Uniform with this volume: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS I THE SACRAMENTS QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS II PRECEPTS Being answers to questions on the Divine and Natural Lan', the Laws of the Church, regulations for Clerics and Religious, and the externals of Worship, in so far as they are covered by the Canon Law and the Decrees of the Sacred Congregations by Canon E. J. MAHONEY, D.D. LONDON BURNS OATES & WASHBOURNE LTD. PUBLISHERS TO THE HOLY SEE nihil obstat: reginaldvs g. Phillips, s.t.l. CENSOR DEPVTATVS IMPRIMATVR: E. MORROGH BERNARD vicarivs generalis westmon asterii: die xn febrvarti mcmxlix Fw/ published . 1949 Second impression 1955 MADE AND PRINTED IN GHEAT BRITAIN BY THE ANCHOR PRESS LTD., TIPTREE, ESSEX FOR BURNS OATES AND WASHBOURNE ’ UMITED, 28 ASHLEY PLACE, LONDON S W I* FOREWORD The first volume of Questions and Answers, published in 1946, consisted of material explanatory of the sacraments printed in The Clergy Review from 1951 to 1944. This one contains classified and corrected replies on matters other than the sacraments, and it covers my contributions to the Review from 1931 to 1947. For the convenience of readers who have both volumes, a Code index and an alphabetical index of both have been compiled, and the numbering of questions is continued from the first volume. My thanks are due to the clergy who have pressed for this second series, and to the proprietors and editor of the Review for their kind assistance. E. J. Mahoney. Poles, Ware, Herts, zyth June, 1948. ABBREVIATIONS A.A.S. = Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Commentarium Officiale. (Romae, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis.) Addit, et Variat. = The section at the beginning of the current Missale Romanum entitled “Additiones et Variationes in Rubricis Missalis.” Apollinaris = Apollinaris, Commentarium luris Canonici. (Romae, Ponti­ ficium Institutum Utriusque luris, Piazza S. Apollinare, 49.) Bouscaren, Digest = The Canon L,aw Digest. Officially Published Documents Affecting the Code of Canon Law. Vol. I (1934); Vol. II (1943). By T. Lincoln Bouscaren, S.J. (Bruce Publishing Company, Mil­ waukee, U.S.A.) Caerem. Epp. = Caeremoniale Episcoporum, Clementis VIII, Innocentii X et Benedicti XIII Jussu Editum, Benedicti XIV et Leonis XIII Auctori­ tate Recognitum. (Marietti, 1955.) Clementine Instruction = Instructio Clementina pro Expositione SSmi Sacra­ menti Occasione XL Horarum (1731). It is printed with annotations in Vol. IV of Decreta Authentica S.R.C. English translation by Rev. J. O’Connell. (Burns Oates & Washbourne, 1927.) Code = Codex luris Canonici, Pii X Pontificis Maximi lussu Digestus, Bene­ dicti Papac XV Auctoritate Promulgatus. (Romae, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1918.) Code Commission = Pontificia Commissio ad Codicis Canones Authentice Interpretandos. Collât. Brugen. = Collationes Brugenses, Auctoritate Exc. et Rev. Episcopi Brugensis edita. (Seminarium Episcopale, Bruges.) De Defectibus = The section at the beginning of the current Missale Romanum entitled “De Defectibus in Celebratione Missarum Occurrentibus”. Denz. = Enchiridion Symbolorum Definitionum et Declarationum De Rebus Fidei et Morum. Auctore Henrico Denzingcr. (Herder.) Diet. Droit. Canon. = Dictionnaire de Droit Canonique. (Paris, Letouzey et Ané, 1924 seq.) Diet. Théol. = Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique. (Paris, Letouzey et Ané, 1909 scq.) E.T.L.. = Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses. (18 Rue des Rccollets, Lou­ vain.) Fontes = Codicis luris Canonici Fontes. Vols. I-VIII. (Romae, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1926-1939.) Jus Pontificium = Jus Pontificium seu Ephemerides Romanae ad Canonicas Disciplinas Spectantes. (Romae, Via Monteselva 3.) N.K.S. = Nederlandsche Katholieke Stemmen. (Zwolle, J.M.W., Flanders.) Ordo Administrandi — Ordo Administrandi Sacramenta et Alia Quaedam Officia Peragendi ex Rituali Romano Extractus Nonnullis Adiectis ex Antiquo Rituali Anglicano. (Burns Oates and Washbourne, 1915.) Periodica = Periodica de Re Morali Canonica Uturgica Fundata ab Arthuro Vcrmeersch, S.J., Edita a Professoribus Pontificiae Universitatis Gregorianac. (Romae, Universitas Gregoriana.) 7 ABBREVIATIONS 8 Preces et Pia Opera = Preces et Pia Opera in Favorem Omnium Christifidelium vel Quorundam Coetuum Personarum Indulgentiis Ditata ct Op­ portune Recognita. (Romae, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1938.) There is an English translation (Burns Oates and Washbourne) of the previous 1929 edition, entitled The Raccolta. The translation of the current 1938 edition, also entitled The Raccolta, is published by Bcnziger, New York. Propaganda — Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide. Q.L.P. = Questions Liturgiques et Paroissiales. (Abbaye du Mont César, Louvain.) Rit. Ce/ebr. Miss. — The section at the beginning of the current Missale Romanum, entitled “Ritus Servandus in Celebratione Missae”. Rituale Romanum = Rituale Romanum Pauli V Pontificis Maximi Jussu Editum Aliorumque Pontificum Cura Recognitum atque Auctoritate D.N.Pii Papac XI ad Normam Codicis Juris Canonici Accomodatum. (Romae, Desckc, 193j.) Ritus Servandus — Ritus Servandus in Solemni Expositione et Benedictione Sanctissimi Sacramenti. (Burns Oates and Washbournc, 1938.) Rubricae Generales = The section at the beginning of the current Missale Romanum, entitled “Rubricae Generales Missalis”. S.C. Cone. = Sacra Congregatio Concilii. S.C. Consist. = Sacra Congregatio Consistorialis. S.C. Indulg. : Sacra Congregatio Indulgentiis Sacrisque Reliquiis Pracposita S.C. Relig. = Sacra Congregatio de Religiosis. S.C. Sacram. — Sacra Congregatio de Disciplina Sacramentorum. J*. Off. = Suprema Sacra Congregatio Sancti Officii. J. Poenit. = Sacra Pocnitcntiaria Apostolica. S.R.C. Sacra Congregatio Sacrorum Rituum. The numeral refers to the Decreta Authentica of the Congregation, Vols. I-VI. (Romac, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1898-1927.) Sylloge = Sylloge Praecipuorum Documentorum Recentium Summorum Pontificum et S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide nccnon Aliarum SS. Congregationum Romanarum. Ad Usum Missionariorum. (Romae, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1939.) Theol. Moralis — Manual of Moral Theology variously entitled Compendium Institutiones, Summula, or Manuale. Westm. =■ Decreta Quatuor Conciliorum Provincialium Westmonasteriensium 1852-1873. (Burns and Oates, n.d.) English translation entitled The Synods in English. By Rev. Robert E. Guy, O.S.B. (Stratfordon-Avon, 1886.) iBHMBi TABLE OF CONTENTS PAG! Foreword 5 Abbreviations .......··· 7 I. DIVINE AND NATURAL LAW QUBST1ON §i. Faith 359. 360. 361. 362. 363. 364. 565. 366. 367. 368. 369. 370. 371. 372. Rights of Error .... Religious Liberty—A Papal Text Baptism of Children of Infidels Leakage Precautions .... Women in the Services Freemasons ..... Ceasing to be a Catholic . Non-Catholic Education Non-Catholic Schools Children in Non-Catholic Schools Origins of the Catechism . Confraternity of Christian Doctrine Pagan Rites ..... The Index and Oriental Catholics §2. Communicatio in Sacris 373. Principles and Terms .... 374. United Worship: Common Ground 375. United Prayers ...... 376. United Prayers: A Milder View 377. Border-line Cases........................................ 378. Radio Sermons ...... 379. Ministration of Schismatic Priest 380. Assistance of Non-Catholics at our Functions 381. Private Prayer in Pre-Reformation Churches 382. Oath on a Protestant Bible 383. Co-operation with Non-Catholics §3. The Vth Commandment 384. Assurance of Death . 385. Caesarean Section on Dead Mother 386. Indirect Abortion 387. Therapeutic Abortion 388. Co-operation in Abortion . 389. English Law on Abortion . 390. Self-Mutilation .... 391. Sterilization .... 392. Castration of Choristers 9 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 28 29 31 31 33 34 36 . . 37 39 4° 41 42 43 43 44 46 47 48 . • J® 51 51 53 55 56 57 58 59 . . . . a* CONTENTS 10 PAGE question §4’ ^393. Conditions for a Just War. 394. 195 396. 397. 398. 399. 400. 401. Early Church and War . The Just War Theory War and the Unjust Aggressor Military Objectives . Reprisals . The Atomic Bomb . Military Service. Conscientious Objectors §5. The VIth Commandment 402. The Ends of Marriage 403. Sterility and Marriage 404. Artificial Insemination 405. Definition of Sexual Pleasure 406. Parvitas Materiae 407. V.D. Prophylactics . 408. De Linteamine Hygienico . 409. Immodest Dress 410. Vesture (Deuteronomy xxii, 5) 411. Dancing .... 412. Parental Sex Instruction 413. Divorce Co-operation §6. Contraception 414. Contraception and Marriage Consent 415. Co-operating in Contraception . 416. De Lotione Vaginali . 417. Sale of Contraceptives 418. Contraception and Good Faith . 419. Confessional Interrogations 420. Incompetent Confessor 421. Counselling a Lesser Evil 422. Safe Period .... 425. Safe Period Propaganda §7. Justice 424. Defamation 42j. Self-defamation . 426. Title by Accession 427. Occult Compensation 428. Grave Matter in Theft 429. Railway Frauds 430. Restitution for Petty Thefts 431· Restitution to the Poor *· 43 Animals’ Rights 64 66 66 67 69 7° 73 77 79 82 82 84 85 88 9° 9* 93 94 96 98 99 100 IOI 102 ιο6 io6 108 109 no CONTENTS IL LAWS OF THE CHURCH §i. Principles 455. Interpretation of Laws . . . . , .115 454. Diocesan Law . . . . . . . . n6 455. “Audito Capitulo”.................................................................. 117 436. Custom and Superior’s Consent . . . . .118 457. Conflicting Laws . . . . . . .119 438. Numerical Distinction of Laws ..... 120 439. Children under Seven ...... 121 440. Computation of Time . . . . . .122 441. Domicile and Quasi-domicile . . . . 123 442. Domicile of Soldiers and Minors . . . .124 443. Privilege . . . . . . . . .126 444. Deficiencies of the Code . . . . . 127 445. Congregation of Rites . . . . . .128 §2. Jurisdiction and Faculties 446. Ordinary Jurisdiction of Parish Priest. . . .128 447. Parochial Jurisdiction in Military Camps . . .130 448. Jurisdiction Supplied in Doubt . . . . 131 449. Jurisdiction Supplied in Common Error . . .131 450. Delegated Jurisdiction . . . . . 133 451. Delegated jurisdiction Ceasing ..... 134 452. Territorial Limits . . . . . . 135 453. Faculties During War . . . . . .156 454. Faculties of Pious Associations Withdrawn . . 137 455. Missionary Union Faculties . . . . . 138 §3. Penalties 456. Conditions for Incurring Censure 457. Censures Reserved to Ordinaries 458. Reconciliation in Danger of Death 459. Reserved Case of Abortion . 460. Marriage in Protestant Church . 461. Penalty for Civil Marriage . 462. Irregularity before Age of Puberty 463. Theatre Suspension . . · 464. Confirmation: Privation Penalty . . . . .140 . . . .141 .... 