The Decalogue and the First Commandment

THE great precepts of the natural law which binds all men are summed up in the Ten Commandments given by God to the Israelites, which not to destroy but to fulfil, our Lord declared that he came They bind all men, and they will continue to do so as long as human nature is what it is; if only they were observed, the blissful state of happiness of which poets have dreamed, and reformers have striven in vain to bring about, would indeed be realized on earth. The first three Commandments lay down our duty toward God and constitute the first table; the rest, forming the second table, contain our duties toward our neighbour and our self-regarding duties.

The First Commandment, in the words of Exodus, is: “ I am the Lord thy God . . . thou shalt not have strange gods before me.’’!

Here God solemnly declares to us that he is our Lord God from whom we have all that we possess, on whom we depend absolutely, to whom we altogether belong. From this, our essential relation with God our Creator, is derived immediately our duty to worship him as our first beginning and last end. The fact that we derive our bodily origin under God from our parents lays upon us certain obligations in their regard; similarly, our relation to God imposes on us our highest duty of worshipping God, our Creator.

The acts of this worship, which natural reason thus prescribes, belong to the virtue which theologians call religion. They are acts such as prayer, worship in the stricter sense, sacrifice, offerings, tithes, vows, oaths, etc. Most of them will be more suitably treated of elsewhere; in this part we will consider the subject of prayer and worship, and then the chief sins against the virtue of religion. Exod. xx 2, 3.

The first three precepts of the Decalogue, as we have said, order man to God, insofar, namely, as they assign the worship or honor to be shown to God. Moreover, the first precept treats of the worship which is paid to God by acts; the second, of the worship which is shown to him by words; the third prescribes public worship, to be paid through the special sanctification of certain days.

But before we treat the individual points, it is helpful to premise certain things concerning worship taken generally.

I. Notion of worship. Worship is the testimony of another's excellence and of one's own submission.

II. Division of worship. Worship taken generally is divided into civil and religious or sacred worship. Civil worship is that which is paid to men because of their natural excellence. Religious worship is that which is shown either to God because of his infinite excellence, or to angels or the blessed because of their supernatural excellence. We speak of religious worship, which is divided:

1. Into the worship of latria, hyperdulia, and dulia, according as it is offered to God, the Blessed Virgin Mary, or other heavenly citizens. The worship of latria pertains to religion (n. 385), the worship of hyperdulia and dulia to observance (n. 400).

2. Into absolute and relative worship. Absolute worship is that by which God and the heavenly citizens are honored in themselves; relative worship is that by which relics and images are honored with a view to the person to whom they are referred.

3. Into public and private worship. Worship is called public if it is offered in the name of the Church by persons legitimately deputed for this, and through acts which by institution of the Church are to be shown to God, the Saints, and the Blessed only; otherwise, private (can. 1256).

With these things noted, we shall speak first of the acts of worship prescribed by the first precept, then of the vices opposed to it, with a scholion added on the worship of heavenly citizens, images, and relics.

By the first precept of the Decalogue there are forbidden: 1. superstition; 2. irreligiosity, insofar as it is contained in acts. Insofar as it is contained in words, for example blasphemy, it is opposed to the second precept.

"Superstition," says St. Thomas, "is a vice opposed to religion according to excess; not because it shows more in divine worship than true religion does, but because it shows divine worship either to one to whom it ought not, or in a way in which it ought not" (II-II, q. 92, a. 1). Irreligiosity is opposed to religion as by defect, and it has place when someone treats God or sacred things contemptuously or irreverently (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 97, pref.; St. Alphonsus, III, pref.).

The sins of irreligiosity committed by acts are: the temptation of God, sacrilege, and simony.

"Our Most Holy Lord... declared, established, and decreed that images and the other things aforesaid, and anything else carrying before itself and indicating veneration and cult, of any persons whatever who have died with a reputation for sanctity or martyrdom, whenever that reputation may exist, are not to be placed in oratories or public or private places, or in churches, whether Secular or Regular, of any Religion, Order, Institute, Congregation, or Society whatsoever, before they are canonized or declared Blessed by the Apostolic See; and, if any have been placed, they are to be removed, just as he commanded them immediately to be removed.

2. And likewise he prohibited that henceforth books of the same persons be printed, containing deeds, miracles, or revelations, or any benefits whatsoever as received from God through their intercessions, of those who have departed from life celebrated by reputation or opinion of sanctity or martyrdom, as stated, without the recognition and approval of the Ordinary, who in recognizing them is to employ Theologians and other pious and learned men for counsel; and, lest henceforth fraud, or error, or anything new and disordered be committed in a matter so grave, he is to transmit the instructed matter to the Apostolic See and await its response. But the revelations and miracles and other aforesaid benefits which hitherto have been printed in books containing the life and deeds of these persons without recognition and approval of this kind, His Holiness wills and commands to be judged in no way approved.

3. He also forbade and prohibited that at the sepulchers of these persons tablets and images of wax or silver, or of any other material whatever, whether painted or fashioned and sculpted, be hung or affixed, and lamps or any other lights be lit, without recognition by the Ordinary to be made wholly as above, and to be referred to and approved by the Apostolic See.

4. Declaring that through the above-written things he does not will nor intend to prejudice in any way those who are venerated either by the common consent of the Church, or by immemorial course of time, or by the writings of Fathers and holy men, or by the knowledge and tolerance of the Apostolic See or of the Ordinary through a very long time.

5. But so that the foregoing may be more diligently observed, he strictly commands all and singular, both Ordinaries and Inquisitors of heretical depravity, that each in his own Diocese or Province carefully keep watch lest, without the aforesaid approvals, images with the aforementioned signs be exposed, or the aforesaid miracles, revelations, and benefits be published, or other things be done against what has been disposed above.

