THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA STUDIES IN SACRED THEOLOGY No. 75 COMMUNICATION IN RELIGIOUS WORSHIP WITH NON-CATHOLICS A DISSERTATION Submitted to the Faculty of the School of Sacred Theology of the Catholic University of America in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF SACRED THEOLOGY BY THE Rev. John R. Bancroft, C.SS.R., J.C.B., S.T.L. Priest of the St. Louis Province THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA PRESS WASHINGTON, D. C. 1943 Jfmjrrhni 3&ottst: Franciscos J. Fagen, C.SS.R., Superior Provincialis. Sancti Ludovici, Missouri, die XIII Decembris, 1942. Franciscus J. Connell, C.SS.R., S.T.D., Censor Deputatus. Washingtonii, D. C., die XXI Decembris, 1942. imprimetur : Φ Michael J, Curley, D.D., Archiepiscopus Baltimorensis et Washingtonii. Baltimorae, Md., die XXI Decembris, 1942. COPYRIGHT, 1943 THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA PRESS Printed by The Paulist Press New York, N. Y. cm TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ■ · vii PRELIMINARY NOTIONS ...................................................... 1 FOREWORD ................................. ..................................... CHAPTER I CHAPTER II HISTORICAL SUMMARY ...................................................... Article I. Early Ages ........................................... 35 3^ A. Holy Scripture ............................................................ B. Fathers and Early Writers..................................... .. C. Legislation .................................................................. 23 Article II. Early Ages to Martin V............................. 26 Article III. Martin V to 28 the Present Time................. CHAPTER III THE MORALITY OF COMMUNICATION IN RELI­ GIOUS WORSHIP WITH NON-CATHOLICS .. 35 Article I. General Principles Article II. The Morality oe iii Morality............. 35 Formal Communication 39 on iv Contents PAGE A. In Public Non-Catholic Worship ..................... 39 B. In Private Non-Catholic Worship.......................... 55 Article III. The Morality of Material Communica­ tion ........ 56 A. In Public Non-Catholic Worship ............................. 56 B. In Private Non-Catholic Worship.......... .................. 60 CHAPTER IV APPLICATIONS ......................................................................... 61 I. Miscellaneous Points ................................. 61 A. Entering Non-Catholic Churches ............................. 61 B. Singing or Playing Musical Instruments................. 72 C. Sermons and Speeches................................................ 75 D. Manner of Acting During Non-Catholic, Religious Services ............................................ 81 E. “Simultaneous” Churches .......................................... 83 F. Prayers with Non-Catholic Individuals................... 85 G. Swearing on the Non-Catholic Bible....................... 86 Article Sacramentals ................. 86 A. General Observations.................................................. 86 B. Baptism ......................................................................... 92 Article II. Sacraments and v Contents PAGE 1. Non-Catholic Ministers ...................................... 92 2. Catholic Sponsors at Non-Catholic Baptisms. . . 97 3. Material Presence at Non-Catholic Baptisms. . . 99 C. Penance ......................................................................... Ιθθ D. Extreme Unction ............ .·....................................... .. 1θ? E. Holy Eucharist .................................................... .. 1. Holy Communion ................................. a. Outside the Danger of Death.......... .............. 1^·'^ b. In the Danger of Death................................... 1^ The Sacrifice of the Mass.................................... 116 F. Holy Orders ................................................................. 120 G. Sacramentals 120 2. ............................................................... H. Cooperation with a Non-Catholic’s Ministrations to Dying Non-Catholics.............................................. Article III. Marriages and Funerals ......................... A. Marriages ..................................................................... 12$ 1. Marriages of Catholics Before a Non-Catholic Minister Acting as Such................................... 125 2. The Presence of Catholics at Non-Catholic Re­ ligious Marriage Ceremonies ......................... 127 a. Mere Presence .................................................. 127 vi Contents page b. Catholics Acting as Witnesses, Attendants, and so Forth.................. ............ 129 B. Funerals......................................................................... 134 1. The Presence of Catholics at Non-Catholic Funerals ............................................................... 134 2. Catholics Acting as Pallbearers at Non-Catholic Funerals .............................................................. 138 3. Cooperation in Arranging for a Non-Catholic Funeral ................................................................ 139 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................... 140 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................... 145 ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................... 153 GENERAL INDEX ................................................................... 155 BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE .......................................................... 161 FOREWORD The subject matter of this treatise is one of great moment in the Catholic world today. This is especially true in our country, where freedom of religious worship is held as a basic principle for each and every inhabitant. The practical equality given to all religious de­ nominations is frequently a source of difficult situations for Catholics, since non-Catholics do not understand why Catholics must stand aloof, and cannot be "broadminded” in giving reciprocal participa­ tion in religious worship. The Catholic Church has a unique position; it is the only Church in which public worship can legitimately be given to God, and this by His own manifest decree. Therefore, Catholics may do nothing to compromise the place of their Church. Yet the modern attitude of equality of religious belief has filtered into the souls even of some Catholics, so that at times they are not aware of the unlawfulness of mingling with non-Catholics in these latters’ religious worship. It has become more or less a matter of courtesy to go to their churches on given occasions. As a regrettable result of such conditions, the barriers to the spread of religious indifferentism have been lowered. These considerations have prompted the treatment of this ques­ tion of the communication of Catholics in the religious worship of non-Catholics. The writer is convinced that this is primarily a moral problem, and he has endeavored to base the treatment of it on theo­ logical principles as much as possible, in regard to both the general doctrine and the particular applications. The legislation of the Church, however, as found in the Code, and in particular decisions and letters of the Holy See, had to be used for an adequate treatment of the matter. Although particular decisions and letters of the Holy See do not have the force of general law, they are directive norms for the whole Church in as far as some principle and its application are concerned. Accordingly, moralists and canonists refer to these deci­ sions and letters extensively in dealing with matters pertaining to communication in religious worship. vii viii Foreword The field of this study has been limited to some degree. Most questions pertaining to co-operation with non-Catholic religions, such as helping to build or repair their churches, furnishing things used in their churches, and so forth, have been eliminated, since this treatise deals rather with communication in the exercise of non-Catholic wor­ ship. Some forms of co-operation more intimately connected with this aspect, however, have received consideration. Discussion of the Catholic attitude on concerted activity of the Catholic Church and non-Catholic sects for the promotion of civil, or public, objectives, has likewise been omitted. The writer is pleased to discharge a great debt of gratitude by expressing his thanks and appreciation to his superiors for the op­ portunity of making advanced studies at the Catholic University; to the Rev. Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R., S.T.D., for his painstaking direction and help in preparing this dissertation; to the Rev. Joseph Fenton, S.T.D., and the Rev. Alfred Rush, C.SS.R., S.T.D., for their assistance and for their approval of this dissertation; and to all who helped in any way to make it possible. CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY NOTIONS This treatise on the communication of Catholics in non-Catholic worship is concerned with one phase of what is known in theological terminology as communicatio in sacris cum acatholicis. That phrase is quite general in its content. It can signify communication either of Catholics with non-Catholics, or of non-Catholics with Catholics, in religious worship. The former signification is the object of this study. Communication, in general, means common action.1 Communica­ tion with non-Catholics is a kind of co-operation by which things are done in common with them; 2 in practice its meaning is extended to signify any form of contact or association with them.3* Communi­ cation may be in civil or in religious matters. Civil communication embraces such things as signs of benevolence, manifestations of honor, greetings, business or contractual associations, domestic relationships, or societies.* Communication in religious matters centers about all that pertains to religion directly, as rites, dogmas, sacrifices, and prayers, and to mixed matters in so far as they have a bearing on religion, as marriages and funerals wherein there is a religious rite.5 An exact definition of religious communication with non-Catholics in their worship must embrace all these ideas. There is no precise definition commonly accepted by the authors; the definitions given are individual attempts at an accurate expression of the con­ cept involved. It seems that an adequate definition may be formu­ lated from the definition Michel gives of religious communication 1Vermeersch, Theologiae Moralis Principia, Responsa, Consilia, Tom. II, η. 50, p. 41. 2Vermeersch, loc. cit. s DeMeester, luris Canonici et luris Canonico-civilis Compendium, Tom. Ill, Pars I, n. 1252, p. 153. * Marc-Gestermann, Institutiones Morales Alphonsianae, Tom. I, n. 1295, p. 829. «Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis, Tom. I, n. 752, 2, pp. 581-582. 1 2 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics with heretics.® He says the same principles apply to this communica­ tion with schismatics, and, a fortiori, with infidels. Religious com­ munication with non-Catholics in their worship, then, may be defined as the participation of Catholics with non-Catholics in prayers or rites of cult. This manner of expression is general enough to include everything that needs consideration on this point. “Prayers and rites of cult” can embrace whatever prayers, rites, and ceremonies are employed in religious worship, both public and private. The term non-Catholics is used in a wide sense. Strictly speak­ ing, non-Catholics are only those persons who are validly baptized but are not members of the Catholic Church, for example, heretics, schismatics, apostates. In the wide sense all who do not profess the Catholic religion are said to be non-Catholics.T In this sense, non-Catholics, or non-members of the Catholic Church, are those who are included in at least one of the following categories: (1) those who have not received a valid baptism of water; (2) those who do not exteriorly manifest a profession of the true faith; (3) those who are not bound by the bond of Catholic communion.8 We are concerned with this general field of non-Catholics only as practicing religion outside the Catholic Church. The so-called Christians of the various sects come under this general classification, for they are either infidels, that is, not validly baptized, or heretics, at least ma­ terial, depending on whether they have formally or only materially re­ jected Catholicism.8 It is to be noted that not being a member of the Catholic Church is not the same as not being a subject of the Catholic Church. For every validly baptized person is de jure a subject of the Catholic Church.10 6 On entend par communication avec les hérétiques dans les choses sacrées une participation avec eux dans le prière ou les rites cultuels, art. Hérésie, n. 6, Communication in divinis, DThC, Tom. VI, col. 2230. Cf. Beste, Introductio in Codicem, p. 614. 7 Iorio, Theologia Moralis, Vol. I, n. 274, note (1), p. 228. 8 Tanquerey-Bord, Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae, Tom. I, nos. 1004-1008, pp. 668-671. 8 It is common teaching that even merely material heretics and schismatics are not members of the Catholic Church—Lercher-Schlagenhaufen, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. I, n. 413, p. 235. 10 Tanquerey-Bord, op. cit., Tom. I, n. 1012, (3), pp. 674-675. Cf. canons 12 and 87. Preliminary Notions 3 Although the authors are dealing with the same concepts in their treatises on this matter, they are not unanimous in their use of a divi­ sion. For practical reasons the following division is chosen as more in harmony with the terminology of the Code of Canon Law.11 Re­ ligious communication with non-Catholics can be formal or active, and material or passive.12 The communication is formal or active, when a Catholic takes a positive part in the exercise of non-Catholic worship.13 For example, to receive the eucharist of an heretical sect, or to sing with heretics in their religious functions is a formal com­ munication.14 Material or passive communication consists in a mere bodily presence at the sacred functions of non-Catholics.15 Some authors do not give formal communication so wide an ex­ tent; they do not consider every active participation in a non-Catholic religious service as a formal communication. Vermeersch, for ex­ ample, looks upon playing the organ as a form of proximate material co-operation.16 Since the majority of the moralists,17 however, con­ sider that action as a formal communication in non-Catholic worship, and since the Holy See has said it is never allowed,18 there seems to be justification for including it under the general heading of formal communication. By reason of its part in the function, playing the organ at a religious service is to be classed as a specifically religious action. This attitude of Vermeersch follows from a difference he notes between communication and participation. Both consist in taking part in the action of another, whether merely internally by intention 11 Cf. canon 1258, § 1 and § 2. 12 DeMeester, loc. cit., n. 1252, 2°, pp. 153-154. 13 Cf. DeMeester, lac cit. 14 Noldin-Schmitt, Summa Theologiae Moralis, Tom. II, n. 38, 2, a, p. 38. 15 DeMeester, loc. cit. 18 Op. cit., Tom. II, n. 50, p. 41 ; n. 8, p. 124. Cf. Davis, Moral and Pastoral Theology, Vol. I, p. 286. 17 Cf. Noldin-Schmitt, op. cit., Tom, II, n. 39, 4, c, p. 40; Aertnys-Damen, Theologia Moralis, Tom. I, n. 314, II, Qu. 4°, p. 236; Priimmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis, Tora. I, η. 526, d), p. 372; DeMeester, op. cit., n. 1253, note 4, p. 154; Kenrick, Theologia Moralis, Tom. II, Tract. XIII, n. 37, p. 48; Konings, Theologia Moralis S. Alphonsi in Compendium Redacta, Vol. I, n. 313, 1, p. 142. 16 Coi. S.CP.F., Vol. Π, n. 1713, p. 240. 4 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics and desire, or externally, too. To his mind external communication is considered as formal, while external participation is reduced rather to co-operation, which in some matters can be formal or merely material, according to the intention.10 There seems, however, to be no practical reason for this distinction in regard to our matter. To participate actively, even only externally, in a non-Catholic religious ceremony is a formal communication. Therefore, communication and participation are used interchangeably in this study. Because of this concept of formal communication the division chosen is to be pre­ ferred to the one given by a moralist in the periodical Prefice Munus.20 Formal religious communication can be public or private.21 It is public when a Catholic participates in the ceremonies of non­ Catholics as an organized religious group, such as those which take place in a church, or those performed by a minister in his official ca­ pacity. It is private when a Catholic participates with a non-Catho­ lic in a sacred action which he performs as a private person, for example, to recite an unorthodox prayer with him. Even with a group (small, at least) it could be private. Material religious com­ munication can be public or private, too, depending on whether there is passive presence at a public or at a private religious func­ tion. The basis for this moral problem is the fact that the religious worship of non-Catholics per se or as such has no objective value in the sight of God. This is always true of the public exercise of re­ ligion; it is true, also, of the private exercise of religion whenever it contains anything heretical or not in harmony with the regulations of the supreme authority in religious matters. Although man has a natural duty to honor God both by private and public worship, be­ cause of the individual and social aspects of his created nature, it is not within his rights to determine his own form and manner of worship contrary to God’s rulings. Now, God has deigned to make a positive disposition in the matter of religion by establishing a Church which all men are obliged to join. Loc. cit., p. 41. 20 Vol. XI (1936), p. 79. 21 Noldin-Schmitt, op. cit., Tom. II, Pars I, n. 34, c, p. 35. Preliminary Notions 5 The Church concerned in this treatise is the militant Church. It is usually defined as an assembly of men on earth united by the profession of the same Christian faith and by the communion of the same sacraments, under the rule of legitimate pastors and es­ pecially of the Roman Pontiff.22 This definition is the traditional one of Bellarmine,23 except that the notion of the members of the Church being persons on earth has been added. By this addition the purpose of the Church is stated implicitly, since the Church is called “an assembly of men on earth” to indicate her aim—the sal­ vation of those on earth.2425 Those who are not members of the Church are excluded by this definition: infidels and heretics, because they do not profess the same Christian faith; the excommunicated, because they have been cut off from the communion of the sacra­ ments, and other spiritual benefits; schismatics, because they refuse to be subject to the legitimate pastors.23 Moreover, this definition contains the elements of the Church as a society: namely, the material element of members; a bond of union by which the members are held together, which is the formal element; the principal and proximately adequate means for achiev­ ing its purpose; an indication of its purpose.26 It is de fide that Christ instituted His Church as a society which was to endure in the world.27 For His society Christ determined: (1) a common purpose, the salvation of souls; 28 those bound to be subjects,29 all men of all times gathered into one body; 30 an authority, for He chose the Apostles under the headship of St. Peter as the first rulers, and gave them power to teach and to baptize, and to send others to do so ; 31 definite and suitable means to obtain the salvation of the subjects, 22 Cf. Ottaviani, Institutiones luris Publici Ecclesiastici, Vol. I, η. 88, p, 169. 23 De Controversiis Christianae Fidei, Tom. II, Lib. Ill, Cap. II, p. 270. 24 Ottaviani, loc. cit., n. 88, p. 170, and note 3. 25 Bellarmine, loc. cit. 28 Ottaviani, loc. cit., pp. 169-170. 27 Vatican, Sess. IV, DB, 1793, 1821-1823; Antimodernist Oath, DB, 2145. Cf. St. Thomas, II-II, q. 88, a. 22. 29 John 3/17, 10/27-28, 17/19; Mark 16/16. 29 Matthew 28/19-20. so Matthew 10/1, 16/18-19, 28/17; Luke 10/16. st Matthew 28/19-20; 16/17-19; John 20/21, 21/15-17. 