145 . . . .144 . . . .145 . . . .146 . . . .147 · · · · M7 . . . .149 §4· Sunday Observance 465. Mass in Semi-public Oratory 466. Mass in Ship’s Oratory . 467. Servile Work: Profit Motive 468. Permitted Servile Work . 469. Is Knitting Servile Work? 470. Sunday Amusements . » . . . . . · . . . . . · . . . . . · . . . . . · .150 .151 .152 .155 .157 .158 fc- CONTENTS I2 PAGE QUBTnON 5 Fasting and Abstinence 471. 472. 473. 474. 475. 476. 477. 478. 479. Fasting Too Strictly Interpreted. Chief Meal . · · * Refections . . · z\bstinence: Condiments Abstinence: Water Fowl . Ordinary Dispensing Abstinence. Parish Priest Dispensing Abstinence Curate Dispensing Abstinence . Excuse or Dispensation . §6. Unclassified 480. Legitimacy . . 481. Westminster Version . 482. Inscription in Confraternities 483. Judgement of Tribunal 159 164 165 166 168 169 173 III. CLERICS §i. Bishops and Ordinaries 484. Discussing a Future Pope . 485. “Sede Vacante” 486. Episcopal Throne 487. Episcopal Ring 488. Meaning of Ordinary 489. Faculties of Ordinaries 490. Episcopal Consecration 491. The Ordinary and Parochial Rights 492. Proper Ordinary 493. Ordinary’s Death: Jurisdiction Ceasin 494. Election of Vicar-Capitular 495. Two Vicars-General . 496. Vicar-General of Military Ordinary 497· Incardination by Tonsure . 498. Dispensation from Insterstices 499· Agc f°r the Priesthood 500. Exeat ξζ. Clerical Obligations 501. Canonical Obedience . 502. Episcopal Mass Precept 503. Retreats .... 504. Obligation of the Rosary 505. Clergy Examinations . 506. “Scribere” in Canon 1386, §1 507. Canon’s Robes . J 08. Capitular Low Mass 509. Honorary Canons 510. Priest Factory Workers 177 178 179 180 181 182 184 185 186 187 188 189 T91 192 T92 T93 ’95 ’95 196 197 198 200 201 202 203 j5 CONTENTS question §2, Clerical Obligations—continued 511. Clerical Dress .... 512. The “Rabat” of the French Clergy 513. Housekeepers .... 514. Eleven O’Clock Rule 515. Bearded Clerics 516. Clamorous Hunting 517. The Censure of Canon 2388, §1 518. Oath taken by a Priest 519. Prayer for the Clergy §3. Parish 520. 521. 522. 523. 524. 525. 526. 527. 528. 529. Priests Parochial Mass .... Preaching and Catechizing Frequency of Missions Necessity of Installation Form of Installation . Cathedral Parochial Rights Precedence of Parish Priest Missionary Quasi-Parochus Division of a Parish . Curé d’Ars .... §4. Benefices and Revenues 530. Support of Pastors 531. Benefices without Endowment . j32. Benefice: Superfluity . 533. Benefice Constituted by Otfcrings 534. Benefices Reserved to the Holy See 535. Occult Simony .... 536. Stole Fees .... 537. Church Dances .... 538. Diocesan Collections . 539. Box Monies .... 540. Cathedraticum .... 541. Salary of “Vicarius Oeconomus” 542. Remuneration of Visiting Priest 543. Out-door Collections IV. RELIGIOUS §1. POSTULANCY AND PROFESSION 544. 545546. 547· 548. 549. 550. Advertising for Vocations . Admission into Novitiate . Examination before Profession Religious Profession . Refused Renewal of Profession Seminarist entering Religion Non-Catholic Religious Vows CONTENTS Μ FAGB U Religious Rights and Duties . Duration of Superior’s Office . 551· Dimissorial Letters . · 5 52. Religious and their Correspondence 5 53· Political Directions of Superior . 554. . 5 5 5· Papal Enclosure 556. Confessions of Religious . 5 57· Ordinary Confessor . 5 58- Maternity Nursing . 559· Calendar for Religious 560. Mass in Dominican Chapel 561. Communication of Privileges 562. Religious with Leave of Absence 565. Ex-Missionary Priest’s Employment Benevolens” 564. “Episcopus , 565. Religious Societies without Vows 566. Local Law and Regular Houses 247 249 249 25I 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 26Ο 261 261 263 V. WORSHIP §1. Liturgical Worship 567. Definition of Liturgical Worship . . . .265 568. Vernacular in the Liturgy ...... 266 569. Public Prayers during Mass ..... 268 570. “Gratiarum Actio post Missam” .... 270 571. Air Raids: Liturgical Prayers . . . . .271 572. Incensation ........ 275 573. Instrumental Music............................................................ 274 574. “Benedictio Mulieris Praegnantis” . . . .275 575. St George: Patron or Protector? .... 276 §2. Divine Office 576. Choir Obligation . . . . 577. Hour for Anticipating Choral Matins 578. Hour for Anticipating Private Matins 579. Induit for Anticipating Matins . 580. Anticipating Litanies . 581. Second Nocturn Lessons . . 582. Pater Noster “Secreto” 585. Confiteor in Divine Office 584. Antiphon B.V.M. 585. Titular in “A Cunctis” 586. Abrogated Suffrages . 587. Office of Titular 588. Form of Office 589. Office during Retreat 590. Travellers and Divine Office 591· Choice of Office 277 278 280 281 282 282 283 284 284 285 286 287 287 289 289 t5 CONTENTS FAG» Kz. Divine Office—continued 592. Breviary Lacking .... 593. Office Morally Impossible . 594. Office in the Vernacular 595. Rosary for Office .... 596. Wireless and Liturgical Offices . 597. Exposition and Office of the Dead 292 294 294 295 296 297 §3. Holy Week 598. Ceremonies of “Memoriale Rituum” . 599. Induit for using “Memoriale Rituum” 600. Palm Sunday Procession 601. Passion: Dispensation Tax 602. Reservation during Triduum 603. Holy Thursday Mass: One Chalice 604. Mass of the Presanctified . 298 298 300 501 302 304 304 §4. Our Lady 605. Feasts B.V.M. ..... 606. “Our” Lord is with Thee 607. Litany of Loreto .... 608. The Rosary ..... 609. May Devotions .... 610. Dedication of Infants to Our Lady 611. Devout Female Sex .... 306 307 308 310 312 3’2 3* §5. Funerals 612. Funeral Rites ..... 613. Abridged Funeral Rite 614. Exequial Office on Sunday 615. Exequies of Deceased Clergy 616. Burial of a Priest .... 617. Funeral of Catechumens 618. Blessing of Infant’s Grave 619. Ecclesiastical Burial of Non-Catholics 620. Graves of Non-Catholics . 621. Burial in Non-Catholic Cemetery 622. Municipal Cemeteries 623. Unbaptized Infants .... 624. Cremation ..... 625. Preservation of Deceased Person’s Heart 518 518 320 3 20 321 522 323 324 325 526 327 §6. Textual Difficulties 626. Sign of the Cross .... 627. “Sicut erat in Principio” . 628. Te Deum ...··· 629. Canon of the Mass .... 630. The Pater Noster “Amen” 631. Sung Passion according to St Mark . 632. Requiem Introit .... 328 328 329 329 33° 330 331 *43 3D "MIT CONTENTS PAGE ^Textual Difficulties-continued 332 332 334 334 335 53<> 538 339 340 341 341 633. “Pro Patre et Matre 634. The Nuptial Blessing 635. Asperges “Miserere” . 656. Confirmation by a Priest . „ 657. “Dominus Meus et Deus Meus 658. “Triplex Machina” . . „ 639. “Benedictio Habitus Clericalis 640. Ordo Administrandi . 641. “Fidelium Deus” 642. “En Ego” 643. Prayer Terminations . §7. Devotions 644. New Devotions .... 645. Corpus Christi Triduum . 646. Hymns during Exposition . 647. Representations of Christ and the Saints 648. Sabbatine Privilege .... 649. Blessed Ashes ..... 650. Blessing of Roses .... 651. Agnus Dei ..... 342 343 344 345 345 347 349 350 VI. SACRED THINGS §1. Altars 6j 2. Erection and Change of Altars 653. Position of High Altar 654. Fixed Altar Stone 655. Defective Altar Stone 656. Gradines .... 657. Structure of Privileged Altar 658. Altar of Titular 351 351 553 354 356 §2. Tabernacle and Throne 659. Construction of Tabernacle 660. Fixture of Tabernacle 661. Tabernacle Key 662. Safe Custody of Blessed Sacrament 665. Position of Tabernacle 664. Interior of Tabernacle 665. Tabernacle Conopaeum 666. Colour of Conopaeum 667. Exposition Throne . 668. Exposition Thabor §3. Altar Furniture 669. The Altar Cross 670. Position of Altar Cross 671. Cross during Benediction 357 358 359 560 561 362 362 364 365 366 • • 367 369 I7 CONTENTS FAG1 qubshon §3. Altar G-jz. 675. 674. 675. 676. 677. 678. Furniture—continued Blessing of Akar Crucifix . Relics ..... Altar Linen .... Black Akar Frontal . Akar Charts .... Petitions on the Altar Flowers ..... . . . . • • • 370 371 * 37 372 373 373 374 . . . . . . 375 377 377 578 379 580 381 382 5θ5 584 §5. Statues 689. Statues in Churches . 690. Our Lady and St Joseph . 691. Our Lady of Czestochowa 692. Similar Statues in Churches 695. Statue of a “Beatus” 694. Statue on the Tabernacle . . . • • . 385 386 388 589 39° 59° §6. Sacred Vessels 695. Construction of Chalice 696. Desecration of Chalice 697. The Ciborium .... 698. Ciborium Veil .... 699. The Monstrance 700. Touching Sacred Vessels . 701. Sale of Blessed Objects • • • • • • • 391 592 395 395 396 397 599 §7. Vestments 702. Vestments requiring Blessing 703. Blessing Vestments . 704. Gothic Vestments 705. Rose-coloured Vestments . 706. Double Vestments 707. Folded Chasubles 708. Preaching Stole 709. Marriage Rite: Vestments . 710. Removing the Maniple 711. Ornamented Albs 712. Gloves . 713. Vestments in Pageants • 399 . 400 . 401 . 403 • 404 . 405 . 406 • 407 . 408 . 409 • 409 . 410 §4. Churches 679. Minor Basilicas .... 680. Consecration: Freedom from Debt 681. Consecration with no Akar 682. Reconciliation of Bombed Church 685. Consecration Crosses 684. Parish Mall in Church Basement 685. Titular: Parish Church and Chapel 686. Institution Hall 687. Private House .... 688. Secular Functions in Churches . 18 CONTENTS FAC· * QUMT10 §8. Church Furniture 714. Baptismal Font .... 715. Location of Baptistery 716. Mission Cross: Ordinary’s Consent 717. Ambo and Pulpit 718. Mass Bell .... 719. Sanctuary Carpet 720. National Flag in Sanctuary 721. Sacrarium..................................... 722. Monuments .... 723. Tombs in Churches . . . • • • . • . . 4IO 4” 4II 4I3 4M 4I5 416 4Π 4I8 4I8 §9. Candles and Lighting 724. Electric Lighting: Roman Instruction 725. Electric Light within Throne 726. Candles ..... 727. Paschal Candle .... 728. Sanctus Candle .... 729. Low Mass Candles . 730. Candles on Side Altars 731. St Blaise Candles 732. Requiem Mass Candles • . . • • • • . • 4I9 42Ο 42I 423 423 424 425 426 427 . 428 • 432 Code Index............................................ Alphabetical Index . I. DIVINE AND NATURAL LAW §1. FAITH 359.