6. But transgressors, if they are Regulars, are to be punished with deprivation of their offices and of active and passive voice, and also suspension from Divine things; but if they are secular Clerics, likewise with deprivation of their offices, suspension from Divine things, and from the administration of Sacraments and the execution of their Orders respectively, and with other penalties to be inflicted at the judgment of the aforesaid Ordinaries or Inquisitors, according to the manner of the fault.

7. But those who shall have printed books or painted, sculpted, or in any way fashioned or formed images, and the rest of the craftsmen in any way offending concerning the foregoing, let them lose all the aforesaid things, and besides be affected with monetary and other, even corporal, penalties, according to the gravity of the crime, at the judgment of the same Ordinaries or Inquisitors.

8. Anything whatsoever to the contrary notwithstanding." Urban VIII, 13 March 1625.

"Whether the practice of separating Relics of the Most Holy Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ from Relics of the Saints is accurate and to be observed? - Resp. In the affirmative." S. C. Indulg. 22 Feb. 1847.

"Whether nuns, or pious women living a common life under a rule, can, with the license of the Ordinary, first wash Corporals, Palls, and Purificators? - Resp. In the negative." S. R. C. 12 Sept. 1857.

"Having received responsive letters of the Bishop of Corneto concerning the petition of nuns who were prohibited by the Bishop from bleaching Purificators for the service of their Church, the Sacred Congregation granted the requested bleaching, not only for the service of their Church, but also of the whole city, provided that the Purificators are first washed by some Priest and the ablution is placed in the sacrarium." S. R. C. 12 Jan. 1636.

"Whether the custom of exacting an annual canon is sustained in the case? An annual canon of 35 centesimi to be exacted from any parish whatever for obtaining the material of the Most Holy Oils and remunerating the ministers distributing the same. - Resp. The custom can be tolerated." S. C. C. 20 Dec. 1879. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 13, p. 180 ff.

"Whether one who buys crosses, medals, etc., in order to distribute them after they have been blessed with the application of indulgences, can ask their price from the recipients without fault, or without danger of losing the indulgences? Whether they are lost only when someone has made those things his own and has used them with the intention of gaining Indulgences? - Resp. In the negative to the first part; to the second, it does not need a response." S. C. Ind. 22 Feb.; 12 July 1847; 2 Oct. 1840; 15 May 1886.

"... His Holiness... strictly commanded that the Christian faithful, under any pretext whatever, even of redeeming Sacred Relics and remains of the Saints, although enclosed in a little case and furnished with a seal, presume neither to buy nor trade for them, both in the City and outside it. Furthermore he commanded that whoever finds sacred relics standing for sale is to notify the Ordinaries of the places, whose concern it will be to provide opportunely. Therefore the same Most Holy Lord ordered this Decree to be made and published..." S. C. Ind. 21 Dec. 1878. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 11, p. 365. Likewise Letters of the Most Eminent Cardinal Vicar, by command of Our Most Holy Lord Leo XIII, were given to the Bishops concerning the sacrilegious commerce of false relics, on the 16th day before the Kalends of February 1881. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 14, p. 59.

“26. The prayer of one foreknown [as damned] avails no one.” Proposition of John Wycliffe condemned at the Council of Constance.

“50. In vain do we cry to God: My Father, if it is not the spirit of charity that cries. — 59. The prayer of the impious is a new sin; and what God grants them is a new judgment upon them.” Propositions of Paschasius Quesnel condemned by Clement XI.

“7. He who, in praying, asks for something singular and determinate asks for evil and asks evilly, because he asks for a negation of good and a negation of God, and prays that God be denied to him.” Proposition of Eckhart condemned by John XXII in 1329.

