320

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

received amidst the clatter of the refectory as it will be enjoyed in the
solitude of a cell. It aims at relieving religious of the unnecessary bur­
dens so many of them carry. In his prologue Fr. McCorry writes:
“The life of the Evangelical Counsels was never intended to be a life of
unqualified misery. ... In round terms it was more than hinted at that
certain distress in religious life is the fault of the distressed. . . .”
In order to get at the core of that distress there are obvious chapters
on poverty, chastity, and obedience, necessary chapters on ambition,
jealousy, and individuality, all of them written with a sparkle that
makes old things sound new.
If a small note of criticism may be sounded it is this: the diffidence
of the prologue, though engaging, is misleading: it is not warranted
by what follows. The book finished, we are left wondering at the
sensitiveness of a man who apologizes for a charity so delicate.

Laurence J. McCauley, C.SS.R.

Our Lord

the

Source of Holiness

Holiness begins from Christ; by Christ it is effected. For no act
conducive to salvation can be performed unless it proceeds from Him
as its supernatural cause. “Without me,’’ He says, “you can do noth­
ing.” If we grieve and do penance for our sins, if with filial fear and
hope we turn again to God, it is because He is leading us. Grace and
glory flow from His unfathomed fullness. Our Saviour is continually
pouring out His gifts of counsel, fortitude, fear, and piety, especially
on the leading members of His body, so that the whole body may grow
daily more and more in spotless holiness. When the sacraments of the

Church are administered by external rite, it is He who produces their
effect in souls. He nourishes the redeemed with His own flesh and
blood, and thus calms the soul’s turbulent passions; He gives increases
oi grace and is preparing future glory for souls and bodies. All these
treasures of His divine goodness Fie is said to disburse to the members
of His mystical body, not merely because He. who is the Eucharistic
ÀTctim on earth and the glorified Victim in heaven, lets His wounds
and prayers plead our cause before the Eternal Father, but because He
selects, He determines, He distributes every single grace to every single
person “according to the measure of the giving of Christ.”
—Pope Pius ΧΠ, in his encyclical Mystici corporis, issued June 29, 1943.

AN IMPORTANT ROMAN INSTRUCTION
On Dec. 20, 1949, the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office
issued a lengthy and detailed instruction to local Ordinaries con­
cerning the manner and measure in which Catholics may partici­
pate in conferences and discussions with non-Catholics with a
view to procuring greater unity among Christians—“ecumenical”
gatherings, as the Instruction calls them—borrowing the usual
Protestant term. The instruction begins with the statement that
the Catholic Church earnestly prays that all who believe in Christ
shall be “made perfect in one,” 1 and adds that the desire for the
return of all Christians to unity, which is growing daily in the
hearts of many who are separated from the Catholic Church, is
doubtless due to the prayers of the faithful, aided by the grace
of the Holy Spirit. However, it goes on to say, some of the efforts
toward the reconciliation of non-Catholics with the Catholic Church
have not been based on correct principles, and have even been
fraught with danger. For this reason the Holy Office, charged
with the duty of preserving the faith in its integrity, has deemed
it opportune to recall and prescribe the points to be mentioned in
the Instruction.
The body of the Instruction is divided into eight numbered
paragraphs; however, the subjects it treats can be suitably classi­
fied under four general headings: (1) The background and prep­
aration for the work of the “ecumenical movement”; (2) The
method of proposing Catholic doctrine in the prosecution of this
work; (3) The conditions under which meetings between Cath­
olics and non-Catholics may be conducted ; and (4) Several partic­
ular points and admonitions.
(1) As a preamble, the Instruction states that the work of
promoting “reunion” belongs primarily to the Bishops of the
Church, and they are bound to promote it in such wise that those
who are seeking the true Church may be helped to find it, and
that the members of the Church may not be injured by the dangers
which readily follow activities of “the ecumenical movement”.
Evidently, then, priests and lay persons may not engage in this
work save by the authorization of the Bishop. The Bishop is adUoAn 17:23.
321

