400

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

author. Equally ought it to be read with interest by any priest concerned with
the student’s point of view regarding the problems facing Christian belief on
the campus of a conservative, non-Cathoiic university such as Yale. But
weighing the author’s conclusions, criticisms, ami interpretation solely in the
light of the book offers something of a problem.
First of all, it is very much of a debater’s brief and has both the strength and
weakness of such a presentation. An obviously competent journalist and
dialectician, the author has set himself a thesis which he argues forcefully and
persuasively. Yet to assent unreservedly to his general conclusions and
indictments one must assume that the instances cited are typical and universal.
Now while this reviewer's own experience and informat ion would incline him
to agree with the author’s conclusions on religion at h ale, still the debater's
technique leaves him somewhat wary of giving unqualified acceptance to the
book’s presentation of the case. Again the intentional restriction of the object
of the author calls for some reservations. The thesis presented is this: Does
Yale University actually teach what its alumni want and what its own tra­
ditions call for? The answer of the author is an emphatic negative, and the
arguments are marshalled accordingly. Thus, he does not judge the concrete
situation at Yale in terms of the object of educat ion or on any general principles
of education but only in terms of Yale University itself. The result is a family
book about Yale, by a Yale man, primarily for Yale men. Finally, while the
alumni should have a real voice in the destinies of their Alina Mater, the de­
cisive voice called for by Mr. Buckley is not only arguable but can become
very dangerous to the whole educational process.
The last criticism is an especially serious one. It concerns the author’s
case against what he describes as “collectivist economics.” So strenuous is his
opposition to the inculcation of the social obligations of the state and soardent
his championing of the laissez faire economic theory7 that he distorts his whole
case.
It may appear to many that this review has over-emphasized the deficiencies
of Mr. Buckley’s book. Perhaps this is true, but the emphasis is for purposes of
guarding Catholics against an uncritical usage of its charges. For the hook
makes a number of excellent points and makes them effectively, and one readily
finds himself in sympathy with many of the author’s strictures. The analysis,
for example, of the highly ambiguous “academic freedom” as practiced in
cited instances is illuminating and frightening. Whatever be the validity of the
general indictment, the case histories make it clear that it is all too often loaded
in favor of anti-religious opinions and attacks. Similarly, it is cogently argued
that despite much catalogue emphasis, religion is never conceived as an end in
itself. It is clear that when religion enters into education it is as a step-child
and never as an equal. Whatever intellectual status it does have is by way of
being a restricted gift from the other departments and never by its own right.
For these and many like reasons the book ought to be read. Yet it ought to be
used with caution for it is highly controversial and is concerned factually only
with Yale University. An injudicious employment of it as a general polemical
weapon would be a disservice to Catholicism and in the long run to the author.

Eugene M. Burke, C.S.P.

DANGERS TO FAITH WITHIN THE CHURCH
In a previous article it was pointed out that Catholics are in
great need of a correct knowledge of the meaning of faith, and an
attempt was made to explain exactly the nature of the first of the
three theological virtues as the Catholic Church understands it.1
It is very evident that the possession of this virtue, without which
it is impossible to please God,2 and which is designated by the
Church as “the beginning of man’s salvation, the foundation and
root of all justification,”3 is supremely important. Consequently,
it is also vitally important that those who enjoy the privilege of
the true faith shall protect it from any influences that may
weaken or destroy it; ami to this end Catholics should be aware
of the chief dangers to their faith.
It requires no great perspicacity to realize that dangers to the
faith abound at the present day, when the spirit of the world is so
vehemently antagonistic to the spirit of Christianity. Of course,
these dangers differ in their precise nature and intensity in dif­
ferent lands; yet, it is true to say that there is no portion of the
modern world in which there are not circumstances that menace
the faith of Catholics. Those with which we are now concerned
are the dangers that are prevalent in present-day America.
In general, we can divide these dangers into two classes—those
which come from within the Church and those which come from
outside. When we speak of dangers to the faith coming from
within the Church, we have no intention of ascribing these perils
to the Church itself, ‘‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth.”4
We mean that there are Catholics who, either by their conduct
or by their mental attitude, constitute a source of danger to the
faith.
In many instances they may be wholly unaware of the detri­
mental influence they are exercising; but their sincerity does not
neutralize the spiritual harm they are exerting on themselves and
their co-religionists.
'AER, CXXVI, 3 (March, 1952), 195-203.