“14. It is not fitting for one who is resigned to the divine will to ask anything from God, because asking is an imperfection, since it is an act of one’s own will and choice, and is to will that the divine will be conformed to ours, and not that ours be conformed to the divine; and that saying of the Gospel, Ask and you shall receive, was not spoken by Christ for interior souls, which do not wish to have a will; indeed, souls of this kind arrive at such a point that they cannot ask anything from God. — 15. Just as they ought not to ask anything from God, so neither ought they to give Him thanks for anything, because each is an act of one’s own will. — 22. To assert that in prayer it is necessary to help oneself through discourse and through thoughts when God does not speak to the soul is ignorance. God never speaks; His speech is operation, and He always operates in the soul when it does not impede Him by its discourses, thoughts, and operations. — 23. In prayer it is necessary to remain in obscure and universal faith, with quiet and forgetfulness of every particular and distinct thought concerning the attributes of God and the Trinity, and thus to remain in the presence of God to adore, love, and serve Him, but without producing acts, because God is not pleased with these. — 24. Whatever thoughts occur in prayer, even impure ones, even against God, the Saints, the faith, and the sacraments, if they are not voluntarily nourished nor voluntarily expelled, but are tolerated with indifference and resignation, do not impede the prayer of faith; indeed, they render it more perfect, because the soul then remains more resigned to the divine will. — 25. Even if sleep supervenes and one sleeps, nevertheless actual prayer and contemplation take place, because prayer and resignation are the same, and while resignation endures, prayer also endures. — 26. Those three ways, the purgative, illuminative, and unitive, are the greatest absurdity that has been spoken in mystical theology, since there is only one way, namely, the interior way. — 27. He who desires and embraces sensible devotion neither desires nor seeks God, but himself; and he who walks by the interior way acts evilly when he desires it and endeavors to have it, both in sacred places and on solemn days. — 30. Everything sensible which is expressed in the spiritual life is abominable, filthy, and unclean. — 32. Neither before nor after Communion is any preparation or thanksgiving required—for these interior souls—other than continuance in solid passive resignation, because in a more perfect manner it supplies for all the acts of the virtues which can and do take place in the ordinary way. And if, on this occasion of Communion, movements of humiliation, petition, or thanksgiving arise, they are to be repressed whenever it is not discerned that they are from a special impulse of God; otherwise they are impulses of nature not yet dead. — 33. A soul which proceeds by this interior way acts evilly if on solemn days it wishes by some particular effort to stir up in itself some devout feeling, since for interior souls all days are equal, all are festive. And the same is said concerning sacred places, because for souls of this kind all places are equal. — 34. To give thanks to God with words and tongue is not for interior souls, which ought to remain in silence, placing no impediment to God’s operating in them; and the more they resign themselves to God, the more they experience that they cannot recite the Lord’s Prayer, or Our Father. — 35. It is not fitting for souls of this interior way to perform operations, even virtuous ones, from their own choice and activity; otherwise they would not be dead. Nor ought they to elicit acts of love toward the Blessed Virgin, the Saints, or the Humanity of Christ, because, since these objects are sensible, such also is the love toward them. — 36. No creature, neither the Blessed Virgin nor the Saints, ought to sit in our heart, because God alone wills to occupy and possess it. — 55. By this interior way, although with much suffering, one arrives at purging and extinguishing all the passions, so that nothing further is felt, nothing, nothing; nor is any disquiet felt, as in a dead body, nor does the soul allow itself to be moved any further. — 56. The two laws and the two cupidities—one of the soul and the other of self-love—endure as long as self-love endures; hence, when this has been purged and killed, as takes place by the interior way, those two laws and two cupidities are no longer present, nor is any fall thereafter incurred, nor is anything further felt, not even venial sin. — 57. Through acquired contemplation one arrives at the state of no longer committing sins, either mortal or venial. — 58. One arrives at a state of this kind by no longer reflecting upon one’s own operations, because defects arise from reflection. — 61. When the soul has arrived at mystical death, it can no longer will anything other than what God wills, because it no longer has a will, and God has taken it away from it. — 62. By the interior way one arrives at a continuous and immovable state in imperturbable peace. — 63. By the interior way one arrives even at the death of the senses; indeed, the sign that someone remains in the state of nothingness, that is, of mystical death, is that the external senses no longer represent sensible things, so that they are as if they did not exist, because they do not succeed in causing the intellect to apply itself to them. — 64. A theologian has less disposition for the contemplative state than an uneducated man: first, because he does not have so pure a faith; second, because he is not so humble; third, because he does not so greatly care for his own salvation; fourth, because he has his head filled with phantasms, species, opinions, and speculations, and cannot enter into that true light.” Propositions of Michael de Molinos condemned by Innocent XI.

“9. I recently considered whether I should wish to receive or desire anything from God; I wish to free myself very well from this, because if I were one receiving from God, I would be under Him or beneath Him, as a servant or a slave, and He would be as a Lord in giving; but it will not be thus in eternal life.” Error of Eckhart condemned by John XXII in 1329. Cf. nn. 452, 455.

“18. He who in prayer uses images, figures, species, and his own concepts does not adore God in spirit and truth.” Proposition of Michael de Molinos condemned by Innocent XI.

“Is a certain formula to be approved for obtaining that all men acknowledge the supreme dominion of Christ and Mary Immaculate over all creatures? — Resp. The prayer in question is not to be approved, nor propagated among the faithful, nor enriched with indulgences.” Holy Office, 12 June 1895.

“26. Praise which is offered to Mary, as Mary, is vain.” Proposition condemned by Alexander VIII, 7 Dec. 1698.

“The Saints reigning together with Christ are to be venerated and invoked, and they offer prayers to God for us, and their relics are to be venerated. I most firmly assert that images of Christ and of the Mother of God ever Virgin, as well as of the other Saints, are to be had and retained, and that due honor and veneration are to be imparted to them.” Tridentine Profession of Faith.

“I constantly hold that there is a Purgatory and that the souls detained there are aided by the suffrages of the faithful.” Tridentine Profession of Faith. [The source prints the section number “437”; corrected here to “457” from the numerical sequence and the subject indicated in the book’s contents.]

“The suffrages of the faithful living, namely, the sacrifices of Masses, prayers, and alms, and other offices of piety which, according to the institutions of the Church, are customarily performed by the faithful for other faithful, profit them—the souls of Purgatory.” Greek Profession of Faith prescribed by Gregory XIII. The same is contained in the same words in the Oriental Profession of Faith prescribed by Urban VIII and by Benedict XIV.

“1. Whether it is expedient to approve, or at least to permit, a special worship of the adorable Countenance of the Divine Redeemer, distinct from that customarily rendered until now to the image of the Holy Face, which is being most greatly propagated through the annals of the relevant archconfraternity by the priests called Priests of the Holy Face (Sainte Face), established at Tours. — 2. Whether, in order to propagate or establish the worship concerning which there is question in the other query, it is expedient to dedicate a church or public oratory, to establish confraternities, and even to found some religious congregation or institute under the title of the Holy Face. — Resp. To the 1st: It is not expedient. — To the 2nd: In the negative; and according to the intention.

“The intention is: in adopting the title of the Holy Face, both in the Brief dated 16 Dec. 1884 granting special indulgences to the confraternity erected at Tours under such a title, and in the Brief dated 30 March 1885 elevating the confraternity to the rank of an archconfraternity, the Holy See did not in the least intend to favor, much less either directly or indirectly to give approval to, a special and distinct worship to be rendered to the adorable countenance of the Redeemer in that manner which is especially proposed and propagated by those called Priests of the Holy Face.

