Indifferentism

33. To what extent it is a sin. 1. Concerning matters of faith, doubt is not impossible, because both the fact of revelation and the very object of faith lack evidence which would compel the intellect to assent and exclude the possibility of doubt.

Wherefore in a faithful man doubts concerning faith and its truths can arise, even against the will; and in this itself the merit of faith consists, that doubts of this kind, sometimes vehement, are excluded through the will and faith is preserved in its firmness.

2. A Catholic faithful person can never licitly change faith or doubt concerning faith.¹

For since he knows that faith is founded on divine authority, to which falsity is absolutely repugnant, he can never have a sufficient cause of changing his faith or of calling it into doubt. Wherefore, when doubts or difficulties against faith arise, he ought to persuade himself that no difficulty occurs which cannot be solved.

a. Therefore the universal doubt of Hermes was rightly condemned, who had taught that a Catholic faithful person must be given license voluntarily to doubt concerning the truth of religion and to remain in doubt until, after an examination has been undertaken concerning the truth of the Catholic religion, he has acquired full persuasion. Yet by these things methodical doubt is not prohibited, which consists in this, that a Catholic faithful person, not suspending but retaining the assent of faith, so acts and inquires into the foundations of faith, especially into the fact of revelation, as if it were not yet established concerning it, so that by an undertaken examination he may be confirmed in faith, which he sees to be a rational service.

b. Therefore with respect to faith the condition of a Catholic and of a heretic is unequal. A Catholic cannot doubt concerning his faith without falling away from his own persuasion: for he knows that his faith cannot be false; but a heretic can doubt concerning faith and inquire further into the truth, nor does this in any way conflict with his principles and therefore with his conscience. For the heretic does not acknowledge in his own sect the infallible foundation of truth; on the contrary, he defends the principle of free inquiry (das Prinzip der freien Forschung). For this reason not only is it permitted to him to doubt, but even we can stir him up to doubt, although we suppose that he is in good faith. The more a Catholic strives to know the Church and its origin and propagation, the more he is confirmed in faith; on the contrary, the more a heretic strives to know his own sect and its origin and propagation, the more clearly and certainly he understands that it is a teacher of error.

3. A Catholic faithful person: a. Who doubts positively, that is, by positive assent judges that truths proposed by the Church to be believed are doubtful and uncertain because of contrary reasons, is a formal heretic: for faith requires of us a certain assent; therefore he who judges the truths of faith to be uncertain sins against the authority of God and the Church equally as he who altogether denies the truths of faith. And in this sense it is rightly said: one doubtful in faith is an unbeliever.

b. He who holds himself negatively, or suspends assent concerning faith or some article of faith, is not a heretic, because he does not err in faith nor admit any pertinacity; but he sins against internal faith.

c. He who in a temptation against faith fluctuates between assent and dissent, and yet does not deliberately suspend assent, does not sin unless perhaps venially, because he resists the temptation negligently and remissly.

When doubts against faith arise, at the same time there arises a struggle between the intellect offering assent and the will commanding assent either of faith universally or of a determinate truth of faith. To avoid sin it is necessary that the will resist the doubts, wish to preserve faith, and continue to command firm assent. The intellect in relation to doubts can hold itself in two ways: either it immediately understands, either directly from the consideration of the doubts or at least indirectly from divine authority, that the doubts are empty and retains firm assent; or it retains the doubt for a time, since it does not see the emptiness of it and therefore cannot remove it. Now an indeliberate doubting of this kind does not harm the firmness of faith, provided the will resists the doubt and by its command excludes fear of erring, or provided the will of submitting itself to the authority of the Church is retained.

4. Indifferentism, which arises from doubt concerning matters of faith, is morally evil and illicit, in whatever way it is taken.

For a. if it affirms that the true religion cannot be known, it is opposed to the arguments by which the Christian religion is shown to be true; b. if it teaches that all religions are equally true or equally false, it contains besides this error, namely that truth and falsity are to be held in the same place; c. if finally it says that man is to be estimated and judged not from that which he believes, but from that which he does, it is opposed to this moral principle, namely that man is held by an absolute obligation to have faith in God speaking.