6 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics namely, profession of the same faith,32 participation in the same rites, especially Baptism, the Eucharist, and Penance,33 submission to the Apostles and their successors.34 The salvation of souls is a purpose of a religious nature, therefore, since a society is determined by its purpose, the society established by Christ is a religious society. It follows from the nature of Christ’s religious society that it must be visible.35 He intended His Church to continue His visible mission on earth. In referring to it He called it His flock,22 *30 a sheep­ fold,ST a kingdom; 38 He compared it to a city built on a mountain; 39 He said it was like a field in which there were both wheat and cockle,40 a net containing both good and bad fish,41 a banquet at which good and bad recline together.42 These expressions imply something which can be seen. According to His will His Church was to have a visible teaching power, a visible ministry, a visible govern­ ment. Moreover, the need of distinguishing characteristics in His Church can be seen from the duty of the Apostles and their successors to teach and to baptize all men, and from the corresponding obligation of all men to receive their teaching and baptism. The Church is the one ordinary means of salvation for all men, and consequently Christ must have made it possible for all to discern the true Church. Christ did not make a merely general provision for authority in His religious society. He established a definite type of authority in it, and designated the fields for its activity. He set up an hierarchical society,43 to the rulers of which He gave the triple power of teach­ 22 Mark 16/15-16; Matthew 28/19-20. 22 John 3/5, 6/52-54, 20/21-23; Luke 20/19. Matthew 18/18. Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896, ASS, Vol. XXVIII, pp. 724-725. 35 It is de fide that this society is essentially visible, that is, that it can cer­ tainly be known from manifest criteria, Vatican, Sess. Ill, DB, 1793. se John 21/15-17. 37 John 10/16. 38 Matthew 13/24, 41. ™ Matthew 5/14-15. Matthew 13/24-26. ** Matthew 13/47 seq. Matthew 22/1 seq. Mark 3/13-16; Matthew 10/1-21; Luke 6/12-17; John 20/21. Preliminary Notions ing,44 sanctifying,45 and ruling.48 Among the Apostles, St. Peter was to have supreme authority.47 The nature of this supreme power is adapted to the nature of the society in which it is placed. The Church was established as supreme in the field of religion; it is to be propagated universally and shares the authority which Christ Him­ self possessed. The Church, then, is perfect and independent, having in itself and of itself full power to pursue its purpose. The authority in the ruler or rulers of a perfect society is jurisdiction, namely, a moral power by which the members of the society can be obliged by the ruler or rulers to pursue the purpose of the society by using the necessary and useful means. The supreme head, if he is an absolute ruler, has supreme and full jurisdiction so that he possesses full legislative, judicial and coercive power.48 Christ endowed His Church with the prerogative of infallibility. His Apostles were to teach with His authority,48 and the same obedi­ ence of faith was to be given to them as to Him.50 He promised His divine assistance to the Apostles; 51 He promised to send them the Holy Spirit, Who would remain with them forever, to teach them all truth, so that they could faithfully testify to His doctrine.52 He obliged all men to subject themselves by the obedience of faith to the Apostles under the threat of eternal damnation.53 Christ intended His Church to endure to the end of time, sub­ stantially in the same form in which He constituted it. Since, how­ ever, this study is not apologetical, it would not be to our point to determine, by an examination of the claims of the different churches, which is the Church of Christ in the world today. It suffices to ^Matthew 28/18-20. ^John 3/5, 6/52-54, 20/21-23; Luke 22/19. M Matthew 18/18. These facts are de fide: Vatican, DB, 1821, 1823, 1828. 47Matthew 16/16-19; Luke 22/31 seq.; John 21/15-17. This has been defined: Vatican, DB, 1822, 1823. Cf. Lamentabili, DB, 2055; Antimodernist Oath, DB, 2145. 48Lercher-Schlagenhaufen, op. cit., Vol. 1, nos. 288-289, pp. 163-164. Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical, Immortale Dei, Nov. 1, 1885, ASS, Vol. XVIII, p. 165. 49 John 20/21. so Luke 10/16. Matthew 28/20. 52 John 14/16, 17, 26; 16/12-14. ss Mark 16/16. 8 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics point out that the Church of Rome is the only one which satisfies all the requirements. She presents the notes with which Christ endowed His Church,54 and has both internal and external motives of credibility for her divine origin; 5556 her Bishops are the successors of the Apostles; 58* the Pope is the successor of St. Peter in the primacy.57 Therefore, she claims to be the true Church, divinely established, infallible, with power and authority to teach, govern, and sanctify all men. The facts that there is, and can be, only one Church of Christ, and that His Church must have an internal unity are fundamental for this study. These are distinct notions, the one being the unicity, and the other the unity, of the Church. Unicity concerns number and excludes multiplicity; unity refers to the constituent elements of a thing and excludes the dispersion, or the lack of connection, of the parts.58 Christ indicated He was establishing one Church in calling it His flock,58 a sheepfold,60 a kingdom.61 These analogies signify that He is speaking of one organization. Similarly He referred to the Church in the singular number when He said to St. Peter: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church.” 62 His Church was to be the one ark of salvation for mankind. St. Paul, in his teaching that the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, intimates there is only one Church of Christ: as Christ had but one real Body, so He has only one mystical Body.63 54 Cf. Encyclical Letter of the Holy Office, September 16, 1864, Coll. S.C.P.F., Vol. I, n. 1262, pp. 696-697; Pius XI, Encyclical, Mortalium Animos, January 16, 1928, AAS, Vol. XX, pp. 5-16; canon 100, § 1. 55 DB, 1624-1627, 1635-1639, 1686; Encyclical Letter of the Holy Office, loc. cit.; Vatican, DB, 1790, 1812; Antimodernist Oath, DB, 2145. 56 Vatican, DB, 1828; Lamentabili, DB, 2049, 2050, 2054; Antimodernist Oath, DB, 2147; canon 329. 67 Ephesus, DB, 112 ; Florence, DB, 694; Vatican, DB, 1824, 1825 ; canon 219, 58 Cf. Zubizarretta, Theologia Dogmatico-Scholastica, Vol. I, n. 371, (1), p. 338; Knox, The Church on Earth, pp. 17-22. ™ John 21/15-17. μ John 10/16. Matthew 13/24, 41. 62 Matthew 16/18. 63 Cf. Colossians 2/18-19; Ephesians 1/23, 4/12-16, 5/23. Preliminary Notions 9 Tradition and the magisterium of the Church teach there is only one Church of Christ. St. Iraenaeus wrote: It is necessary that every Church, that is, those who are faith­ ful everywhere, be in accord with this (z. e., the Roman) Church, in which is always preserved by those who are everywhere that tradition which is from the Apostles, because of its pre-eminent authority.64 Tertullian taught that the teaching of Christ is only in the Church of the Apostles.65* St. Cyprian said: “There is one God, and one Christ, and His one Church, and one people united into the solid unity of a body by the paste of mutual harmony.” 60 In more recent times, Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical on the unity of the Church, wrote: But when we consider what was actually done we find that Jesus Christ did not, in point of fact, institute a Church to em­ brace several communities similar in nature, but in themselves distinct, and lacking those bonds which render the Church one and indivisible after that manner in which in the symbol of our faith we profess: ‘T believe in one Church.” . . . For this reason Christ, in speaking of this mystical edifice, mentions only one Church which He calls His own, ... “I will build My Church.” 67 The security for the unicity of the Church is to be found in the supreme authority Christ has placed in it. Pope Leo refers to this in the above quotation. Thus, there cannot be several Churches of Christ, as there can be several independent civil states. Each inde­ pendent civil state is specifically the same, but is numerically differ­ ent in that each one has its own distinct rule. There would be several 64 Adversus Haereses, Lib. Ill, c. 3, n. 2, PG, Tom. VII, col. 849, (author’s trans.). 65 De Praescriptionibus, c. 21, PL, Tom. II, col. 33. 60 De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate, η. 23, CSEL, Vol. Ill, Pars I, p. 231, (author’s trans.). Cf. St. Hilary, Commentarium in Matthaeum, XIII, η. 1, PL, Tom. LX, col. 993 ; St. Jerome, Commentarium in Epistolam ad Titum, Cap. Ill, v. 10, 11, PL, Tom. XXVI, col. 598; St. John Chrysostom, Homilia XI in Epistolam ad Ephesios, n. 5, PG, Tom. LXII, cols. 86-87; St. Augustine, Contra Epistolam Parmentiani, Lib. II, n. 25, CSEL, Vol. LI, p. 76. 67 Encyclical, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896, ASS, Vol. XXVIII, pp. 712715; English translation, ER, Vol. XV (July-December, 1896), pp. 118-122. 10 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics Churches of Christ numerically distinct if the Church were dependent on the authority of the state. Then the Church would not have one supreme power over it, but a different head in each state. The result would be, not one Church, but several state churches.68 The Church of Christ possesses internal unity. The same words Christ used in speaking of His one Church, a flock, a kingdom, a sheepfold, likewise connote an internal unity. Moreover, just before He suffered, He prayed for His disciples—for His Church—that they might be and remain one as He and the Father are one; He asked for unity as a sign for the world that it might believe He was sent by the Father.00 On a previous occasion He had uttered the warn­ ing that “every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desola­ tion, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.” 70 St. Paul exhorted the Ephesians to be “careful to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace: one body and one Spirit, even as you were called in one hope of your calling.” 71 Tradition gives abundant testimony to the unity of the Church, and many Fathers could be quoted. St. Bernard draws a compari­ son from the garment of Christ,—a comparison used in early patris­ tic writings: “The garment is the unity of the Church, which knows no rending, receives no division.” 72 Pope Leo XIII, in the encycli­ cal quoted above, said: But He indeed, Who made this one Church, also gave it unity, that is, He made it such that all who are to belong to it must be united by the closest bonds, so as to form one society, one kingdom, one body.73 This internal unity of the Church means that it must be one and undivided in itself by reason of the same rule, the same profession of faith, and the same worship. Unity of rule is that by which all 68 Cf. Ottaviani, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 190-194. 69 John 17/20-23. 70 Matthew 12/2S. 71 Ephesians 4/3-4. 72 Epistola 334, ad Guidonem pisanum, PL, Tom. CLXXXII, col. S38, (author’s trans.). Cf. Encyclical, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896, for quotations from the Fathers on the unity of the Church—ASS and EE, loc. cit. 73 Encyclical, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896, ASS and ER, loc. cit. Preliminary Notions 11 the members of the Church are legitimately and externally subject to the individual Bishops, and together with the Bishops subject to the supreme spiritual authority of the Pope; this bond is the formal foundation of all unity in the Church. Unity of faith signifies that all the faithful externally profess belief in the same body of truths revealed by God and proposed by the teaching authority of the Church. Unity of worship means that the faithful are externally united by a participation in the same cult and sacrifice, and by the reception of the same sacraments.74 A testimony to the efficacy of the prayer of our Lord for unity is found in the infant Church, “The multitude of the believers were of one heart and one soul.” 75* Although many dissensions arose in the early years of the Church, they were immediately quieted by the Apostles, and the disobedient were excluded from the Church; divi­ sion of the Christian society into various sects and denominations was not sanctioned. In each city the Christians formed one Church, which was a portion of the one universal Church, and no vestige of division was to be found among them.78 The words of Christ con­ cerning the other sheep He had to bring into His fold, so that there would be but one flock and one shepherd,77 can be verified only by a unity of faith and rule. According to the teaching of Christ, one who adheres to his own views, and does not obey the authority con­ stituted by Him, can belong no longer to His Church.78 St. Paul was severe with those who destroyed the unity of faith, and fostered di­ vision or schism.79 He enumerates heresy and schism among the worst sins.80 SS. John, Peter and Jude manifested a similar zeal against heresies and schisms.81 74 Tanquerey-Bord, op. cit., Tom. I, n. 771 (b), pp. 518-519. Cf. St. Thomas II-II, q. 39, a. 1: “The unity of the Church is manifested in the mutual con­ nection or communication of its members, and likewise in the relation of all the members of the Church to one head,” (author’s trans.). ™ Acts 4/32. τβ Acts 11/22, 13/1; I Cor. 1/2. John 10/16-17. ™ Matthew 18/17. 79 Galatians 1/8; I Cor. 1/10-12. so Galatians 5/22. si / John 4/1-7; Apoc. 2/f>, 14, 15, 20-29; II Peter 2/1-19; Jude 5-19. 12 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics It is certain that the Church of Rome possesses the unity required in the Church of Christ.82 The Catholic Church possesses unity of rule, for the faithful throughout the world are subject to the Bishops, and both the faithful and the Bishops are subject to the supreme authority of the Pope. She has unity of faith, because all her mem­ bers interiorly believe and exteriorly profess the same symbols of faith interpreted in the same way. Finally, unity of cult is to be found in the Church of Rome, for all her members participate in the same sacraments, the sacrifice of the Mass, and all other exercises of cult under the supervision of the Pope. It is to be admitted that in some localities there are accidental differences in some rites of Catholic worship, but such differences do not destroy essential unity of worship; they have the sanction of the Holy Father.83 Now, neither schismatics,84 nor Protestants possess the formal constitutive element of unity of the Church of Christ, for they do not acknowledge the supreme authority of the Pope. Material unity of cult is lacking among the Protestants, since they do not agree among themselves about the number of sacraments, the doctrine of the Real Presence, liturgical formulas, and so forth.85* The foundation on which this study rests, then, is that the Catho­ lic Church is the one Church of Christ, alone possessing the true cult of God,88 a cult which must be uniformly the same, in so far, at least, 82 Suarez, De Fide, Disp. IX, Sect. IX, n. 4, Opera Omnia, Tom. XII, p. 276; Tanquerey-Bord, op. cit., Tom. I, n. 775, p. 520. Cf. Bellarmine, op. cit., Tom. II, Lib. IV, Cap. X, pp. 292-293. The Encyclical of the Holy Office, September 16, 1864, forbade membership of Catholics in a society to preserve the unity of Christendom. The Society was composed of Anglicans, Greek Schismatics, and Roman Catholics. The argument used was that the Church of Christ is one, and that the Catholic Church enjoys a conspicuous and perfect unity—Coll. S.C.P.F., Vol. I, n. 1262, pp. 676-677. 83 Lercher-Schalgenhaufen say uniformity in accidental rites is not re­ quired for liturgical unity, op. cit., Vol. I, n. 439, p. 254. Cf. Pius IX, Littera Encyclica ad Episcopos Orientalis Ritus, April 8, 1862, CoU. S.C.P.F., Vol. I, n. 1226, pp. 674 seq. 84 Concerning the Orthodox Catholics, cf. Fortescue, The Orthodox Eastern Church, pp. 336-337. 85 Tanquerey-Bord, op. cit., Tom. I, nos. 776-778, pp. 336-337. 88 Cf. Lactantius, Divinae Institutiones, Lib. IV, c. XXX, PL, Tom. VI, cols. 542-544. V Preliminary Notions 13 as any public exercise oi it must be under the supervision of the su­ preme authority of the Church. To effect the unity of cult, which must be characteristic of her, she must supervise the acts and the rites of worship, as well as designate and approve the ministers of that worship. Any religious group, or body, which is not subject to the Church, therefore, does not share in the unity of worship of the Church of Christ, although it may have rites, sacraments, and a sacri­ fice like those in the Catholic Church, together with validly ordained ministers. To participate in worship with a group of this kind is to share in public worship which is unauthorized by God. The fact, however, that some persons outside the Catholic Church are in good faith regarding their religious affiliations and practices is not overlooked. Sincerity and good faith can make adults mem­ bers of the Church of Christ in desire, which, if they possess the state of grace, is sufficient for their salvation, as long as their failure to become actual members is not due to their own fault or negli­ gence.87 But the subjective dispositions of non-Catholics will not remove the moral questions involved when there is question of Catholics communicating with them in their religious services. The same objective truth can be seen from a consideration of the idea of religion. The purpose of the Catholic Church is to lead men to salvation. For the attainment of this end, in addition to faith, there is necessary, as Pope Leo XIII says, the fitting and devout worship of God, which is to be found chiefly in the divine Sacrifice and in the dispensation of the sacraments, as well as salutary laws and discipline. . . . The Church alone offers to the human race that religion—that state of absolute per­ fection—which He wished, as it were, to be incorporated in it.88 1 Objectively, religion is the complexus of the truths and duties by which our entire life is ordained to God the ultimate end. This concept embraces three elements: (1) dogmas to be believed; (2) duties to be fulfilled; (3) cult to be exercised by various rites.88 These 87 Tanquerey-Bord, op. cit., Tom. I, nos. 825-826, pp. 555-557. Cf. Pius IX, Allocutio, Singulari quodam, DB, 1647. 88 Encyclical, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896, ASS, Vol. XXVIII, p. 723 ; English trans., ER, Vol. XV, p. 132. 88 Tanquerey-Bord, op. cit., Tom. I, nos. 86-87, pp. 67-68. Cf. E. Magnin, art. Religion, DTkC, Tom. XIII, II Part., cols. 2184-2185. 14 Communication in Religious Worship with N on-Catholics elements are verified in the Catholic religion, which is a religion of the supernatural order. The Church uses her God-given authority­ regarding the cult of God by watching over its exercise, the rites used, the prayers said, the ceremonies and actions employed.90 Re­ ligion has an intellectual foundation, that is, it is based on knowledge. To be true religion its basis must be truth. The basis must be true both speculatively and practically. In other words, true religion must be based on a correct knowledge of God as existing and worthy of all honor, and of the manner and obligation of worshipping Him. On the other hand, religion is false if what is not God is considered to be God, and worshipped as God, or if there is error in the worship of the true God. Therefore, God is not truly worshipped when errone­ ous signs are used in His worship, as those of the Jews, or when super­ fluous ceremonies are employed, as by pagans and many heretics. Any lack of subjection of the mind to God, directly, or indirectly by not submitting to the authority established by Him, causes a deordi­ nation in religion.91 Hence, even though a form of cult exercised by a non-Catholic religious body contains nothing false, it is not a legiti­ mate act of religion, because that body has no authority to prescribe and to practice religious acts, as a body existing against the order of things established by Christ. Subjectively, religion is a virtue which prompts a man to render to God the worship and reverence that is His by right.82 To be truly the virtue of religion it must be based on religion as objectively true. It is to be noted that an act based on a false religion cannot be really an act of virtue. For a virtue requires a morally good work. But in the cult of a false god, or in the false and superstitious cult of the true God, there can be no moral goodness, since such cult is op­ posed to right reason.93 A person, who practices a false or supersti­ tious religion in good faith, may acquire merit for his good will, but not for the acts as such, because they are objectively bad. 80 The custody of revelation demands vigilant supervision over cult as a safeguard against errors entering into the manifestations of cult. Cf. Ottaviani, op. cit., Vol. I, nos. 129-130, pp. 246-247. 81 Cf. Suarez, De Religione, Tract. I, Lib. I, Cap. II, nos. 2-4, Opera Omnia, Tom. XIII, p. 7. 82 St. Thomas, II-II, q. 81, a. 1. 