214

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

We are, all of us, firmly convinced that the theology of our
time will be gloriously enriched by the inclusion in the manuals
of the doctrinal treasures resident in the great papal encyclicals.
Unfortunately, however, when there is mention of the encyclicals
in our time, there is a widespread tendency to think merely or at
least primarily of the great social documents, like the Rerun
novarum and the Quadrigesimo anno. Actually that tendency has
done a great deal of harm to modern Catholic instruction. It is
perfectly true that the men for whom Christ died need, and need
badly, the social teachings of the Catholic Church. It is also true
that our people and our priests must have the treasures of dogmatic
truth, contained in encyclicals like the Humanum genus,\he singu­
lari quadum, and the Mystici corporis. Only when these docu­
ments are used more fully, and only when their content is brought
into the theological manuals, will we find the type of adequate
theological teaching on the Church about which Canon Leclercq
has written and towards which he has contributed so effectively.

Joseph Clifford Fenton
The Catholic University of America
Washington, D. C.
Adapting the Catholic Message

The principles on which the new opinions We have mentioned
are based may be reduced to this: that, in order the more easily to
bring over to Catholic doctrine those who dissent from it, the Church
ought to adapt herself somewhat to our advanced civilization, and,
relaxing her ancient rigor, show some indulgence to modern popular
theories and methods. Many think that this is to be understood not
only with regard to the rule of life, but also to the doctrines in which
the deposit of faith is contained. For they contend that it is opportune,
in order to work in a more attractive way upon the wills of those who
are not in accord with us, to pass over certain heads of doctrines, as
if of lesser moment, or so to soften them that they may not have the
same meaning which the Church has invariably held. Now, Beloved
Son, few words are needed to show how reprehensible is the plan that
is thus conceived, if we but consider the character and origin of the
doctrine which the Church hands down to us.
—Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical Testem benevolentiae, issued on
Jan. 22, 1899. In The Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII (New
York: Benziger Brothers, 1903), p. 442.

Answers to Questions
A RECENT DECREE OF THE HOLY OFFICE
Question: What decree did the Holy See recently issue in
reference to “interfaith” meetings ? What bearings will this decree
have on conditions prevailing in our country?
Answer: The questioner evidently refers to a monitum issued
by the Holy Office on June 5, 1948, the translation of which is as
follows :
Since it has been found out that in various places, against the pre­
scriptions of the Sacred Canons and without previous permission of
the Holy See, mixed gatherings of non-Catholics with Catholics have
been held, in which matters of faith have been discussed, all are re­
minded that it is forbidden by Canon 1325, §3, for both lay persons
and clerics, whether secular or religious, to take part in these gather­
ings without the aforesaid permission. Much less is it permitted for
Catholics to convoke and establish such gatherings. Hence, let the
Ordinaries insist that these prescriptions be exactly observed by all.
There is still more reason for observing these rulings when there
is question of what are called “ecumenical” gatherings, in which Cath­
olics, whether lay persons or clerics, may under no circumstances take
part without the previous consent of the Holy See.
Since however, both in the aforesaid gatherings and outside of them,
even acts of mixed cult have not infrequently been performed, all are
again admonished that any communication in sacred rites is absolutely
forbidden, according to the norm of Canons 1258 and 731, 52.
Given at Rome, from the Holy Office, June 5, 1948.
Peter Vigorita, Notary
(Osservatore Romano, June 6, 1948)

This decree contains nothing that is strictly new; it merely re­
peats very emphatically certain prescriptions already laid down by
the Code in the canons cited. However, this present decree makes
explicit mention of a point which is contained only in a general
way in the code—namely, that clerics as well as lay Catholics
are forbidden to take part in religious dicussions and con­
ferences with non-Catholics unless they obtain due permission.
Furthermore, this monitum speaks of the Holy See alone as the
competent authority to grant this permission. It is true, Canon
215