—Rights of Error Granted that a man has an obligation to follow the dictate of an invincibly erroneous conscience, does it not follow that he has the moral right to do so? The conclusion does not follow, because “right”, “jus”, is created by law, but obligation is ultimately dependent on the individual conscience appreciating the law; “right” is necessarily based on the objective truth, but “obligation” may arise from a subjective error, as is the case when a man’s conscience is invincibly erroneous. This is the common doctrine as formulated in the two following extracts : Bouquillon, Theologia Moralis, §276: “Conscientia invincibiliter erronea non est regula operationum simpliciter et absolute legitima, est tamen legitima per accidens et secundum quid. Non est legitima simpliciter et absolute, quia discordat a iure quod applicari debet, vel non congruit facto cui ius applicatur; legitima est per accidens et secundum quid, quia, propter erroris invincibilitatem, defectus conformitatis cum iure vel congruitatis cum facto non imputatur . . . Itaque fas est conscientiam invincibiliter erroneam sequi; non tamen inest homini ius eam sequendi, et quamvis puniri non possit qui eam secutus est, potest tamen qui ea laborat, a legiima auctoritate impediri ne eam sequatur.” Theologia . . . Mechliniensis, De Conscientia, p. 31 : (re-states the above doctrine) “. . . Attamen non habet ius illam sequendi et impediri potest nc eam sequatur, quia ius ad faciendum malum est contradictio in adiecto.” Thus, a man may think that he is bound to commit perjury in the witnessbox to save a friend: if his conscience is invincibly erroneous he is bound to commit perjury. But it cannot be said that he has the right to do so, and the appropriate authority should prevent him giving evidence if his state of mind is known. Have not all non-Catholics in good faith the right to spread their views and publicly worship God as they think good and proper? A Catholic must hold that there is only one true religion which every man is bound to profess, and the notion, therefore, that freedom publicly to worship God as one pleases is a fundamental human and moral right is more than false: it is madness—deliramentum—as Pius IX, following Gregory XVI, emphatically asserts.1 In what sense, then, may non-Catholic religious bodies rightly claim freedom to propagate their beliefs, and worship God publicly according to their conscience? The classical Catholic answer is in terms of thesis and hypothesis, the thesis being as just stated, and the hypothesis that heterodox forms of worship must, in given conditions, all be equally tolerated. This may seem to non-Catholics an arrogant explanation, but it is the only logical 1 Dcnz., 161 j, 1690. Q. 360 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 2O answer consistent with the truth that the Church alone is the repository of the one true religion, and we think that ultimately no good purpose will be served by sublimating it. Our non-Catholic neighbours are in the utmost good faith and are entitled to learn from us with the utmost candour what the Catholic position is. 360.—Religious Liberty—A Papal Text Does not the text of “Mât Brennender Sorge”, 14 March, contradict the traditional doctrine that no one has the right to propagate religions error? In the English version it reads: “The believer has an inalienable right to profess his faith and put it in practice in the manner suited to him. Laws which suppress or make this profession and practice difficult contradict the natural law.” The encyclical was first published in German, and both German and Latin versions justify the English rendering of the three words “suited to him”. The Italian and French versions have the meaning “suited to it” i.e. “to the faith”,1 but this variation has no particular relevance to the difficulty. It is not in dispute that, in the hypothesis of many religions existing together in a modern State, the authority of the State may concede the civic right to all its subjects of professing any religion which is not subver­ sive of social order. Nor is it in dispute that each individual has an obliga­ tion of following the dictates of an invincibly erroneous conscience. The question is whether the above text upholds, not merely a civic right, but a natural, inalienable, moral right of professing that religion which conscience dictates to be true. The solution will depend on the meaning of the word “believer”.2 (i) Owing to the widespread demand for religious liberty as a necessary condition for any future world order, the question has been studied afresh, both in America and England, during the last few years. In the first of a series of articles in Theological Studies, Rev. J. C. Murray, S.J., observes: “In view of the appeal made here to the natural law, I do not think the term ‘der glaubige Mensch’ can be taken to mean solely fidelis in the theological sense of rhe term.”3 Fr Murray is one of the most competent theologians in America and his opinion is of great weight. In England Mr Christopher Dawson and other distinguished writers of The Sword of the Spirit understand the text in much the same sense as Fr Murray, and the late Cardinal Hinsley was accustomed to quote it in support of the policy of practical tolerance for all religious beliefs.1 Similarly, eminent non-Catholic authorities, as the Bishop of Chichester, have wel­ comed the words as being a clear proclamation of the fundamental religious liberty due to all creeds.5 1 “in den ihtn gcmàsscn Formcn zu Bctatigcn” “eamque formis sibi convenientibus exerceat’’ “et à la vivre comme clic veut être vécu’’ “c di praticarla in quclla forma chc ad essa convicne”. 1 “der glâubigc Mensch” "fidelis” "le croyant” “il credente". * Theological Studies, 1945, p. 283. * Cf. The Judgement of the Nations, p. 114; The Catholic Herald, 25 January, 1942. * Bulletin of The Sword of the Spirit, 17 November, 1941. zi FAITH Q. 361 (ii) Notwithstanding the above view, which has much to recommend it at the present time, if it is a valid interpretation of the papal text, our opinion is that the word “believer” means “true believer”. We think that the traditional doctrine of the Church, as explained in the encyclicals of Pius IX and Leo XIII, does not permit us to hold that the right to profess any and every form of religious belief is derived directly from the natural law, for the only true religion is the Catholic religion, and the others are objectively erroneous and unlawful. It could be maintained, we suppose, though only with some subtlety, that the right is derived indirectly from the natural law, inasmuch as the toleration of error for the common good is not, in given circumstances, against the natural law, but rather in accordance with it; though it is hard to see how a right which is so insecure can be described as inalienable.1 ‘'Fidelis” in the Code usually means “catholicus”, as in canon 2203, §1, though in many canons it has the wider meaning of “baptizatus”, as in canon 1126.2 Its true meaning must be ascertained from the context, and we think that the context of the encyclical supports the view that the word there used means “true believer”. It is addressed to the German hierarchy . y in communion with the Apostolic See; faith is described as “the certain holding as true what God has revealed, and through His Church proposes for belief”; and the passage immediately following the text we are discussing reads: “Conscientious parents . . . have a primary and original right to determine the education of their children given to them by God in the spirit of the true faith and in agreement with its principles and ordinances.” It is, moreover, altogether unlikely that Pius XI departed from the firm teaching of his predecessors on this point, and notably that of Pius IX in the Syllabus.3 361.—Baptism of Children of Infidels Since natural justice is violated if the children of infidels are baptised against the will of their parents, on what principle is this permitted when the children are in danger of death? Canon 750, §1 : Infans infidelium, etiam invitis parentibus, licite bap­ tizatur, cum in eo versatur vitae discrimine, ut prudenter praevideatur moriturus, antequam usum rationis attingat. Benedict XIV, Postremo mense, Dcnz., n. 1484: Cum id eveniat, ut ab aliquo Christiano Hebraeorum puer morti proximus reperiatur, rem opinor laudabilem Dcoquc gratam is certe efficiet, qui salutem puero aqua lustrali praebeat immortalem. . . . (i) The principle of natural justice forbidding the baptism of such children against the will of the parents has been consistently defended in all Catholic schools, following St Thomas, II—II, to, 12. The reason is not primarily the danger of the children relapsing into infidelity, but the wrong of violating parental rights. Thus Suarez, ed. Vives, Vol. XX, 1 “unvcrlicrbarcs Rccht” “iurc inalicnabili” “droit inaliénable” “diritto inalienabilc”. ’ Cf. Morsdorf, Recbtsspracbe da Codex, p. 129. • Ecclesiastical Review, 1946, CXV, p. 139. Q. 361 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 21 p. 450: “Et similiter quamvis praeceptum baptismi sit generale, tamen directe non cadit in infantes ante usum rationis, quia pro tunc non sunt capaces praecepti. Pertinet ergo ad illos mediis parentibus, qui tenentur et fidem suscipere, et filios suos in ea instituere, et per baptismum initiare.” So strongly was this view held in Scotist circles that Durandus did not hesitate to hold the baptism of the children of infidels invalid, if adminis­ tered against the will of the parents, a doctrine which Benedict XIV rejects. (ii) The exception in danger of death has always been taught by theo­ logians provided baptism could be administered without danger of scandal, but the reasons justifying this exception are not, perhaps, very satisfying. It is thought that, in such circumstances, the parental right ceases; or it is suggested that, since death is likely to deprive the parents of their children, parental rights suffer very little injury compared with the injury the child will suffer if it dies unbaptized. Suarez explains it as follows: “quia iam videtur parens moraliter amisisse jus in filium, quia quod parum distat, nihil distare videtur. . . . Quod si obicias, quia baptizare filium, invito parente est intrinsece malum, cum sit contra iustitiam, respondetur primum, id esse verum extra casum necessi­ tatis, in eo tamen cessare solere huiusmodi iura, praesertim cum in illo articulo fere iam sit extinctum paternum ius.” Probably the best way of explaining the exception is by analogy with the danger of physical death. It is everybody’s duty, on a principle of charity, to rescue an infant from proximate danger of death, even though the parents, being unaware of the danger, would resent the interference: a child, for example, who is dangerously ill and in need of medical care, should receive it, even though the parents are wholly averse. There is a conflict of rights in which the more pressing one has precedence. Similarly, it would appear, when a child is in proximate danger of spiritual death, the natural rights of its parents must yield to the more pressing necessity of the child’s salvation. Cf. Diet. Theol., II, col. 344; Diet. Droit Canon., II, col. 159. Commentarium pro Religiosis, 1959, XX, p. 22, contains a very full discussion by Oestcrlc on the degree of danger required before the excep­ tion can be permitted. Ιί seems that the teaching of St Vhomas, definitely sanctioned by Benedict X71/, bas in mind the juridica! effect of baptising the infants of infidels, namely that they would be taken from the custody of their parents, which is clearly a violation of parental right. Bui if, as nowadays, this juridical effect does not follow, no parental right appears to be violated in baptising the infant children of infidels against the will of the parents. Summa Theol., II-II, to, it:... de jure naturali est, quod filius, antequam