UNIV- Of '<■ D. LIB.
* I Tim., 3:15.

«»

JUN 25 19S2
■ - rtw·

PERIODICALS dept.

J

402

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

No Catholic should be scandalized by the fact that dangers to
the faith can be found even within the Church itself. Our Lord
predicted that there would be weeds interspersed with the wheat
in the field that He proposed as a figure of His Church.5 There
have always been members of the Church inclined to heretical
views; and though sometimes such persons never severed their
connection with the body of the faithful—and doubtless in
some instances were honestly convinced that they were upholding
the genuine teachings of the Church, as in the case of some of the
Jansenists, the evil effects of their errors were real and farreaching. Similarly, there have always been some ('atholies
whose failure to live up to the ideals of conduct proposed by their
Church have scandalized others even to the extent of weakening
or even destroying their supernatural faith. We must not be
surprised, therefore, to find conditions of this nature existing
today; but we must be on our guard against them.
We have the assurance of Christ Himself that in spite of such
evil influences, the faith of His Church will remain untainted
until the end of time. But this does not exclude the possibility of
the loss or weakening of the faith on the part of many individual
members of the Church, as history clearly attests. Hence, we may
not complacently accept the divine promise of indefectibility and
infallibility and assume an attitude of indifference toward the
dangers that threaten the faith of Catholics. If we love the
Catholic faith, we shall try to be alert to all the influences that
tend to extinguish its light or to dim its lustre in our own souls
and in the souls of our brethren in the unity of Catholic belief.
This is particularly the duty of priests who are pledged to uphold
vigorously every tenet of the faith and to protect the members
of the laity from everything that would tarnish the purity of this
sublime virtue that was conferred on them through the laver of
regeneration.
It is my purpose in this article to point out some sources of
danger to the faith of our Catholic people in the United States at
the present day within the Church itself. Naturally, I cannot
make mention of all such dangers, yet I believe that those which
I shall describe are the most menacing and the most crucial. I
shall first consider those which can be classified as practical
» Matt., 13:24.

DANGERS TO FAITH WITHIN THE CHURCH

403

dangers, in that they arise from habits of conduct, and then those
which can be called speculative from the fact that they are
rooted in a mental attitude.
All sinful habits, whatever may be their specific malice, en­
danger the faith of the sinner. It is true, only sins directly
opposed to faith expel this virtue from the soul, so that one may
be living in habitual sin and yet retain the true supernatural
virtue of faith in his soul/’ Pope Pius XII found it advisable to
emphasize this truth in his Encyclical Mystici Corporis as a
reminder that we may not consider those members of the Church
who are separated from God by mortal sin as entirely devoid of
supernatural life.7 At the same time, the faith of the sinner is a
dead faith,8 and accordingly is far more susceptible to the
pernicious influence of godlessness and materialism than is the
living faith of the perfect Christian “which works through
charity.”9 Hence, Catholics who continue for months and years
in the state of mortal sin are in real danger of losing their faith.
At times, it is true, we meet Catholics who are notably deficient
in the observance of the moral law, yet staunchly protest their
loyalty to the Church and their love for its teachings. However,
while we should not deride this manifestation of faith, we have
grave reasons for believing that it is based on a natural sense of
honor rather than on supernatural motives.
There is one form of sin that is especially injurious to divine
faith—the sin of impurity. The very nature of this vice tends to
centre the mind on bodily pleasure, and hence to give the sinner a
loathing for the realities of the supernatural order that constitute
the object of faith. As Van Noort expresses it: “Those who
indulge in impurities are wont to hold spiritual things in dis­
gust.”10
Now, while we rejoice that so many Catholics are leading
chaste lives, we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that many others
are following the unfortunate trend of the times in the way of
sensuality. The reading of indecent literature, attendance at
« DB, 838.
7 Mystici Corporis, AAS, 35 (1943), 203.
« DB, 800.
9 Gal., 5:6.
10 De fontibus revelationis (Bussum, 1920), n. 285.