“The Holy See intended to favor solely the veneration already shown from ancient times toward the image of the Countenance of the Divine Redeemer, or toward copies of that image, so that, from the veneration and contemplation of the aforesaid image, the memory of the Passion of Christ may increase more from day to day in the minds of the faithful, and in their hearts sorrow for sins and an ardent desire of making reparation for injuries inflicted upon the Divine Majesty may be augmented.” Holy Office, 4 May 1892.

“The Supreme Sacred Roman Universal Inquisition wholly prohibits and condemns the title: The Penitent Heart of Jesus — The Heart of Jesus doing penance for us — Jesus doing penance — Jesus doing penance for us.” Holy Office, 15 July 1893.

“1. When certain matters concerning devotion toward the Most Holy Soul of Our Lord Jesus Christ had been referred by the Sacred Congregation of Rites to the Holy Office, on Wednesday, 10 March 1875, it was decreed: Care is to be taken lest, under the pretext of devotion toward the Most Holy Soul of Christ, novelties deserving reprobation creep into the public worship of the Church in images, formulas of prayer, and other sacred things, or anything new be introduced without consultation of the Holy See, especially if they are derived from devotions or visions neither examined nor approved. Moreover, in the writings sent to the Sacred Congregation of Rites certain things are found which are by no means to be approved, without the amendment of which it is not to be permitted that those writings be published among the people.

“2. In the year 1883, petitions having been presented for the foundation of an Institute for the adoration of the Most Holy Soul of Our Lord Jesus Christ, on Wednesday, 10 May of the same year, the same Most Eminent Fathers issued the decree: The Sacred Congregation responds to the petitions: In the negative. And this is to be written to the Bishop, who is to withdraw the indulgences attached to the prayers and to each word of them, and is to place no faith in the revelations concerning which there is question; and the decree issued in the year 1875 is to be communicated to the Bishop.

“3. Finally, in the same year and on the same Wednesday, when a certain formula of prayer to the Soul of Jesus Christ was called up for examination, the Most Eminent Fathers ordered it to be amended and ordered the decree reported above to be communicated to the Bishop who had approved it.” Holy Office, May 1901.

“1. Whether and how it is expedient to approve the title of the Interior of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which the new Institute of the Sisters A. of M., of the diocese of P., assumes. “2. Whether, if the aforesaid title is admitted, it is also expedient to admit among the other feasts of the aforesaid Institute that of the Interior of the Blessed Virgin Mary. — Resp. To each: In the negative.” Holy Office, 13 Dec. 1893.

“The worship of St. Joseph under the title Friend of the Sacred Heart (ami du S. Cœur) was made the object of a special examination; and the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals, General Inquisitors in matters of faith and morals, all the circumstances, especially those occurring in the case, having been maturely weighed, decreed, with the approval of Our Most Holy Lord Pope Leo XIII, that no pronouncement was to be made concerning the matter proposed. — Furthermore, the aforesaid Most Eminent Fathers ordered that the Sacred Congregation of Rites be admonished not thereafter to issue decrees, rescripts, etc., in which in any manner the new title concerning which there is question above is approved, or even in which it is simply mentioned.” Holy Office.

“The worship of the Heart of St. Joseph had already been reproved by Gregory XVI, and for this reason medals which displayed it together with the Most Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary were prohibited.” Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, 19 Feb. 1879; Sacred Congregation of Rites, 14 June 1873. [The source prints “Gregory XIV”; corrected here to “Gregory XVI” as required by the historical chronology of the cited devotion.]

“Whether the temporal nativity of any Saint or Blessed, except that of the Virgin Mother of God and also that of St. John the Baptist, can be celebrated by a liturgical rite or by another manner of sacred solemnity. — Resp. In the negative, even if the celebration should take place on the day of death or on any other day assigned to the commemoration of the same Saint or Blessed.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 19 Dec. 1893, General Decree.

With regard to the worship to be rendered to the Holy Thorn, “the Decrees are to be observed, especially the Decree in Tridentina, 12 March 1836, and the others concerning the worship to be exhibited and prescribed for Relics of the life-giving Cross and of the other instruments of the Lord’s Passion.” Holy Office, 17 Sept. 1897. — The Decree in Tridentina, to the 1st, declares that a Relic of the Most Holy Cross is not to be exposed above the Tabernacle containing the Eucharist. The other, in Varsavien., to the 12th, declares that one knee is to be bent before a Relic of the Most Holy Cross exposed in the principal place upon the altar. These things are also confirmed by other Decrees.

“Whether the practice of separating Relics of the Most Holy Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ from relics of the Saints is correct and to be retained. — Resp. In the affirmative, and to the Most Eminent Prefect according to the intention. And the intention was that it be written both to the Most Eminent Vicar of the City and to the Most Reverend Sacristan of the chapel of the Apostolic Palace, to whom the custody of sacred relics pertains, that the decrees previously issued for the separation of Relics of the Most Holy Cross from relics of the Saints be restored to force.” Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, 22 Feb. 1847.

“Whether in a solemn procession of the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, both on the day of Corpus Christi and in Holy Week, it is lawful to carry instruments of the Most Holy Passion of Our Savior Jesus Christ, namely, a fragment of the Most Holy Cross or of the Thorn. — Resp. In the negative.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 17 June 1684, n. 1731.

“Whether outside the feast of Corpus Christi and its octave it is lawful, in honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary or of the Saints, to carry the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist in evening processions, and also images or relics of the Blessed Virgin herself and of the Saints. — Resp. In the affirmative, with the consent of the Ordinary, as regards the first part; in the negative as regards the second.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 31 Jan. 1896, nn. 3878, 3997.

“Can ancient reliquaries with Relics, which lack an authentic document and formerly belonged to suppressed monasteries, be exposed upon the altar, as has been done from time immemorial? — Resp. In the negative.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 23 June 1892, Lauden., to the 5th.

