraphic Doctor.

THE DIFFICULTY is, because heresy means error with pertinacity, whether ignorance includes pertinacity, and what that may be.

THE FIRST opinion is, that no gravely culpable ignorance excuses from heresy. So Sotus 4. dist. 22. quaest. 2. art. 3. Lopez 2. part of the Instructorius, where he treats of excommunication, cap. 20. Palacius 3. dist. 25. disp. 2. and Lorca disp. 41. de fide, having abandoned the contrary opinion he had taught in the prima secundae, disp. 33. membr. 2. ad 3. The same seems to be the mind of D. Bonav. here, as Sanchez reports num. 19. in the place to be cited.

THE SECOND opinion asserts the same thing, when the ignorance is exceedingly gross and easily vincible. So Sayrus, and Valentia thinks it probable.

THE THIRD opinion admits it, when the ignorance is affected. So Cano, Navar, Corduba, and Torrensis, whom Suarez reports disp. 19. sect. 3. and Valentia disp. 1. quaest. 15. p. 1. diffic. 4.

THE FOURTH opinion distinguishes regarding affected ignorance; for if it is affected out of a false opinion against the Church, as if the proposition of the Church were of small moment, or with a view to erring more freely in faith, it does not excuse from heresy: But if it is affected only out of negligence and weariness of learning, or from any other cause, it does not make one a heretic. So Thomas Sanchez lib. 2. in decal. cap. 7. num. 33. citing Vasquinus prima secundae, disp. 126. cap. 2. Zumel prima 2. quaest. 76. art. 4. disp. 1. and nearly Tannerus disp. 1. quaest. 8. disp. 5. who adheres to this partly with Soto and Valentia.

THE FIFTH opinion is, that any ignorance at all, both gross and affected, excuses from heresy. So Sylvester v. haeresis, Azorius t. 1. lib. 8. cap. 9. quaestio. 8. Bannes, Aragon. quaest. 11. art. 2. Conchinchius, and others, whom Castro Palao cites and follows, tract. 4. disp. 3. p. 2. num. 5. Suarez in the said sect. 3. num. 9. Hurtad. disp. 81. §. 10. where others assert the same; and Card. Lugo disp. 16. de poenit. sect. 4. §. 6. and disp. 17. de fide, sect. 4. and disput. 20. sect. 6. Diana p. 1. tract. 5. Resol. 1. Fagund. lib. 1. cap. 4. saying this is the view of D. Bonav. and D. Thom.

I ASSERT therefore, first, that the first opinion is probable, which the holy Doctor indicates with a single word in the cited dubium.

IT IS PROVED first by the authors of the first opinion, with D. Bonav., from D. August. epist. 162. which is found in decret. 24. quaest. 3. cited there; the Apostle said, where he says: Those who defend their own opinion, however false and perverse it may be, with no pertinacious obstinacy, but seek the truth with careful diligence, ready to be corrected when they shall have found it, are not to be reckoned among heretics.

With these words of D. August. he excuses from the plague of heresy only those who diligently seek the truth; not those who neglect to find it, and much less those who deliberately flee lest they find it.

Card. Lugo RESPONDS num. 176. that Augustine excuses indeed those who seek the truth; but others he neither excuses nor declares heretics; what was certain he decided; what was less certain, about that he did not dispute.

But Lugo TWISTS the authority, because S. August. lib. contra Manichaeos, reported in cap. Qui in Ecclesia, 24. quaest. 3. declares as heretics only those who, admonished that the Church teaches the contrary, still resist pertinaciously: Who in the Church, he says, hold some diseased and perverse sentiment, if corrected so as to hold what is sound and right, resist contumaciously, and are unwilling to amend their pestilential and deadly dogmas, but persist in defending them, are heretics. The same he teaches in lib. 4. de Baptismo, contra Donatistas, cap. 16. saying: The one who through error believes the same as Photinus is first a heretic when, the doctrine having been made manifest to him, he prefers to resist the Catholic faith, and chooses to hold what he held. Fulensis urges this in lib. 3. cap. 6.

Yet these things avail Lugo nothing: For in the former passage I would have him find where S. August. has the particle only. He puts it well that pertinacious persons knowingly are heretics; but in the passage alleged by us he assigns all the conditions lest anyone be a heretic for any cause, and therefore there it is extended more broadly.