404

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

obscene plays and motion pictures, sinful liberties among young
people, illicit love affairs on the part of married persons, and
above all the use of contraception in conjugal life: these and
similar violations of the virtue of chastity, which according to
St. Paul should not even be named among the followers of
Christ,11 are all too common today in our land even among
Catholics. Consequently it is the urgent duty of priests, by
sermons, instructions, and especially example, to uphold without
compromise the ideals of purity constantly proclaimed by the
Catholic Church. We need not be puritanical in oui' attitude
toward sex; but on the other hand, we may not become so
“liberal” in our views (as unfortunately seems to have been done
by some Catholics) as to reject the traditional Catholic inter­
pretation of the sixth commandment. .And it is feasible in our
explanations and exhortations on the sixth commandment to
point out that sins of the flesh, besides having their own malice,
exert a destructive influence on the virtue of faith. Certainly, we
have abundant proofs from experience that frequent violations
of chastity tend to blind that power of supernatural vision that is
so essential to the wholehearted acceptance of divine revelation.
A more direct danger to the Catholic faith in America today is
the ever increasing number of mixed marriages. A study of the
diocesan reports contained in the Catholic Directory will reveal
that even in dioceses which contain a large Catholic population
it is not unusual to find that more than 20% of the marriages
contracted in the presence of a priest are mixed marriages.12
In some dioceses that are numerically small the proportion is as
great as three mixed marriages to every marriage of two Catholics.
Undoubtedly a mixed marriage is sometimes an occasion of
bringing the non-Catholic party into the Church; but to say that
mixed marriages in general are a fruitful means of conversion
rather than a way to loss of faith is definitely contradicted by
reliable statistics. For example, in the April, 1952, issue of
Social Order, the Rev. John Thomas, S.J., of St. Louis University,
discusses the findings from a study of a large number of mixed
marriages, and reveals some startling evidence of the deplorable
Ephes., 5:3.
’ψί should be noted that these figures do not include the large number of
Catholics who enter an invalid marriage before a civil magistrate or a non­
Catholic clergyman.

DANGERS TO FAITH WITHIN THE CHURCH

405

results of such marital unions. He has found that forty percent
of the children have either not been baptized as Catholics or are
not being brought up in the Catholic faith. His studies have
also led him to the conclusion that only about four or five percent
of the non-Catholic partners are converted during the marriage.13

In view of such findings we must regard mixed marriages as
one of the gravest dangers attacking the Catholic faith from
within the fold at the present day; and priests should meet the
situation courageously and realistically. They should frequently
announce to their people the law of the Church, so explicitly
proclaimed in the Code: “The Church most severely and every­
where forbids that marriage be contracted between two baptized
persons, one of whom is a Catholic, the other a member of an
heretical or schismatic sect; and if there is danger of the per­
version of the Catholic spouse and of the children, the marriage
is forbidden even by divine law.”14

Above all, Catholics should be informed that a mixed marriage
is not rendered lawful, nor is it licit to seek a dispensation,
merely because the parties are willing to make the required
guarantees. In addition, there must be just and grave reasons for
the dispensation.15 Very frequently, the only reason that a
priest can allege for the granting of a dispensation is the fear of a
civil marriage if a Catholic marriage ceremony is refused. Now,
while this is a sufficient reason for the Church to grant a dispen­
sation, on the principle that under the circumstances it is the
lesser of two evils to grant permission for the marriage, it implies
that on the part of the couple seeking the dispensation there is
not a sufficient morally good reason for the marriage.
13 “Mixed Marriages—So What," in Social Order (St. Louis University),
11,4 (April, 1952), 157.
14 Can. 1060. The marriage of a Catholic with an unbaptized person is
likewise forbidden by the Church in Canon 1071. The words of Pope Pius
XI in the Encyclical Casti connubii are worthy of note: “It comes about not
infrequently, as experience shows, that deplorable defections from religion
occur among the offspring [of mixed marriages], or at least a headlong descent
into that religious indifference which is closely allied to impiety. There is
also to be considered that in these mixed marriages it becomes much more
difficult to imitate by a lively conformity of spirit the mystery of which we
have spoken, namely that close union between Christ and His Church.”
15 Can. 1061.