322

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

monished to choose for this work priests who are well acquainted
with the teaching of the Church, and particularly with the doc­
trine laid down in three Encyclicals—-Leo XIII’s Satis cognitum on
the constitution and unity of the Church, Pius Xi’s Mortalium
animos on the promotion of true religious unity, and Pius XII’s
Mystici Corporis Christi on the Church as the Mystical Body of
Christ.
Bishops are also admonished to be vigilant over the observance
of the canons, which prescribe censorship for books written by
Catholics, and of the laws prohibiting certain types of books. Men­
tion is made of non-Catholic publications which are likely to be
read or edited or sold by Catholics. I would regard as examples
of books over which such vigilance would be called for those which
sometimes appear as “Good Will Books” on the “Religious Book
List,” issued by the National Conference of Christians and Jews,
and which apparently are recommended to all persons, (since they
are approved by a Catholic, a Protestant and a Jew), though some
of them should certainly be banned to Catholics, such as one which
speaks of the “delusion that one’s own church, cult, sect or group
alone expresses God’s will on earth, that it alone can reveal
God’s purposes toward mankind.”2
Other works of pastoral zeal recommended to the Bishops are
the establishment of “information centers” for non-Catholics who
are desirous of finding the truth, and ways and means whereby
converts can receive a more thorough grounding in the faith, such
as study-clubs and retreats. This last point should serve to remind
us that in many parishes in our country no special attention is
given to converts once they have been received into the Church.
It is very evident from the Instruction that the mind of the Church
is not being carried out in such cases.
(2) The section dealing with the method of proposing Catholic
doctrine in the work of “reunion” is most significant. Actually it
takes the form of various prohibitions and condemnations of false
methods ; and no one familiar with the “irenic” literature that has
issued from Catholic sources in recent years can fail to perceive
that such methods have been used—-perhaps are still being used.
There is the method of over-stressing the points of agreement be­
tween non-Catholic belief and the Catholic creed. This tendency,

AN IMPORTANT ROMAN INSTRUCTION

the Instruction asserts, foments a dangerous indifferentism, espe­
cially among those who are not well grounded in matters theo­
logical; it results in a “whittling down” of Catholic doctrines so
that their genuine sense is obscured and the purity of Catholic
faith suffers.
Another method severely condemned by the Instruction is to
allege that the doctrines taught in papal Encyclicals about the
return of dissidents to the Church or the constitution of the
Church or the Mystical Body of Christ, since they are not matters
of faith, need not be taken too seriously.3 It is true, what is stated
in Encyclicals is frequently something that is not of divine faith ;
but Catholics must never forget that such teaching binds to internal
acceptance as a matter of religious assent.4 It is unfortunate that
there is an impression among some non-Catholics nowadays, and
even among some Catholics, that Catholics may reject the doctrines
of the Encyclicals with perfect impunity. Thus, Time for Feb.
25, 1946, in speaking of the doctrine of Church and state, enun­
ciated by Pope Leo XIII, made the erroneous statement : “Though
Leo’s views are still repeated by a few academic theologians, they
are largely ignored by the LT. S. hierarchy.” 5 I myself have been
in a group of presumably well-educated Catholics who undoubt­
edly thought that any statement of the Pope which is not an ex
cathedra pronouncement may be freely doubted or denied. It be­
hooves the Bishops and priests of our country to rectify these mis­
taken notions.
Still worse would it be, the Instruction goes on to say, if the
impression were given to non-Catholics that the Catholic Church
will not have its full perfection until they are again united to it­
as if the Church were not already “in possession of the fulness
of Christ.” We find an echo of this last idea in an essay by a
French Catholic priest, written several years ago, stating that
“Christ will not be complete until He will have incorporated into
*It is interesting to note that the three doctrines here cited as taught in
papal documents constitute the main theme of the three Encyclicals previously
noted, with a change in order—Mortalium animos, Satis cognitum, and

Mystici Corporis Christi.
<Cf. J. C. Fenton, AER. CXXI, 2 and 3 (Aug. and Sept. 1949), 126 ff„

210 ff.
2Cf. AER, CXIII, 5 (Nov. 1945), 385; CXV, 3 (Sept. 1946), 319.