83 Suarez, loc. cit., n. 4, p. 7. CHAPTER II HISTORICAL SUMMARY In tracing the history of this moral question it must be borne in mind that theology was not cast into a systematic form until the scholastic period. As time went on, and as circumstances required it, specific treatment of special problems in moral theology appeared. The early teaching on this point, therefore, must be culled from the writings of the inspired writers and of the Fathers, and from the pronouncements of the Church. Article I. Early Ages A. Holy Scripture The abomination which the Church has had, from the very begin­ ning, for association with heretics is evident from the words of St. John: “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house, or say to him Welcome. For he who says to him Welcome, is sharer in his evil works.” 1 Manifestly this text forbids all association, in both religious and civil matters, with those who do not profess Catholic doctrine. In 1859 the Holy Office made the following commentary on these words: Evidently from these words, whatever a “Welcome” of this kind expresses is inferred as prohibited, in as far as they are liturgical actions which were instituted to signify ecclesiastical unity. . . . It is illicit, therefore, in the sacred functions, to invite heretics to choir, to sing psalms alternately with them, to give them the pax, sacred ashes, candles, and blessed palms, and other things of external cult, which are considered, rightly and deservedly, as in­ dicative of an internal bond and agreement, both in the active sense, namely, of giving such things to them, and in the passive sense, of receiving the same from them in their sacred rites.2 *11 John, vers. 10 and 11. 2 Instructio S. C. S. Officii, June 22, 1859, CoU. S.C.P.F., Vol. I, n. 1176, p. 642, (author’s trans.). 15 ^1' 16 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics Suarez affirms that the reason the Apostle gives for this prohibition is verified in religious communication especially, because he who unites himself with heretics in their churches, communicates in their wicked works.3 St. Paul says: “A factious man avoid after a first and a second admonition.” 4 Benedict XIV uses this citation, as well as the one from St. John, to show that religious communication with heretics has not been allowed.® In his First Letter to the Corinthians, St. Paul gives the solutions for three cases of conscience, which were brought about by sacrificial banquets, by the buying, and by the eating of food sacrificed to idols.® The table by common usage forms a bond of union for its sharers, and that union becomes more intimate and sacred when the banquet is the consummation of a sacrifice. A religious feast implies three unions: union with the sacrificing priest, for the banquet is the completion of the sacrifice; union with the god, who is worshiped; union with the victim itself. These unions involve acts of religion toward a false deity, and, therefore, are manifestations of idolatry. St. Paul says that worship which is not given to the true God is given to the devils: But I say that what the Gentiles sacrifice, “they sacrifice to the devils and not to God”; and I would not have you become associates of devils. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of the devils; you cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord and of the table of the devils.7 Thus, the zealous Apostle is solicitous that his disciples take no part in idolatrous worship. Regarding the buying of food sacrificed to idols, he allows the Christians to do so without troubling themselves about its origin, because the animal sacrificed to idols acquires no in­ trinsic impurity. As to the eating of such food at another’s table, St. 3 Defensio Fidei, Lib. VI, Cap. IX, n. 17, Opera Omnia, Tom. XXIV, p. 708. * Titus 3/10. 5 De Synodo Diocesana, Lib. VI, Cap. V, η. I, Opera Omnia, Tom. XI, p. 157. ®/ Cor. 10/14-30. 7/ Car. 10/20-22. y $ Historical Summary 17 Paul considers it an indifferent matter to eat what is placed before the guests. Yet if there is an external circumstance of scandal present, the meat should not be eaten. If one of the unbelievers invites you, and you wish to go, eat whatever is set before you, and ask no questions for conscience’ sake. But if someone says, “This has been sacrificed to idols,” do not eat it, for the sake of him who told you and for conscience’ sake—I mean the other’s conscience not thine.8 Furthermore, any passage in Sacred Scripture forbidding a denial of the faith is a rule for the Church in our matter.9 St. Matthew quotes these words of Christ: “But whoever disowns Me before men, I in turn will disown him before My Father in heaven.” 10 St. Thomas says that this text refers to a denial of the faith both by word and by deed: by word as St. Peter did, by deed as those did of whom St. Paul speaks in his letter to Titus,11 “They profess to know God, but by their works they disown him.” 12 B. Fathers and Early Writers St. Iraenaeus cites the passage from the letter to Titus about avoiding a factious man to show how timorous the Apostles and their disciples were lest they should communicate even by word with any­ one who had adulterated the truth.13 He denies the right of heretics to offer sacrifices, thus vindicating the exclusive right of the Catholic Church to offer sacrifice.14 Tertullian teaches that Catholics must abstain from idol sacrifices and sacrificial banquets, “because we cannot eat the food of God, and the food of demons.” Moreover, he instructs the Christians to keep from within sight or hearing of idol sacrifices.15 In another work he 8Z Cor. 10/27-30. Cf. Prat, The Theology of Saint Paul, trans, from the 11th French edition by John L. Stoddard, Vol. I, pp. 115-118. 8 Cf. Chapter III of this study. 10 Matthew 10/33. « Titus 1/16. 12 In Matthaeum Evangelistam Expositio, Cap. X. 13 Adversus Haereses, Lib. ΠΙ, Cap. 3, PG, Tom. VII, cols. 853-854. **Op. cit., Lib. IV, Cap. 18, n. 14, PG, Tom. VII, col. 1027. 10 Liber de Spectaculis, Cap. XIII, CSEL, Vol. XX, Pars I, pp. 15-16. 18 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics makes this distinction: to assist because invited for the sacrifice is to be a participator in idolatry; to be joined with the one sacrificing for another reason is to be a mere spectator of the sacrifice.10 He says that heretics have no part in our discipline, since the removal from communion shows they are outside.17 During the times of St. Cyprian various questions came up per­ taining to religious communication with those outside the one fold of Christ. He is equally strong in denouncing such communication, whether with heretics, schismatics, or infidels. Referring to the ob­ ligation of avoiding heretics in general, he says: Moreover, let our most beloved brethren resist bravely, and avoid their words and conversation, which spread like a cancer ... as the Apostle says: “A factious man avoid after a first and a second admonition” 18 ... so that no commerce be united with such persons, that no association or conversation be made with evil ones, and that we be as separated from them as they are distant from the Church . . . and the holy Apostle not only ad­ monishes, but commands, us to go away from such persons. He says: “We command you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that you recede from all the brethren who walk inordinately, and not according to the tradition they have received from us.”16 In another letter the same saint writes in a similar strain: Depart far from the contagion of men of this kind, and avoid their words as a cancer or the plague, according to the admonition of the Lord saying, “Blind guides they are of blind men” 20 . . . and the Apostle says, “Let no one lead you astray with empty words; for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the children of disobedience. Do not then, become partakers with them.”21 . . . Avoid the wolves who separate the sheep from the shepherd.22 ™De Idolatria, Cap. XVI, CSEL, Vol. XX, Pars I, p. 50. De Baptismo, n. 15, €SEL, Vol. XX, Pars I, pp. 213-214. is Titus 3/10. 19 Epistola LIX, ad Cornelium, c. 20, CSEL, Tom. Ill, Pars II, pp. 689690, (author’s trans.). 20 Matthew 15/14. 21 Ephesians 5/6-7. 22 Epistola XLIII, Plebi Universae, cc. 5-6, CSEL, Tom. Ill, Pars II, pp. 594-596, (author’s trans.). Historical Summary 19 He gives as his reasons the truths that there is one God, one Church, and one seat of authority founded on Peter by the word of the Lord ; another altar cannot be set up, nor a new priesthood instituted; to gather elsewhere is to scatter. “Whatever is established by human madness in violation of the divine disposition is adultery, impiety, sacrilege.”23 St. Cyprian also dealt with problems involved in communication in infidel worship, which arose during the persecutions. Some Catho­ lics had actually sacrificed to the idols, some freely, other under pres­ sure, to avoid death or other penalties; such persons were known as the sacrificati. The libellatici were another class, namely, those who had received a certificate {libellus) from the officials in which it was stated that they had fulfilled the law by sacrificing, or were willing to do so. This saint writes about each of these classes. He says in one of his letters: You should not think, most cherished brother, as it seems to some, that the libellatici are to be put on a par with the sacrificati, since the condition and the cause differ frequently even among those who have sacrificed. For he who immediately and willingly went forth to a nefarious sacrifice, and he who, after a long strug­ gle and fight, came by necessity to this disastrous deed are not to be considered equal.24 In another of his writings he explains to Catholics how they sinned by actually sacrificing to the idols, or by receiving a certificate. Con­ cerning those who did the latter he says: Evidently he has sinned less by not seeing the idols, by not profaning the sanctity of the faith before the eyes of the insulting people, by not polluting his hands with deadly sacrifices, by not tainting his lips with impious food. This is to his advantage in as far as there is less guilt, not an innocent conscience.25 The clergy of Rome express themselves in the following manner regarding the libellatici in a letter to St. Cyprian:28 28Loc. cit., c. 5, p. 594, (author’s trans.). 24 Epistola LV, ad Antonianum, η. XIII, CSEL, Tom. Ill, Pars II, p. 633, (author’s trans.). Liber de Lapsis, c. 28, CSEL, Vol. Ill, Pars I, p. 258, (author’s trans.). 20 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics He is not free from crime who . . . wishes to seem to satisfy prescriptions, or edicts, or laws contrary to the Gospel; for by this very fact he has brought forth what he wished to appear to bring forth. . . . For let it be far from the Roman Church to cast aside her strength by such profane facility, and to dissolve the sinews of severity by throwing over the majesty of the faith.26 This citation, together with those from St. Cyprian’s works, show that actual practices of idolatry, or a simulation of them, on the part of Catholics were forbidden as sins against the faith. In the next century St. Hilary of Poitiers takes care to keep his flock from communicating with the Arians. He warns the faithful to avoid antichrist, and to refrain from entering the Churches with the Arian bishop. He tells them that he considers the woods, the mountains, the lakes, the prisons, and the caverns as safer for him. He cautions them to keep away from Auxentius, the messenger of Satan, the enemy of Christ, the lost devastator, the denier of the faith.27 In a mystical interpretation of a passage in St. Matthew’s Gospel, “Do not go in the direction of the Gentiles, nor enter the towns of the Samaritans,” 28 St. Hilary writes that this admonition does not mean that the Apostles were not sent for the salvation of the Gentiles, too, but that they were to abstain from the life and works of Gentile ignorance; and that the prohibition not to enter a city of the Samaritans was a warning not to enter the churches of heretics.28 St. Augustine, too, is a champion of fidelity to Catholic worship. He reproves both actual and simulated communication in non-Catho* lie worship. In a letter to St. Jerome he states that one who observes the rites of Jew, or Gentile, not only truly, but even fictitiously, has fallen into the abyss of the devil.30 He teaches that communication with heretics is to be avoided, except in what is ordained to their ™ Epistola XXXI, Cleri Romani ad Cyprianum, n. Ill, CSEL, Vol. Ill, Pars II, p. 551, (author’s trans.). 27 Liber Contra Auxentium, PL, Tom. X, col. 616. Cf. St. Ambrose, Epis­ tola XI, n. 4, PL, Tom. XVI, col. 946. 28 Matthew 10/5. 29 Commentarium in Matthaeum, Cap. V, n. 3, PL, Tom. LX. col. 967. 30 Epistola LXXXII, ad Hieronymum, Cap. II, n. 18, CSEL, Vol. XXXIV, Pars II, p. 369. Historical Summary 21 conversion.31 He does not allow a simulation of heresy, and he con­ siders such simulation as a pernicious lie. In refuting the Priscillianists, who taught that a person could lawfully simulate a false re­ ligion at a time when there was an obligation to confess the faith, he says that, if that were true, the martyrs would have been justified in sacrificing to the idols to escape death.32 De Valentia, in refer­ ence to this doctrine, says that St. Augustine evidently seems to re­ prove all simulation in religion.33 Pope St. Leo the Great teaches the wrongfulness of communicat­ ing with heretics. In one of his sermons he tells the people to flee the arguments of worldly teaching, to avoid the conferences of here­ tics, and to allow nothing to be in common between them and those, who, because they attack the Catholic faith, are Christians in name only.34 He writes in a letter: “If the foolish talker wishes to remain in his wickedness, let him associate with those whose wont it has been to follow error.” 35 Pope St. Gregory the Great writes that God is truly honored only in the Catholic Church,36 and that it is the prerogative of the Church, not of heretics, to offer acceptable sacrifice.37 Thus he attacks indi­ rectly a union in heretical worship. A similar attitude can be found in the works of the writers of the East. Origen uses a part of the passage from St. Paul’s First Let­ ter to the Corinthians, already cited, to stress the obligation of keep­ ing away from pagan sacrifices. His words are: We should not be partakers in their pagan things, since we know the difference between the table of the Lord and the table of the demons ... as partakers of the table of the Lord let us abstain from all manner of communication in the table of the demons.38 si Epistola XLIII, CSEL, Vol. XXXIV, Pars II, p. 85. 32 Contra Mendacium, Cap. II, n. 3, CSEL, Vol. XLI, pp. 472-474. 33 Commentarii Theologici in totam Summam S. Thomae Aquinatis, Tom. Ill, Disp. I, Q. Ill, Punct. II, col. 414. 34 Sermo XVIII, De Passione Domini, PL, Tom. LIV, col. 379. 35Epistola ad Faustum, n. 32, PL, Tom. LIV, col. 795, (author’s trans.). ™ Moralia, Lib. XIV, Cap. V, n. 5, PL, Tom. LXXV, col. 1043. π Op. cit., Lib. XXXV, Cap. VIII, n. 13, PL, Tom. LXXVI, cols. 756-757. 38 Contra Celsum, Lib. VIII, n. 24, GCS, Origines, Vol. II, p. 241, (author’s trans.). 22 Historical Summary Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics St. Athanasius relates that St. Anthony was accustomed to avoid heretics and schismatics in everything except in what was intended to bring about their conversion.39 Among St. Anthony's dying words there is found a caution to keep away from heretics and schismatics.4' St. Cyril of Jerusalem forbids a union with the religious rites of Jews and Samaritans, and teaches that all the gatherings of heretics should be objects of hatred.41 In a later passage of this same work he warns the faithful to be careful, when traveling, how they ask for the location of the Catholic Church, for the heretics call their temples churches, too. His purpose is to make sure that they keep away from the abomination of heretics, and adhere always to the Holy Catholic Church.42 St. John Chrysostom writes very strongly against communication with Jews in religious rites. He gives more than one reason why this communication should be avoided. “He who falls, not only has the penalty of one who has fallen, but is punished also for having caused others to fall.” 43 “There is no small harm for the weaker brethren, nor a slight incentive to pride for the Jews.”44 This zealous bishop is very firm with those Catholics, who, after observing Jewish rites and celebrations, come to their own Church. He orders that a cate­ chumen guilty of these practices be excluded from the Church, and a baptized person be driven away from the sacred table. He bases this stand on the fact that such conduct manifestly shows that a per­ son does not love the Lord, for he observes the feasts of those who put Him to death. To vindicate his attitude he hearkens to the teaching of St. Paul: “You who would be justified in the Law . . . have fallen from grace.” 45 To urge his prohibition to communicate in Jewish rites, the saint compares it with the prohibition to attend the theater. It is evil to go to the theater, but there is greater crime in the synagogue than in the theater. What takes place in the theater is sin, but in the synogague there is impiety. 39 Vita S. Antonii, n. 68, PG, Tom. XXVI, col. 939. 40O/>. cit., n. 91, PG, Tom. XXVI, cols. 970-971. 41 Catechesis, IV, n. 37, PG, Tom. XXXIII, cols. 502-503. 42 Op. cit., XVIII, n. 26, PG, Tom. XXXIII, col. 1047. *3 Adversus Judaeos, I, n. 5, PG, Tom. XLVIII, col. 851, (author’s trans.). 44 Loc. cit. *s Galatians 5/4. Adversus Judaeos, II, η. 3, PG, Tom. XLVIII, col. 862. 23 As we upbraid them for transgressing the law, we accuse you so much the more for going to the transgressors of the law ; and not only those who go there, but also those who have the authority to forbid the members of their household from doing so and yet do not wish to make the prohibition.46 Referring again to the passage from the letter to the Galatians, he says: It should be feared lest you hear from Him Who is to judge you: “I do not know where you are from. Depart from Me.4’ You have communicated with those who crucified Me; and con­ tending with Me you have restored the solemnities which I have antiquated: you have run to the synagogues of the Jews, who acted impiously against Me and violated the law.” 48 He continues to stress his point by saying that no worthy name can be found for the synagogue. Whether it is called a den of thieves, or a brothel, or a place of transgression, or the resort of demons, or the fortress of the devil, or the ruin of souls, or the precipice and abyss of complete destruction, or anything else, the name is less than it deserves.49 C. Legislation The legislation of the Church manifests a constant repugnance to­ wards communication in non-Catholic worship. In a general review of the prescriptions of the Church it will be convenient to group them as they refer to communication in pagan, Jewish, and heretical and schismatic rites. In reference to pagan rites the infant Church, in the Council of Jerusalem, ordained that the converts of Gentile origin in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia should abstain from partaking of meats sacrificed to idols.50 St. Paul seems to disregard this legislation in his solutions for the Corinthians, but actually he does not violate it. The decree of the Council was temporary and local, imposed directly upon the Gentile converts of a particular locality, as a measure of regard for , 48 Op. cit., IV, n. 7, PG, Tom. XLVIII, cols. 881-882, (author’s trans.). μ Luke 13/27. 48 op. cit., VI, n. 7, PG, Tom. XLVIII, col. 914, (author’s trans.). 40 Loc. cit., col. 915. so Acts 15/29. 24 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics the feelings of the number of Jewish converts in those places. In Corinth there were not so many Jewish converts, so there was no rea­ son for extending this legislation to apply there. As time went on, and Christianity entered upon its victory, a stricter interpretation was adopted. This kind of material co-operation in pagan sacrifices, since it appeared to encourage them, was no longer expedient, and steps were taken to eliminate it.31 Succeeding enactments against communication in idol worship in­ cluded penal sanctions in their prohibitions, the penalties differing according to the kind of communication and the quality of the person communicating. For example, a different penalty was prescribed for a voluntary act of sacrifice, than for giving some kind of ma­ terial co-operation in idolatry.52 A penance of two years was ordered for a Catholic who should go to the Capitol, or to the temple of an idol, even out of curiosity.58 It was forbidden, too, under the same penalty, to carry one’s own meal to the banquets of pagans on their feast days and to eat it there.61 6465 * 66The celebration of pagan feasts was not allowed.55 The legislation was more severe for the clergy who communicated in idol worship, and the penalties were not varied according to the degree of communication. A long penance was usually given, to­ gether with perpetual deposition from office, in the case of bishops.58 Priests and deacons guilty of this communication kept the external dignity of their office, but were forbidden to exercise their ministry.57 61 MacEvilly, An Exposition of the Epistles of St. Paul, p. 199; Prat, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 119. 