406

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

It is too late to denounce mixed marriages when a couple
have made up their minds to marry. But in the teaching of
religion to young folks in schools and colleges, in talks to sodali­
ties, in pre-Cana conferences, all priests should explicitly and
fearlessly proclaim the Church’s law on this subject, and thus
endeavor to lessen the grave menace to the faith of our Catholic
people that arises from the marriage of a member of the Church
with one who is outside her pale.
When we turn to dangers of the speculative order arising from
mental attitudes of Catholics, it can safely be asserted that one of
the most serious sources of such dangers is a misunderstanding or
misinterpretation of the fundamental Catholic doctrine: “Out­
side the Church there is no salvation.” It is indeed unfortunate
to meet Catholics who do not hesitate to deny that the Church
holds this doctrine. A recent book by Professor James O’Neill,
entitled Catholicism and American Freedom deserves high com­
mendation for its scholarly refutation of the absurd charges of
Paul Blanshard. Yet, unfortunately the author, in one passage
is guilty of an error when after citing Blanshard’s remark that
“the doctrine is still official that outside of the Church there is no
salvation” he remarks “for Mr. Blanshard to repeat this ancient
nonsense is inexcusable.”16
Of course, the interpretation that Mr. Blanshard gives to this
doctrine is inexcusable, and apparently it is to this that Mr.
O’Neill means to refer. But the doctrine itself—“Outside the
Church there is no salvation”—is still an article of Catholic
faith and will remain such until the end of time. It means that
the visible, external society founded by Our Blessed Lord and
presided over by the successors of St. Peter down through the
centuries is the necessary means for the communication of
sanctifying grace and salvation to all mankind. A person who is
not an actual member of this visible society, the Catholic
Church, may indeed attain to salvation if his non-membership in
the Church is not culpable; but in that event he is saved through
his desire (even though implicit) of affiliation with this visible
society. Even in this event, however, he does not partake of the
abundance of graces granted those who are privileged with actual
membership. In the words of Pope Pius XII, referring to non11 Catholicism and American Freedom (Harper, 1952), 203.

DANGERS TO FAITH WITHIN THE CHURCH

407

Catholics, “Even though unsuspectingly they are related to the
Mystical Body of the Redeemer in desire and resolution, they
still remain deprived of so many precious gifts and helps from
heaven which one can enjoy only in the Catholic Church.”17
The correct meaning of the doctrine “Outside the Church
there is no salvation” should be clearly explained to all Catho­
lics, for undoubtedly a “watered down” interpretation of this
truth will tend to diminish the appreciation of the great privilege
of membership in the one true Church of Jesus Christ. Some of
the expressions that have been used to state the unquestionable
truth that one need not necessarily be an actual member of the
Church are very inexact and should be shunned. Such, for
example, is the statement that for salvation it suffices to belong
to the soul of the Church, as if there were a spiritual, invisible
entity entirely separated from the visible Church which is the
means of man’s salvation. Again, the expression: “The Church is
the ordinary means of salvation,” should be avoided, since it
implies that per accidens one may be saved independently of the
Church. There is only one means of salvation in the present
order, union with the visible Church of Christ. However, in the
case of those whose defect of actual membership is due to no
fault of their own, union with the Church by desire can supply
this deficiency. But the Church in question is the visible, external
society which traces its origin back to the Son of God, the Roman
Catholic Church.
This explanation of the doctrine that “Outside the Church
there is no salvation” should be proposed to our people, instead of
the heretical assertion that there is no such doctrine. It is worth
noting that in the Encyclical Humani generis Pope Pius XII
complains that “some reduce to a meaningless formula the neces­
sity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal
salvation.”18 The interpretations we have just mentioned would
seem to be included in this papal denunciation.
Another mental attitude of many of our American Catholics
which tends toward a weakening of their spirit of faith is their
misunderstanding of tolerance. They fail to distinguish properly
between the sentiments they should bear toward their fellow
17 Mystici Corporis, AAS, 35 (1943), 243.
*· Humani generis, AAS, 42 (1950), 571.