323

®Cf. J. C. Fenton, AER, CXIV, 5 (May 1946), 369 ff.

AN IMPORTANT ROMAN INSTRUCTION
324

325

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

Himself the whole man in each one of us and all the value of
humanity scattered and multiplied throughout the world.”6
The Instruction takes to task the custom of some Catholics of
overemphasizing the evils prevailing in the Church before the
Reformation. As is evident, such an attitude might tend to give
the impression that the Reformation was actually justified. We
must not forget that the main fact, as the Instruction points out,
was the defection of so many from the true faith.
Methods of expounding Catholic doctrine which involve excessive
display or a vehement method of procedure and treatment are
also condemned. In this point we see the prudence of the Church,
which would have us ever kindly and gentle and understanding in
dealing with non-Catholics. We must presume that they are in
good faith in their religious convictions until the opposite is proved.
The idea that good will can be won from non-Catholics by sup­
pressing portions of Catholic teaching is also reprobated. The
Instruction mentions explicitly as truths which may not be sup­
pressed, the doctrines of the true nature and means of justification
(one of the fundamental points of controversy with the original
Reformers), the constitution of the Church, the primacy of juris­
diction of the Pope, and the fact that the only true union must
consist in the return of non-Catholics to the one true Church.
It is indeed a most unfortunate procedure to propose what claims
to be an adequate presentation of the Catholic creed, and to omit
or pass over lightly certain doctrines which may arouse the hos­
tility of non-Catholics. We must follow the example of Christ
and give “hard sayings” when we essay to expound Catholic
doctrine in its entirety. The Instruction emphasizes this point by
the use of italics: “Tota igitur et integra doctrina catholica est
proponenda atque exponenda.”
Non-Catholics may be told, the Instruction continues, that
when they return to the Catholic Church they will lose none of the
good which hitherto they have acquired, through God’s grace. But,
on the other hand, they may not be given the idea that their return
will add any substantial perfection to the Church, as if it were
still lacking something. An example of this erroneous notion ap­
peared some years ago in an article by a priest in which it was
stated that the visible Church has been rent asunder, but that
«Cf. AER, CXVII, 4 (Oct. 1947), 292.

the Mystical Body, being invisible, cannot be rent. The underlying
notion of this statement was that the Catholic Church has lost its
unity—an idea which is utterly false. It is interesting to note that
whenever the Instruction uses the word “reunion” it puts it in
quotation marks, to indicate that this expression, though it is
used commonly, is not quite the correct word from the Catholic
standpoint, since it might seem to imply that the unity which
Christ promised as one of the notes of His Church, has been lost
by the Catholic Church. “Reunion” in the Catholic sense means
nothing else than the return of those who once departed from
Catholicism to a unity that has never failed the true Church of
Christ.
(3) The conditions under which meetings between Catholics
and non-Catholics may be conducted or approved by Ordinaries
are given in detail. The good feature of such meetings, the In­
struction states, is that they furnish an opportunity for non­
Catholics to acquire a knowledge of the Catholic faith; the bad
feature is that they furnish danger of indifferentism. When an
Ordinary believes that there will be good results, he should desig­
nate competent priests to explain and to defend Catholic teaching.
However, the Instruction states, the laity should not attend such
meetings unless they receive special permission from the ecclesias­
tical authorities, and this should not be given save to those who
are well instructed and strong in the faith. If it is found that no
good results can be hoped for from such gatherings, the faithful
shall be prudently barred from them and the meetings themselves
discontinued. The Instruction is particularly solicitous that large
gatherings shall not be permitted, save after a most diligent investi­
gation, since these are wont to produce little fruit and much danger.
As far as conferences with non-Catholic theologians are con­
cerned, the Instruction commands that only priests be deputed
who have proved themselves capable by their theological knowl­
edge and their firm adherence to the principles and norms laid
down by the Church.
Then the Instruction goes on to distinguish those gatherings
of Catholics and non-Catholics which need ecclesiastical approval
from those which do not. It refers to the Monitum issued by the
Holy Office on June 5, 1948, which repeated the prescriptions of