“There are many relics enclosed in precious silver reliquaries in nearly all the churches of the diocese, even the poorest, for which authentic documents are not held, nor is there knowledge that such documents formerly existed, nor is the time known from which those relics have been possessed. Their number is considerable; and although the reliquaries savor of antiquity, nevertheless there exists in the archives of the parishes or in their histories no certain document proving their authenticity. Yet they are venerated by the peoples with great piety, so that this worship cannot be prohibited without scandal. Therefore, since they are very ancient, so that antiquity itself can constitute an argument sufficient to produce moral certainty, and since among all they have always been and are in the greatest veneration, the Bishop petitioner thinks that worship of this kind can be permitted; nevertheless, to remove every anxiety, he implores the judgment of Your Holiness concerning this. — Resp. Ancient relics are to be preserved in that veneration in which they have hitherto been held, unless in a particular case there are certain arguments that they are false or spurious.” Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, 20 Jan. 1896.

“1. Whether the anterior part of the arm, which is called the forearm, separated from the other, upper part of the same arm, can be held as a notable relic. — 2. Whether the same is to be said of that upper part of the arm, namely, insofar as it too can be held as a notable relic. — 3. Whether the heart, tongue, and hands, if they are miraculously preserved intact, ought to be held as notable relics. — Resp. In the affirmative.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 27 June 1899.

“I profess that which was defined against the Iconoclasts: that images of Christ and of the Virgin Mother of God, as well as of the other Saints, are to be had and retained, and that due honor and veneration are to be imparted to them.” Oriental Profession of Faith prescribed by Urban VIII and by Benedict XIV.

“29. Likewise, whether he believes and asserts that it is lawful for the relics and images of the Saints to be venerated by the faithful of Christ.” Articles from the Bull Inter cunctas of Martin V concerning which those suspected of the errors of Wycliffe and Hus are to be questioned.

“69. The prescription which, generally and without distinction, notes images of the incomprehensible Trinity among images to be removed from the Church, as furnishing to the uneducated an occasion of error: on account of its generality, rash and contrary to the pious practice observed in the Church, as though there existed no images of the Most Holy Trinity commonly approved and safely to be permitted. From the Brief Sollicitudini nostrae of Benedict XIV, of the year 1745. — 70. Likewise, the doctrine and prescription generally reproving every special worship which the faithful are accustomed to render to some image in particular, and their having recourse to it rather than to another: rash, pernicious, injurious both to the pious practice observed in the Church and to that order of providence by which God willed that these things not take place in all memorials of the Saints, He who distributes to each his own as He wills. From St. Augustine, Letter 78, to the clergy, elders, and entire people of the Church of Hippo. — 71. Likewise, that which forbids images, especially those of the Blessed Virgin, to be distinguished by any titles other than denominations analogous to mysteries of which express mention is made in Sacred Scripture, as though other pious denominations, which the Church approves and commends even in her public prayers, could not be ascribed to images: rash, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the veneration due especially to the Blessed Virgin. — 72. Likewise, that which wishes to extirpate as an abuse the custom by which certain images are kept veiled: rash, contrary to the practice observed in the Church and introduced for fostering the piety of the faithful.” Propositions of the Synod of Pistoia condemned by Pius VI.

“25. It is unlawful for a Christian to place an image of God the Father seated in a church.” Proposition condemned by Alexander VIII.

From the Brief of Urban VIII, 15 March 1642: “Sacred images are not to be exposed under new forms of dress, but only in that form in which from ancient times they have customarily been exhibited in the Roman Church.” Decree n. 810.

“1. Whether images of the Sacred Heart of Jesus representing the Heart alone, without the rest of the body, may safely be distributed. — 2. Whether they are approved at Rome. — 3. Whether they must be withdrawn from the homes of the faithful where they are objects of veneration. — Resp. To the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd: The image of the Most Sacred Heart of Our Lord Jesus Christ concerning which there is question may be permitted for private devotion, provided that it is not exposed upon altars to be honored with public veneration.” Holy Office, 26 Aug. 1891.

“New emblems of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus in the Eucharist are not to be approved by the Apostolic See. For fostering the piety of the faithful, the images of the Most Sacred Heart already used and approved in the Church are sufficient, because worship toward the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus in the Eucharist is neither more perfect than worship toward the Eucharist itself nor different from worship toward the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus. Furthermore, the same Most Eminent Fathers ordered that the intention made known by this Sacred Congregation at the command of Pope Pius IX of holy memory, on Wednesday, 13 Jan. 1875, be communicated, namely, that other writers also, who sharpen their talents upon these and other arguments of this kind which savor of novelty, and who under the appearance of piety endeavor to promote unaccustomed forms of worship and titles even through periodicals, are to be admonished to desist from their purpose and to weigh the danger there is of drawing the faithful into error even concerning dogmas of faith, and of furnishing to those who hate religion an occasion for detracting from the purity of Catholic doctrine and of true piety.” Holy Office, 3 June 1891.

Nevertheless, by the Brief Admotae nobis of Leo XIII, 16 Feb. 1903, the title and worship of the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus is approved. “Petitions have been presented to Us … that through Us a pious Archconfraternity under the title of the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus be instituted by Apostolic authority. But We, to whom nothing is more ancient or more pleasant than that a confraternity of the faithful, which, by a worship not wholly dissimilar to that which is professed toward the Sacred Heart, recalls through peculiar exercises of veneration, love, and a grateful and reverent disposition that act of supreme love by which Our Redeemer, pouring forth all the riches of His Heart, instituted the adorable Sacrament of the Eucharist so that He might abide with us until the end of the ages, should obtain a fitting seat in this fostering City, the center of the Catholic world, have judged that assent should be given to these pious desires. These things being so, etc.”