52 Council of Elvira (305), canons 1, 2, 3, Mansi, Tom. II, cols. 5-6,— concerning Spain, cf. McKenna, Paganism and Pagan Survivals in Spain up to the Fall of the Visigothic Kingdom; Council of Ancyra (314), canons 4, 5, 6, 8, Mansi, Tom. II, cols. S29-531; Council of Nicea (325), canons 11, 12, 13, Mansi, Tom. II, col. 674; Council of Valence (374), canon 3, Mansi, Tom. Ill, col. 493. 83 Council of Elvira (305), canon 59, Mansi, Tom. II. col. 15. 54 Council of Ancyra (314), canon 7, Mansi, Tom. II, col. 530. 65 Council of Laodicea (about 370), canon 39, Mansi, Tom. II, col. 581. 66 St. Cyprian, Epistola LXV, nos. 2-3, CSEL, Vol. Ill, Pars II, pp. 723724; Epistola LXVII, c. 6, CSEL, Vol. Ill, Pars II, p. 741; Epistola LV, n. 11, CSEL, Vol. Ill, Pars II, pp. 631-632. 8T Council of Ancyra (314), canons 1, 2, Mansi, Tom. II, cols. 528-529. i [ !( ; , Historical Summary 25 We shall now consider the legislation regarding communication in Jewish rites. It is related in the Acts of the Apostles what difficulties arose in Jerusalem, because some of the Jewish converts did not wish to break with all their former religious practices. This group of Jews was scandalized because the new converts in Antioch were being re­ ceived by baptism alone, without any other initiation.58 They tried to require of these converts a conformity to the Law in addition to baptism as a requisite for salvation. St. Paul vehemently opposed this doctrine. Finally, the question was decided in the Council of Jerusalem, according to the vision St. Peter had received regarding the preaching to, and the conversion of, the Gentiles.59 The opposite teaching, however, continued to have its advocates, but during the period of the persecutions by the pagan emperors, this opposition took a secondary place. After religious security was assured for the Christians, there are some instances in which they met the Jews on more familiar terms, not only in profane matters, but also celebrated their feasts with them, visited their synagogues, and took part in their liturgical rites.60 The bitterness in the heart of the non-converted Jews manifested itself when Constantine ruled as a Christian emperor. They used the friendship of Catholics as an occasion to bring about the apostasy of the latter from the faith. Constantine was forced to inflict severe fines on Catholics who apostatized.61 The Council of Elvira (305) forbade Catholics, under threat of excommunication, to have the fruits of their land blessed by Jews.62 All Catholics, both clerics and laymen, were forbidden, under penalty, to eat with Jews.63 Another definite prohibition forbade the receiv58 Ads 15/1-5. SB Ads 15/6-29. 80 Kober, Die Deposition und Degradation, p. 621. eiC. Th. (16. 8) 7; (16. 8) 1. 62 Canon 49, Mansi, Tom. II, col. 14. 83 Council of Elvira (305), canon 50, Mansi, loc. cit.—cf. canons 38, 39; Council of Laodicea (about 370), canon 29, Mansi, Tom. II, col. 569; Council of Vannes (464), canon 12, Mansi, Tom. VII. col. 954; Council of Agde (506), canon 40, Mansi, Tom. VIII, col. 331; Council of Epaon (517), canon 15, Mansi, Tom. VIII, col. 561; Council of Arles (538), canon 13, Mansi, Tom. IX, col. 15. . I k T 26 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics ing of unleavened bread from the Jews, for that was considered as sharing in their impiety.64 Some clerics, too, were guilty of religious communication with the Jews. To meet this scandalous situation a law provided for the de­ position of the guilty ones.65 The Church in forbidding communication in general with heretics has done so to secure her children from the danger of contagion from heretical teaching.68 Regarding communication with heretics in re­ ligious matters, canons of the Council of Laodicea (about 370) pro­ hibited the faithful to accept the eulogies or blessings of heretics, to join in common prayer with them, and to visit the shrines of the martyrs of heretics for the purpose of prayer. Common prayer with schismatics was forbidden, too.87 The Ecumenical Council of Calcedon (451) enacted that the children of marriages between chanters or lectors and heretical women were not to be baptized in any heretical sect.68 The Fourth Council of Carthage (398) forbade praying and reciting psalms with heretics.69 The Apostolic Constitutions, a docu­ ment of the end of the fourth century (380), ordained a penalty for the cleric or the layman who would enter a church of heretics to pray.70 Canon 44 of the Canons of the Apostles forbade a bishop, priest, or deacon to pray with heretics, or to permit them to act as ministers, under the penalty of deposition.71 The Council of Lerida (523) prescribed the rejection of the offering of one who had pre­ sented his children to an heretic for baptism.72 Article II. Early Ages to Martin V During the Middle Ages the legislation of the Church was gathered into one body of laws. The compilation of Gratian, made with papal 64 Council of Laodicea (about 370), canon 38, Mansi, Tom. II, col. 572. 65 Canones Apostolorum, canon 63, Mansi, Tom. I, col. 42. 60 Phillips, Kirckenrecht, II Band, II Abtheil., § 102, pp. 446-447. 67 Canons 32, 34, 33, Mansi, Tom. II, col. 569; can. 9, col. 565. 68 Canon 14, Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, ed. Schwartz, Tom. II, Vol. I, Pars II, p. 161. 69 Canon 72, Mansi, Tom. Ill, col. 957. 70 Canon 65, Liber VIII, Funk, Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum, Tom. I, PP- 584-585. 71 Canones Apostolorum, Mansi, Tom. I, col. 39. 72 Canon 13, Mansi, Tom. VIII, col. 614. Historical Summary 2Ί authority and approval, raised some of the former legislation on religious communication to the status of common law. For example, canon 72 of the Fourth Council of Carthage was placed in his collec­ tion.73 The same strictness regarding communication with Jews was retained.74 Because the dangers from heretics were becoming greater, more severe penalties were enacted for those guilty of aiding heresy. Those believing heresy were excommunicated.75 One could express his belief in heresy implicitly, merely by a deed or an external sign, for example, by calling an heretical priest in time of sickness for the purpose of seeking consolation from the imposition of his hands.76 The authors of this period do not treat religious communication with non-Catholics precisely as such. Their concern in this regard is centered about the prohibition to communicate with the excommuni­ cated on the one hand, and with infidels on the other. The former prohibition included both heretics and schismatics, for they have received the penalty of excommunication for centuries. Originally all persons under major excommunication were to be avoided by the faithful, not only in religious matters, but also in the civil associations of daily life.77 Heretics were placed under this severe excommunica­ tion from the first centuries of the Church, and the word anathema was used to designate the entire separation from the Church which it involved.78 This major penalty was kept through the succeeding centuries.79 Schismatics, too, have received this same excommunica­ tion. This penalty was imposed even upon pure schismatics, name­ ly, those who professed no heresy.80 The obligation to avoid heretics and schismatics by reason of their excommunication held under penalty of incurring a minor 73 c. 35, C. XXIV, q. 3. Cf. c. 26, C. XXIV, q. 1; c. 2, de Haereticis, V, in Sexto. 74 c. 11, 12, 13, 14, C. XXVIII, q. 1. 75 c. 13, X, de Haereticis, V, q. 7. 76 Reiff enstuel, Jus Canonicum Universum, Tom. V, Tit. VII, § V, n. 248, p. 272. 77 Hyland, Excommunication, Its Nature, Historical Development, and Effects, p. 35. 78 Mackenzie, The Delict of Heresy, p. 7. 78 Mackenzie, op. cit., pp. 9-14. 80 Phillips, op. cit., II Band, II Abtheil., p. 450, note 51. Cf. c. 43, C. XXIII, q. 5 ; c. 5, Dist. XIX. 28 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics excommunication, that is, a deprivation of the sacraments. Asso­ ciation with those under major excommunication was so abhorred by the Church in the Middle Ages that practically all manner of com­ munication even in civil affairs was excluded.81 Although this angle of the question received the attention of the authors, St. Thomas teaches that communication with heretics is wrong, not only by reason of their excommunication, but also by reason of their heresy, be­ cause of the danger of perversion, because of the possible appear­ ance of assenting to their doctrine, and because familiarity may be the occasion for another to fall into error.82 What the Angelic Doctor says here of communication in general with heretics is especially true of religious communication. The prohibition to communicate with infidels, even in some civil matters, was a precautionary measure to prevent religious association with them and perversion from the faith. This solicitude was espe­ cially necessary regarding the Jews.83 St. Thomas explains this pro­ hibition by showing that the danger of perversion is relative to the convictions and strength of the individual Catholic.84 Article III. Martin V to the Present Time Occasion for development in the theology of religious communi­ cation with non-Catholics was given in the year 1418. In that year Martin V issued the memorable Constitution Ad Evitanda which introduced a distinction among those under the penalty of major excommunication, declaring, in effect, some to be vitandi, and others tolerati. The previous discipline continued to apply to the vitandi only. The faithful, however, were permitted to communicate with the tolerati in both civil and religious matters.88 This change was 81 Hyland, op. cit., pp. 31-40. 82 Quodlibet X, q. 7, a. XV in corp. 83 c. 2, 5, 8, X, de Judaeis, Sarracensis, etc., V, q. 6. 84 Π-Π, q. 10, a. 9. Cf. In Epistolam I Ad Corinthios, Cap. V, Lectio III, in fine. 85 Ad evitanda scandala et multa pericula, subveniendumque conscientiis ti­ moratis, omnibus Christi fidelibus tenore praesentium misericorditer indulgemus, quod nemo deinceps a communione alicuius in sacramentorum administratione, vel receptione, aut aliis quibuscumque divinis, vel extra; praetextu cuiuscumque sententiae aut censurae ecclesiasticae (aliter: seu suspensionis aut prohibitionis), Historical Summary 29 made as a benefit to the faithful. The former strictness had been a source of much uncertainty and anxiety for them, because they did not always know whether or not they had been exposed to incurring an excommunication. Sometimes when they did know, they could not always avoid it.86 This Constitution was given in its original grant to the German people as part of a Concordat, which was to hold for five years. The intention of the Pope, however, regarding the Constitution was that it should remain in force perpetually and apply to all Christendom. It was widely diffused separately from the Concordat, and for that reason many looked upon it as a special Bull.87 Obviously this is a matter of merely ecclesiastical conces­ sion, and is in no way meant to dispense, or derogate, from the divine law. By virtue of this Constitution most heretics and schismatics were in the class of the tolerati. Greater freedom could be enjoyed in communicating with them. This factor together with the spread of heresy in Europe and England, and the conditions in mission lands and in the parts of the world where the Oriental Orthodox Churches flourished, necessitated a consideration of what was allowed, and what was not allowed, in the matter of religious communication with non-Catholics. The theologians responded to this necessity by enun­ ciating the principles involved, and by giving the solutions for various cases. As it usually happens, time and circumstances gradually in­ troduced changes of opinion on the lawfulness of certain particular points as will be seen later. Frequently the Holy See, through the Congregations of the Holy Office and the Propagation of the Faith, a jure vel ab homine generaliter promulgatae, teneatur abstinere, vel aliquem vitare, ac interdictum ecclesiasticum observare. Nisi sententia vel censura huiusmodi fuerit in vel contra personam, collegium, universitatem, ecclesiam, communitatem, aut locum certum, vel certa, a judice publicata vel denunciata specialiter et expresse: Constitutionibus Apostolicis et aliis in contrarium facien­ tibus non obstantibus quibuscumque: salvo, si quem pro sacrilegio et manuum iniectione in clerum, sententiam latam a canone adeo notorie constiterit inci­ disse, quod factum non possit aliqua tergiversatione celari, nec aliquo juris suffragio excusari. Nam a communione illius, licet denunciatus non fuerit, volumus abstineri, iuxta canonicas sanctiones.—Fontes Juris Canonici, Vol. I, n. 45. 88 Mackenzie, op. cit., p. 12. 87 Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des Conciles, Tom. VII, Part. I, p. 540, note 2. i 30 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics has expressed itself on these matters, sometimes in general instruc­ tions, sometimes in reply to doubts submitted. Some of the Popes, too, have spoken on the subject. Hinschius,88 a non-Catholic, places the year 1700 as about the time when wider applications in matters of religious communication began to be allowed by theologians and canonists. He mentions praying with heretics, visiting non-Catholic churches, hearing non­ Catholic sermons, acting as sponsor at an heretical baptism, and the reception of sacraments from heretical ministers in certain circum­ stances, as allowed. In any of these types of communication, how­ ever, there could be no support of heresy, nor any appearance of a participation in heretical rites. This author notes that the attitude of the Church from the beginning has been not to favor communica­ tion in general with heretics, even independently of the penalty of excommunication.89 Pope Benedict XIV lamented the conditions of his times. For, despite the teaching of Holy Scripture on associations with heretics, and the legislation of the Church, Catholics were under the hard ne­ cessity of conversing with heretics, and of dealing familiarly with them, in many places where heresy dominated or flourished. While asserting that the Constitution of Martin V is still in force, he says, nevertheless, that Catholics are not allowed to communi­ cate with heretics and schismatics indiscriminately in sacred matters. He then cites the opinion of some authors to the effect that Catholics could communicate in religious matters with, and even receive the sacraments from, tolerated heretics and schismatics when the follow­ ing conditions were verified : ( 1 ) a most grave and urgent cause com­ pels the Catholic to do so ; ( 2 ) the heretics or schismatics, who are to administer the sacraments, are validly ordained, and use the Catho­ lic rite, without any admixture of a condemned rite; (3) no external profession of false doctrine is involved; (4) no scandal is given. But, he observes, not all theologians agree with this opinion, nor do they consider it safe in practice, since it can hardly happen that all the conditions will be verified at one and the same time, as is necessary. 88 Das Kirchenrecht der Katkoliken und Protestanten in Deutschland, Vol. V, n. 307, pp. 684-685. 89 Loc. cit., p. 685. )’ '■ ' ; : ‘ Historical Summary 31 Because of this latter fact, the conclusion of the pontiff is that such religious communication will rarely be free from fault.30 In support of his stand he appeals to the instructions and decisions given by the Sacred Congregations and confirmed with his papal authority.01 Evi­ dently his teaching refers to active communication, for this same judgment is not applicable to all types of religious communication as will be seen in a later chapter. The theologians and canonists made their wider applications on this matter for places where Catholics live intermingled with non­ Catholics, those of the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth cen­ turies mentioning England and Germany particularly. Benedict XIV cites a ruling given by Paul V for the Catholics in England.32 The occasion for this papal action shows us one instance of a difficulty regarding religious communication which arose in that country. By the laws of Queen Elizabeth her Catholic subjects were obliged, under grave penalties, to enter the non-Catholic churches, and to be present at the religious services, as a sign of support of a false reli­ gion.90 9394 92 91 *98The theologians differed as to whether or not the laws could be obeyed, even only materially, to escape the penalties.84 Paul V gave a decision in 1606, saying the Catholics were not allowed to obey such laws,35 and the language he used indicated they would be guilty of mortal sin if they did obey them.30 Some theologians, 90De Synodo Diocesana, Lib. VI, Cap. V, n. 2, Opera Omnia, Tom. XI, pp. 158-159. Cf. Sylvius, Commentaria in Tertiam Partem S. Thomae Aquinatis, Tom. IV, q. 64, art. 6, q. 3, concl. 3, p. 172; De Lugo, De Virtute Fidei Divinae, Disp., 22, Sect. 1, η. 11, Disputationes Scholasticae et Morales, Tom. II, p. 86. 91 De Synodo Diocesana, loc. cit. 92 Loc. cit. 931, Eliz., Cap. II; 23, Eliz. Cap. I, Prothero, Select Statutes and other Constitutional Documents illustrative of the reigns of Elizabeth and James 1, pp. 17, 75-76. Cf. 3 and 4, Jac. I, Cap. IV, Cap. V, pp. 256, 257-262, 264-268. 94 Cf. De Lugo, De Virtute Fidei Divinae, Disp. XIV, Sect. V, § VI, η. 174, op. cit., Tom. I, pp. 562-564; Sanchez, Opus Morale in Praecepta Deca­ logi, Tom. I, Lib. II, Cap. IV, n. 27, pp. 97-98; Bonacina, Operum de Morali Theologia, Tom. II, Disp. Ill, Quaest. II, Punct. Ill, n. 22, p. 153; Laymann, Theologia Moralis, Lib. II, Tract. I, Cap. XI, n. 6, p. 153. 88 Cited by Suarez, Defensio Fidei, Lib. VI, Cap. IX, n. 16, Opera Omnia, Tom. XXIV, p. 707. 98 Suarez, loc. cit. 32 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics however, tried to evade this ruling, and the Pope had to issue a sim­ ilar one in the following year?7 As a result the milder view came to be held as no longer probable.98 A few years later the circumstances in parts of Germany provided an occasion for Catholics to enter into religious communication with Lutherans. In the Peace of Westphalia, 1648, it was provided that the religious status of the different sections of the country as of the year 1624 was to prevail, so that those in the hands of Catholics were to be Catholic, and those in the control of Lutherans, Lutheran. From this arrangement there devolved a territorial right of the pas­ tors. All the inhabitants of a parish, although of a different religious confession, were subject to the pastor; they were bound to him re­ garding baptism, marriage, and burial, although they lived according to their own faith, and could have their own chaplain and church for the exercise of their religion.99 An Instruction to the missionaries in the Orient issued by the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, in 1729, reveals a source of difficulties about religious communication. Previously, the missionaries had been instructed to abstain from acts expressive of a false sect, as well as from communication in a schismatic or heretical rite, and if any grave doubt occurred they were to consult learned theologians and missionaries, who were familiar with condi­ tions in the place. Some, however, took upon themselves the task of solving cases, and even published general practical rules, which complicated matters all the more, with harm to consciences and scan­ dal. Therefore, for the future, each missionary was commanded to obey the prescriptions of the Holy See.100 Besides confirming the solicitude of the Church on matters connected with religious com­ munication with non-Catholics, this Instructions reveals the tendency of individuals to reach different conclusions on more detailed, and more obscure points. It is to be admitted that some theologians have been liberal in 97 Salmanticenses, Cursus Theologiae Moralis, Tom. V, Tract. XXI, Cap. II, Punct. XI, n. 124, pp. 92-93. 98 Salmanticenses, loc. cit.; De Lugo, loc. cit.; Suarez, loc. cit. 89 Nottarp, “Zur Communicatio in Sacris cum Haereticis,” in Schriften der Konigsburger Gelehrten Gesellschaft, 9 Jahr, Geistes-Classe, Heft 4, 1933, p. 56. 