In the other passage he evidently speaks of one who is invincibly ignorant, for he says: Let us suppose two men, one of whom holds about Christ what Photinus held, and is baptized in his heresy outside the communion of the Catholic Church: but the other holds the same, yet is baptized in the Catholic Church, thinking it to be the Catholic faith. Him I do not yet call a heretic, unless, the doctrine having been made manifest to him, he should prefer to resist the Catholic faith.

MOREOVER Lugo concedes it to be certain that one who ignorantly, with inculpable ignorance, is ignorant of the articles is not a heretic, because he seeks the truth; and that it is an opinion, uncertain, which says that those ignorantly culpable are not heretics.

It is proved secondly by D. Bonavent. in 2. dist. 22. art. 2. quaest. 2. in corpore. In all other matters sin from ignorance and sin from knowledge share the same malice and belong to the same species (although one offending from knowledge may offend more gravely within the same species;) thus he who kills knowingly and he who kills from culpable ignorance is guilty of homicide, and so of the rest: Therefore also he who falls into heresy from such ignorance is a heretic. This argument is commonly used.

The Churchmen’s Union was inaugurated at the Church House, Westminster, on October 31st, 1898, for the advancement of Liberal religious thought. The members of the Council of this Union are well-known and representative clergymen and laymen belonging to the Church of England. They state that among the chief objects of the Union are the following: —

To maintain the right and duty of the Church to restate her belief from time to time as required by the progressive revelation of the Holy Spirit. And to give all support in their power to those who are honestly and loyally endeavoring to vindicate the truth of Christianity by the light of scholarship and research, and while paying due regard to continuity, to work for such changes in the formularies and practices in the Church of England as from time to time are made necessary by the needs and knowledge of the day.

In furtherance of these objects a Quarterly Review, The Liberal Churchman, was started in November, 1904. The brief prospectus which was issued with the Review puts the objects of the Union in still clearer light. I transcribe it in its entirety.

The Liberal Churchman has been established in order to widen and develop the religious life of the community by advocating and ventilating the claims and principles of liberal religious thought within the Church of England and among English-speaking people as a whole. The object of liberal religious thought is to emancipate the Christian religion from a rigid subservience to the literal forms and theories in which it has been historically expressed and explained; and to re-express and explain the essential facts of the Christian faith in the terms of contemporary thought. There is no dislike to the principle of doctrinal forms; but there is a dislike to the assumption that doctrinal forms which were coined in bygone ages under a totally different set of ecclesiastical, social, and mental conditions are, and must always be, the best and the only forms for commending the Christian conception of life to the mind and conscience of the present time. The religious, moral, and intellectual temper of the modern Christian community has outgrown many of these forms; it does not find itself adequately expressed in them, and it is becoming more and more impatient of the rigid subservience which it is too often asked to accord to them by the official exponents of the Christian creed. It is hoped that the objects of The Liberal Churchman will commend themselves to those who feel that the traditional presentation of Christian truth is no longer adapted to meet the intellectual, ethical, and religious needs of the modern mind.

In the opening article of the Review, Dr. Morrison, the President of the Union, explains its object at greater length, and under the title— The Task of Liberal Theology, develops what is said in the prospectus.

This clearly defined object of the Churchmen’s Union has the sympathy of many earnest and intelligent men of our time. Thus, Mr. W. A. Pickard-Cambridge begins an article in the Hibbert Journal for January, 1905, with this sentence: — Most open-minded laymen probably view with unqualified satisfaction the desire recently evinced on the part of the more progressive clergy of the Established Church to restate upon a basis of rational criticism the received dogmas of Christianity.¹

¹ Page 253.

Sir Oliver Lodge has more than once of late tried his hand at a restatement or re-interpretation of Christian doctrine. The following is the first paragraph of an article by this distinguished scientist in the Hibbert Journal for April, 1904, entitled, Suggestions towards the re-interpretation of Christian Doctrine.

Now that religion is becoming so much more real, is being born again in the spirit of modern criticism and scientific knowledge, may it not be well to ask whether the formal statement of some of the doctrines which we have inherited from medieval and still earlier times cannot be wisely and inoffensively modified? There is usually some sort of forced sense in which almost any statement can be judged to have in it an element of truth, especially a statement which embodies the beliefs of many generations. But when the element of truth is quite other than had been supposed, and when the original statement has to be tortured in order to display it, it may be time to consider whether without harm its mode of expression can‘ be reconsidered and re-drafted—to the ultimate benefit indeed of that religion of truth and clearness which we all seek to attain.²

² Page 461.

More than one of the papers read at the Church Congress, held last autumn in Liverpool, were contributions towards the same object of restatement and re-interpretation of dogma.