habeat usum rationis, sit sub cura patris; unde contra iustitiam naturalem esset, si puer, antequam habeat usum rationis, a cura parentum subtrahatur, vel de eo aliquid ordinetur invitis parentibus. . . . (i) In the sed contra of this article the force of the argument is in the injustice of withdrawing a child from the care of its natural guardian, and many writers still stress this point, almost exclusively, in discussing the question. Since the famous case of Mortara, during the pontificate of Pius IX, whilst he was still a temporal sovereign, there has been no instance 25 FAITH Q, 362 of an infant, baptized against the will of its parents, being withdrawn from their custody. But the legal right of the Church in such cases is still defended, even though the Church nowadays has neither the power nor the desire to exercise it. Therefore, since by baptism a conflict of rights is created, to the detriment of parental rights, it is still correct to discuss the subject from the angle of rights over the custody of the infant, even though there is no possibility of the rights of the Church ever being enforced. (ii) In the concluding words of the above quotation St Thomas goes much further, and teaches that it is against natural justice not only to take an infant from the custody of its parents, but to interfere with the child’s condition in any way if the parents arc unwilling; and, certainly, the con­ ferring of baptism is an interference. Thus the more considerable commen­ tators, such as Billot, have in mind any interference whatever: . . nam sese ingerere absque competenti auctoritate in regimine et cura eorum qui sub alterius potestate sunt constituti, praeter et contra voluntatem eius ad quem pertinet, est violare ius illius, ac per consequens, facere ei iniuriam ... Et re quidem vera eiusmodi baptizator vel haberet hanc auctoriatem immediate a Deo vel mediante Ecclesia. Non mediante Ecclesia, cum ipsa in cos qui foris sunt, careat potestate. Nec etiam immediate a Deo, quia Deus consideratur vel ut auctor naturae, vel ut auctor gratiae: ut auctor naturae posuit pueros sub providentia et regimine parentum, ut auctor gratiae nullam contulit auctoritatem ad sacramentorum administrationem, praeter eam quae in Ecclesia et ab Ecclesia est.”* 1 362.—Leakage Precautions To hinder an unnecessary increase of lapsed Catholics, may the following rules be licitly followed? (i) That baptism should be refused to the children of Catholic parents, if they will almost certainly not be educated as Catholics. (iï) That baptised Catholic children should not be allowed to make their first confession, ot at least their first Communion, if they never come to Mass or do so very seldom indeed. (iii) That Catholics should not be allowed to enter into matrimony who will certainly not educate their children as Catholics. (iv) That converts should not be received into the Church until after at least six months' instruction and test, and unless there is every prospect of their remaining good Catholics. (i) Such children should be baptized provided there is, at least, some probable hope that they will be brought up as Catholics. Our correspon­ dent’s use of the word “almost” leads us to decide that there is still some sort of hope in the case. “Baptizari possunt infantes illorum parentum catholicorum, qui propter indifFcrcntismum aut etiam odium in Ecclesiam detrectant baptismum. Etenim cum isti parentes nondum publice apostaverint a vera religione, adhuc aliqua spes adest fore, ut infantes post adeptum usum rationis instruantur in religione catholica.”2 The hope is 1 De Sacramentis, I, Thesis xxviii. 1 Prümmcr, Tbeol. Moratis, cd. 1955. ΙΠ, §127· Cf. The Cter&y Review, 1945, XXV, p. 570. Q. 363 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 24 strengthened by securing a godparent who explicitly undertakes to do what is morally possible to safeguard the child’s faith. (ii) The sacraments may not be refused to those properly disposed. Provided a resolution is obtained, proportioned to the children’s age and circumstances, that they will observe the law of Sunday Mass in future, they should be absolved and should be admitted to first Communion. (iii) The excommunication of canon 2319 against those entering matri­ mony with a pact to educate their children as non-Catholics is not incurred until the parties have contracted marriage; moreover, the intention in the case put by our correspondent is not quite the same—it is rather another aspect of indifferentism to their obligations as Catholics. The intention of the contracting parties is gravely wrong. If it is not publicly known, they are only occult sinners and a priest cannot refuse to assist at their marriage. Sacramental confession cannot strictly be required. If the intention is publicly known, they arc public sinners and the law in the case is contained in canons 1065, 1066. The priest must refer the matter to the Ordinary “qui inspectis omnibus rei adiunctis, ei permittere poterit ut matrimonio intersit, dummodo urgeat gravis causa et pro suo prudenti arbitrio iudicet satis cautum esse catholicae educationi universae prolis”. (iv) It is impossible to formulate a rule determining the time limit for instructions of converts. If the regulations of the Ordinary are observed, an individual priest would be doing wrong to be more exacting. Any convert who has submitted to the preliminary course of instruction, and who desires to be reconciled to the Church, has ipso facto a good chance of being a good Catholic. Some of the points raised in these questions touch upon matters which are decided by diocesan laws in various places. 363.—Women in the Services It is my experience and that of all the Army chaplains I have met that women and girls are far less faithful to their religion after joining the Sendees than men. In civil life the opposite is true on the whole. What is the explanation? Pius XI, Divini Illius, 31 December, 1929, C.T.S. new trans., §50: It is well to repeat this warning here; for in these days there is spreading a spirit of nationalism which is false and exaggerated, as well as dangerous to true peace and prosperity. Under its influence various excesses arc committed in giving a military turn to the so-called physical training of boys (sometimes even of girls, contrary to the very instincts of human nature). Pius XII, Radio address quoted in The Standard (Dublin), 7 May, 1943 : The structure of society, which regards man and woman as equal, is resting on a false foundation. Nature has given them different fields of activity. It remains to be seen whether this natural difference does not call for a change in the present social trend. (i) The fact noted by our correspondent must, wc think, be admitted. We have ourselves heard from every chaplain consulted that, whilst many of the women arc admirable, it is true that the majority arc far less faithful than the men, even in stations where both sexes have equal opportunity of 2J FAITH q. 364 practising their religion. The explanation that their religious education in the schools has been all wrong is quite inadequate, since the men have had substantially the same training. Nor is the disparity accounted for, except perhaps in a very small minority of cases, on the supposition that the chaplains, for very proper and prudent reasons, are unable to establish personal contacts with the women in quite the same degree as with the men. For, regarded in its broad aspects, the same difficulty applies to pastoral visitation in the parishes, where it is usually found that women keep to their religious duties without any special or personal encouragement. (ii) The simplest solution is so derogatory to their sex that one is abso­ lutely unwilling to accept it unless every other explanation is found insuffi­ cient. It is that most women are frailer in character than most men, unable to stand up to the least breath of ridicule or criticism from their companions, unassertive of their religious rights, and so lacking in strength of mind that they automatically adopt the standard set by their non-Catholic companions in huts or billets. This explanation is to our mind wholly unsatisfactory. Whatever be the truth as regards physical courage, it is generally agreed that women are superior to men in moral courage, and the proportion of women to men who were faithful to the end on Calvary illustrates this contention. See, nevertheless, St Thomas’s opinion, II—II, 156, r, ad 1. (iii) It would seem, therefore, that the correct answer is that there is something, as the Holy Father says, contrary to the instincts of human nature in subjecting the female sex to a military life. We have grown accustomed, indeed, to women being engaged in occupations and pro­ fessions which used to be considered the proper sphere of men alone. But military life, it appears, is so notably unsuited to their nature that its effect quickly becomes apparent in fostering a notable indifference towards religion. What exactly is this disintegrating clement of military life which so adversely affects a woman’s character we are unable to say. God’s idea of the \zaliant Woman, in the Book of Proverbs, includes almost every human activity except that of soldiering. The disagreeable demands of totalitarian warfare may make even this inevitable, for a time at least, and “nowadays the Valiant Woman is rather she who can stand up against current views, who is not caught by shibboleths and catchwords, nor swayed by lax conventions”.1 364.—Freemasons Is there any ruling on the question whether a Catholic wife may accompany her husband, on a ladies' night, to a masonic dinner, a purely social function haring no direct connection with the craft? It is quite evident that, on a general principle, Catholics should not attend masonic functions, even though they arc not actually sessions of the society. The attitude of the Church with regard to freemasonry is so clear and explicit that Catholics must avoid even the appearance of lending support to this sect, membership of which incurs ipso facto excommunication reserved to the Apostolic Sec. There would usually be some scandal in 1 Archbishop of Liverpool, Tbe Tablet, 15 December, 1934. Q. 565 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 2£ attending a masonic dinner, and in the case of the weaker brethren some danger of perversion. But, if one is to hold that the act of attending at such a function is in itself wrong, it would have to be shown that the Church forbids even civil communication with freemasons, or that the action comes within the term '‘concurrentes ad delictum” of canon 2209. In our view, neither of these points can be established. It is a question, therefore, of an action, in itself indifferent, which is liable to be an occasion of perversion or of indirect scandal. In the case of a well-instructed and practising Catholic, the danger of perversion may be assumed not to exist; we arc left with the question of indirect scandal. As in all similar cases, indirect scandal may be per­ mitted for a proportionately grave cause: for example, a Catholic wife may feel compelled to accompany her husband in order to avoid domestic quarrels; in our view, this would be a reason justifying attendance. The matter is one which must be decided by the individual conscience. If there is actually no compensating reason, Catholics, whether male or female, should not attend masonic dinners. I can find only one text which bears directly on the question submitted and which supports the solution given. Génicot, Casus 33, page 30 of the 1928 edition: “Euphrosina, dum maritum, metu (ut supponitur) coacta, in coetu massonum comitatur, per se non peccat, modo ab actibus in se illicitis abstineat, neque se in proximum peccandi periculum scienter coniciat; nuda enim assistentia nullam sectae agnitionem involvit et ob grave damnum vitandum cohonestatur. . . .” 