326

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

the Code,7 forbidding conferences and disputations with non­
Catholics without the permission of the Holy See. Those gatherings
come under the scope of this Monitum, the Instruction says, which
have been organized with the understanding that both the Cath­
olic and the non-Catholic parties expound and discuss their re­
spective beliefs on an equal footing. However, it adds, certain other
types of gatherings are permitted without special ecclesiastical
authorization. Such, are catechetical instructions in which a Cath­
olic imparts a knowledge of the faith to non-Catholics, and also
conferences explaining Catholic doctrine to prospective converts.
Even if on the occasion of such instructions or conference the non­
Catholics explain the belief of their own church with a view to
comparing it with Catholic doctrine, the meeting does not come
under those requiring the permission of ecclesiastical authority,
at least as far as the general law of the Church is concerned.
Furthermore, the Instruction states, those meetings are not subject
to the rules of the Monitum in which Catholics and non-Catholics
assemble, not to discuss matters of faith and morals, but to con­
sider in what ways they can offer a common defence of the funda­
mental principles of the natural law or of the Christian religion
against the enemies of God, who are so powerful nowadays, or to
deliberate on the restoration of social order or other questions of
like nature. But, it adds, in such gatherings Catholics may not
approve or concede anything at variance with divine revelation
or the teaching of the Church—including its social teaching.
As an example, therefore, of a gathering not requiring special
ecclesiastical authorization, we can take the case of a priest asked
to address a group of Protestants in order to explain at their
request some article of Catholic belief. Such a gathering does not
come under the heading of a meeting in which both sides discuss
their respective beliefs “on an equal footing” (par cum pari agens).
Similarly, if Catholics meet with their fellow-citizens of other
creeds to protest against an obscene motion picture that is being
shown in the local theatre, or to uphold the efforts of a group
of workingmen to obtain a living wage from their employers, or to
voice their objections to an attempt to obtain legislation favoring
euthanasia, the permission of higher ecclesiastical authorities is
not required by the Monitum. Such meetings are directed only
7 Can. 1258.

AN IMPORTANT ROMAN INSTRUCTION

327

toward safeguarding principles of natural law. Even when there
is question of upholding fundamental Christian principles, Cath­
olics may unite with non-Catholics in a common effort. This state­
ment of the Instruction is doubtless open to different interpreta­
tions. For, on the one hand, to come in this category a meeting
must be one in which matters of faith and morals are not dis­
cussed, yet fundamental principles of the Christian religion are
defended. The meaning seems to be that the principles are such
as are admitted without hesitation by all the participants. For
example, in a land under Communist domination Catholics and non­
Catholics could unite in an effort to ban posters and newspapers
casting ridicule on the doctrine of Christ’s divinity. However,
even in such a meeting Catholics could not favor any statement
that is not conformable to Catholic teaching—for example, that
non-Catholic churches have the same right to proclaim Christian­
ity as the Catholic Church.
A canonical enactment is then promulgated in the Instruction.
According to the Monitum, following the prescription of Canon
1325, § 3, only the Holy See may ordinarily grant Catholics per­
mission to participate in assemblies with non-Catholics in which
matters of faith and morals are treated by both parties on an equal
footing. Now, however, for a period of three years from the date
of publication of the Instruction—that is, until Dec. 20, 1952—
local Ordinaries may authorize local meetings of this nature. By
local meetings would seem to be meant those in which the partici­
pants reside in the same diocese, for a special provision is later
made for interdiocesan meetings.
However, the Instruction lays down three conditions which must
be observed in these local meetings—first, there must be no
communicatio in sacris; second, there must be proper supervision
and direction of the meetings ; third, a Bishop in whose diocese
such meetings have been held must report to the Holy Office at
the end of each year, announcing that they have taken place and
relating the experience gleaned from them.
A special paragraph is devoted in the Instruction to strictly
theological gatherings. The same faculty to permit these is given
to Ordinaries for a period of three years. Indeed, the Instruction
adds, if several Ordinaries agree that one shall take charge of this
type of meeting, they are free to do so. But in the report to the