Note for practice. 1. At the present time there are many who seriously doubt concerning the truth of religion, or cherish and proclaim errors contrary to revealed truths, but nevertheless think themselves to be Catholic faithful and fulfill Christian duties in their own way. Concerning these it is now asked: a. whether they commit the sin of formal heresy or can be in good faith; b. whether in their good faith they can be admitted to the sacraments.

To a. From defect of sufficient instruction it can happen that they do not advert that doubts or errors of this kind are gravely sinful, as being against the infallible authority of the Church and therefore against the authority of God revealing; indeed, it seems possible that they persuade themselves that they have a just cause of withdrawing from faith, so that they entirely fall away from faith without the sin of formal heresy.²

To b. Let the confessor consider what contributes more to the salvation of a penitent of this kind, who in confession says that he doubts concerning faith or that he cannot believe all things: whether he should absolve him or dismiss him without absolution until, doubts and errors having been laid aside, he fully embraces faith. Since absolution can be valid, with the admonition added of believing all things which God has revealed and the Church proposes, and of taking care not to induce others to doubts or errors against faith, he will also be able to be absolved licitly whenever from denied absolution greater spiritual detriment is to be feared.³

2. Lay persons who accuse themselves of doubts in faith or of speeches against faith are to be asked: a. concerning what thing they doubted or spoke: for often they erroneously think that things are truths of faith which are not such, in which case they can sin against faith only from an erroneous conscience.

b. But if the matter is really concerning a truth of faith against which they spoke, they committed heresy if, knowing that the doctrine had been proposed by the Church, they seriously attacked the truth of faith, indeed, supposing knowledge of the penalty, they incurred excommunication. But if they spoke in this way either from human respect or from vanity, they sinned gravely against external faith. But finally, if they spoke in this way to set forth their difficulties and to understand the truths of faith better, they sinned in no way.

¹ Cf. Vatican Council, De fide, c. 3.

² Cf. Pesch, VIII, n. 383 s.

³ Cf. Berardi, Praxis confessariorum, I, n. 87 ff.

Since error is not consistent, false teachings are found that accept all the above-mentioned degrees of unbelief, or borrow impartially from all.

(a) Indifferentism or Latitudinarianism holds that all forms of religion are equally true, and that it makes no difference whether one is Buddhist, Jew or Christian. In a modified form, Indifferentism teaches that any form of Christian belief, provided it suits the inclinations of the individual concerned, may be followed, and hence it is left to each one to decide whether he prefers Catholicism or one of the bodies of the Orthodox Church or of Protestantism. Many who profess a denominational creed or confession are Indifferentists in belief.

(b) Syncretism holds that there are truths in all separate religions, but that none of them has all the truth, and hence that one must select what is good from each, rejecting the evil. Thus, the Judaizers of the first century borrowed from Judaism, the Gnostics and Manicheans from paganism, while today Freemasonry, Theosophy, Christian Science and Spiritism accept, along with the Gospel, ancient pagan, Buddhistic, Brahmanistic and Mohammedan theories; finally, Mormonism endeavors to unite characteristics of the Old and the New Testament dispensations. In a restricted form, religious Syncretism teaches the doctrine of Pan-Christianism—that is, that truth is scattered among the various Christian denominations, and that all should confederate as equals on the basis of more important doctrines to be agreed on by all.

Infidelity is really the most grievous of all sins because by it a man departs farther than by any other sin from God, who is man’s last end.²¹ The terrible consequences of unbelief are variously described in Holy Writ. “He that believeth not shall be condemned;”²²—“He that believeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him;”²³—“If you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin;”²⁴—“The wrath of God cometh upon the children of unbelief,”²⁵ etc.

²¹ St. Augustine, Tr. in Ioa., 89, n. 1: “He wishes a certain great sin to be understood, not every sin as though under a general name. For this is the sin by which all sins are held fast; if anyone does not have it, all sins are forgiven him.” (Migne, P. L., XXXV, 1856).