1W> Coll. S.C.P.F., Vol. I, n. 311, pp. 99-100. Historical Summary 33 applying the Constitution Ad Evitanda. They did so, however, only in so far as they considered a matter of purely ecclesiastical law was involved. All took care not to allow any violation of the divine law. De Lugo, writing in reference to the reception of sacraments from heretics, says that the Constitution moderates the prohibition to communicate with heretics, only as a prohibition of human law.101 Suarez,102 Toletus,103 and Malderus104 also insist that the divine law must be preserved in this communication. Ken rick makes this gen­ eral observation: It is not allowed to communicate in divinis with heretics or schismatics; for although some theologians, interpreting the Con­ stitution of Martin V generously, taught it was licit at times, all admit it is wrong whenever it carries with it the profession of a false dogma, or the recognition of a usurped office: which gener­ ally happens.105 Two more instances, which show solicitude to prevent religious communication with non-Catholics, may be mentioned. Towards the end of the eighteenth century Pope Pius VI besought the Catholics in France to be faithful to their religion. His action was occasioned by the facts that some of the clergy had taken the oath of allegiance demanded by the Revolutionary government, and that many who were not priests had been placed in pastoral offices. He exhorted and warned the faithful “to avoid all usurpers, whether they were called archbishops, bishops, or pastors, in such a way as to have nothing in common with them, especially in sacred matters.” 106 The second 101 Di Virtute Fidei Divinae, Disp. XXII, Sect. I, η. 3, op. cit., Tom. II, p. 83. 102 De Fide, Spe, et Charitate, Disp. XXI, Sect. I, n. 4, Opera Omnia, Tom. XII, pp. 532-533. 103 Enarratio in Summam Theologiae S. Thomae Aquinatis, Tom. II, Quaest. X, De Infid., Art. VIII, p. 111. 104 De Virtutibus Theologicis, et Justitia, et Religione Commentaria ad Secundam Secundae D. Thomae, Quaest. Ill, art. 2, Memb. II, p. 102, seq. 105 Theologia Moralis, Tom. II, Tract. XXII, De Censuris, n. 61, p. 366, (author’s trans.). 106 Brief, Charitas, April 13, 1791, Bullarii Romani Continuatio Summorum Pontificum, Tom. VI, Pars III, p. 2332, (author’s trans.). Cf. Brief, Queste nuove lettere, March 19, 1792, oi>. cit.. p. 2486. Λ 34 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics instance happened in Rome. In 1875 the Cardinal Vicar forbade anyone to enter the churches of Protestants while conferences were being held, and declared that a person sinned gravely, who listened to the conferences of heretics, or assisted, even only materially, at non-Catholic ceremonies, even out of mere curiosity.107 The attitude of the Church today on this matter, as expressed in Canon Law, is found in canon 1258, § 1 and § 2: § 1. It is unlawful for Catholics to assist actively in any way at, or to take part in, the religious services of non-Catholics. § 2. A passive or merely material presence at fu­ nerals and weddings and similar solemnities of non­ Catholics may be tolerated for the sake of civil duty or honor, because of a grave reason, to be approved by the Bishop in a doubtful case, provided there is no danger of perversion or scandal present.108 Moreover, this law has penal sanctions. Canon 2316 declares that anyone who violates this canon is suspect of heresy. Catholics who contract marriage before a non-Catholic minister as such, contrary to the prescriptions of canon 1063, § 1, incur an excommunication re­ served to the Ordinary.109 A similar excommunication is incurred by those who knowingly presume to offer their children to be bap­ tized by non-Catholic ministers.110 0 107 ASS, Vol. XI, pp. 174-175. 108 §1. Haud licitum est fidelibus quovis modo active assistere seu par­ tem habere in sacris acatholicorum. § 2. Tolerari potest praesentia passiva seu mere materialis, civilis officii vel honoris causa, ob gravem rationem ab Episcopo in casu dubii probandam, in acatholicorum funeribus, nuptiis similibusque solemniis, dummodo perver­ sionis et scandali periculum absit. 109 Canon 2319, § 1, 1°. 110 Canon 2319, § 1, 3°. CHAPTER III THE MORALITY OF COMMUNICATION IN RELIGIOUS WORSHIP WITH NON-CATHOLICS Article I. General Principles on Morality In discussing the morality of religious communication with non­ Catholics our concern is to determine what is sinful in it, and what are the reasons underlying that sinfulness. This is to be an objective consideration. In other words, the determination of the moral bad­ ness of this matter is made on what it is in itself, not on the subjec­ tive attitude of the individual. For it is conceivable that a person could communicate formally in non-Catholic worship without realizing that his communication was objectively sinful. Moral evil in an human act is the result of the non-conformity of that act with the norms of morality. This non-conformity can arise from three sources: the moral object, the intention, and the moral circumstances. An human act derives its primary and essential morality from its moral object, namely, that with which it is primarily concerned as related to the norms of right and wrong. The moral object is intrinsically bad, when it is in direct opposition to the natural law; it is intrinsically bad, when it is not in harmony with positive law. Intrinsic moral badness can be absolute and immutable, or con­ ditional and mutable: absolute, when it is contrary to the order of things metaphysically necessary and immutable, for example, hatred of God; conditional, when it is contrary per se to an order of things hypothetically necessary and existing, for example, appropriating the property of another person. This can be changed per accidens in certain circumstances, so that, for example, the taking of another’s property can become licit at times.1 Intention and circumstances, as conformed or not conformed to 1 Aertnys-Damen, Theologia Moralis, Tom. I, n. S3, p. 49. a. 2 and a. S. Cf. I-II, q. 18, ’ t 36 Communication in Religious Worship with Ndn-Catholics the norms of morality, are secondary and accidental sources of mor­ ality, Intention can introduce a relationship to the norms of morality distinct from that of the moral object. For example, another kind of malice is added to stealing when one steals in order to become drunk.2 The circumstances of an human act as related to the norms of right and wrong are accidental to the morality of that act as derived from the moral object, but they must be considered in judg­ ing the full morality of an action, since, as in physical things the fullness of their physical being embraces both the substance and the accidents, in moral matters the fullness of morality includes the rela­ tionship of both the object and the circumstances of an action to the norms of morality. Thus the circumstance of place adds a special malice when a person commits an external act of impurity in a holy place. Per accidens intention and moral circumstances can become the primary sources of the morality of an human act.3 When an act is indifferent morally from both its object and its circumstances, the only source of the morality of that act will be the intention for which it is done. For a person in every human act must act with some intention, which must be either morally good or morally bad. An act, which is morally indifferent by reason of its object, can also become good or bad by reason of one or more of the moral circum­ stances. In that case the circumstances assume the character of moral objects, and become accidentally the primary sources of the goodness or badness of the individual act. Thus, although the play­ ing of an organ is morally indifferent in itself, when it is done as a part of a non-Catholic religious service, it becomes bad by reason of the circumstances making it an active participation in the non-Catholic religious service. Outside these cases moral circumstances in themselves have a varying effect on morality. Sometimes they become a kind of spe­ cific difference of the moral object, as in stealing a sacred object, when the primary species is given by the stealing, and the secondary il 2 Cf. Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis, Tom. I, n. 142, pp. 139-140. Cf. I-II, q. 18, a. 3 and a. 4. 3 Aertnys-Daxnen, op. cit., Tom. I, n. 54, p. 50. Cf. I-II, q. 18, a. 9 and a. 11. The Morality of Communication in Religious Worship 37 species by the circumstance of its being sacred. Sometimes they modify the morality of the object within the same species, aggravating or diminishing it.4 The morality of an external effect of an human act must be born in mind in a consideration of the morality of religious communication with non-Catholics. An external effect is something resulting from an action, not intended in itself. It is either voluntary in its cause, or merely permitted. In the latter event the effect is merely external. Per se, for a person to incur responsibility for an evil external effect, three conditions must be verified: (1) he must foresee the effect, at least confusedly; (2) he must be able not to place the cause, or to remove it, if it is placed; (3) he must have an obligation not to place the cause, so that the effect may not follow; hence the effect must be bad, not necessarily only in itself, but by reason of an obligation to avoid it.5 At times, however, a person does not incur moral responsi­ bility for an evil external effect, even though, per se, he would be obliged to avoid it. This is true whenever: (1) the action placed is good, or at least indifferent, for the placing of a cause which is bad in itself necessarily includes fault; (2) the evil effect is not intended either as a means or as an end, otherwise the evil effect would be voluntary in itself, or at least willed; (3) the good effect follows at least equally immediately with the bad (in the order of causality, not of time),6 for if the good effect follows mediately through the bad *Cf. Merkelbach, op. cit., Tom. I, nos. 151-152, pp. 145-147. 5 Aertnys-Damen, op. cit., Tom. I, n. 58, Quaer. 1°, p. 53. Cf. I-II, q. 73, a. 8; q. 77, a. 7; II-II, q. 64, a. 7 and a. 8; q. 79, a. 3, ad 3; q. 150, a. 4. e Priimmer takes exception to the wording of this condition. He thinks that it is impossible, at least in practice, for a good effect to be equally immediate with a bad effect, because the immediate effect is the effect of the work, which is one, and not twofold. He prefers this way of expressing it: “The good effect must follow of itself and, as it were, necessarily from the action, but the bad effect only accidentally, that is, because of particular circumstances, which occur to the agent against his will.” He says that the authors do not offer an example in which the good and bad effects are actually equally immediate, Manuale Theologiae Moralis, Tom. I, n. 58, pp. 46-47, (author’s trans.). An example is given by Noldin-Schmitt in which two effects proceed equally imme­ diately from a cause: the case of a surgeon amputating an arm, an action which causes both health and pain, because the cause is determined to produce these effects by its nature, Summa Theologiae Moralis, Vol. I, n. 83, p. 91. 38 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics effect, the latter is necessarily intended directly and in itself as a means; (4) a proportionately grave reason for placing the cause is present, that is, the good effect exceeds, or at least equals, the bad effect, because it is unreasonable to procure a good by an action from which a greater evil follows. Obviously this supposes that the good effect cannot be suitably obtained in another way, in which case there would be no justification for adducing the bad effect? A corollary of this obligation to avoid the moral imputability of an evil external effect is the obligation not to expose one’s self volun­ tarily to the danger of sinning. It is illicit to expose one’s self to this danger without a sufficient reason. For, if a person wills to put him­ self in an occasion of sin without a sufficient reason, he shows that he is not using the necessary means of avoiding sin. Whatever dan­ ger of sinning he wills only materially (without foreseeing it), pre­ cludes the guilt of formal sin. The obligation to avoid sin requires one to avoid the means which probably lead to it. Therefore, the obligation to avoid the proximate danger of committing a grave sin is grave per se, while the obligation to avoid the proximate danger of committing a venial sin is light. A proportionately grave and just reason can justify a person exposing himself to a proximate danger of grave sin. This is to be understood, however, with the provision that there is hope of overcoming the evil, and this must be made morally sure by taking suitable precautions to make a proximate danger remote. It is venially wrong to expose one’s self to the remote danger of committing a grave sin without some reason. Any reason­ able cause, however, will make it licit. For, it is unreasonable to place an action without any reason, with which there is joined some danger of sinning.78 In connection with the morality of religious communication it must be remembered that one and the same action can have a mul­ tiple badness. In other words, one and the same action can include as many sins as there are total moral objects not in harmony with the norms of morality. St. Alphonsus holds this as the more common 7 Cf. Aertnys-Damen, loc. cit., Quaer. 3°, pp. 54-55; Merkelbach, op. cit., Tom. I, n. 173, pp. 165-166. 8 Cf. Merkelbach, op. cit., Tom. I, n. 177, pp. 169-170, Tom. Ill, nos. 664665, pp. 631-634; Aertnys-Damen, op. cit., Tom. II, n. 473, IV, p. 326. The Morality of Communication in Religious Worship 39 opinion. He teaches: (1) an act regarding several numerically dis­ tinct objects from the moral standpoint is morally speaking equiva­ lent to several acts; (2) the same act can include several malices not only specifically distinct, but also numerically so, as when a married man has sexual relations with a married woman. Although the physical act is one, it can well be multiple morally, when that act is equivalent to many by reason of distinct objects in the moral order, as in the example given, which involves two sins of injustice.® Leaving aside the speculative discussion on what is the source of the specific distinction of sins, which can be found in most manuals of Moral Theology, in this treatise the specific distinction of sins is considered to arise from a double root according to the virtues, namely, (l)from opposition to different virtues, and (2) from a diverse opposition to the same virtue, which can happen by excess or defect, and by opposition to different duties of the same virtue. The virtue of religion provides a good example of the latter opposition. It forbids idolatry, and the use of a superfluous and a false cult of God, in so far as it prohibits both giving the cult which is due to God to a creature, and honoring God with a vicious cult.8 *10 With these moral principles in mind, we shall now enter upon the consideration of the morality of communicating with non-Catholics in their religious worship. The possibility of a multiple morality in a single human act will find actualization in this complex moral question. The principles on the permission of an evil external effect will have to be used in the discussion of material communication. We shall consider formal communication first. Article II. The Morality of Formal Communication A. In Public Non-Catholic Worship There is a multiple morality in every act of formal communica­ tion in public non-Catholic worship. First, the virtue of faith is violated. This virtue obliges all Catholics, negatively, never to deny their faith. As a negative obligation it necessarily binds always and 8 St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, Lib. V, n. 45, ed. Gaudé, Tom. II, pp. 741-742. Cf. St. Thomas, II Sent., Dist. 42, q. 1, a. 1, corp. 10 Cf. Aertnys-Damen, op. cit., Tom. I, nos. 222-223, p. 174. 40 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics in every case {semper et ad semper). The prohibition to deny the faith is of the divine law, as is evident from Holy Scripture. Our Lord said: Everyone who acknowledges Me before men, I also will ac­ knowledge him before My Father in heaven. But whoever dis­ owns Me before men, I in turn will disown him before My Father in heaven.11 For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, of him the Son of Man will be ashamed when He comes in His glory and that of the Father and of the holy angels.12 St. Paul said to the Romans: “For with the heart a man believes unto justice, and with the mouth profession of faith is made unto salva­ tion.” 13 The obligation not to deny faith is confirmed by the con­ duct of the Machabees, who suffered death rather than do so. If this was necessary in the Old Law, it is all the more so in the New Law. Hence, the denial of the faith is wrong, not because there is a special prohibition in the New Law, but rather because it is by its very nature forbidden, supposing the truth of the faith; 14 it is in­ trinsically wrong. The denial of the faith is a sin against faith, because the external confession of the faith being an acknowledgment of the truth revealed by God, is based on the formal object of faith, the authority of God revealing. Therefore, there is a proper, special, and distinct goodness in confessing the faith arising from the virtue of faith. Consequently a denial of the faith is properly against the virtue of faith.15 A denial of the faith may be effected either by word or by actions, either explicitly or implicitly.16 In general, it can be said that actions are signs which are ordinarily used to express our mind, and, there­ fore, can be used to signify a denial of the faith. Since, however, actions are signs, which are not so expressive as words, there can be 11 Matthew 10/32-33. 12 Luke 9/26. 13 Romans 10/10. 14 Suarez, De Fide, Disp. XIV, Sect. I, n. 2, Opera Omnia, Tom. XII, p. 382. Ci. St. Alphonsus, op. cit., Lib. II, n. 12, ed. Gaudé, Tom. I, p. 306. 15 Suarez, loc. cit., n. 7, p. 383. 16 Suarez, loc. cit., n. 8, p. 383; Aertnys-Damen, op. cit., Tom. I, n. 312, III, p. 235; Merkelbach, op. cit., Tom. I. n· 712, pp. 553-554; and others. The Morality oj Communication in Religious VP orship 41 greater difficulty and obscurity when they are used. Certain actions are ordained primarily and in themselves, both by their nature and by usage, to the support of the body, or some other similar utility, but sometimes because of the circumstances and of the manner in which they are used, they are ordained to the practice, or exercise, of religion, as the use of certain foods in such a way as to constitute fasting. Other actions are ordained solely to signify religious cult, either by their nature, or by their institution and use, as to genuflect, strike the breast, offer incense, and so forth?7 The use of actions of either kind, even only materially by way of simulation, when they constitute an act of false worship, is an implicit denial of the faith,17 1819 and a formal communication in that worship. For when a person exercises an act of a false religion, by that fact he implicitly affirms that he is a believer in that religion, because the signification of such acts is that of a false cult; such acts in the particular instance have no other moral use. Since this signification is inseparably connected with them, they may not be used, even only fictitiously or materially, or even for a good purpose, because a bad action can never be done as a means to attain a good. Laymann, in defending the doctrine that the simulation of a false religion is contrary to the virtue of faith, uses an analogy with the virtue of veracity: veracity obliges us positively to speak the truth sincerely and frankly when necessity or circumstances require, and negatively never to lie or to simulate the contrary falsehood by word or deed; so the virtue of faith obliges us more strictly and gravely both positively and negatively,—negatively that we never profess or simulate the falsity opposed to faith.10 The Salmanticenses say that material simulation can never be licit in 17 Suarez, loc. cit., Sect. IV, n. 2, p. 391. Cf. Salmanticenses, Cursus Theo­ logiae Moralis, Tom. V, Tract. XXI, Cap. II, n. 103, p. 89; Salmanticenses, Cursus Theologicus, Tom. XI, Tract. XVII, De Fide, Disp. VII, Dub. I, n. 32, p. 361 ; Sporer, Theologiae Moralis Super Decalogum, Tom. I, Tract. II, in I Praecepto Decalogi, Cap, II, Assert. V, § IV, II, p. 170; Busembaum, in La Croix, Theologia Moralis, Tom. I, Lib. II, Tract. I, Cap. Ill, n. 54, XI, p. 169. 18 Suarez, loc. cit., n. 4, p. 392; I-II, q. 3, a. 2 ; De Valentia, Commentarii Theologici in totam Summam S. Thomae Aq., Disp. I, Tom. Ill, Qu. 3, Punct. II, Dub. 4, p. 412; Merkelbach, loc. cit.; Aertnys-Damen, loc. cit. 19 Theologia Moralis, Lib. II, Tract. I, Cap. XI, n. 3, p. 152. He says this doctrine on the simulation of a false religion is common teaching. 