Y'

1

Λ­

α

140

1

1

1

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

stands in need of definite spiritual direction and instruction based
upon an understanding of the function of his particular status in
the Church of God.
There should be no doubt about the need of a definite theo­
logical spirituality for the diocesan priesthood. In the absence of
such sound and scientific instruction, the diocesan priest and
seminarian are almost inevitably bound to have recourse to a
desultory and often highly unsatisfactory “spiritual reading” for
information and motivation on their own work and their own
status. This situation is quite inexcusable today. In the world of
business, in the professional and military life, the men of our
time have perfected the technique of explaining the position and
the function of every class of workers laboring together towards
a common goal. The chemist engaged in the task of quantitative
analysis would never think of consulting simply “a book about
chemistry” for his own instruction. Unless we are willing to ex­
pend a like effort in the service of Jesus Christ, we must resign
ourselves to the spectacle of a diocesan priest or seminarian look­
ing to “a spiritual book” for information about his highly special­
ized divine calling. Haphazard spirituality will never help a man
appreciate the presbyterium and its function in the Church.
There should be little need for worry that a spirituality of the
diocesan priesthood will engender disunity within the priesthood
or within the Church. Archbishop Guerry somewhat drily
observes in his comments on the letters of Fr. Féret: “that, for
the diocesan clergy, the danger of a specialization pushed too far
appears less pressing than for many other members of the Mys­
tical Body.”1* The true theology and spirituality of the diocesan
priesthood cannot fail to bring out the bonds of unity which bind
all Christians, and particularly all priests, together in the one
Church of Jesus Christ. It will show not only the obligation, but
the strength and the meaning of that priestly loyalty through
which and in which the disciples of Christ find their unity.
Joseph Clifford Fenton
The Catholic University of America,
Washington, D. C.
“Λα lfais<m-Dieu, HI, 81.

Answers to Questions
“INTERFAITH” PROBLEMS
Question I; What is to be said of the use of such expressions as
“interfaith meetings,” and “persons of different faiths,” or of
emphasizing "unity-in-diversity, ” when Catholics are describing
their relations and attitude toward non-Catholics?
Question 2: When Pope Pius XII referred to "the right to
worship God” in his Christmas message of 1942 as a fundamental
human right, did he mean that everyone has a true right to
practice whatever religion he deems true?
Answer I.· The use by Catholics of such expressions as “inter­
faith meetings” and “persons of different faiths,” whereby non­
Catholics are said or implied to have a different faith from Cath­
olics is very unfortunate. The word faith, as traditionally used
in the Catholic Church, signifies exclusively the one true faith,
which is found only in the Catholic Church. Objectively, the
faith is the body of truths that are proposed by the infallible
magisterium of the Church as divinely revealed; subjectively,
faith is the infused virtue whereby one accepts the truths of
divine revelation on account of God’s authority. It is true, the
virtue of faith can reside in persons of good will separated from
Catholic unity; yet, even in such the infused virtue impels them
to believe only what is actually true; it does not extend to doc­
trines which they themselves may sincerely believe but which are
actually false (St. Thomas, Sum.theol., II-II, q. 1, a. 3). The
words of St. Paul are very explicit in this connection: “One Lord,
one faith, one baptism” (Ephes. 4:5). When Catholics wish to
speak of those outside the true fold, they could refer to them as
persons of different denominations, different beliefs, different
creeds—but the word faith should be retained in its traditional
Catholic sense.
Similarly, to characterize the relation between Catholics and
Protestants as “unity-in-diversity ” is misleading, inasmuch as it
implies that essentially Catholics are one with heretics, and that
their diversities are only accidental. Actually, the very opposite
is the true situation. For, however near an heretical sect may
seem to be to the Catholic Church in its particular beliefs, a wide
141

142

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

gulf separates them, inasfar as the divinely established means
whereby the message of God is to be communicated to souls—the
infallible magisterium of the Church—is rejected by every hereti­
cal sect. By telling Protestants that they are one with us in cer­
tain beliefs, in such wise as to give the impression that we regard
this unity as the predominant feature of our relation with them,
we are actually misleading them regarding the true attitude of
the Catholic Church toward those who do not acknowledge her
teaching authority.
Answer 2: In his Christmas message of 1942,Pope PiusXII enum­
erated among the basic human rights, called for by the dignity of
the human person, “the right to religious formation and education;
the right to the worship of God in private and in public” (Princ­
iples of Peace, n. 1846). Now, although the Soverign Pontiff did
not further qualify the significance of “religious” and “worship,”
these words can refer only to the Catholic religion and worship,
if the word “right” be taken in its proper, objective sense. For,
if there is anything basic in Catholic teaching, it is the doctrine
that the Son of God established only one religion and imposed
on all men the obligation of embracing it; consequently, no other
religion has a real objective right to exist and tp function, and no
individual has an objective right to embrace any non-Catholic
religion. For certainly, no one has a right to act against the com­
mand of God. Such has ever been the teaching of the Church.
For example, Pope Pius IX condemned the proposition “Every­
one is free to embrace and to profess that religion which under
the guidance of the light of human reason he has judged to be
true” (DB, 1715).
It is true that a person may be justified in conscience when he
practises a false religion; he may even be bound to embrace such
a religion because of an invincibly erroneous conscience^ But
even in such a supposition, he has no real right to act as he does.
In the words of Merkelbach: “As regards an invincibly erroneous
conscience, although a man can and must follow it in the internal
forum, he has no true and proper right to do so—a right which is
founded on the objective relations of things—but only a supposed
right (jus existimatum)" (Summa theologiae moralis [Paris, 1938],
I, n. 211). Again, a person may have a civil right to practise a
false religion, and to grant such liberty’ may be the most feasible
policy even in a Catholic country. As Pope Leo XIII expressed

Λ:

__________

IL—ή-ii

st.
-

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

143

it: “If the Church judges that it is not lawful for various types of
divine worship to have the same right as the true Church, she
does not on that account condemn those rulers who, for the sake
of gaining some good or prohibiting some evil, patiently tolerate
in their conduct and practice that each have a place in the state”
(DB, 1874). But, it must be emphasized, such a civil right by no
means indicates that false religions have a natural right to exist,
or that their members have a natural right to practise them.
It is to be hoped that Catholic priests will be scrupulously ex­
act in explaining the doctrine of “freedom of worship,” as the
Catholic Church understands it, especially in these times when
so many regard religion as a purely subjective affair, instead of a
divinely established form of doctrine and worship, committed by
the Son of God to His one true Church.

SURGERY FOR THE HEALTHY
Question: If a person is about to go to a foreign land where
medical and hospital care is very difficult to obtain (e.g., a
foreign missionary), may he have his appendix removed, even
though he has no symptoms of appendicitis, on the score that
an attack of this disease in his future abode, where the proper
surgical treatment will not be available, will very probably be
fatal?
Answer: According to Catholic moral principles, the mutilation
or excision of a part of the body is permitted only when there is
certainty or probability that benefit will thereby come to the
whole body in sufficient measure to compensate for the harm
that has been done. (It might be well to note in passing—though
it does not relate to the question at hand—that this principle
may be extended to include benefit to the body of another person.
This interpretation is defended by the Rev. B. J. Cunningham,
C.M., S.T.D., in The Morality of Organic Transplanation [Wash­
ington,D.C.:TheCatholicUniversity of America Press, 1944]). If,
however, there is not at least a probability that the mutilation
or excision is necessary or useful, it is forbidden by the fifth
commandment. Accordingly, the question with which we are
concerned can be reduced to this: “Is it sufficiently probable
that an operation for appendicitis will be necessary or useful at