This also constitutes one of the main objects which Liberal Catholics of our time have in view. Professor Mivart in the Nineteenth Century for January, 1900, attempted to prove that as a matter of fact, through the labors of Catholic theologians in the past, there had been a process of gradual restatement of Catholic doctrine; he concluded his article in these words : —

My aim has been to strengthen Catholicity, and to that end I have enumerated the most striking modifications in the belief of Catholics I could find, to show how many and great changes the Catholic body can undergo without injury to its vitality.³

³ Page 72.

Several of Mivart’s instances of change of Catholic belief in the past certainly belong to matters of faith, but he regarded them as mere preludes to still greater changes in the future. In explanation of the reasons why he wrote his article he says: —

I am convinced that the great changes herein referred to are but preludes to far greater changes in the future— changes which will be most salutary, if duly foreseen and prepared for. They will take place surely sooner or later, as a new generation of mankind is sure anyhow to succeed the present one. But just as the certainty of that fact does not make the function of the accoucheur less useful, so the sure advent of new conceptions and beliefs does not render useless the work of those who would prepare for and facilitate their safe delivery into the world of ideas.⁴

⁴ Ib., p. 71.

And so Mivart’s object was to facilitate the restatement, and re-interpretation of Catholic dogma by showing how in his view of history the process had been continually going on in the past.

Similarly the writer or writers who under the pseudonym Voces Catholicæ wrote on the Abbé Loisy and the Catholic Reform Movement in the Contemporary Review for March, 1903, claim as the chief merit of the French exegete the successful restatement by him of worn out Catholic beliefs in the terms of modern historical criticism.

On one side, they write, are the formulas, avowedly drawn up for our intellect, yet shaped by old-world men whose mental equipment, so far as it was dependent upon acquired knowledge, was utterly unlike our own; and on the other side is the modern scientific spirit pressing violently against the barriers raised by those formulas and panting for an outlet into the region of light and life. M. Loisy claims to have found an issue which leads not beyond the pale of Catholic faith, but only to its calm and salubrious heights. Placing the definitions of Councils and Popes in the full light of historic experience he virtually says: We owe to them the same degree of respect and credence which we display to the words of the Saviour; and this we can continue to pay without refusing to science what is admitted to be her due. If the course of events, against which it is folly to argue, compels us to deepen, to spiritualize the words of Jesus which the Church for ages construed literally, and if we can—because we must— carry out the process without failing in our duty to God or our neighbor, what is there to show that the dogmas fashioned by men are less plastic? It is impossible to rebut the argument—which is but one of many—and it would be suicidal arbitrarily to condemn the conclusion without first providing some other means of adapting a structure built by the ancients to the wholly different needs of a new generation.

Long before M. Loisy came forward critics had eagerly thrown themselves upon salient facts in Church history; which, turn them how one might, would not dovetail with the dangerous claim to immutability advanced by certain theologians for the dogmas of the Church. Exposed to the fierce light of science, which they were never meant to endure, many of those old-world propositions seemed to shrivel up and harden, to the grave detriment of their religious contents. The French theologian is the first to show how by reverently approaching the formulas of past ages, which were admirable presentments of Christian doctrine as reflected in the minds of Christians of those generations, we can take over the fundamental and comprehensive truths which they embodied, without vainly straining to view them from a standing point which has receded from us forever. Far from loosening our hold on the substance of Jesus’ teachings, this needful process of spiritualization imparts to them a firm cohesion and harmonizes them with ideas of a scientific order from which it is impossible to withhold our assent.⁵

⁵ Pages 401-402.

In spite of what this writer says about the claim of Loisy to be a pioneer in the field of the re-interpretation of dogma, it is well known that he took this idea with much else from the French Protestant minister, A. Sabatier. Indeed, A. Sabatier seems to have been the common source from which English Protestants and liberal Catholics alike have largely drawn. For many years Sabatier was the recognized leader of a certain school of theology in France, and the Abbé Loisy is said to have attended his lectures in Paris. A very slight acquaintance with Sabatier’s writings will convince the reader of the justice of his claim to have led the way in the restatement of Christian dogma. I need do no more here than give a short extract from an article which he contributed to the Contemporary Review for November, 1899, on Christian Dogma and the Christian Life.