216

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

1325, §3, states that in an urgent case the local Ordinary can
grant permission for Catholics to participate in meetings with non­
Catholics for the discussion of religious topics. The present decree
is certainly not meant to eliminate this exception ; nevertheless, its
exclusive reference to the Holy See undoubtedly is intended to
point out that an appeal to Rome must be regarded as the normal
course of action by one who believes he has a reason to attend a
religious discussion with persons of other beliefs. When therefore
a priest or lay person in this situation has the time to refer to the
Holy See (the Holy Office) before the meeting takes place, he is
not justified in seeking permission from the bishop. Indeed, it is
difficult to see how the bishop could validly grant permission in such
circumstances. Some might question the obligation to use airmail
in order to get in touch with the Holy See, on the score that this is
an extraordinary means of communication (though personally I
believe it to be an ordinary means nowadays). But at any rate, if the
period before the meeting is to take place is so lengthy that the or­
dinary mails can get the petition to Rome and secure an answer in
time, the appeal must be made to the Holy See. Certainly, priests or
lay persons who regularly participate in the meetings in question
can have no excuse for refraining from such an appeal.
It is not rash to assert that among the “various places” in
which the meetings have taken place against the prescrip­
tions of church law, the United States is included. In the course
of the last five years the pages of The American Ecclesiastical
Review have carried many warnings against the dangers of the
“interfaith” meetings. These warnings now have the clear sup­
port and approval of the Holy See; and surely no Catholic should
be indifferent to this solemn admonition.
The Conference of Christians and Jews is an organization that
offers occasions to which the warning of the Holy See is applicable.
For example, their “trio teams” and their local “round tables” can
with difficulty abstain from the discussion of religious topics even
though their avowed purpose is the promotion of civil good will
and neighborliness. For example, in a sample “trialogue” published
a few years ago, one of the speakers asserted : “We all have a right
to worship, but we do not all have to worship the same way. My
worship is different from yours, but my right to worship is the same
as yours.” Surely, a statement of this nature is concerned with
religion, and from the Catholic standpoint it is a most objectionable

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

217

statement, embodying the fundamental idea of indifferentism.
Again, in a pamphlet issued under the auspices of the Conference
of Christians and Jews we read of an incident that took place in a
New York High School, at an assembly in which “the speakers
were a priest, a minister and a rabbi. Each of them spoke for about
ten minutes on ‘The Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of
Man,’ and stressed with eloquent simplicity and inspiring sin­
cerity the common positive elements in all the faiths.” This is an
example of a meeting in which a Catholic could not take part
without permission.
The second portion of the recent monitum of the Holy Office
repeats the law of the Code forbidding all active participation of
Catholics in non-Catholic worship, and permitting passive presence
only for a grave reason. It also cites the canon forbidding the
administration of the sacraments to heretics and schismatics. In
this connection it is well to note that there is a tendency at the
present time for Catholics to officiate as marriage attendants at non­
Catholic weddings with little or no regard for the gravity of the
reason required for such participation and cooperation. Priests
charged with the care of souls could appropriately instruct and ad­
monish their people on this matter.
It is sincerely to be hoped that this latest pronouncement of the
Holy Office on a matter that is so pertinent to present-day American
life will be seriously taken to heart both by priests and by lay
people in our land. Loose thinking on religion has produced a
large crop of sayings that are utterly at variance with Catholic
principles—such as “Everyone has the right to practice any religion
he chooses” . . . “It is not what one believes that counts but what
he does.” Catholic priests must vigorously oppose such false asser­
tions, and unhesitatingly defend the basic truth that there can be
only one true religion, and that is Catholicism.

THE PRIEST AND DIVORCED PERSONS
Question: In the April issue of The American Ecclesiastical
Review certain norms were laid down to guide the Catholic laity
in their associations with persons who have attempted marriage
after a divorce. What norms could be proposed to guide priests
in their relations with such persons? Let us take a concrete case.
A Catholic woman has civilly married a divorced man. The couple
subsquently come to reside in a distant parish, where their repre-