365.—Ceasing to be a Catholic When dots an adult who has been baptised in the Catholic Church cease to be a Catholic? The question is equivalent to asking who arc to be considered members of the Church, and the answer will vary according to the meaning and extent given to the word “Church”. Hence the great confusion arising from the use of terms such as the Invisible Church and the Soul of the Church (as distinct from its Body). If, however, we understand by the Catholic Church a visible external society functioning in this world, abstracting altogether from its internal spiritual characteristics, it is possible to determine when a baptized Catholic ceases to be a member of it. Even with these limitations, theologians and canonists arc not in complete agreement on certain points. As a definition of what constitutes a member of the Church, in this sense, the following suggested by Dr Lamiroy is as good as any: “Membra Ecclesiae sunt omnes et soli valide baptizati, baptismo aquae, qui eiusdem fidei Christianae pro­ fessione, communione sacramentorum et bonorum spiritualium, regimine tandem legitimorum pastorum colligantur.”1 It is based on two theses of Cardinal Billot: Thesis XI: Licet character baptismalis sit de se sufficiens ad incorporan­ dum hominem verae Ecclesiae Catholicae, nihilominus ad hunc effectum 1 Collât. Brttgen., 1925, p. 115. 2Ί FAITH Q. 365 requirit in adultis duplicem conditionem. Et prima quidem conditio est ut non impediatur sociale vinculum unitatis fidei per haeresim formalem aut etiam mere materialem. Verumtamcn quia huiusmodi impedimentum illa sola haeresis affert, quae in apertam professionem transit, dicendum est solos notorios hercticos a corpore Ecclesiae excludi. Thesis XII·. Altera conditio pro adultis requisita in eo est, ut non im­ pediatur vel non solvatur vinculum communionis, quod duobus modis potest destrui. Primo per ipsius hominis factum, hoc est per schisma, de quo proportionalitcr sentiendum est sicut de haeresi. Deinde per senten­ tiam ecclesiasticae auctoritatis, id est per excommunicationem quae plenam et perfectam habeat excommunicationis rationem. Quia vero nulla videtur esse talis, nisi ea qua quis vitandus efficitur, sequitur quod ad Ecclesiae corpus adhuc pertinere possunt excommunicat! tolerati, sive occulti sint sive etiam notorii.”1 A person, therefore, ceases to be a Catholic by openly and publicly professing heresy, schism, or a fortiori apostasy; the terms are defined in canon 1325, §2. An act of this kind is established beyond all doubt if the person joins a society or sect which professes any of these things. But it is also established, in our view, if the person, without joining any other visible body, notoriously and openly declares, for example, that he has left the Church and desires to have nothing more to do with it. It is quite immaterial whether this course is taken in good faith or in bad faith. On the border-line are those whose departure from the Church is merely implied in the non-exercise of the Catholic religion. In our view they should be regarded as Catholics until they have positively rejected their membership of the Church.2 Regarded from the opposite angle, certain persons cease to be members of the Church because that society has excluded them from its communion —an elementary right which any society in this world enjoys. But there is a wide divergency amongst the writers on this point, since it is a ques­ tion what the Church intends, or intended in past ages, by inflicting the censure of excommunication. The Roman Pontifical, Ordo Excommunica­ tionis et Absolutionis, expresses the intention of expulsion from the Church in strong and unequivocal terms: “. . . membrum putridum et insanabile, quod medicinam non recipit, ferro excommunicationis ab Ecclesiae corpore abscindamus, ne tam pestifero morbo reliqua corporis membra veluti veneno inficiantur”. It was what the old law called “major” excommunication, but in our present law excommunication as such, even when ferendae sententiae, does not deprive the delinquent of membership of the Church, and there­ fore of the right to bear the name “Catholic”. It deprives him of com­ munication with the faithful in certain respects, c.g. by depriving him of the sacraments. For the rest he is “tolerated”, and the ancient distinction between “major” and “minor” excommunication is now replaced by the distinction between ‘ ‘excommunica ti tolerati” and “excommunicat! vitandi”.3 Cf. Mystici Corporis, 29 June, 1943; C.T.S., η. zi. Many authors still write about all excommunication in terms which 1 De Ecclesia. Ed. 1909. pp. 291, 504. ’ Some hold that people of this kind often cease to be members of the Church, since their condition is equivalent to heresy, etc. Cf. Lcrchcr, Institut. Dogmat. (1959), Vol. I, p. 255. 1 Canon 2258. Q. 366 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 28 imply that the censured person is deprived of membership in the Church; others write as though not even the excommunicabis vitandus is deprived of membership. The correct view is that the excommunicabis vitandus alone ceases to be a Catholic. This is the teaching of Cardinal Gasparri: “Extra Ecclesiam a Jcsu Christo instituto sunt: 1. non baptizati; 2. manifesti apostatae, haeretici, schismatici, excommunicat! vitandi. Excommunicat! tolerati sunt Ecclesiae membra, sed excluduntur ab illis effectibus com­ munionis fidelium qui in sacris canonibus enumerantur. . . ,”1 The conditions required to constitute a person excommunicabis vitandus are in canon 2258, §2: “Nemo est vitandus, nisi fuerit nominatin'! a Scde Apostolica excommunicatus, excommunicatio fuerit publice denuntiata et in decreto vel sententia expresse dicatur ipsum vitari debere, salvo prae­ scripto can. 2545, §1, n. 1.” Canon 2345 determines that a person striking the Holy Father is ipso facto vitandus, and it is the only example of this penalty being incurred latae sententiae. 366.—Non-Catholic Education In some foreign missions, as in Japan before the war, the civil law bars the Christian education of children. What are the obligations of parents in such cases? S. Off., 21 April, 1958; Sy lloge, n. 206, bis; Commentarium pro Religiosis et Missionariis, 1938, p. 75. Excellentissime Domine, Dubia et explicationes a Te datas circa peculiares difficultates, quae in istis regionibus ex consuetudinibus oriuntur contra catholicam educationem prolis, habitae vel nasciturae a neophitis, ad Supremam S.C.S. Officii relata sunt. Adiunctis a Te expositis rite examinatis, Sup. illa S. Congregatio, per litteras diei 19 elapsi mensis februarii, ita respondit: (1) Utrum Missionarii baptizare possint parentes catechumenos, quorum proles major natu non vult converti; aut qui super prolem minorem juxta mores terrae omne jus amiserunt, quia eam tradere tenentur parentibus suis paganis nccnon mahumetanis, qui impediunt educationem catholicam, et hac de causa ipsi (coniuges) conversionem aut educationem catholicam universae prolis promittere non possunt ; (2) Utrum Missionarii in matrimonium conjungere possint catholicos qui iuxta mores terrae unam aut aliam prolem nascituram parentibus aut tutoribus paganis nccnon mahumetanis tradere tenentur, qui educationem catholicam impedire praevidentur; (3) Utrum valide dispensari possit super impedimento disparitatis cultus cum iis qui super maiores natu potestatem amiserunt, aut qui juxta mores terrae unam aliamve prolem nascituram parentibus aut tutoribus paganis nccnon mahumetanis tradere tenentur, qui educationem catholicam impedire praevidentur, et propter hoc contrahentes educationem catholicam universae prolis promittere non possunt. Resp. Ad primum et ad secundum: Affirmative, dummodo partes paratae 1 Catichismus Catholicus, QQ. 158 and 161. z9 FAITH q. 367 sint facere quod in se est ad fovendam conversionem et obtinendam catholi­ cam educationem universae prolis; Ad tertium: Affirmative quoad priman partem (seu quoad casus in quibus proles catholica jam est natu maior); quoad secundam partem (seu in aliis casibus) Affirmative, dummodo partes paratae sint facere quod in se est ad obtinendam catholicam educationem universae prolis. This reply of the Sacred Congregation, given for Japan, is accompanied by an official commentary in which the solution given is justified by theological reasoning. The law of canons 1061, 1071, it 13 and the sanc­ tions of canon 2319, §i, apply without any reserve to those parents who neglect their obligations through their own fault, or who are found to be the cause of the education of their children outside of the Church. But if they arc not in any way responsible, and if every marriage open to them is under the same objection, namely that they arc prevented from securing effectively the Catholic education of their children, then their natural right to marry must be respected. It is understood that they will do whatever is possible to observe the divine law, and the children may be baptized, but the law docs not bind them to do what is impossible, nor are they rightly to be considered, in these circumstances, the cause of their children being brought up non-Catholics. By generating the children they co-operate, indeed, but it is material co-operation, in so far as the future education of the children is concerned; the celebration and the use of marriage in such cases is an action with a double eflect, and is to be judged according to the familiar principle. The commentary concludes: “Quapropter, quantumvis ex una parte fidelibus ac catechumenis gra­ vissima parentum obligatio prolem catholice educandi inculcari debeat, ex altera parte eis non gravius onus imponendum est, quam auctor naturae et gratiae, Deus ipse, imposuit; neque ab iis exigendum est, ut, si postquam quae facere potuerunt fecerunt, ad catholicam educationem in tuto collocan­ dam, eam obtinere non potuerunt, aut innupti maneant aut extent sacra­ mentis et gratiis Ecclesiae privatis.” 367.