Hence it becomes an incontestable truth that no theologian of our day repeats and professes the dogmas of the great councils in the same sense they had for those who saw their birth or origin. Every one accommodates them, more or less consciously, to his own use, translates them into his language, takes or leaves portions as it pleases him; in a word, re-thinks them in his mind, and in rethinking them, interprets and transforms them! Well, modern theology invites us simply to do with reflexion and truthfulness that which we all do more or less and which we cannot help doing. And do we not see that far from being the death of dogma, this faculty of transformation by a new exegesis is the only way by which dogma can be rejuvenated and revived, the only way for us to reap its internal or spiritual substance, the Christian reality by which our religious life can and ought to be nourished? Shall we hesitate resolutely to enter on this path? 6

In another passage of their article in the Contemporary Review for March, 1903, Voces Catholicæ admit that Loisy is not original.

Most of the fruitful ideas [they write] with which his little volume teems have been in the air for some years past. They cannot, therefore, be said to be original. But they have been uttered by non-Catholic critics whose writings and names have remained hitherto unknown to the bulk of our co-religionists.

Any reader of Loisy who knows how constantly he refers to Protestant theologians and rationalistic 6 Page 737.

critics will corroborate this testimony that his views are not original. In this instance, as in so many others, the views of liberal Catholics are seen to be a more or less close approximation to those of heretics and rationalists. Since the condemnation of Loisy’s works by the Holy See there has been a lull in the activity of liberal Catholics, and the present seems to be a favorable opportunity for reviewing our position. Let us try to gain a clear idea of the crisis of Liberalism through which we have been passing. The process cannot fail to be useful to us.

And first of all let us pay a tribute to the vigilance of our bishops who betimes perceived the danger and faithfully fulfilled their office. In their joint Pastoral of 29th December, 1900, they say, after quoting the teaching of Leo XIII: —

Very different from this is the theory of progress or development excogitated in recent times, and approved by certain writers on the continent, and even in England. They make the progress of Christian doctrine to consist in real change. They argue that certain truths of revelation may become obsolete and die out; that, having served their time, higher truths will supplant them, in accordance with some real or fancied progress of natural science. They even suggest that higher perceptions in natural science will reduce mysteries to the level of natural phenomena; and that the development of Christian doctrine really means the reception into the deposit of faith of a number of extraneous truths, which will in course of time bring the Church into perfect conformity with modern ideas. There are even Catholics who imagine that they can save their orthodoxy by holding the creeds and definitions of faith, not according to the Church’s constant understanding of them, but according to their own. They profess to believe that the Church’s teaching may receive new light to illuminate it, so that the traditional sense, given by the Church to her formularies, shall give way to other meanings partially or wholly different. Against errors of this kind the Church, in the Vatican Council, has launched her formal anathema: ‘‘If any one shall say that it may ever be possible, with the progress of science, for a sense to be given to the doctrines proposed by the Church, other than that which the Church has understood and understands, let him be anathema.’’

So that the task which liberal theology sets itself is heretical, and this new heresy differs fundamentally in nothing from former heresies. Men imbued with modern subjective phenomenalism and the theories of evolution wish to apply their philosophical opinions to the interpretation of the doctrines of the Christian faith. This is precisely what St. Paul warned the Colossians against (ii. 8): “ Beware, lest any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ.”

A long catena of passages from the Fathers might be quoted to show the practice of heretics in all ages. One or two will be sufficient for my purpose. St. Athanasius writes : —

After adopting some impious principle as a canon, in accordance with this principle they proceed to corrupt all the sacred Scriptures.⁷

⁷ Orat. II., p. 176.

Faustinus in his treatise De Fide against the Arians (circ. 380) writes: — The Arian heresy when it makes its profession of faith confesses much in the same words indeed as we do but not in the same sense. For in the same words as we do, it proclaims God the Father and God the Son, and that by the Son all things were made by God the Father, and that the Son was begotten before time was. But although it agrees with us in using these words, nevertheless, by a sacrilegious interpretation of them it departs from the orthodox sense of the Catholic Church, calling God Father, but not in the sense that He begot the Son; making use of the word Son also, but meaning Son by adoption not by nature, in the sense that He was reckoned as such, not really begotten by the Father.⁸

⁸ Migne PP. Lat. xiii., p. 38.

One is tempted to wonder how Catholic priests and intelligent Catholic laymen could possibly suppose that the proposed restatement of Catholic dogma does not “lead beyond the pale of Catholic faith.” That the dogmas of the Faith are immutable, that all Catholics are bound to believe Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus; that in matters of faith Nil innovetur, nisi quod traditum est; Non nova, sed nove, Explodenda novitas, retinenda antiquitas; this belongs to the very rudiments of Catholic doctrine. The Catholic Church has always claimed to teach what she received from the apostles, that it is which constitutes the sacred deposit committed to her faithful keeping; if her claim is unfounded, if while professing to teach with divine authority the immutable divine truth entrusted to her keeping, she has all the while been stealthily accommodating and changing it to suit the fashions of the day, then is she indeed an impostor, her stupendous claims make her ridiculous, and the sooner she is shoveled out of the way the better.