328

AN IMPORTANT ROMAN INSTRUCTION

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

Holy Office particular details must be announced—what questions
were treated, who were present, and who were the speakers on
both sides.
Finally, acording to the Instruction, when there is question of
interdiocesan, national, or international conventions of Catholics
and non-Catholics, special permission must be sought from the Holy
See for each case. In the petition it must be stated what questions
are to be discussed, and who are the proposed speakers. Before
the permission of the Holy See has been secured, it is forbidden to
Catholics to begin any external preparation or to collaborate with
non-Catholics making such preparations.
Examples of the type of meeting visualized in this last ruling
of the Instruction would be the “Conversations of Malines” inaug­
urated by Cardinal Mercier a quarter of a century ago, and the
great assembly of Christian sects held in Amsterdam in 1948. It is
interesting to note that the Instruction does not limit the partici­
pation of Catholics to meetings begun under Catholic auspices.
(4) Particular points and admonitions embrace : first, the ap­
proval of the recitation of a prayer by both Catholic and non­
Catholic participants at the opening and close of a meeting, pro­
vided the prayer is one that is approved by the Catholic Church.
The Instruction mentions explicitly the Lord’s Prayer. This is
merely an application of the principle, admitted by theologians,
that Catholics may participate in private prayers with non-Cath­
olics, as long as the prayers are orthodox. Thus, there is no objec­
tion to the recitation of the Our Father by Catholic and Protestant
children in a public school, under the direction of a Catholic
teacher.8 But, the Instruction again warns against any communi­
catio in sacris—that is, participation in official or public worship
with non-Catholics.
Secondly, the Instruction states, although each Ordinary has
the task of taking charge of the movement toward “reunion” in
his own diocese, it is suitable and even necessary to have the united
efforts of a number of Bishops to set up measures for observing,
investigating and directing the whole activity in this field. The
Bishops, therefore, are to take common counsel as to how to
secure uniformity and well-concerted action.
8 Cf. Connell, Morals in Politics and Professions (Westminster, Md.: The
Newman Bookshop, 1946), p. 157.

329

Thirdly, religious superiors are admonished to see that their
subjects strictly and faithfully observe the directions of the Holy
See and of the local Ordinaries in promoting the work of “re­
union.” It is very evident from this prescription that even the
members of exempt religious societies may not conduct conferences
or discussions of the type referred to in the Monitum without the
permission of the Bishop. Their religious superiors can grant no
permission of this kind.
It could be appropriately remarked here, although the Instruction
does not mention it, that the local Ordinary may reserve to him­
self the right to authorize the participation of Catholics in even
those meetings which do not come under the scope of the Monitum
—for example, those whose stated purpose is the promotion of
good will, or the procuring of “released time instruction” for
public school children. Such meetings, though inaugurated for an
end not comprised in the prohibition of the Monitum, might easily
pass into assemblies requiring the permission of the Ordinary;
hence, in prudence he could require that they be submitted to his
judgment.
It is very evident that the Instruction makes no concession
in the matter of doctrinal or moral principles previously held
by the Catholic Church. On the contrary, it rather emphasizes
those principles, and insists in detail on their observance by all
Catholics. The Instruction states that there have been faults on
the part of some Catholics in their manner of collaborating toward
the “ecumenical movements,” either because they did not follow
correct principles or because they did not avoid dangers in pur­
suing their zealous designs. The same fact is implied in the state­
ment made by the Secretary General of the World Council of
Churches, Dr. W. A. ATisser’t Hooft, in Geneva: “The directive
remains below the level reached by certain members of the Roman
Catholic hierarchy.”9 And Rev. Marc Boegner, President of the
same organization asserted that the Instruction is a step backward
in the “ecumenical movement.” “For,” he said, “up to now
there have been frequent contacts between Roman Catholic clergy­
men and laymen and those of the different Protestant faiths repre­
sented in the World Council of Churches. But the result of this
decree seems to be that now no local ecumenic meetings, even
9

Quoted in Time, March 13, 1950, p. 92.