42 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics matters that signify a false belief, and the intention of the agent can never rectify the signification; therefore, since the simulation of a false religion always signifies something false, it can never be exempted from formal simulation.20 Adrian is quoted as holding that a material use of signs of this kind could be made in certain proportionately grave circumstances.21 He bases his opinion, first, on passages from St. Jerome where it is said that the Apostles at times tacitly observed the ceremonies of the Old Law, which were dead and deadly 22 from the moment of Christ’s death, because they did so, not with an intention of cult, but through a prudent simulation.23 Secondly, he adduces the ex­ ample of Naaman and Eliseus from the Old Testament. He claims that Naaman, a Gentile convert to the true God, asked Eliseus for permission to be allowed to enter the temple of the idols with the king to genuflect, or adore, fictitiously. The prophet told him to go in peace.24 Thirdly, he argues that material simulation, which can be had in this case, is sometimes licit. Material simulation is present if the person does not intend to signify what is false, nor to deceive another, but intends to perform the action as a useful means to another good purpose, permitting the deception of another. These arguments can be refuted. Regarding the first, the Apostles never simulated the use of ceremonies prohibited by law. In the brief period of time in which they observed some of the Jewish cere­ monies, these were not deadly, although they were dead. The opinion of St. Augustine, of many later writers, and of practically all scholas­ tic theologians is that the ceremonial precepts of the Old Law were not deadly from the beginning of the New Law, but became deadly 20 Cursus Theologiae Moralis, lac. cit. 31IV Sent., De Baptismo, Qu. I, a. 1, ad 5. 22 “Dead” means the obligation to use the ceremonies had been taken away ; “deadly” means their use was forbidden, so as to bring on the death of the soul, if use was made of them, Suarez, De Legibus, Lib. IX, Cap. XIV, n. 1, Opera Omnia, Tom. \T, p. SOI. 23 Commentarium in Epistolam ad Galatas, Lib. I, Cap. II, vers. 3 seq. PL, Tom. XXVI, cols. 333-341; Epistola CXII, ad Augustinum, nos. 4-18, CSEL, Vol. LV, pp. 370-388. 24 IV Kings 5/18-19. The Morality of Communication in Religious Worship 43 after a period of time.25 Therefore, they could licitly observe them with a true intention of honoring God, which could be done without simulation, but not by placing in them the hope of salvation. In the incident from Holy Scripture, Naaman did not ask for permission to simulate the adoration of an idol, but only to accompany the king into the temple in order to fulfill his duties as a servant. This con­ stituted merely a ministry of civil duty, and was not a participation, even simulated, in a sacred ceremony. In response to the argument from reason, it can be said that material simulation cannot be had in the case, because the primary signification of actions of this kind cannot be removed by a good intention on the part of the person placing them.20 This judgment applies, then, to actions which have a religious signification by their very nature, or by institution, or by usage, in the circumstances in which they are employed. For example, to put incense on a fire is an indifferent action in itself. But when it is put on a fire in a way instituted for religious cult, that signification is inseparable, morally speaking, from the action. It is to be noted, however, that institutions and usages can change in the common estimation of the people. Things, which at one time had an in­ separable signification of religious cult, can lose that signification, and come to be looked upon as acts of mere etiquette, or civil cour­ tesy. After the rise and spread of Protestantism, in places where Catholics and heretics formed a mixed community, certain things, while connected with religious matters, were recognized as not signify­ ing a false sect either in themselves or in their circumstances. Some of these matters were indifferent in themselves, as the mere entering of churches. Others were matters which in some localities were re­ garded as significative of false worship, while in places where Catholics lived intermixed with heretics, they were not held in this significa­ tion; an example was the acting as sponsor at the heretical baptism of a child of heretics.27 In this case, however, the attitude was due «Cf. Suarez, op. cit., Cap. XVII, n. 18, pp. 517-518. 26 Suarez, De Fide, Disp. XIV, Sect. IV, nos. 2-9, op. cit., Tom. XII, pp. 391-394. 27 Sporer, op. cit., Tom. I, Tract. II, in I Praecepto Decalogi, Cap. II, Assert. V, § IV, II, p. 170; Busembaum, in La Croix, op. cit., Tom. I, Lib. II, Tract. I, Cap. Ill, n. 54, XI, p. 169. ■tSl. * I I 44 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics to an erroneous notion, since it is something that is never objectively lawful. Further examples of this change of attitude are to be found in two Instructions issued in recent years by the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith.28 The Ordinaries can permit the faithful to become partici­ pators in all those ceremonies, which, although they originated from superstition, now from the circumstances of places and per- , sons, and from the common estimation, retain only a meaning of urbanity and mutual benevolence.20 It is evident that some ceremonies in the lands of Orientals, although formerly connected with pagan rites, now, by reason of a change of custom and attitude in the course of centuries, have only a civil signification of piety towards ancestors, or of love of country, or of urbanity towards the neighbor.30 This principle on the intrinsic unlawfulness of formal communica­ tion, or active participation, as constituting at least an implicit denial of the faith always holds. Such participation is intrinsically and gravely wrong, for ( 1 ) if the worship is non-Catholic in its form ( for example, Mohammedan ablutions, a Jewish paschal meal, the right hand of fellowship), it expresses a belief in the false creed sym­ bolized; (2) if the worship is Catholic in form, but is under the auspices of a non-Catholic body (for example, Baptism by a Prot­ estant minister, Mass by a schismatic priest), it expresses either faith in a false religious body, or rebellion against the true Church.31 This might seem to admit of exceptions in the matter of the sac­ raments, which are possessed not only by the churches in union with Rome but also by Eastern Schismatic Churches, and, in some rare instances, by isolated schismatic groups and by an heretical sect to which a Catholic priest has gone over.32 It must be emphasized, how28 Instructio ad Delegatum Apostolicum in Japonia, A AS, Vol. XXVIII (1936), pp. 408-409; Instructio Circa Quasdam Caeremonias et Juramentum Super Ritibus Sinensibus, AAS, Vol. XXXII (1940), pp. 24-23. AAS, Vol. XXVIII (1936), loc. cit., p. 409, (author’s trans.). 30 AAS, Vol. XXXII (1940), loc. cit., p. 24, (author’s trans.). Cf. AertnysDamen, op. cit., Tom. I, n. 314, Quaer. 8°, for further instructions of Propa­ ganda. These instructions appeared in Osservatore Romano, July 2, 1936, but never in AAS. 31 McHugh-Callan, Moral Theology, Vol. I, n. 964, p. 376. 32 There can be no question of sacred things instituted by the Church, as , s j | I . i The Morality of Communication in Religious Worship 45 ever, that ordinarily communication in the sacraments with such val­ idly ordained, but heretical or schismatic ministers, even when a Catholic rite is used, involves a betrayal of the Catholic religion; it implies a recognition of the authority of the minister and of the sect.33 Some sacraments may be received from validly ordained priests of a non-Catholic sect, but only in circumstances which eliminate him as functioning as a minister of a non-Catholic sect, and which remove any recognition of the sect. In such cases there is no exception to the principle which has been stated; the Church authorizes such ministers to act in her name in certain circumstances, thus removing any ac­ knowledgment of an unauthorized minister and his religious body. To justify such communication in the sacraments there must be the extraordinary circumstance of extreme necessity, as well as the re­ moval of any signification contrary to the faith, scandal, and danger of perversion. This will be treated in the next chapter. As a corollary it can be said that it is never lawful to have formal com­ munication in a Mass of a minister of an unauthorized sect, who is validly ordained, unless he would be completing the Mass of a Catho­ lic priest. This case, too, will be considered in the next chapter. the sacramentals. For the Church can, and does, restrict the reception of them ; she permits it only from her authorized ministers. Similar sacramentals found in non-Catholic sects are used by those sects as symbols of unity and harmony among the members of the sect, and imply a unity of belief and practice. Therefore, communication in them is contrary to the divine law as an approba­ tion of an unauthorized religious sect and its errors. Cf. Instructio S. C. S. Officii, June 22, 1839, Coll. S.C.P.F., Vol. I, n. 1176, p. 642. 33 Merkelbach, op. cit., Tom. I, n. 755, p. 584. Vermeersch, in harmony with the opinion regarding the reception of the sacraments from heretics and schismatics, mentioned in the last chapter, states that such participation is not illicit in itself. He says it will be illicit because of harm to one’s self or to the neighbor. The evils to be feared are: the authority given to heresy or schism, and the spread of indifferentism. When these evils concern a number of people, this circumstance is to be considered in judging an excuse. He implies the pro­ hibition of the Church is the reason why sacraments cannot be received from them outside a case of extreme necessity. This opinion, however, seems to con­ sider the unauthorized ministers only as excommunicated individuals, and not as ministers representing a religious sect. Hence, we believe that a violation of the divine law is concerned in such communication when the minister is not representing the Church, because of the recognition of an unauthorized sect and minister. Cf. Vermeersch, op. cit., Tom. II, n. 52, b), p. 45. 46 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics The Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, in dealing with this matter of religious communication with heretics and schis­ matics of the Orient, mentions that there is scarcely any rite among them which is not tainted with some error in the matter of faith, for in their churches either there is dedication in memory of some schis­ matic, who is venerated as a saint, or feasts are celebrated of those who died in schism, or there is commemoration of living schismatic and heretical Patriarchs and Bishops, who are commended as preachers of the Catholic faith.34 Another sin against faith, which can enter into formal communi­ cation, is the danger of perversion in the faith for the party com­ municating.35 One may be attracted by the worship, influenced by the sermons, or solicited by the non-Catholics to such a degree as to abandon the Catholic faith, and to go over to a non-Catholic sect. Because of every person’s obligation to profess the Catholic faith, one who has it may not expose himself, without a grave cause, to the danger of losing it. This danger is not always present, especially when a person is strong in the faith; but those who are weak in the faith generally place themselves in a proximate danger of perversion. The question might arise as to whether one who denies his faith externally only by formal communication in non-Catholic worship is a heretic. Heresy is defined as a voluntary and pertinacious error, or doubt, of a Christian concerning one, or more, truths, which must be believed by divine and Catholic faith. The error, or doubt, must be in the person’s mind, not merely implied in his actions. Therefore, in our case the person would not be guilty of the sin of heresy. Canon 2316 declares him suspect of heresy. Secondly, formal communication in the religious worship of non­ Catholics includes a violation of the virtue of religion, as an act of idolatrous or superstitious cult, or a co-operation towards it.38 Su­ perstition is the cult of a false deity or an unlawful cult of the true God.37 One form of cult of a false deity is idolatry, which consists ™ Instructio pro Missionariis Orientis, 1729, Coll. S.C.P.F., Vol. I, n 311 p. 100. a5 Loc. cit., Coll. S.C.P.F., p. 99. 30 Suarez, loc. cit., n. 5, p. 392. 37 Aertnys-Damen, op. cit., Tom. I, n. 416, p. 314. The Morality of Communication in Religious Worship 47 in giving divine cult to creatures. For idolatry it suffices that divine honor be given externally to a creature by an external action. Idola­ try, whether done with the intention of adoring, or only fictitiously, is a most grave sin against the divine majesty, since it gives the honor due to God to a creature. Fictitious idolatry is a pernicious lie against religion, and is opposed to the external profession of faith, as has been seen.38 This species of sin will be committed when a person formally communicates in pagan or atheistic worship, or adores the eucharist of heretics, which is not really consecrated. It is superstition, also, to honor the true God with a false cult. As such cult bases the exercise of religion on what is not true, it generally inflicts grave injury to the divine truth. This is the com­ mon teaching of theologians.39 Whatever deviates from a virtue by excess or defect is a vice. This form of superstition deviates from the virtue of religion by excess, not because it gives more to divine cult than the true religion, but because it gives divine cult in a way which is not true. Therefore, this form of superstition is a vice.40 St. Thomas says that the superstition in which a false cult is given to the true God, contains a lie; the lie is pernicious by its very nature, because it is in matters pertaining to the religion of God. This lie can happen in two ways, either on the part of the thing signified, from which the signification of the cult is in discord, or on the part of the person exercising the cult, and this especially in public cult, which is given by ministers in the person of the whole Church. He exercises a false cult who shows cult to God in a manner which is contrary to the manner established by the Church on divine authority, and cus­ tomary in the Church.41 An example of a lie on the part of the thing signified is the use of the Jewish rites of the Old Law; they were instituted as signs of future things, and their use implies their fulfill­ ment has not taken place. The falsity on the part of the one wor­ shiping consists in this that he offers in worship what neither Christ nor His Church wishes to be offered in their name. He falsely affirms 38 Aertnys-Damen, loc. cit., nos. 417-418, pp. 314-315. 39 Aertnys-Damen, loc. cit., n. 417, p. 314; St. Alphonsus, op. cit., Lib. Ill, n. 3, ed. Gaudé, Tom. I, p. 370. 40 II-II, q. 92, a. 1. Cf. Suarez, De Religione, Tract. Ill, Lib. II, Cap. II, | 48 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics that another, in whose name he worships, offers in worship what he offers. Suarez says that it seems that a person, who pretends to be a priest and to offer sacrifice, lies in this way. There is falsity in the thing he signifies by the words he utters, for what he affirms to be truly the Body and Blood of Christ, is not; there is falsity, too, in acting as a minister of Christ, and as constituted to offer sacrifice in His name. This latter type of falsity can be found even in a true priest, who is not a member of the Catholic Church, and who, never­ theless, offers sacrifice in the name of the Church, and prays publicly in it.42 Examples of both kinds of falsity on the part of the one worshiping are given by theologians as acts of false cult. It is an act of false cult for a lay person to attempt to celebrate Mass or to hear confessions, or for a priest to change the matter or the form in administering the sacraments.43 Merkelbach expresses an example in a general way: a minister performing ceremonies, administering the sacraments, in a rite contrary to the will and ordination of the Church.44 Therefore, the ceremonial rites of the Jews, the sacrifices and the sacramental ministrations of those who act as if they were priests (which applies especially to Anglican ministers), the ministration of the sacraments by validly ordained ministers in a non-Catholic rite are acts of a superstitious cult of God. Furthermore, as a conse­ quence of what was said in Chapter I, any public worship of the true God outside the Catholic Church constitutes a superstitious cult of God; no other Church is authorized to give true public cult to God. For a Catholic to communicate formally in such worship is a grave sin against the virtue of religion, as a false exercise of it. Since, in communicating formally, he unites himself with the act of false wor­ ship, he commits a sin of irréligion, at least by reason of his co­ operation. This brings us to a consideration of the violations of the virtue of charity contained in an act of formal communication in non­ Catholic worship. The obligations of the virtue of charity, as nega­ tive, are violated when acts opposed to charity are placed. Acts of 42 Suarez, loc. cit., nos. 7 and 11, pp. 475-476. 43 Aertnys-Damen, loc. cit., Tom. I, n. 416, p. 314. 44 Op. cit., Tom. II, n. 772, b), p. 762. The Morality of Communication in Religious Worship 49 spiritual beneficence towards ourselves and our neighbor are obliga­ tory by the virtue of charity. Unjustifiable co-operation in the sin of the neighbor and scandal are violations of this obligation of spiritual beneficence. Co-operation, in its more strict meaning, is physical or moral con­ currence to the sinful action of another who is already determined to act.45 Co-operation may be formal or material. Formal co­ operation is that which concurs in the bad will of the other person, and this cannot be without sin.46 Concurrence in the bad will of another can be had in two ways : ( 1 ) by reason of the purpose of the work (finis operis}, when the very act by which co-operation is ren­ dered is ordained to sin; in performing an action of this kind implicit consent is necessarily given to the sin; (2) by reason of the purpose of the person acting (finis operantis}, when his precise intention is that the other execute his bad will, or that he do so more easily. In both cases the sin of the neighbor is willed, directly and in itself, by the co-operator.47 In regard to the first way of concurring in the bad will of another, it is to be noted that there is an implicit inten­ tion of the sin of the principal agent not only when an action is placed which is always wrong by reason of its moral object, but also when an action is placed which is morally indifferent in itself, but which is necessarily wrong by reason of moral circumstances. In such a case the sinfulness is inseparable from the action. For example, play­ ing the organ is morally indifferent in itself, but playing it during a non-Catholic religious service is morally wrong, because of the cir­ cumstances making it an active participation in the non-Catholic re­ ligious service. Again, the actions employed in serving Mass are morally indifferent in themselves, but to use them to serve the “Mass” of an Anglican minister is wrong, and necessarily includes grave sin. Material co-operation is that which concurs toward the bad action of the neighbor, and not in his bad will. This type of co-operation 45 Aertnys-Damen, op. cit., Tom. I, η. 397, pp. 294-295. 4β St. Alphonsus, op. cit., Lib. II, n. 63, ed. Gaudé, Tom. I, p. 356. 47 Aertnys-Damen, loc. cit., n. 398, p. 295. Cf. Konings, Theologia Moralis, Vol. I, n. 303, pp. 136-137; Vermeersch, op. cit., Tom. II, n. 129, pp. 105-106; Priimmer, op. cit., Tom. I, n. 617, pp. 447-448, 50 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics is present when a person, without a bad intention, does something which is indifferent, and is not ordained by its nature to sin, but which the other person abuses for sinning. Hence, in material co­ operation the sin of the other is never directly willed by the co­ operator. It is either merely permitted, or voluntary in cause, ac­ cording to whether or not there is a proportionate cause justifying the co-operation. Material co-operation is proximate or remote according as it conduces proximately or remotely to the execution of the sin.4849 Formal co-operation in the sin of another is always intrinsically wrong. The reason is evident from its very nature, for it includes an affection of the will to sin. Material co-operation is generally illicit; it may be licit at times for a just and proportionate cause.43 The lawfulness of material co-operation depends on the fulfillment of the conditions governing the permission of an evil external effect.50 Formal co-operation always contains a sin of the same kind as that of the principal agent, besides the violation of charity, because the sin of the other person is always directly voluntary to the formal co-operator.51 The authors do not agree whether an illicit material co-operator commits this additional species of sin. This question will come up again in the consideration of indirect scandal, and will be discussed there more in detail. It suffices to say here that it seems that, besides a violation of charity, a sin of the same kind as that of the principal agent is committed by the material co-operator, because he culpably wills that sin indirectly. Each virtue forbids what is op­ posed to it both directly and indirectly.52 Formal communication in idolatrous or false cult is to be con­ sidered as a formal co-operation in irréligion. Any active assistance or participation in such worship is a formal co-operation. By active assistance a person unites himself religiously with the other wor­ shipers, and this is intrinsically wrong. An example of active as48 Aertnys-Damen, loc. cit., n. 398, 2°, p. 295, 49 Cf. St. Alphonsus, op. cit., Lib. II, nos. 59 and 63, ed. Gaudé, Tom. I, pp. 356-357. 