“The Bishop of the diocese of L. asks whether a certain devotion called the Mighty Hand may be considered lawful. It consists in images and medals which represent an open hand having a wound within it and, upon the tips of its fingers, the images of the Child Jesus, of Mary Most Holy, of St. Joachim, and of St. Anne. — Resp. The aforesaid image was previously condemned by the Council of Trent, and let the Bishop take care that the images, medals, and every writing or formula of prayer pertaining to the said devotion be destroyed.” Holy Office, 13 March 1891.

“The Archbishop of N. humbly sets forth that a new article of devotion has been placed on sale there under the name New Cross of the Immaculate Conception. It is a medal in the form of a cross, bearing the image not of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but of the Immaculate on one side, and of the Sacred Hearts with the monogram of the Blessed Virgin on the other. He therefore asks the oracle of Your Holiness whether such a devotion may or may not be approved. — Resp. 14. The aforesaid devotion, as it stands, is not to be approved.” Holy Office, 13 March 1901.

“More than once there has been consideration of a norm to be prescribed for venerating the Blessed Virgin, Mary the Mother of God, under the title Our Lady of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and of images of the Blessed Virgin herself which represent her standing with hands extended and the Child Jesus likewise standing before her knees. And it was decreed that the title indeed could be admitted, but that the images were not to be approved and were to be removed from public veneration, and that they were to be tolerated only in the church of the Sodality of Issoudun; but that, insofar as it could be done, images of the Blessed Virgin Mary carrying the Child Jesus in her arms were to be introduced. Hence the Sacred Order, being greatly solicitous for the law of supplication, which corresponds to the law of belief, after the matter had been maturely weighed, confirming the former decrees and, insofar as need be, renewing them, again disapproves the images concerning which there is question above and forbids them to be proposed to the veneration and piety of the faithful; and where they have been tolerated, it commands that they be cautiously and prudently removed and approved images substituted in their place. — It will not be beside the point here to recall to mind the general admonition appended to the decree of Wednesday, 13 Jan. 1875. (Cf. the preceding paragraph.)” Holy Office, 3 April 1895.

1095. This precept, first and greatest of all not only in order, but in reason, dignity, and excellence, consists of a double part, as do the other precepts, namely an affirmative and a negative part; these we shall touch on successively.

1. As affirmative, it commands the eliciting of acts of faith, hope, and charity, by which we worship God as faithful, whose oracles we rightly and deservedly assent to; as omnipotent and merciful, in whom we place all our hopes; as full and overflowing with goodness and perfection, whom we embrace with the whole heart. Against this precept sin those who fall into heresy, who put faith in dreams, auguries, and other most vain things, who cast away hope of their salvation, who rely on riches and on bodily health and strength, who conceive hatred and weariness of God, etc.

1096. 2. By the other part of the precept, which is negative, idolatry, or the worship of false divinities, is prohibited.

(a) But the veneration and invocation of the holy angels and blessed souls are not prohibited, nor even the cult of sacred relics. For we honor the saints as the household members, friends, and ministers of God: this manner of acting is commended by manifold theological reason, apostolic and ecclesiastical custom, the benefits and patronage of the saints themselves, and many and great miracles.⁷

⁷ On these things cf. St. Ambrose, Epist. XXII, P. L., XVI, 1019 sq.; St. Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XXII, 8, P. L., XLI, 700; Confessions, IX, 7, P. L., XXXII, 770.

(b) Nor is the art of fashioning or sculpting prohibited, unless the majesty of God be injured. This could happen for a double reason: one, if idols and images were worshiped as God, or it were believed that some divinity or power was in them, or that something was to be asked from them, or that confidence was to be fixed in images; the other, if someone tried to fashion the form of the divinity by some art, as if it could be seen by bodily eyes or expressed by colors or figures.

(c) Hence it is lawful to represent by images the persons of the Most Holy Trinity, especially after the manner of the apparitions which are related in Sacred Scripture; it is lawful to fashion or paint images of Angels, Saints, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and Christ Himself. For representations of this kind teach us the attributes and benefits of God, the virtues and intercession of the Saints, and consequently excite us to worship, invocation, and imitation. Besides, pastors should take care to restrain abuses and superstitions which can creep into the use of images, according to the decree of Trent.

All these things indeed we have explained above, namely: (A) as to the virtues: (a) the necessity of faith for salvation, n. 628-630; the truths which must be explicitly believed by necessity of means, n. 631-637; the truths by necessity of precept, n. 639-647; and also the obligation of externally professing the faith, n. 648-654; - sins against faith, namely heresy and doubt in faith, 656-662; apostasy and adhesion to Masonic sects, 663-666; infidelity, 667-668; and the chief causes which induce loss of faith, 669-688; nor did we pass over the means by which we are able to progress in faith, 689-694.

(b) The nature and properties of hope, 696-713; its necessity, 714-718; sins against hope, namely despair and presumption, 720-725; adding a few things concerning the means of progressing in hope, 726-729.

(c) The nature of charity toward God, 745-748; the necessity of loving God above all things, 749-754; sins against this virtue, especially hatred of God, 755-757; the means of progressing in the love of God, 758-763.

(d) The precept of charity toward the neighbor, 769-779; insofar as it includes the love of enemies, 780-789; alms to be given to the poor, 790-795; fraternal correction, 796-804; and also the order to be observed in charity, 805-816; the works of social charity so necessary today, 817-835; sins opposed to fraternal charity, namely discord and contention, 836-839; scandal, 840-850.

(e) The necessity of the virtue of religion, especially of adoration and prayer, 855-873, and also of devotion, 886-893. - Concerning the cult of Blessed Mary and the saints, concerning sacred images and relics, we have written elsewhere, in De Verbo Incarnato, near the end.