—Non-Catholic Schools Ir it necessary to obtain the Ordinary’s sanction for attendance at a non~Catholic school in places where no Catholic school exists? The children will not attend the religions class at the school, and will be instructed adequately in the Catholic faith outside school hours. I J I Canon 1374: . . . Solius autem Ordinarii loci est decernere, ad normam instructionum Sedis Apostolicac, in quibus rerum adiunctis et quibus adhibitis cautelis, ut periculum perversionis vitetur, tolerari possit ut eae scholae (acatholicac) celebrentur. Declaration of the English Bishops, August, 1905.3: No individual priest or confessor is entitled to decide where necessity of this nature exists, but the matter is one to be referred to the Ordinary of the diocese for his counsel and judgement. The declaration of the English bishops, fully sanctioned twelve years later in canon 1374 of the Code, has often been repeated by individual Q, 367 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 30 Ordinaries, e.g. Lancaster Statutes (1945), n. 22; Middlesbrough Decrees (1935), n. 258. In places where no Catholic school exists the Ordinary may use his right and require each case to be presented to him separately; or, if he so desires, he may inform the priest of the place that, pending the erection of a Catholic school, parents may send their children elsewhere, servatis servandis. It is entirely and exclusively the business of the Ordinary to give a decision, and the clergy have only to acquaint him with the local circumstances and obey his directions. A parent, without the Ordinary's sanction, sends his children to a non-Catholic school, withdrawing them from religions instruction therein, and otherwise educating them sufficiently as Catholics. Does the parent incur the censure of canon 2319,51,4? Does he incur it if the child is not withdrawn from religions instruction? Canon 2219, §t : In poenis benignior est interpretatio facienda. Canon 2319, §1,4: Subsunt excommunicationi latae sententiae Ordinario reservatae . . . parentes vel parentum locum tenentes qui liberos in religione acatholica educandos vel instituendos scienter tradunt. §2. Ii de quibus in nn. 2-4, sunt praeterea suspecti de haeresi. Canon 2515: Suspectus de haeresi, qui monitus causam suspicionis non removeat ... si intra sex menses a contracta poena completos sesc non emendaverit, habeatur tanquam haereticus, haereticorum poenis obnoxius. (i) The parent does not incur the excommunication of canon 2319, §1, 4, if the child is withdrawn from non-Catholic religious instruction. If he is not withdrawn from the instruction, but, nevertheless, educated privately at home as a Catholic, it is doubtful whether the censure is incurred, and much will depend on the nature of the non-Catholic instruction. The canon, it is true, distinguishes between “education” and “instruction”, and deems both equally worthy of the censure. But if it is established that the non-Catholic “instruction” is merely Bible reading, as it generally is, the parent may be given the benefit of the doubt, unless directions of the local Ordinary exist to the contrary. If the instruction is indubitably heretical, the censure is incurred, and the parent is suspect of heresy. (ii) In both instances the parent has violated the grave law of canon 1374, and in the internal forum of the confessional it is open to the confessor to regard the penitent as indisposed for absolution, unless he undertakes to obey the law by seeking the Ordinary’s sanction, which might be forth­ coming if the child is withdrawn from non-Catholic instruction. Is the parent, also, to be refused the sacraments publicly as a “public sinner”, according to the terms of canon 855, §1 : “Arcendi sunt ab Eucha­ ristia publice indigni, quales sunt cxcommunicati, interdicti, manifestoque infames . . .”? Inasmuch as the refusal of Holy Communion is a most serious penalty, the public offence which merits it must not only be gravely sinful, but publicly known, and recognized as gravely sinful by the public conscience. The local Ordinary may have decided this issue, as he is entitled to do, and directed that parents who violate canon 1374 are to be refused Holy Communion as public sinners. If he has not done so, we think that the proper course is to seek his decision in an individual case before publicly refusing the sacraments. — P FAITH qq. 368, 369 368.—Children in Non-Catholic Schools What are the obligations of an assistant priest ton·arris children in non-Catholic schools? The parents are usually indifferent and the children will not attend catechism in the church. It is for the curate to carry out the wishes of the parish priest, who in turn must obey the directions of the common law and of the Ordinary, both as regards the position of the parents and of the children. The obligations of the parish priest are expressed generically in canons 467, §1, and 1529; specifically in relation to the sacraments of penance, confirmation and Holy Eucharist, in canons 1530 and 1351; canon 1333 provides for the delegation of this catechizing duty to clerics, lay persons and the Confra­ ternity of Christian Doctrine, and it is assumed that the parish priest will supervise the work of his delegates. These legal principles are necessarily limited in practice by what is morally and humanly speaking possible. If a large number of children attend neither the Catholic school nor the catechism classes in the church, it is hardly possible for the parish priest to provide a private instructor for each child, even assuming that his attentions would be welcomed by the parents. But between this extreme and the attitude of taking no interest whatever in them there is a reasonable mean : with the time at his disposal, and by taking opportunities which may be more favourable in some instances than in others, he will do what is possible to prepare some of these children at least for the reception of the sacraments. It may be objected that this procedure amounts to encouraging parents to send their children to non-Catholic schools, and is in the long run hostile to the common good. This may well be, but in view of the parish priest’s certain obligations from the above canons, we think that he may not, for this reason alone, decline to take any interest in such children, unless his attitude is sanctioned by the Ordinary. From canon 476, §6, the assistant priest (vicarius cooperator) must assist the parish priest “in universo paroeciali ministerio”, which includes catechizing these children within the limits described above in the second paragraph, a duty which he must perform to the best of his ability even though not expressly directed by the parish priest to do so. 369.—Origins of the Catechism Could you give some brief account of the origins of our English ‘'Penny” Cate­ chism, or some indication of books dealing with the subject? The history of a text which is so widely used in teaching the young is of interest, and some knowledge of it might, perhaps, help to soften the harsh criticisms of the book which are often heard. The catechetical method of question and answer is deeply rooted in ecclesiastical tradition, and is preserved in the baptismal rite and in other Q. 369 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS liturgical functions as, for example, the consecration of bishops. Also texts arc in existence such as “Disputatio puerorum per interrogationes et responsiones”, wrongly attributed to Alcuin,1 which appears to be what we call a catechism. But it is generally admitted that the activities of the reformers were responsible for the publication of Catholic catechisms in the modern sense; they were designed to counteract the heretical teachings of the new books. The Catechism of the Council of Trent was rather an official manual for the clergy than a text for the laity, and the great work of St Peter Canisius was similarly exhaustive, some of the answers occupying four or five pages. Many editions of Canisius, however, were abridged for the use of the young, and the work is of great importance; for its main division, under the headings of Faith, Hope and Charity, was retained by Bishop Challoner in compiling the catechism which is the parent of our present book. Independent works, either original or in translation, were current in England during the early seventeenth century, and the most famous of them, also a remote parent of our catechism, was the work of a Douay priest, Henry Turberville. It is entitled “An Abridgement of Christian Doctrine” and appeared first at Douay in 1649, followed by a summary for the use of children probably about 1688. Both of these books are mentioned in the Rules of Standon School (1753) as being used by the scholars and committed to memory in the morning during the combing of their hair: “The short abridgement of ye Christian Doctrine is indeed ye Catechism in use for children very young.” The connecting link between these earlier works and our present book is Bishop Chailoner’s catechism, published first at St Omer in 1772: Abridge­ ment of Christian Doctrine: Revised and Enlarged by R.C. There is a copy of this rare text at Oscott and it is believed to be the only one known to exist. The saintly Vicar Apostolic of the London District is always held in affectionate remembrance for his courage and vigour in one of the darkest periods of our Catholic history. Amongst the innumerable books, pam­ phlets and controversial works written by him, the catechism is, at least, of equal importance with the Garden of the Soul, and Canon Burton devotes considerable space to it in his biography. The basis of his work was the Douay catechism, the Canisian division under the theological virtues being retained. The “Daily Exercise” of the Douay book was kept and a new section added entitled “The Christian’s Rule of Life”. It remained in use unchanged for nearly seventy years until, in 1836, a new edition with some fresh questions added was brought out by the authority of the Vicars Apostolic. A further revision took place in 1859, the work of a commission appointed at the Third Provincial Council at Oscott, which included Ullathorne, Faber and Manning; the longer questions were divided and the whole arranged in a more intelligible order. In 1888 an edition was pub­ lished by Burns & Oates, with the authority of the English Bishops, but it is not clear who the revisers were; the chief change, and a prominent one, consisted in making all the answers distinct categorical statements, a method which often meant repeating in extenso the wording of the question. Later changes do not appear to have affected very substantially the substance of the text; they arc concerned with necessary alterations in order to bring the 1 Did. Tbtol.,11, col. 1897. 