50 Aertnys-Damen, loc. cit., Tom. I, n. 399, I, II, p. 296. 51 Aertnys-Damen, loc. cit., n. 399, III, p. 296. 52 Cf. Aertnys-Damen, loc. cit., Tom. I, n. 399, III, p. 296; Merkelbach, op. cit., Tom. I, n. 489, c), p. 401. . f Hi J ■ ........ : . . 'i The Morality of Communication in Religious Worship 51 sistance would be to be attentive with religious decorum during the services, or to be active in any way with one’s own external actions.53 There is clearly a formal co-operation when there is question of a participation in what is essential in the service, as to receive the eucharist of heretics. An active participation in what is accidental in such worship, as singing, even though the hymns be orthodox in their content, or playing the organ in a religious service, is also a formal co-operation.5* Such activity implies an approval of the cult, for it is intended to add beauty, attractiveness, and appeal to the service ; this implication is inseparable from any subjective attitude of the one actively participating in accidentals. In other words, all accidental ac­ tivity of a religious nature is as wrong, by reason of the circumstances, as that which is essentially a part of the service. Whatever activity in a non-Catholic service has a specifically religious character, whether by its nature, or by reason of the circumstances, is intrinsically wrong, as a profession of the belief of a false sect.55 Since such activity in the exercise of idolatrous or false worship is intrinsically wrong, it cannot be reduced to merely material co-operation.56 An objection cannot be made on the score that the sin of irréligion on the part of the non-Catholics is only material. Even if that is true, co-operation in it in a formal way is not licit. For one is never allowed to co­ operate formally in something which is intrinsically wrong objectively. Although the other person may not be subjectively guilty of sin, the formal co-operator incurs the guilt of the virtues violated, for he does something he knows to be intrinsically wrong. The second violation of charity, which can be present in formal religious communication with non-Catholics, is the sin of scandal. Scandal can be considered as active, or as passive. Active scandal is a word, or a deed, which is evil in itself, or has the appearance of evil, and offers the occasion of spiritual ruin to another.57* This type 53Blat, Commentarium Textus Codicis luris Canonici, Lib. Ill, Pars 3, η. 128, p. 165. Si Cf. Augustine, A Commentary on Canon Law, Vol. VI, p. 197. »s De Meester, op. cit., Lib. Ill, Pars I, n. 1252, 2°, pp. 153-154. 56 Konings, op. cit., Vol. I, n. 313, 1), p. 142. Cf. Génicot-Salsmans, Insti­ tutiones Theologiae Moralis, Tom. I, η. 198, p. 149. st II-II, q. 43, a. 1, corp, and ad 2. ;‘ ( «■ 52 « S3 casion inducing to sin given by indirect scandal is the moral cause of the sin of the neighbor, which is substantially equivalent to a cause directly inducing to sin, since without it the neighbor would not sin.63 Marc-Gestermann61 and Aertnys-Damen65 argue for this same opinion. St. Alphonsus does not reject the probability of the opposite opinion. Both sides are probable, but it seems that the intrinsic argu­ ments for the opinion holding that there is a violation of the virtue sinned against by the neighbor are stronger. This opinion will make a practical difference in confessing a sin of indirect scan­ dal, for the specific virtue, of which there was an occasion for a viola­ tion, will have to be mentioned.66 Furnishing an occasion for accepted scandal is sometimes sinful; sometimes it can be, and even should be, permitted. Scandal of the weak and Pharisaical scandal must be permitted, when they cannot be avoided without harm to one’s own salvation, or without other grave harm, especially of the community, which we are bound to prevent. This principle is based on the order of charity, which de­ mands that we prefer ourselves to our neighbor, and choose to pre­ vent grave harm to an innocent person in preference to the sin of another, committed freely. Outside of these cases, the two following principles hold. Giving scandal of the weak must be avoided, when it is possible without grave inconvenience; otherwise it can be per­ mitted. For charity obliges us to hinder the sins of the neighbor when we can do so easily, and without grave inconvenience. Giving Pharisaical scandal can be permitted if there is any cause for acting. This scandal arises from malice only, but some cause is required to permit it, because charity demands that we do not offer an occasion of sinning without a reason, even to one who will sin out of malice.61 There will always be direct scandal in formal religious communi­ cation, if a person is asked, counseled, commanded, and so forth, of scandal is of two kinds: (1) direct, when the sin of the other is intended, as by command, counsel, or seduction; (2) indirect, when the sin of the other is not intended, but it is foreseen that the sin will follow from the action, in so far as the action, by its very nature, impels to sin.58 Passive scandal is the sin into which a person falls upon the occasion of a word or deed of another. Passive scandal is also of two kinds: (1) given (scandalum datum), which arises from active scandal; (2) accepted (scandalum acceptum), which does not follow from active scandal, but happens when a person takes an oc- ’ casion of sinning from a word, or a deed, of another, which is wholly right. If accepted scandal is the result of ignorance, or moral weak­ ness, it is called scandal of the weak; if it is the effect of malice, it is called Pharisaical scandal .SB Active scandal, both direct and indirect, is a special sin against charity, and that grave ex genere suo. It is directly opposed both to the edification of the neighbor, and to the duty of fraternal correc­ tion by which we are bound to remove the neighbor from sin; fra­ ternal correction is a special precept of charity, and, therefore, the violation of it is a special sin. Direct active scandal is a sin also against the virtue which is violated as a result of the inducement. Each virtue obliges us not only not to violate it ourselves, but also not to move others to do so.60 '· Today theologians more commonly hold that indirect scandal is | a violation of charity only.61 They say there is present a mere per- : mission of the will regarding the violation of another virtue.62 St. Alphonsus holds that even indirect scandal includes a violation of 1 the virtue sinned against by the neighbor. He argues that the oc-68 68 Cf. II-II, q. 43, a. 3. 90 For the general doctrine on scandal, cf. also Aertnys-Damen, of. cit., Tom. I, nos. 376-377, pp. 283-284; Merkelbach, of. cit., Tom. I, nos. 958961, 964, pp. 729-732, 734; St. Alphonsus, op. cit., Lib. II, n. 43, ed. Gaudé, Tom. I, p. 336; II-II, q. 43, a. 1-8. 60 Aertnys-Damen, loc. cit., n. 380, p. 286. Cf. Merkelbach, loc. cit., nos. 959-960, pp. 730-731. 61 Marc-Gestermann, Institutiones Morales Alphonsianae, Tom. I n. 507, note 1, p. 328. 62 Lehmkuhl, Theologia Moralis, Tom. I, n. 789, p. 435. Cf. Merkelbach, loc. cit., n. 960, and note 1, p. 731. π The Morality of Communication in Religious Worship Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics k : 63 Op. cit., Lib. II, n. 45, ed. Gaudé, Tom, I, pp. 339-340. 84 Loc. cit. 65 Loc. cit., n. 380, II, pp. 286-287. co st. Alphonsus refers to some authors who held that direct scandal, without intending the spiritual ruin of the neighbor, and indirect scandal, were not violations of charity. He rejects this opinion. Loc. cit., n. 45, pp. 338-339. er Aertnys-Damen, loc. cit., n. 382, pp. 287-288; St. Alphonsus, loc. cit., nos. 49-50, pp. 345-346. 54 ill® Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics to participate actively in non-Catholic worship, or to go to the exer­ cise of this worship with an approval of the cult. Such conduct in­ tends the objective sin of formal communication. For example, this can happen easily when negligent Catholic parents send their children to non-Catholic services for the practice of religion, or send them to schools, where they must participate actively in non-Catholic re­ ligious services. Formal communication will involve direct scandal, too, when a Catholic asks for ministerial acts which cannot be per­ formed without sin. Thus a Catholic will be guilty of direct scandal: who asks for blessings and sacramentals from non-Catholic ministers; who asks for sacraments from one who is not validly ordained; who asks for sacraments, even a necessary one, from a validly ordained minister, who will administer them in a non-Catholic rite; who asks for a necessary sacrament from a validly ordained minister outside a case of extreme necessity; who requests a Mass from a validly ordained priest of a non-Catholic sect. To ask another for something which he cannot give without sin is intrinsically wrong, even if he is prepared to sin, because it directly induces at least to the exercise and continuation of the sin.88 Indirect scandal can be present when a Catholic, who communi­ cates formally, is known to be a Catholic. Both Catholics and non­ Catholics can be scandalized. The bad example can induce other Catholics to communicate in the same way. Non-Catholics can be­ come more bold, and more pertinacious in adhering to their sect and their error, because of the action of the Catholic.89 Frequency of formal communication will make the possibility of scandal all the more sure. To run the probable risk of either of these effects is sufficient to incur the guilt of scandal, as is evident from the moral principles mentioned. The Sacred Congregation for the Propaga­ tion of the Faith has said, in an Instruction, that the danger and occasion of scandal are generally (regulariter} present in religious communication with heretics and schismatics. In the course of the In68 Cf. St. Alphonsus, loc. cit., n. 47, p. 344; Merkelbach, op. cit., Tom I, n. 968, I, pp. 737-738. 80 Cf. Suarez, De Fide, Disp. XXI, Sect. I, n. 4, Opera Omnia, Tom. XII, p. 533; Defensio Fidei, Lib. VI, Cap. IX, n. 27, Opera Omnia, Tom. XXIV, p. 712. The Morality of Communication in Religious Worship 55 struction it is stated that external conformity in the same cult with heretics and schismatics of the Orient, and reverence to pseudo­ ministers of the liturgy, cannot free any Catholic from the danger of scandal. Because almost every rite of the heterodox is stained with error in faith, Catholics who act with them in the celebration of rites, prayers, and cult cannot be freed from pernicious scandal. It mentions, on the other hand, that, since the Orientals consider the Catholic communion as perverse, when they see Catholics participat­ ing in their rites, it is to be believed, or at least feared, that such conduct on the part of Catholics will confirm them in their errors. The danger of pernicious scandal of the heretics and schismatics can be avoided only with the greatest difficulty. Therefore, because of this fact Catholics are not safe in conscience if they communicate with them in religious worship.70 There can be no question of per­ mitting scandal of the weak, or Pharisaical scandal, in this connec­ tion, for the act of formal communication is intrinsically wrong; charity to one’s self obliges a person not to perform the sinful action. These considerations of the morality of formal communication in public non-Catholic worship show that it is forbidden by the divine law. In very exceptional and extreme cases of necessity when there is no violation of faith by receiving a sacrament from a non­ Catholic, the violation of the natural law by way of scandal or danger to one’s self must be avoided. Since active religious par­ ticipation with non-Catholics in public cult is forbidden by God, the law of the Church in canon 1258, § 1, does not induce a distinct obligation. B. In Private Non-Catholic Worship Private formal religious communication with non-Catholics is not illicit in itself, nor prohibited, when it contains nothing against faith. Canon 1258, § 1, concerns public formal communication. The Church allows individuals to choose the form and method of their private devotions within the limits of the divine law. The danger of scandal, or of the perversion of one’s self, however, must be removed. The danger of scandal can be taken away by an explanation of one’s 70 Instructio pro Missionariis Orientis, 1729, Coll. S.C.P.F., Vol. I, n. 311, pp. 99-100. •q 56 Communication in Religious Worship with Nbn-Catholies conduct. If the scandal still remains, it will be Pharisaical, and any good reason will justify permitting it. The danger of perversion is relative to the strength of the faith of the Catholic, and the degree of the influence to perversion.71 When this danger is made remote, a proportionate cause will justify the permission of it. Article III. The Morality of Material Communication A. In Public Non-Catholic Worship Material communication in the public religious worship of non­ Catholics is forbidden, in general, under pain of mortal sin. The grave dangers usually connected with such communication, and the serious prohibition of the Church in regard to it, manifested by the wording of canon 1258, § 2, and by the penal sanction placed on a violation of it, indicate this fact.72 Some of the dangers generally associated with material communication are the danger of perversion ffrom the Catholic faith, the danger of participating in the religious rites, the danger of the approbation of unauthorized cult and unau­ thorized ministers, the danger and occasion of scandal to both Catho­ lics and non-Catholics.73 Noldin-Schmitt believe that the approba­ tion of a false religion, and consequently a denial of the true, is the danger which requires special emphasis.74 Another danger is that of fostering religious indifference, namely, the notion that one religion is as good as another.75 Religious indifference can arise in the faith­ ful, but especially in non-Catholics, when a Catholic, or Catholics in general, are too free in being present even only materially at non­ Catholic worship. To offset this danger, it is evident that, when material presence is given there must be some good reason for it, and attendance at such religious worship may not be sought in itself. Al­ though mere material presence is indifferent in itself, it can have the appearance of evil, so that if no explanation is given, or if the common 71 Cf. Beste, Introductio in Codicem, p. 615. 72 De Meester, op. cit., Tom. Ill, Pars I, n. 1253, 2°, p. 155. 73 Instructio pro Missionariis Orientis, 1729, Coll. S.C.P.F., loc. cit.; Le Canoniste Contemporain, Tom. VII (1884), p. 246. 74 Loc. cit., n. 38, c, p. 38. 75 Beste, loc. cit., p. 614; Le Canoniste Contemporain, loc. cit.; GénicotSalsmans, op. cit., Vol. I, n. 198, p. 149. The Morality of Communication in Religious Worship 57 estimation of the people does not remove the appearance of evil, it can involve indirect scandal. All these dangers introduce a rela­ tionship with the natural law. However, even when one of these dangers is not present, the prohibition of the Church on this matter still holds. It is a prohibition regarding a common danger, and, therefore, binds every Catholic always, according to its tenor.76 The canon mentions expressly that scandal is to be avoided. This refers primarily to active scandal, for this involves sin for the Catho­ lic, and sin can never be committed for any reason. Passive scandal is concerned, too. But the occasion of passive scandal need not be avoided necessarily in every case. Authors mention that the princi­ ples governing the permission of an evil external effect are to be ap­ plied to individual cases, in order to ascertain the lawfulness of material religious communication.77 Such teaching implies that when the good effect intended equals, or exceeds, the evil effect of accepted scandal, the latter can be permitted, provided all the other require­ ments are verified at the same time. Besides, it would be humanly impossible for a person to avoid all occasions of furnishing accepted scandal; therefore, he should be permitted to act for proportionate reasons. Similarly, moral principles are to be applied to the exclusion of the danger of perversion made in the canon. When a proximate dan­ ger of perversion is present, which cannot be made remote, material communication in non-Catholic worship can never be allowed. For a person sins by exposing himself to such proximate danger, and sin can never be committed for any cause or reason whatsoever. The verification of a grave reason of civil duty or honor will make the danger a morally necessary one, and will allow a person to com­ municate materially, provided he can make the danger remote. This interpretation follows, also, from the statement of authors that the principles for the permitting of a double effect are to be applied to this canon. Any other probable danger of sin for the person com­ municating, as the danger of approving the worship, must be dealt with in the same way ; this is required by the natural law. The older theologians demanded a justifying cause to offset the ™ Canon 21. 77Prümmer, op. cit., Tom. I, n. 527, note, p. 373; Beste, loc. cit. ’’ 1 58 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics dangers involved in material religious communication. The more common causes mentioned were sufficient reasons based on a civil office, or on the duty of a servant, or to note errors in order to refute them/8 Modern authors have the Code of Canon Law as their guide for justifying causes. The Code requires a “grave reason for the sake of civil duty or honor.” Commenting on the words “for the sake of civil duty or honor,” De Meester says they mean “for the sake of an office, as that of a civil magistrate or a servant, or of honor towards non-Catholic relatives or fellow citizens.” 70 Augustine paraphrases them to mean for the sake of civil duty, or of respect due to the person who is the object of the ceremony.78 *80 An indication of what would be a grave reason may be taken from a response of the Holy Office regarding reasons justifying attendance at non-Catholic funerals. Attendance was to be allowed if hatred and emnities be­ tween Catholics and non-Catholics, from which some grave harm was to be feared for Catholics, could not be avoided otherwise.81 Beste mentions other reasons: the avoiding of hostility to the Church, and of disturbance of the peace and the tranquillity of social har­ mony.82 In a doubt whether there is a grave reason present in a particular case, the Ordinary of the place is to give a decision. Obviously, in applying the principles for the permission of a double effect, and in measuring a proportionately grave reason, the special circumstances of each case must be taken into consideration. Consideration must be given to the quality of the person communi­ cating, for example, whether he is a priest or a layman; to the neces78 Sanchez, Opus Morale in Praecepta Decalogi, Lib. II, Cap. IV, nos. 26 and 27, pp, 97-98; Salmanticenses, Cursus Theologiae Moralis, Tom. V, Tract. XXI, Cap. II, Punct. XI, n. 122, p. 92; Sporer, op. cit., Tom. I, Tract. II, in I Praecepto Decalogi, Cap. II, Asser. V, § IV, III, & n. 31, p. 170; Castro Paolo, Opus Morale, Tom. I, Tract. IV, Disp. I, Punct. XVII, η. II, p. 264; Busembaum, in La Croix, Theologia Moralis, Tom. I, Lib. II, Tract. I, Cap. Ill, n. 54, XI, p. 169; St. Alphonsus, op. cit., Lib. II, n. 16, 12°, ed. Gaudé, Tom. I, p. 308; Kenrick, Theologia Moralis, Tom. II, Tract. XIII, n. 33, pp. 46-47; Konings, op. cit., Vol. I, n. 254, 3°, pp. 111-112. 70 Loc. cit., n. 1253, 2°, (author’s trans.). The word “civil” sometimes has the general sense of “natural," as in the phrase “civil virtues.” «° Loc. cit., Vol. VI, P- 196. 81 Jan. 13, 1818, Coll. S.C.P.F., Vol. I, n. 727, p. 428. 