(B) As to vices: (a) idolatry, 895-896; (b) vain observances and various superstitions in which the devil intervenes, 899-905; (c) tempting God, by which an unusual effect is expected from God without cause, 925-928; (d) sacrilege and simony, or the unworthy handling of a thing or person sacred to God, 929-942.

I am the Lord thy God ... thou shalt not have strange gods. - Exod. xx, 2.

This precept, as affirmative, prescribes in the first place acts of religion, by which due worship is given to God; as negative, it prohibits vices opposed to religion.

Albertus, a priest who knows well the prescriptions of the Church concerning Litanies that must be approved by due authority, is doubtful about the lawfulness of certain Litanies that are found in a book of prayers approved by the bishops of the Province of Westminster, commonly called the Manual of Prayers. The same man found, on the walls of the church whose care he recently undertook, painted images of English martyrs not yet beatified, and beneath them, with the name of the martyr, the inscription—“Martyred”—on such a day and year. He doubts, however, whether due observance toward the Holy See and care for procuring the beatification of those martyrs require that the images be removed. Hence it is asked:

1. What are private prayer and public prayer; private worship and public worship?

2. What is prescribed concerning formulas of public prayer? And what specifically concerning Litanies to be published or recited?

3. What worship of those beatified and of those not yet beatified is lawful?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. What is public and private prayer, public and private worship ? According to Suarez, in order that prayer may be public in the technical sense, it is necessary that it be offered by a minister duly appointed by the Church to act in her name, that he should have the intention of fulfilling his office, and that he should use the forms approved by the Church for the purpose. Prayer which has not these conditions is private. There is the same distinction between public and private worship.¹

1 Suarez, De Rel., vol. ii, lib. iii, c. 2, n. 2.

2. What is prescribed concerning the forms of public prayer, and what especially about publishing or saying Litanies?

Only those forms must be used in public prayer which are approved for the purpose by the Church. The right of ordering the liturgy belongs to the Pope, whose approbation is required in the Latin Church for the Breviary, Missal, Pontifical, Ceremonial of Bishops, and the Ritual. Bishops may approve forms of prayer for public use outside the strictly liturgical functions of the Church. Only those Litanies may be publicly said in churches and public oratories which are in the Breviary or in the later editions of the Roman Ritual approved by the Holy See, and no others may be printed even for private use without the approbation of the Ordinary.²

2 S. R. C., Nov. 28, 1895; Const. Leo XIII, Officiorum, n. 19.

3. What worship may be paid to beatified saints and to the non-beatified ?

Private worship may be paid to such as have died by those who have moral certainty that they are with God. In order that public worship may be paid to them they must at least be beatified by the Pope, and even to the beatified only those signs of worship may be paid which the Church expressly permits in the brief of beatification.

4. The case. Albert, a priest, is doubtful about the lawfulness of certain Litanies to be found in the “Manual of Prayers” approved by the English bishops. It follows from what has been said that only the Litanies of the Saints, of the Holy Name, of the Sacred Heart, of the Blessed Virgin, and of St. Joseph, may be said publicly; the other Litanies in the “Manual” may be used for private devotion. Albert finds in his church pictures of English martyrs not yet beatified with the inscription “Martyred” on such a day, in such a year. If the pictures have no signs of religious worship about them, such as an aureole or rays, and they are not placed over the altar, they are permitted. The inscription would only mean that the person represented was put to death for the Faith, but would not be intended to forestall the judgment of the Church on the fact of martyrdom.

Titius, a priest and moderately learned, was scandalized and perplexed when he read in the newspapers that several Catholic historical writers now hold that the House of Loreto is not the very house of Nazareth in which the Holy Family dwelt. But since the Roman Breviary (December 10) declares: “That it is the selfsame one in which the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us is proved both by pontifical documents and by the most celebrated veneration of the whole world, and by the continual power of miracles and the grace of heavenly benefits,” and the Church still appears to approve the worship of that house, Titius did not know how these things are to be reconciled. Hence he asks:

1. What kind of worship is shown by the Church to sacred relics?

2. In order that religious worship may be shown to relics, is certainty concerning the genuineness of the relics required?

3. Does the approval of the Church, or even miracles, bring it about that complete certainty concerning the genuineness of relics is had?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. What sort of worship is paid by the Church to sacred relics?

The worship which the Church pays to sacred relics is relative, not absolute; that is, relics are honored not on account of any intrinsic holiness of their own, but because of their connection with a person who is worthy of honor. Special honor is paid to portions of the true Cross because Our Lord died on it for our salvation; relative honor, called dulia, is paid to relics of the saints.

2. Is certainty about the authenticity of relics required in order that worship may be paid them?

Yes, moral certainty is required; for religious worship may not be paid to an object which is probably not worthy of such honor. Private certainty of the authenticity of a relic and of the sanctity of the person with whom it is connected is sufficient to justify private worship; for public worship the approbation of the Church is required. A bishop may approve relics of those saints who are canonized or beatified ; the Pope alone can approve relics of those who are not canonized nor beatified. The honor which has hitherto been shown to ancient relics from time immemorial should continue to be paid to them even though there be no authentication, unless it becomes certain that they are false.

3. Does the Church’s approbation or even miracles make the authenticity of a relic absolutely and irrefragably certain?

No. The Church’s approbation is a sufficient guarantee that the authenticity of a relic is morally certain indeed, but it is a question of fact, and new reasons may be discovered which show that what was believed to be true is false. God, too, may work miracles in reward of the dispositions of those who honor a relic which they suppose to be a true one, although it is in reality false. The miracle is a reward of good dispositions, not a divine guarantee of the authenticity of a relic.