33 FAITH Q. 370 work up to date with current legislation; there is an occasional alteration of phrases. The little book has, therefore, a venerable history and, quite apart from its intrinsic value, is a link with penal times which should not lightly be destroyed. Λ detailed account of its origins may be read in Canon Burton’s Life and Times of Bishop Chailoner, II, pp. 159-62. A much closer analysis of the subsequent editions was made by W. G. Twiney in The Oscotian, 1902, p. 76. Apart from these two references I know of no other connected account of the subject, though doubtless some articles have been written in periodicals of recent years. For modern tendencies and suggestions, cf. Irish Ecclesiastical Record, 1943, LXII, p. 392. 370.—Confraternity of Christian Doctrine What was the origin of this confraternity, and of the law ordering it to be erected in every parish? Information about its origins is given by the writers on indulgences, e.g. Beringcr, II, §260, and by the commentators on canons 711, §2, and 1333, §1. The confraternity first began as one of the many activities of the counter­ Reformation, and was an off-shoot of the religious congregation of the Fathers of Christian Doctrine (an institute somewhat resembling Barnabites, Oratorians and others) founded by Mark Cusani in 1562. Certain members elected to live a community life, others preferred to live in the world as members of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. Various Roman basilicas and churches have been, at one time or another, the headquarters of the confraternity: St Peter’s, St Martin’s, and finally the one mentioned at the head of the new folium of indulgences, Santa Maria del Pianto. The indul­ gences which could formerly be gained by its members are now consider­ ably increased.1 It is not to be supposed, nor indeed to be desired, that people who would not otherwise teach the Catholic faith will be moved thereto solely for the indulgences. But this grant is an indication that the Church regards the effective teaching of Christian truth as amongst the most pressing needs of the world at the present time. From canon 711, §2, the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine should exist in every parish, and it is ipso facto aggregated to the Roman Archconfra­ ternity. As regards the Blessed Sacrament Confraternity, the Code Commission decided, 6 March, 1927, that any other pious union or sodality sufficed for observing the law; we think the same may be said of the Christian Doctrine Confraternity.2 The law requiring it to exist in every parish was promulgated by Pius X, in the encyclical Acerbo Nimis, 15 zXpril, 1905; Fontes, n. 666, §16, IV; Eng. tr. Leeds Synods, 1911,?. 155. 1 21 December, 1939; A.A.S., i94°» XXXB» P· 16S. ’ Bouscaren-Ellis, Canon Law, p. 6S1. B Q. 371 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 54 371.—Pagan Rites To what extent are certain pagan rites, formerly forbidden, now permitted as national customs without religious significance? Propaganda, 8 December, 1959: Instructio Circa Quasdam Caere­ monias et Iuramentum super Ritibus Sinensibus; A.A.S., 1940, XXXII, Ρ· Μ· Plane compertum est in Orientalium Regionibus nonnullas caeremonias, licet antiquitus cum ethnicis ritibus connexae essent, in praesentiarum, mutatis saeculorum fluxu moribus et animis, civilem tantum servare signi­ ficationem pietatis in antenatos vel amoris in patriam vel urbanitatis in proximos. Quapropter hoc S. Consilium Christiano Nomini Propagando, Summo Pontifice Pio XI f. r. approbante, novas super hac re annis 1935 et 1956 impertiit Ordinariis Manduriae et Imperii laponici, iuxta can. 22, normas hodiernis rerum adiunctis magis congruentes. Nuper vero Emi Patres eidem S. Consilio Christiano Nomini Propagando praepositi, in generali consessu, die 4 vertentis mensis Decembris cele­ brato, consideraverunt an aliis quoque in locis, ubi similes rerum adiunctorum mutationes decursu temporum advenisse constaret, similis agendi ratio admittenda esset. Argumentis itaque hinc inde attente perpensis, prudentium atque experientium virorum sententia exquisita, iidem Emi Patres, quae sequun­ tur censuerunt esse declaranda: (i) Cum Sinense Gubernium pluries aperteque enuntiaverit omnibus esse liberum quam malint religionem profiteri et alienum esse a sua mente dc rebus religiosis leges aut iussa edere; ideoque caeremonias, quae in honorem Confudi a publicis Auctoritatibus sive peraguntur sive iubentur, non fieri animo tribuendi religiosum cultum, sed hunc solum in finem ut foveatur et expromatur in virum darissimum dignus honor et in traditiones patrum debitus cultus: licitum est catholicis adesse actibus honoris, qui ante Confudi imaginem vel tabellam, in monumentis confucianis vel in scholis perfiduntur. (2) Ideoque non habendum est illidtum imaginem Confudi, vel etiam tabellam eius nomine inscriptam, in scholis catholicis collocari, praesertim si Auctoritates id iusserint, aut eam capitis inclinatione salutare. Si quando timeatur scandalum, declaretur recta catholicorum intentio. (3) Tolerandum ut catholici magistratus et alumni, si publicis caere­ moniis adsistcrc iubeantur quae speciem praeseferant superstitionis, intersint quidem, dummodo, ad mentem can. 1258, passive se habeant signaque illius tantum obsequii faciant, quod ut mere civile iure haberi possit; declarata, ut supra, sua intentione, si quando hoc necessarium apparuerit ad falsas interpretationes sui actus removendas. (4) Inclinationes capitis atque aliae civilis observantiae manifestationes ante defunctos vel defunctorum imagines, et etiam ante tabellam defuncti, simplid nomine inscriptam, uti licitae et honestae habendae sunt. Considerantes praeterea iidem Emi Patres iuramentum super ritibus sinensibus a Summo Pontifice Benedicto XIV per Constitutionem Ex quo singulari diei 11 Iulii 1742 omnibus sacerdotibus (in Sinarum Imperio aliisque FAITH 35 Q. 371 ci conterminis sive adjacentibus Regnis ac Provinciis) imperatum, non plene congruere cum recentibus normis ab hac S. Congregatione datis, atque insuper idem iuramentum nunc temporis uti disciplinare instrumen­ tum omnino esse superfluum, cum notum sit antiquas de ritibus sinensibus controversias esse pacatas, et, ceterum, missionaries et alios sacerdotes nulla indigere juramenti coactione ut promptam filialemque praestent S. Sedi obedientiam: consuerunt dispensandum esse ab obligatione illius juramenti, ubicumque, sive in Sinis, sive alibi illud in usu esset; firmis manentibus ceteris praescriptis Summi Pontificis Benedicti XIV, quatenus recentioribus Instructionibus non sint immutata, prae primis prohibitione super ritibus sinensibus disputandi. Quam Emorum Patrum sententiam, Ssmo Domino Nostro Pio Prov. Div. Papae XII, ab infrascripto Cardinali huius S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide Praefecto, in audientia diei 7 mensis Decembris relatam, Sanctitas Sua in omnibus dignata est approbare et ratam habere. Datum Romae, ex Aedibus Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide, dic 8 mensis Decembris a.d. 1939, in festo Conceptionis Immaculatae B.M.V. The lawfulness of Christians giving ritual honours to Confucius had always been in dispute, and gave rise to serious controversies between the missionary orders engaged in evangelizing China. The fathers of the Society of Jesus have consistently been in favour of permitting these ceremonies, and the Holy Sec in 1955 and 1936 issued instructions in this sense for certain localities. These documents, which were not all printed in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis but in various other journals, are conveniently assem­ bled in SyHoge . . . Ad Usum Missionariorum (1938): 28 May, 1935, n. 192; 26 May, 1936, n. 201. The reasons underlying this (1939) decision of the Church, which happily settles any remnants of controversy, are to be discerned in the change of outlook which the Chinese nation has itself adopted in recent years. The State examination on the doctrines of Confucius—formerly a sine qua non for any government employment—was abolished in 1905, and in 1912 the republic decided that its subjects were free to profess any religious belief; it was further declared that the national honours given to Confucius were not of a religious character. The practices nevertheless remain rooted in the national life, and, in accordance with the policy of the Church in mis­ sionary countries to encourage an indigenous culture, art and priesthood, it is now definitely stated by the Holy See that the customs may remain undisturbed, provided whatever danger of scandal there may be is effec­ tively removed. This decision about ceremonies in honour of Confucius is extended in n. 4 to the honours universally given by the Chinese to their deceased. The oath, which was required in documents as late as 1935, is contained in Ex quo singulari of Benedict XIV.1 The missionary taking it used to swear to obey various papal constitutions prohibiting certain Chinese rites and ceremonies, but as the discipline is now radically changed the oath is superfluous and is abolished. Probably the best commentary on this document is the teaching of the Holy Father in Summi Pontificatus: “The Church aims at unity, a unity 1 Γοη/u, n. 529, §27. Q. 372 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 36 determined and kept alive by that supernatural love which should be actua­ ting everybody; she does not aim at a uniformity which would only be external in its effects, and would cramp the natural tendencies of the nations concerned. Every nation has its own genius, its own qualities, springing from the hidden roots of its being. The wise development, the encourage­ ment within limits, of that genius, those qualities, does no harm, and if a nation cares to take precautions, to lay down rules for that end, it has the Church’s approval. . . . The missionaries of the divine word devote years of patient labour to the study of conditions; they spare no effort to understand the civilization and the institutions of the people they are dealing with; and then they try to cultivate and develop the individual gifts of that people in such a way as to secure the richest possible harvest for the gospel of Jesus Christ. Anything in the national customs that is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and false doctrine is always carefully con­ sidered and, if possible, preserved intact. In a particular case of this kind, which called for prudence and wise treatment, Our Predecessor generously adopted a view which marks him out and will always mark him out as a great intellect and a great lover of souls. It is hardly necessary to tell you, worshipful Brethren, that We intend to follow, without hesitation, the same course.”1 The teaching and position of Confucius in the cultural life of the Chinese is summarized in n. 4 (R. 104) of the C.T.S. Studies in Comparative Religion. /Xn exhaustive commentary on the above instruction is given by Fr Tabera, C.M.F., in Commentarium pro Religiosis el Missionariis, 1940, pp. 5-14. 372.