²² Mark XVI, 16.

²³ John III, 36.

²⁴ John VIII, 24; XII, 48; Rom. XI, 20.

²⁵ Col. III, 6; Heb. III, 18; Apoc. XXI, 8.

St. Paul, when informed by members of Chloe's family that contentions had arisen among the Christians of Corinth,²⁹2º significantly revealed the source of the "denunciation." The so-called Apostolic Constitutions prescribe that the judge (i. e., the bishop) shall not give credence to those who denounce others, but shall institute a careful examination, because "some falsely accuse their fellowmen out of zelotry or envy." ³⁰ An effective means of denouncing public evils and helping to correct them is the periodical press, which should therefore be granted a rea- sonable measure of liberty. But a journal, to live up to its mission, should be edited by responsible persons, who are willing and able to use their influence at all times for the good of the community. A conscientious editor will not lend his co-operation to the spread of denunciations or scandals and will not publish complaints until he has ascertained that they are justified and that there is good reason to expect that the evil can be cured by publicity. It is wrong to print serious complaints without having made an investigation and still more so to accompany them by offensive or insulting remarks.³¹ It is worse to publish unfounded rumors for political ends or to satisfy a sensation-loving public, or worst of all, to corrupt the masses and incite them to revolt.

²⁹ 1 Cor. I, 11.

³⁰ Const. Apost., l. II, c. 37 (ed. Funk, I, 123).—Of anonymous denunciation Pliny says (Epist., l. X, 63): "To compel unwilling persons to accept something that may perhaps be useless to them is not in keeping with the justice of our times." Again (ibid., 98): "Documents presented without an author ought to have no place in any accusation. For that is both of the worst example and not in keeping with our age."

³¹ F. X. Linsenmann, Schriftstellertum und literarische Kritik im Lichte der sittlichen Verantwortlichkeit, Tübingen 1884.

4. It is a duty to exercise toleration towards those whose religious opinions differ from our own. In practicing toleration we must, however, avoid two extremes, namely, on the one hand, undue importunity in propagating our own ideas and beliefs (commonly called religious proselytism) and, on the other, that false tolerance which is synonymous with indifference to error. To pity the erring and treat them charitably is as much of a Christian duty as to hate and combat error.³² “Love the erring,” says St. Augustine in a famous passage, “but kill errors; . . . pray for those whom you refute and convince.”³³

³² Zach. VIII, 19; Matth. XIII, 28 sqq.; XXIII, 15; Gal. I, 6–9; VI, 1 sq.; Eph. IV, 15.

³³ Enarr. in Ps., II, 31, n. 20: “What is called toleration . . . exists only amid evils.” (Migne, P. L., XXXVI, 271).—IDEM, Contra Lit. Petil., l. I, c. 29, n. 31: “Love men; slay errors; presume upon truth without pride; contend for truth without cruelty; pray for those whom you refute and convince.” (P. L., XLIII, 259).—Cfr. C. Romeis, Das Heil des Christen ausserhalb der Kirche nach der Lehre des hl. Augustin, Paderborn 1908, pp. 116 sqq.

15. It is free to each man to embrace and profess that religion which, led by the light of reason, he has thought true.

Apostolic Letters Multiplices inter, June 10, 1851. - Alloc. Maxima quidem, June 9, 1862.

16. Men can find the way of eternal salvation and attain eternal salvation in the worship of any religion whatever.

Encyclical letter Qui pluribus, November 9, 1846. - Alloc. Ubi primum, December 17, 1847. - Encyclical letter Singulari quidem, March 17, 1856.

17. At least good hope is to be had concerning the eternal salvation of all those who in no way live in the true Church of Christ.

Alloc. Singulari quadam, December 9, 1854. - Encyclical letter Quanto conficiamur, August 10, 1863.

18. Protestantism is nothing other than a diverse form of the same true Christian Religion, in which it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.

Encyclical letter Noscitis et Nobiscum, December 8, 1849.