4. The case. By what has been said we can soothe the perplexity of Titius without entering on the question whether the Holy House at Loreto is really that in which Our Lord lived. Possession is in its favor, and it has not yet been shown not to be the Holy House. The Breviary and the Papal briefs rest on what was deemed satisfactory evidence of the truth of their assertions at the time when they were written. They may stand until they are shown to be mistaken. If that ever comes about, the Church will doubtless recall her sanction, and meanwhile we may go on as before. For the principles involved in this solution see Benedict XIV, De Canon. Sanctorum, lib. iv, pt. ii, c. 13 and c. 24.

Caius, a young Catholic, reads in a Catholic newspaper a notice (advertisement) concerning a certain man who was prepared to teach hypnotism and similar things to all who paid the price. Caius wrote to the man and bought his book, in which the method of hypnotizing, of writing with a planchette, and so forth, was described. For the sake of curiosity, recreation, or acquiring knowledge, he began to hypnotize his brothers and sisters and to ask the planchette for messages concerning absent friends. Julius, his parish priest, found him occupied in this way one day when he was visiting the family, and, asking whence Caius had learned those things, heard what has been narrated above. Hence it is asked:

1. What is divination, and what is its malice?

2. Is it lawful to practice or to undergo hypnotism?

3. What is to be said of the newspaper, of Caius, and of Julius in the case?

1. What is divination and wherein lies its malice?

Divination is the express or tacit invocation of the devil to gain knowledge of the occult. We obtain knowledge lawfully by using natural means or by studying the revelation given by God. If we try to obtain knowledge of occult matters from the devil, we commit sin by associating ourselves with the enemy of God and of ourselves, an enemy who is certain to do us harm, and to whom we offer a sort of worship by attributing to him knowledge of the occult. Such communication with the devil is specially prohibited in Holy Scripture.¹ By the very fact of employing means which are altogether incapable of themselves to give us the knowledge which we seek, we invite the intervention of the devil and tacitly invoke him.

1 1 Cor. x. 20; Deut. xviii. 10.

2. Is it allowed to exercise or to undergo hypnotism ?

Experts, for good cause, with proper precautions, may practise hypnotism as the Holy Office answered July 26, 1899. Under similar restrictions, therefore, one may undergo hypnotism. In other circumstances it is not lawful either to practise or to undergo it. It is obvious that it is not lawful for the purpose of divination, but neither is it lawful as a means of recreation, or for the sake of satisfying curiosity. At the lowest it is the induction of an abnormal state in which the nervous system is interfered with by one who is, as we suppose, no expert. Thus it is trifling with a very delicate machine and in a matter which is still mysterious to a great extent. There is considerable danger to morals while one person in a state of unconsciousness is to a great extent in the power of the hypnotizer. A rapport is established between the hypnotizer and the subject, which to a greater or less extent puts the latter in the power of the former.

3. The case. From what has been said it is clear that the Catholic newspaper should not have admitted the advertisement offering to teach all who would pay for it how to hypnotize others and write with the planchette. Caius did wrong in buying the book, and in practising hypnotism on his sister and automatic writing out of curiosity, or for recreation, or to gain knowledge. He should devote himself to less objectionable means of gaining knowledge. Julius, the parish priest, who catches them at their game, should warn them and their parents of the danger of meddling with occult matters, and tell them to throw the book and the planchette into the fire.

Caius, a Catholic, cultivated fairly extensive lands, which, however, did not abound in water. When he heard that Marcus had rather often found water for others by means of a divining rod, Caius consulted his confessor as to whether it was lawful to hire Marcus to find water for him on his land. Hence it is asked:

1. What is divination, and whence is it unlawful?

2. Can it be proved with sufficient certainty that water does not naturally bend the divining rod?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. This question is answered in “Manual of Moral Theology,” vol. i, p. 217.

2. Can it be proved for certain that water does not naturally bend the divining rod?

Yes; this can be proved by the application of the fundamental axiom of natural science — the uniformity of nature. If the twig bends at the presence of underground water, it should do so all the more when the water is exposed; yet ordinarily it does not do so. Moreover, the divining rod is used to find not only underground water, but minerals, lost property, and other objects. And when it is being used to find minerals, it does not indicate the presence of underground water, and vice versa. Besides, if the divining rod is moved by the water, the movements should take place, no matter who holds it. Conscious or unconscious muscular movements are capable of causing the bending of the rod, and in many cases have been observed to do so. See Professor Barrett’s “Reports on the Divining Rod.”¹ Whence we may conclude with Professor Barrett: “Few will dispute the proposition that the motion of the forked twig is due to unconscious muscular action.”² The rod on this hypothesis is merely an indicator which shows when the diviner is over a supply of underground water. The presence of water is suggested to the diviner according to Professor Barrett “From various hints he has gathered or knowledge he possesses becoming unconsciously operative ; or from his subconscious and perhaps hyperaesthetic discernment of the surface signs of underground water or ore; or from some kind of transcendental discernment possessed by his subconscious self.” Professor Barrett attributes great importance to the last source of knowledge and thinks “that in years to come we shall see in all these phenomena the manifestation of the transcendental Subject which lies in the background of our being, and remains unrevealed to our self-consciousness.”³ For this pantheistic interpretation of certain rare and extraordinary cases the Catholic theologian will substitute the intervention of preternatural causes.

1 Proceedings S. P. R., vols. xiii and xv.

2 Vol. xiii, p. 243.

3 Vol. xv, pp. 310, 311.

3. The case. The confessor of Caius will tell him that he may use his own judgment about employing Mark the dowser to find water for him. It is probable at least that divination does not enter into the method of the ordinary dowser, and that he may therefore be employed without sinning against religion.