But, say the liberal Catholics, there is no use arguing against facts, it is a fact that changes in dogma have taken place in the past, why should they not take place in the future?

This, of course, is the common Protestant and rationalistic objection against the immutability of Catholic dogma; if the liberal Catholic were as well read in the Catholic theology as in modern infidel literature, he would know how to answer the difficulty.

But, persists the liberal Catholic, in spite of the traditional answer of Catholic theologians to the difficulty — and here it is usual for him to introduce a sneer at scholasticism — it remains true that Catholic dogma has changed; LE pur si muove, as in a not dissimilar context asserted Galileo, that venerable confessor of the Faith, as Mivart called him.

One of the classical instances by which Loisy strives to show this, is the transition from the conception of the kingdom of God, as preached by the living Jesus, to that of the Catholic Church, brought about after the Resurrection of Our Lord. Loisy adopts the modern rationalistic view, according to which the Christ of history merely conceived of Himself as the Messias whom the Jews were expecting, whose office it was to preach repentance and thereby the forgiveness of sin, as the preparation for the immediate advent of His earthly but glorious kingdom. In the mind of Jesus there was no place and no need for the Christian Church, and He can only be said to be its founder inasmuch as He unwittingly sowed the seed from which the Church grew by the thought, labor, and adaptation of St. Paul and other great thinkers of the first two centuries of the Christian era. Then, of course, follows the conclusion — if there could be such restatement and re-interpretation of dogma in the first ages of Christianity, why should the process not continue on similar lines?

In answer to this I will quote the recent utterances of two non-Catholic writers. Mr. W. H. Mallock wrote in the Nineteenth Century for December, 1904: —

I will not pause to ask why that subjective experience, which was of no value in attesting the superhuman nature of Buddha, should be accepted as indubitable evidence of the superhuman nature of Christ. ... Nor does what I am going to say apply to neo-Anglicans only. It applies equally to men like Professors Harnack and Sabatier, and to liberal Catholics, such as the Abbé Loisy and Baron F. von Hügel. All these thinkers have come to the same conclusion, that if principles like the Bishop of Worcester’s are to be applied to the interpretation of the Gospels, our conception of the divine character of Christ must, in one respect at all events, undergo a profound change. We can no longer regard His incarnation of the Godhead as complete. We must regard Him, says the Bishop of Worcester, as ‘‘having refrained from the divine mode of consciousness’’ to such an extent that His knowledge, in many respects, was no better than an ignorant man’s. I do not know how far the Bishop may realize the scope of this admission; but, as other thinkers have shown, who are no less devout than he, it compels us to recognize that Christ was not only ignorant of many things, but was actually subject to very serious delusions—chief amongst these being the delusion that His own second coming would be immediate. Such being the case, as Baron F. von Hügel observes, the question has to be faced of how, under these conditions, Christ could have had any intention of founding an earthly Church.⁹

⁹ Page 920.

The Rev. Professor James Denney, of Glasgow, writes in the February number of the Expositor, 1905:—

He (Loisy) holds with that recent school of New Testament scholarship which lays the whole stress in the Gospels on the eschatological representation of the Kingdom. He rejects, unceremoniously, the idea that not what Jesus inherited is of value in Christianity, but only what is His own; nothing was more truly His own, nothing had greater value to Him than what He had inherited—the ancient revelation and the hopes it had inspired. He gets rid of the texts on which Harnack bases his spiritual conception of Christianity by methods which some will describe as exegetical and critical, others as the unscrupulous use of the rack and the knife. Perhaps it is enough to say that they are quite unconvincing.¹⁰

¹⁰ Page 115.

In other words this crucial instance of the apostolic restatement of Christian dogma, this undoubted result of modern criticism, this certain conclusion arrived at by the scientific historical method, is at best the opinion of a particular school of rationalistic scholars, arrived at by denying the authenticity of some texts in our authorities, by torturing others out of their obvious meaning, and by putting aside as unhistorical all supernatural phenomena like prophecies and miracles.

Again; in this question of the development of doctrine, it is all important to distinguish between what is of faith and what is merely theological speculation about the faith. And yet Mivart, in the article from which I quoted above, rides roughshod over this all important distinction.