—The Index and Oriental Catholics Are Catholics of oriental rites affected by the Code laws relating to forbidden books? Canon 1: Licet in Codice iuris canonici Ecclesiae quoque Orientales disciplina saepe referatur, ipse tamen unam respicit Latinam Ecclesiam, neque Orientalem obligat, nisi de iis agatur, quae ex ipsa rei natura etiam Orientalem afficiunt. Canon 1596: Libri ab Apostolica Sede damnati ubique locorum et in quodcunque vertantur idioma prohibiti censeantur. S.C. pro Ecclesia Orientali (n.d.), A.A.S., 1944, XXXVI, p. 25: Cum quaesitum fuerit utrum fideles orientalis ritus teneantur, praeterquam can. 1596 C.I.C., etiam can. 1399, Sacra Congregatio pro Ecclesia Orientali respondendum ccnsuif. Affirmative. Since canon 1596 relates to books condemned because of their danger to faith or morals, it is clear that the law applies to Orientals “ex ipsa rei natura”, as stated in canon 1. Canon 1399 enumerates under twelve headings various publications declared to be “ipso iure” prohibited, and in each case it is equally evident that they constitute a danger to faith or morals; hence the law forbidding them is not restricted to Latins. 1 C.T.S. tr. Oarhuss over ibe ILartb, pp. 19 and 20. ; 1 ! 37 COMMUNICATIO IN SACRIS Q' 373 §2. COMMUNICATIO IN SACRIS 373.—Principles and Terms What is the meaning to be given to “active”, “passive”, “material” and “formal” when applied to elucidating the principle of “communicatio in sacris”? (i) Canon 1258, §1: Haud licitum est fidelibus quovis modo active assistere seu partem habere in sacris acatholicorum. The communication of non-Catholics in our rites is styled “passive” by some authors, but it is better to avoid an equivocal use of terms, and restrict the word “passive” to the notion discussed in (ii). Active communication of Catholics in non-Catholic rites is sometimes distinguished into that which is material and that which is formal, by “formal” being meant an internal and voluntary approval of the rite or sect. But, since an action of this kind is practically indistinguishable from “formal heresy or schism”, it presents no casuistical problem whatever. The distinction, moreover, is not a happy one, since it might lead one to deduce that a Catholic who dissociates his mind from all intention of worshipping God, and a fortiori from all adhesion to heresy or schism, may be allowed to take an active part because his share is merely “material”. This would be a wrong deduction to draw. The intrinsic wrongness of active participation in the religious rites of a false religion essentially consists in the external denial of the Catholic faith, which is implied in the action. The meaning of “active” is that described in canon 2259, §2: “... quae aliquam secumferat participationem in celebrandis divinis officiis”. This is always forbidden, even though there may be no scandal, no danger to one’s own faith, no internal act of worship, no internal approval of heresy or schism. “Ratio est quia eiusmodi assistentia aut panem eu tus improbandi constituit, aut, prout hic sumitur, cooperationem proxi­ mam ad talem cultum involvit.”1 “Etiam absente negatione fidei huiusmodi communicatio prohibetur . . . quia saltem aliqua externa approbatio cultus haeretici in tali communicatione includitur.”2 Therefore, every kind of active participation in a purely religious rite is always forbidden, no matter what the motive or reason, e.g., playing the organ or singing in the choir “etiam sola lucri ratione”. Cf. Propaganda, 8 July,1899. On the other hand, without entering upon the paths of casuistry, it is evident that, if the communication falls short of being an active part in a purely religious rite, it may be permitted for proportionate reasons. (ii) Canon 12 5 8, §2 : Tolerari potest praesentia passiva scu mere materialis, civilis officii vel honoris causa, ob gravem rationem, ab Episcopo in casu dubii probandam, in acatholicorum funeribus, nuptiis similibusque solemniis, dummodo perversionis et scandali periculum absit. Granted that the action is not of the character described in (i), it is not intrinsically wrong, and its lawfulness, in any given instance, can be deter1 Woutcrs, Tbeol. Moralis, 1, §500. 1 Prümmcr, Tbeol. Moratis, I, §526. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 38 mined by an application of the ordinary doctrine concerning the voluntarium indirectum, or the double effect of an action. The second, or indirect, effect is the danger of perversion to the Catholic and, what is much more likely to occur, the danger of scandal to others. If cither of these dangers is grave and proximate, it is hard to discover any reason that would justify even passive presence. But these dangers can, with little difficulty, be made more remote. All that is then required is a proportionately grave reason. Hence the practical impossibility of providing a solution which is applicable to all and sundry. Each case must be solved on its own merits: “Ex quibus dictis sequitur, ut non liceat inferre e.gr. Visitatio ecclesiae protestanticae licita est in tali loco et tali personae: Ergo idem licitum est cuilibet et in quolibet loco. Prudentis viri et praesertim Episcopi aut confessarii est judicare, num in casu particulari adsint omnes condiciones necessariae ad licitam reddendam aliquam communicationem cum haereticis.”1 Passive assistance means taking no active part. We arc of the opinion that the act of rising and sitting with the rest of the congregation is not to be con­ sidered an active part. Once it is decided that a Catholic may lawfully be present at a non-Catholic service, it is extremely difficult to be seated all the time without appearing ill-mannered. The manualists do not usually discuss this point, but Archbishop Kenrick writes in his Moral Theology, tract xiii, n. 33: “· · · genua flectere non videtur esse fidei negatio; intelligitur enim fieri humanitatas causa (dummodo illud aliquoties fiat)”. It is forbidden to join in the prayers or singing or to perform actions such as serving the minister. The important point, and one to which the Holy See habitually refers in solving doubts, is the necessity of avoiding scandal. This is the point to be examined, before coming to a conclusion in individual cases, rather than a casuistical peering into the distinction between active and passive, civil and religious communication. Even when it is judged to be remote, it must be weighed and considered in relation to the grave reason alleged in justification of passive presence. For example, a graver reason is required in the case of a prominent Catholic than in the case of an unknown person; a graver reason in a small country district, where the actions of everyone are scrutinized and discussed, than in a town where no one cares very much what people do or where they go; a graver reason for a recent convert, owing to the danger of perversion, than for a “born” Catholic. All the clergy are familiar with the maze of casuistry born of this tolera­ tion, and the phrase dummodo, etc., has almost ceased to have any meaning: it is indulgently assumed that there is never any danger. But when we hear of someone who favours Catholics joining in non-Catholic worship, c.g. by taking part in the prayers or hymns, on the ground that there is no difference between this and attending a funeral, we begin to sec the force of the clause dummodo. Passive presence at a funeral is indeed permitted by §2 of the canon. But a Catholic may never join actively in the prayers at such a function; any active part (“quovis modo”) is absolutely ruled out by §1 ; and the faith­ ful who are unable to perceive this distinction should never attend any non­ Catholic function since in their case there is definitely danger of scandal or perversion. 1 Prümmcr, loc. di,' $527. 39 COMMUNICATIO IN SACRIS Q» 374 374.—United Worship—Common Ground Could it not be said that a united corporate act, in which no particular body takes the lead, is not forbidden by the law against “communicatio in sacris", since the service is not that of a non-Catholic sect but is merely one which unites the worshippers on a basis which all share in common? The answer must, in our view, be that the only kind of public corporate worship in which Catholics may take an active part is that which is indis­ putably Catholic worship. For any corporate act of religion, united public prayer for example, presupposes that those who join therein share a com­ mon religious faith or conviction, which could only mean that, in spite of the unhappy divisions of Christendom, there are a few simple and funda­ mental doctrines (such as the divinity of Christ) which, it is alleged, claim the adherence of all, and therefore provide a basis upon which all may worship God as one body. But this is precisely the contention which the Holy See has consistently and unequivocally rejected, as may be seen in such documents as the In­ struction of the Holy Office, ιό September, 1864, addressed to the English bishops on the “Association for the Promotion of the Union of Christen­ dom”,1 endorsed more recently for America, 4 July, 1919, and again, 8 July, 1927, in connection with “The World Conference on Faith and Order” at Lausanne. In the encyclical Mortalium Animos, 6 January, 1928, the Funda­ mentalism on which all these efforts to obtain agreement amongst Christians was based is explicitly condemned. It is a grievously difficult thing for others to understand that the only kind of unity which the Church contemplates is the submission of all separated communities to her authority. The Bishop of Chichester stands out as a theologian who thoroughly appreciates our position with a sympathetic insight which in others is too often lacking; he understands that “the position of the Church of Rome is different from that of any other Christian communion”.1 2 Collaboration with non-Catholics is desired by the Holy See, not indeed for the purpose of seeking agreement on a minimum of fundamental revealed doctrine, nor with the idea of communicating with them in religious worship as the outcome of basic agreement, but within the sphere of the natural law,3 particularly in its social applications as taught during the last fifty years in a scries of papal encyclicals. It was within these limits that the joint letter to The Times, 21 December, 1940, appeared over the signature of His Eminence Cardinal 1 linslcy, together with those of other Christian leaders, inaugurating a new effort towards collaboration between Catholics and non-Catholics, which has been, and will continue to be, most fruitful in results. Speaking at Birmingham, 22 June, 1941, as reported in The Tablet, 5 July, His Grace the Apostolic Delegate gave a timely warning: “It seems to me essential,” he said, “that the use of the term common ground by the Holy Father should be well understood as having no connection with any sur­ 1 Fontes, n. 979. Cf. Ward’s Life of Wiseman, 11, p. 477 seq., and Purcell’s Life of Manning, ll.xiii, p. z72 "