408

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

men of other religious beliefs and the judgment they should
entertain toward these beliefs themselves. Yet, the Catholic
teaching on this point is very clear. Toward all human beings,
whatever may be their particular religious creeds, we are bound
to manifest genuine Christian charity. We must be kind to them
and assist them in their needs—not from merely worldly motives,
but because they are actually or potentially sharers in t he divine
nature. We should presume that those who are not actual
members of the true Church arc separated from Catholic com­
munion inculpably, and we should pray that in Cod's mercy they
may one day be incorporated into the one fold ol Christ.

But this does not mean that we may be tolerant ol their
erroneous beliefs in the sense that we accept such popular slogans
as “It makes little difference what religion a person practices, as
long as he is sincere, etc." We must regard all divergences of
religious doctrine as deplorable violations of the unity of faith
which the Son of God willed to prevail among all men. Infidelity,
heresy, schism—these are all tragic evils, and we cannot pass
them over lightly or cease to pray and to labor that they may be
eliminated, and in their place unity of Catholic faith substituted.
Catholics should never hesitate to state that they sincerely hope
that one day our land will become Catholic—not through any
coercion or unjust influence, but through the voluntary ac­
ceptance by our separated brethren of the one true faith in which
we find security and peace.
Sometimes we hear the statement that nowadays, since
Communism is the greatest enemy of religion and civilization, we
should forget our differences with Protestants and join with them
wholeheartedly in combatting communistic propaganda. This
assertion is not to be commended. It is true, we arc glad to wel­
come persons of other creeds in our campaign against the god­
lessness and materialism of Communism. But that does not
mean that we should not continue to point out, courteously and
logically, the errors of those who profess to follow^ Christ , yet do
not acknowledge that affiliation with His Church is one of the
commands He Himself laid down.
This suggests another deplorable attitude of many Catholics
today—the defensive attitude in respect to the attacks made
against the Church, instead of a vigorous spirit of aggressiveness.

DANGERS TO FAITH WITHIN THE CHURCH

409

They are so anxious to prove to those who attack the Church
that they are loyal citizens, that they uphold the American
principle of freedom of worship, etc., that they have little or no
concern for their duty of positively proclaiming the principles of
Catholic faith and pointing out the inconsistency and the errone­
ous opinions of their adversaries.
It is true, many of our non-Catholic fellow citizens arc fairminded, honest persons, who treat Catholics with tolerance and
charity. But there arc many others who manifest a decided
spirit of bigotry and unfairness toward their Catholic fellow
citizens. Strong and vigorous aggressiveness is called for against,
such persons, instead of an eager desire to convince them that
we arc not the dangerous individuals they claim we arc. The
fact is that, however logical our defense may be, a great many of
them will not believe us anyway. The tactics we should adopt are
a positive presentation of Catholic truth and an attack on our
enemies in their own territory. This will not only serve as a better
defense, but will strengthen and invigorate our Catholic people.
The man who is always on the defensive, concerned only with
answering objections against his beliefs, will unconsciously
assume that his side is somewhat wreak.
For example, when non-Catholics assert that Catholics would
demand special favors for their Church and restrict the activities
of non-Catholics in the event that the majority of citizens in our
land became members of the Catholic Church, our usual answer
is a fervent protestation that we would demand nothing special
in such a hypothesis, that we would continue to give the other
citizens of the land full religious freedom, etc. All this every
intelligent Catholic firmly believes. 1 cannot imagine any con­
ditions ever arising in our land that would call for a change of our
constitutional principle of freedom and equality for Americans of
all creeds. Even in the unlikely supposition that at some future
time the Catholics in this country would number ninety-nine
percent of the population, 1 would still favor the present system
of equality for all ; and 1 believe this would be the attitude of the
Catholics in that remote hypothesis. My reason would not be
any such illogical assertion that all men have the God-given
right to practice any religion they choose; for since God has
imposed on all men the obligation to practice one and the same
religion, all are objectively bound to accept that religion. The