So demented with love of insane liberty are the Sectaries that they embrace all sects with canine greed. Thus the Confession of the Ministers of Zurich, printed in the year 1565, gathers all the flocks of heretics into one pigsty. Thus also the Calendar of Geneva.

To all the sects of the heathens, of Mahomet, and of the Indies, Francis Puccius of Filidio extends the unity of Religion in his book on the efficacy of Christ the Savior: Behold the broad way to Atheism.

The Church cries out, torn by those Wolves, proclaiming aloud the unity of Religion.

It is proved by D. Bonaventure, first in 4. dist. 3. part. 1. art. 1. quaest. 2. and in 3. dist. 23. art. 1. quaest. 3. and by that text of Eph. 4. One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism. From this also the reason is drawn out, which is also that of the Holy Fathers. For from the fact that God is one, and the simple Lord, indivisible Truth, He issued one Faith, one Baptism, and one law; whence we gather the unity of divine worship, and He names it one Religion, for this reason, that it joins all together with a tight bond in the honor of God, as D. Bonaventure notes in lib. 4. Pharetr. cap. 19. from D. Augustine lib. de quantit. animae, cap. 36. Therefore the Apostle in the passage above set before it: Careful to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace; as the Saintly Doctor indicates in the Appendix to the Dieta, Dominica 16. after Pentecost. Thus also Orosius lib. 7. cap. 33. cited by D. Bonaventure serm 16. Hexaëmer.

It is proved secondly by D. Bonaventure serm. 9. Hexaëmer. from Isaiah 28. Behold I will lay a stone in the foundations of Sion, a tried stone, a corner stone, a precious stone, etc. It is expounded indeed of Christ, who as it were as a corner joined the Jews and the Gentiles into one Faith and one Church, as the Saintly Doctor notes on Luke 20, where Christ expounds this of himself, whom Paul imitates Eph. 2. and Peter 1 Pet. 2.; nevertheless he also understands unity in Religion, saying: In whom you also are built up together into a spiritual house, as S. Bonaventure saw in the place cited, Hexaëmer. where he thence gathered the firmness of Religion from its unity.

The same Paul sets forth, while he often describes the Church as one body under one head 1. Cor. 12. etc. which D. Bonaventure observes everywhere, together with D. Cyprian ep. 6. Optatus cont. Donat. lib. 2. Jerome lib. 1. in Iovin. cap. 14. and others.

FURTHER, one Church is defined by the Councils, the Constantinopolitan, the Lateran under Innocent III. 1215, by the first decree of the Council of Sens, and all the Holy Fathers proclaim it aloud.

From the unity of Sacrifice S. Ignatius gathers it in his epistle to the Ephesians.

From the unity of the doctrine of the dogmas of Faith it is powerfully argued by Tertullian lib. 1. de praescript. Epiphanius lib. 1. cont. haereses, heresy 31. D. Bonaventure serm. 9. Hexaëmer.; which indeed is a most weighty reason, as Boverius says demonstrat. 1. Symbol. art. 8. And D. Jerome pursues it in his epistle to Evander, correcting the other one adduced above.

From the very reason of the Church espoused to Christ himself, Paul gathers it in Ephesians 5. With him agree Cyprian in the place cited, Origen homil. 2. in Cant. D. Bonaventure on John 19, and often in the Hexaëm. together with Theodoret on Psalm 47.

The Saintly Doctor also OBSERVES, on John 19, that the seamless tunic was kept whole by the soldiers, since it signified the spousal garment of Christ and the unity of Religion, as S. Basil notes in mamante [in homily on Psalm 28], Augustine tract. 118. in Ioan. Gregory 32. moral. cap. 7.

IN the breaking of bread, which is called one Sacrament, the Saintly Doctor considers the unity of the Church on Luke 24 together with Bede lib 6. cap. 92. and with the Apostle saying: We being many, are one bread, one body. Thus also Clement of Alexandria lib. 7. Strom. I have treated of this p. p. tract. 1. disput. 5.