330

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

among theologians alone, can take place without the formal
authorization of a local bishop. The worst is that any meeting
implying the presence of theologians or laymen from several dio­
ceses will automatically require the formal approval of the Holy
See.” 10
To most non-Catholics it is indeed a hard saying that the only
type of “reunion” possible according to Catholic principles is that
which includes the acceptance of the complete body of Catholic
doctrines by those who wish to be united to the Catholic Church.
The Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, while praising the sec­
tion of the Instruction which approves of co-operation between
Catholics and non-Catholics in defending fundamental Christian
principles, asserts of the Catholic notion of “reunion” : “We have
no thought or intention of reunion on such terms and mean some­
thing quite different by reunion.” 11

Priests must, therefore, be on their guard lest, in their zeal to
bring the light of the true faith to those who are outside the
Church, they compromise in any way the principles of Catholic
doctrine. Above all, they must observe to the letter the directions
laid down in the Instruction, in the matter of seeking ecclesiastical
authorization for any meetings with non-Catholics for the purpose
of discussing doctrinal differences, and if the local Ordinary has
made some particular rulings, these must be obeyed most exactly.
To all Catholics the words regarding the work of “reunion”
which terminate the letter should be a source of inspiration : “All
indeed, but mainly priests and religious, must be admonished and
encouraged to seek to fecundate and promote the work by their
prayers and sacrifices. Finally, all must be made conscious of the
fact that for those wandering outside the fold there is no more
efficacious means of preparing the way to embrace the truth and
the Church than the faith of Catholics associated with good moral
conduct.”
Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R.
The Catholic University of America
Washington, D. C.
10 Quoted in United Press dispatch, March 3, 1950.
11 Quoted in The Tablet, March 11, 1950.

HOW NEAR IS EVENING MASS?
The Holy Father’s concession that this Holy Year of 1950 might,
at the local bishop’s option, be inaugurated by a special midnight
Mass, cannot but raise in some quarters the question of the general
restoration of post-noon Mass as a regular feature of Catholic life.
It would seem that German- and French-speaking Catholics are
about psychologically ready now for post-noon Mass, weekdays
and Sundays; that Polish- and Bohemian-speaking Catholics are
just a step behind them ; that Italian- and English-speaking Catho­
lics are getting warmed up to the thought for Sundays ; while Por­
tuguese- and Spanish-speaking ones are still to be reached by the
notion at all.
When Pope Pius XII addressed the consistory in the presence
of the thirty-two newly-created cardinals, Feb. 20, 1946, he de­
livered a remarkable discourse, of which the final section dwelt
with eloquence upon the social mission of the Mass in the modern
world. His Holiness summed up : “The Church, then, provides in
the Mass, Venerable Brethren, the greatest good of human society.
Every day from where the sun rises to where it sets, without dis­
tinction of peoples or nations, there is offered a clean oblation, at
which are present all children of the Church scattered throughout
the world, and all here find a refuge in their needs.”

One of those listening most attentatively there that day was
Theodosio de Gouveia, Archbishop of Lourenco Marques, in Por­
tuguese East Africa. “From where the sun rises to where it sets,”
he heard the Pope say very distinctly (“da dove nasce il sole fin
dove tramonta”), giving a sharpened tone to the Vulgate reading.
But Africa’s new cardinal could reflect that the ordinary version of
Malachy’s words, usque ad occasum, could be translated “from
when the sun rises to when it sets.” He could recall, what every
one knew, that there had been ample war-time “privileges” for
afternoon and evening Mass. Cardinal Faulhaber, for instance,
could have told him that in 1941 the papacy allowed the German
bishops to have evening Mass, Sundays and week-days, as need
dictated. Cardinal Spellman might also have informed him that
in 1942 the Holy Father had acceded to his request that all the
American armed forces should be allowed post-noon Mass, on
331