410

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

reason why it would be the most feasible policy to have equal
rights for all even in the event that the communieants of any one
creed (including the Catholic religion) gained a great ascendency
in our land would be the fact that our country was founded on the
principle of freedom for all and Catholics have always accepted
this principle as a basic feature of American life, so that it would
be most reasonable and proper to continue to accept it, what­
ever changes might occur in the numerical distribution of the
various churches.
However, why should Catholics always have to assume the
role of defendants, expected to answer time and time again to die
charge: “You would restrict the liberty of other religious groups
if you ever gained the balance of power in America."? Why
should we not retort by a similar charge? Why should we not
ask a Protestant who accuses us of looking forward to the day
when we shall see the United States government and the Catholic
Church united what guarantee he can give that his particular
sect would not seek special governmental privileges if it ever
attained sufficient political power to accomplish this objective?
Certainly, from the historical standpoint there is far more reason
to believe that the restriction of freedom of religious worship and
special governmental favors for a particular church would be
inaugurated in our land if a Protestant group gained dominance
than if Catholics acquired this position of power. In the early
days of our republic, it was not Catholics but Protestants who,
through legislation in certain states, restricted the religious
freedom of their fellow-citizens and obtained special favor for
their own church.19
Similarly, why should Catholics be overwhelmed with em­
barrassment over the recent pronouncement of Cardinal Segura,
protesting against the granting of full civil rights to Protestants
in Spain? It is a traditional Catholic belief that in a land that is
thoroughly Catholic in population and institutions, restriction of
heretical propaganda is a reasonable and justifiable measure to
prevent spiritual harm to the citizens. Such a policy would
never be the proper procedure in a land like ours, even if Catholics
ever gained the balance of power. But what right have we to
demand that Spain, with an entirely different background, adopt
19 Cf. Williams, The Shadow of the Pope (New York, 1932), 42-48.

DANGERS TO FAITH WITHIN THE CHURCH

411

a policy that is suitable to the United States '1 b urthcrmore, whv
is it that those of our non-Catholic brethren, who are horrified at
the action of Cardinal Segura, do not exhibit a similar horror at
the fact that in Sweden there are governmental restrictions
against Catholics? And why is there no protest against the
English law that would bar from the throne a member of the
royal family who would enter the Catholic Church?
In fine, a more militant spirit regarding their faith would help
Catholics to strengthen this important virtue and to protect it
against attacks and objections. And the priests of the United
States, deputed by God to nourish with divine truth the flock
committed to their charge, must strive valiantly to foster among
their people a fides vere intrepida.

Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R.

Catholic University of America,
Washington, D. C.

John Duns Scorus

on the

Immaculate Conception

He who is the most perfect mediator must have a most perfect act
of mediation in regard to some person on whose behalf he exercises his
mediatorial office. Now Christ is a most perfect mediator. Therefore
Christ exercised the most perfect degree of mediation in favor of some
creature or person in whose behalf He was Mediator. But He had no
more exalted relationship to any person than to the Blessed Virgin
Mary. Therefore. . . . But this could not be, had He not merited for her
preservation from original sin.
—From the Quaestiones disputatae de Immaculata Conceptione- The trans­
lation is that of Fr. Paul F. Palmer, S.J., in Mary in the Documents of the
Church (Westminster, Maryland: The Newman Press, 1952), p. 73.