82 Loc. cit. The Morality of Communication in Religious Worship 59 sity or fitness of communicating, for example, whether the immediate family should attend the marriage of a Catholic celebrated before a non-Catholic minister acting as a minister of religion; to the significa­ tion of the solemnity, that is, whether it is anti-Catholic or animated by a positively hostile intention; and to local custom.83 McHugh-Callan exemplify as follows the application of the prin­ ciples governing the permission of a double effect to this matter. ( 1 ) The assistance must be really indifferent, that is, a merely passive presence without any active participation in the religious service. For example, a person who stands in the rear of a Quaker meeting house as a spectator assists passively; but one who sits quietly among the others present, as if in meditation, assists actively. (2) The evil effect must be only permitted. For example, Caius, a Catholic public official, has to attend funerals and weddings in Protestant churches as a mark of public respect for notable persons. He per­ mits scandal taken by a few in fulfilling his duty. (3) The good effect must not come through the evil effect. For example, Titus goes to Mass as a spectator with a Catholic friend. Titus then asks the Catholic to go and see his services, as if they were better. The Catholic consents out of courtesy. Being courteous is good in itself, but the means he uses, namely, the impression he gives that he is not convinced of the superiority of his own religion, is bad. (4) The reason must be proportionate. Hence a graver reason is required for passive assistance on several occasions than on one occasion ; for pas­ sive assistance at infidel than at heretical services; for passive as­ sistance by a priest than by a layman.84 The Code mentions marriages and funerals of non-Catholics ex­ plicitly as occasions where the material presence of Catholics can be tolerated under the conditions prescribed. Other similar solemnities are included in a general way. Similar solemnities would be the re­ ception of baptism or confirmation by a non-Catholic, the giving of thanks for a civil reason,85 the celebration of the birthday of a ruler’s 83 Cf. Beste, toe. cit., pp. 614-615; Merkelbach, op. cit., Tom. I, n. 760, p. S88. 84 op cit., Vol. I, n. 966, pp. 377-378. 85 Blat, op. cit., Lib. Ill, Pars 3, n. 128, p. 166. 60 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics son,86 the coronation of a ruler. It seems that it may be said in general that material communication in the religious services of non­ Catholics contemplated in canon 1258, § 2, can be tolerated, when there is a proportionately grave reason based on one’s duty as a citizen, an official, or a servant, or on the honor and respect due to non-Catholic relatives and friends. The prohibition to communicate materially in non-Catholic wor­ ship admits of lightness of matter.87 Sometimes material presence, without a grave reason, but excluding scandal and the danger of per­ version, will not be more than a venial sin, for example, one or the other time out of mere curiosity.88 Such cases must exclude special circumstances, or a special grave prohibition, as that in effect in Rome.89 It does not seem, however, that sin is involved here on the grounds that the material communication has the appearance of evil, as Merkelbach states. For, in the event that the custom of the place does not look upon it in that way, this reasoning does not hold. The prohibition of the Church is always present, and the violation of it for a light reason, as of mere curiosity, one or the other time, is a venial sin. B. In Private non-Catholic Worship In regard to material or passive communication with non-Catholics in private religious worship which is false the obligations of the divine law must be observed. There is no general prohibition of ecclesiasti­ cal law against it. Reasons to justify such communication must be proportionate to the dangers involved, either to one’s self or to others, to the gravity of the sin which would be committed, and to the num­ ber of persons who would sin. In the absence of all dangers, it seems that any good reason, as one of mere etiquette, would justify it. In the latter event, a Catholic could be passive while his non-Catholic host said a prayer, in which there was some dogmatic error, before a meal, by reason of his being there as a guest. 80 Augustine, loc. cit., p. 196. 87 De Meester, loc. cit., n. 1253, 2°, p. 155. 88 Merkelbach, loc. cit., n. 758, 4), p. 586. 89 De Meester, loc. cit. > CHAPTER IV ' APPLICATIONS This chapter is to contain a consideration of various cases rela­ tive to the religious communication of Catholics with non-Catholics. Applications to communication in the worship of Christian sects will apply a fortiori to religious communication with pagans and Jews. Obviously, all the particular cases which may possibly arise cannot be considered. The morality of cases of more rare occurrence can be judged, however, from what is said of the cases, which will be considered. The treatment of the matter of this chapter is divided into three general sections: (1) miscellaneous points bearing on reli­ gious communication with non-Catholics; (2) communication in sacraments and sacramentals administered by non-Catholics; (3) assistance at marriages and funerals in which there is a non-Catholic religious rite. Article I. Miscellaneous Points A. Entering Non-Catholic Churches The first problem in connection with our matter is that of the mere entering of the churches of non-Catholics. Theologians have taught, as common doctrine, that the mere entering of such churches is morally indifferent in itself.1 A response of the Holy Office has indicatd four circumstances by which the entering of non-Catholic churches will become bad : ( 1 ) if a person enters with the intention of assisting at the sacred functions of heretics; (2) in the absence of this intention, if the entering implies, or seems to imply, some religious communication with the heretics, and thus gives occasion for scandal; (3) if the entrance is prescribed by an heretical gov­ ernment as a profession of the same faith and religion by Catholics and non-Catholics; (4) if it is commonly considered as a sign of one and the same communion between Catholics and non-Catholics.2 1 Salmanticenses, Cursus Theologicus, Tom. XI, Tract. XVII, Disp. VII, Dub. I, § VI, n. 46, pp. 366-367. 2 Jan. 14, 1818, Coll. S.C.P.F., Vol. I, n. 727, p. 428. This response was sent to Bardstown, Kentucky. 61 62 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics Lawful purposes for entering such churches would be to seek pro­ tection from inclement weather, to find refuge in time of war, to fulfill one’s duties as a servant,3 to render the service of a soldier to the king during religious services,4 to treat of some civil business in one’s capacity as a senator,5 for the learned, in the presence of a just cause, to note errors in the rites or the sermons in order to re­ fute them,67to avoid grave harm to one’s honor or goods/ to satisfy legitimate curiosity.8 Obviously some of these reasons take into consideration the fact that religious services may be going on at the time of one's presence in a church. When there is no religious service going on, any reason not bad in itself, even one of mere curiosity, will suffice for going in, provided a person has no intention of religious participation, and there is no scandal because of the customary attitude of the people of the place. In such a case there is no religious signification, at least where Catholics and non-Catholics live in a mixed community, and the general law of the Church contains no prohibition against it. Wouters says that the entering of non-Catholic churches to look 3 Salman licenses, Cursus Theologiae Moralis, Tom. V, Tract. XXI, Caput II, Punct. XI, n. 121, p. 92; Sporer, Theologia Moralis super Decalogum, Tom. I, Tract. II, in I Praecepto Decalogi, Cap. II, Assertio. V, § IV, III, p. 170; Castro Paolo, Opus Morale, Tom. I, Tract. IV, Disp. I, Punct. XVII, η. II, p. 264; Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, Tom. IV, art. Haereticus, col. 143; St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, Lib. II, Tract. I, n. 16, 12°, ed. Gaudé, Tom. I, p. 308; Kenrick, Theologia Moralis, Tom. II, Tract. XIII, n. 33, p. 47; Konings, Theologia Moralis, Vol. I, n. 254, 5°, p. 112; Noldin-Schmitt, Summa Theo­ logiae Moralis, Tom. II, n. 39, 4, a, p. 40; Davis, Moral and Pastoral Theology, Vol. I, p. 283; Marc-Gestermann, Institutiones Morales Alphonsianae, Tom. I, n. 449, 4°, p. 288; Iorio, Theologia Moralis, Vol. I, n. 277, 2°, p. 231. 4 Salmanticenses, Cursus Theologiae Moralis, loc. cit. 5 Salmanticenses, Cursus Theologiae Moralis, loc. cit. They say this is the common teaching. 6 Salmanticenses, Cursus Theologiae Moralis, loc. cit., n. 122, p. 92; Sporer, loc. cit.·, Ferraris, loc. cit. 7 Castro Paolo, loc. cit. 8 Salmanticenses, Cursus Theologiae Moralis, loc. cit., n. 121, p. 92; Sporer, loc. cit.·, Konings, op. cit., Vol. I, n. 254, 2°, p. Ill; Noldin-Schmitt, loc. cit.; Priimmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis, Tom. I, n. 527, p. 373; Aertnys-Damen, Theologia Moralis, Tom. I, n. 314, II, Quaer. 5°, p. 237. ( I at them involves nothing wrong.0 According to Iorio it is not against faith to visit the churches of heretics or infidels, but there must be no scandal, danger of perversion, or a law forbidding it.10 Prümmer allows one to go to non-Catholic churches to see the pictures, statues, and other works of art.11 He mentions this, however, in his explana­ tion of canon 1258, § 2, and accordingly demands justifying reasons. This seems to be an unwarranted extension of the canon, which is concerned with material presence at the religious functions of non­ Catholics, not with the mere visiting of their churches. A distinction is to be made between entering a non-Catholic church at a time of religious services, and being present during the services. The mere entering of a non-Catholic church at such time is not forbidden by canon 1258, § 2. There may be particular pro­ hibitions in certain places, as in Rome, where Catholics are strictly forbidden to enter Protestant churches knowingly and out of mere curiosity during the time of services.12 In the event that there is no particular prohibition, this matter must be settled according to the natural law. Entering a non-Catholic church during religious serv­ ices can easily cause scandal, especially if it is done repeatedly, be­ cause it has the appearance of going in to attend the services. Once a Catholic has entered the non-Catholic church, he is liable to give passive assistance at the services, for which he has not a justifying reason according to the norms to be considered in the following pages. Hence Noldin-Schmitt exclude even curiosity as a reason for enter­ ing a non-Catholic church during their services.13 It seems that there must be a proportionately grave reason to justify such an act on the part of a Catholic. Some authors mention that it is licit to enter the churches of schismatics and to adore the Blessed Sacrament privately, provided 8 Manuale. Theologiae Moralis, Tom. I, n. SOO, 4, c), p. 340. Theologia Moralis, Vol. I, n. 251, 2°, p. 214, and n. 277, 3°, p. 231. 11 Loc. cit. 12 ASS, Vol. XI, p. 174. Ci. Blat, Commentarium Textus Codicis luris Canonici, Lib. Ill, Pars 3, η. 129, p. 174. 13 Op. cit., Tom. Π, τι. 39, 4, a, p. 40. 64 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics there is no scandal. Wouters prudently notes that if this is done repeatedly scandal will certainly follow, and the way will be opened for religious indifference. Vermeersch and Iorio say that images of the saints in these churches may be honored privately.14 To be materially present at a religious service in a non-Catholic church requires a grave reason, in order to offset any dangers which are present and which must be guarded against by the natural law. In some cases a grave reason of civil duty or honor will suffice, ac­ cording to the prescriptions of the positive law of the Church, pro­ vided there is no danger of scandal or perversion. This legislation, however, has in view only certain religious solemnities of non-Cath­ olics. In other words, a grave reason based on civil duty or honor will not suffice to render licit material communication in general at non-Catholic religious functions. When a grave reason of civil duty or honor is not sufficient, a reason of grave harm to one’s self, a reason of a public nature, such as the good of the Catholic religion, and so forth, is required to justify material communication.15 This follows from the wording of the canon, and from the general prin­ ciples on the binding force of human positive law. Authors allow Catholic servants to accompany their masters to ordinary non-Catholic services for reasons in their line of duty as servants. This is to be taken with limitations. Lehmkuhl considers several possibilities. If the servant participates in the rites and prayers, or assists actively as one of the members of the religious sect, he is guilty of formal communication. If the servant is pres­ ent at non-Catholic services frequently, but does not make a public profession of the Catholic religion, his communication, although only material, is equivalent to a profession of the non-Catholic rites and is gravely sinful. In the absence of any of these circumstances, material communication on the part of the servant will be licit per se by reason of his position, if it would be difficult for him to find another employer, or if there is some other grave reason connected 14 Wouters, op. cit., Tom. I, n. 500, 4, c), p. 340; Vermeersch, Theologiae Moralis Principia, Responsa, Consilia, Tom. II, η. 52, b), p. 46; Iorio, op. cit., Vol. I, η. 277, 6°, pp. 231-232. 15 Cf. Michel, art. Hérésie, n. 6, Communication in divinis, DThC, Tom. VI col. 2230. Applications ' i î ( 65 with his position, provided his master does not order the communi­ cation in hatred of religion. But because dangers to one's faith and the danger of scandal are generally present when there is frequent attendance at non-Catholic rites and sermons, frequent material communication by a servant can rarely be considered licit, even though he would make a public profession of the Catholic religion.10 Iorio says in general that servants, because of their position, can accompany their masters and assist them while they perform reli­ gious functions in non-Catholic churches, provided there are pre­ cautions against scandal.16 17 The judgment of Lehmkuhl is to be prefened, namely, that frequent material communication by serv­ ants can rarely be licit. The danger of perversion deserves special consideration here; it will become progressively more proximate be­ cause of the subtle and subconscious absorption of non-Catholic ideas and doctrine. Noldin-Schmitt demand a most grave cause to allow servants to accompany their masters to their churches.18 Therefore, the mere position of a servant will not justify a continued and fre­ quent material communication in non-Catholic services. When a servant has a sufficiently grave reason for doing so, he must take extraordinary care to safeguard his faith and to offset scandal by being seen frequently at Catholic services. Sometimes Catholics are commanded by civil authorities to be present at non-Catholic religious services. The lawfulness, or un­ lawfulness, of obeying will depend upon the circumstances of the command. The orders of Queen Elizabeth,19 making it obligatory for Catholics to enter non-Catholic churches under grave penalties, provided an interesting case, not only because they threw light upon the obligations of a Catholic in such circumstances, but also because they opened up a new field for the application of moral principles. The laws prescribed that all were to be present at the rites and ser­ mons of the State religion. De Lugo asks whether a Catholic could 16 Theologia Moralis, Vol. I, n. 809, pp. 446-448. Institutiones Theologiae Moralis, Vol. I, n. 200, p. 151. Loc. cit., Vol. I, n. 277, 2°, p. 231. *· Op. cit., Tom. Π, n. 39, 4, 2, p. 40. 18 Cf. p. 31. Cf. Génicot-Salsmans, 66 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics obey the laws only materially to avoid the penalties.''’ He says some theologians allowed Catholics to do so to avoid formal sins, that is, to keep them from doing something they had learned to be sinful. Sanchez gives their reasons as made on the basis that, since the entering of the churches is bad only from the circumstances, it can become licit by removing the bad circumstances. Scandal could be removed by a public protestation to the effect that the laws were being obeyed only to avoid the penalties; the danger of perversion could be taken away by personal vigilance. Then compliance with the laws could not be looked upon as an action having a religious significance.20 21 Sanchez holds the contrary opinion, however, be­ cause the purpose of the laws was to distinguish Catholics from heretics, and to give honor to heretical rites. Therefore, no reason whatever could justify a Catholic obeying the laws. Furthermore, he maintains that a public protestation could not remove scandal from all; that the danger of perversion could not be removed effec­ tively; that, in the case, the presence was a sign of religious faith, and that the heretics gloried in having the Catholics attend, and commanded them to sing, to pray, to kneel, to receive the eucharist, to denounce the Pope, and so forth. Besides, their very presence in a church of the State religion was a sign acknowledging headship in spiritual matters to the temporal ruler. De Lugo favors this side of the question and agrees with the arguments. He adds some reasons of his own: namely, (1) that the laws could not have a merely civil meaning, because every human law must command something from some virtuous or moral motive. These laws had for their object that the rites and the ministers receive approval by frequent attendance. To obey them even only externally consti­ tuted a religious act. (2) If entering the non-Catholic churches were licit in these circumstances, it would be licit, too, to receive the false eucharist at the command of a king to avoid very severe penalties. To eat that bread, which is mere bread, is indifferent in itself, and can be done to nourish the body. But if it is commanded as a religious act, it signifies a false cult, and is, therefore, illicit. 20 De Virtute Fidei Divinae, Disp. XIV, Sect. V, § VI, η. 174, Disputationes Scholasticae et Morales, Tom. I, p. 562. 21 Opus Morale in Praecepta Decalogi, Tom. I, Lib. II, Cap. IV, n. 27, p. 98. Applications 67 So these laws, which commanded things indifferent in themselves, rendered them illicit because it directed them to signify the profes­ sion of a false religion.22 Besides scandal and the danger of perver­ sion, Bonacina adds, in obeying the laws of this kind, notable honor due to God is taken away, and our religion, the preservation of which should be dearer to us than life, seems to be contemned by the ex­ ternal act. Furthermore, there is communication in religious mat­ ters which is forbidden in Holy Scripture; and there is a simulated profession of schism or heresy, which is always wrong, since it is an approbation or support of it.28 As mentioned in Chapter II, Pope Paul V declared that it was illicit for Catholics to obey these law's in any way. This doctrine must be upheld. Theologians today assert that it is illicit to be present at heretical rites when it is com­ manded in hatred of the faith, or in favor of a false sect,24 or when Catholics are obliged to be active in the sacred functions.25 On the other hand when the presence of Catholics in non-Catholic churches is commanded only to secure civil obedience, theologians say it is licit for them to obey.26 The Salmanticenses allow Catho­ lics to be materially present in non-Catholic churches in order to conceal their faith, even if a tyrannical ruler decreed that only in­ fidels should enter them. They say that in a law of this kind the presence is not ordained primarily and in itself to the profession of a false religion, and that it can be allowed for a good purpose. The law would be equivalent to a general interrogation of faith which the faithful are not obliged to answer if they thus betray themselves. This view is not rendered improbable by the decrees of Pope Paul V, because the circumstances of the laws in each case are different.27 22 Loc. cit. 23 Operum de Morali Theologia, Tom. II, Disp. Ill, Qu. II, Punct. Ill, n. 22, p. 153. Cf. Laymann, Theologia Moralis, Lib. II, Tract. I, Cap. XI, n. 6, p. 153 ; Suarez, Defensio Fidei, Lib. VI, Cap. IX, nos. 15-33, Opera Omnia, Tom. XXIV, pp. 707-714. 24 Noldin-Schmitt, op. cit., Tom. II, n. 39, 5, b, p. 41 ; Priimmer, op. cit., Tom. I, n. 527, p. 373 ; Sabetti-Barrett, Compendium Theologiae Moralis, η. 154, 5°, p. 159. 25 Noldin-Schmitt, loc. cit., n. 39, 5, a, p. 40. 26 Sanchez, op. cit., Tom. I, Lib. II, Cap. IV, n. 27, p. 98. 27 Cursus Theologicus, Tom. XI, Tract. XVII, Disp. VII, Dub. I, § VI, nos. 47-48, p. 367. 68 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics There is no question here of active participation, but of mere pres­ ence, and that not commanded as a recognition of an unauthorized religion. In our country it sometimes happened formerty that all persons in camps, houses of correction, prisons, and public places generally, or on ships were forced by order of the secular power to be present at common religious services and sermons. This was not a parallel situation to that which existed in England, for in our case the pres­ ence at the services was required for the sake of order, and no one was compelled to recognize the cult, or to participate in it.28 Ma­ terial presence was all that was required. In such situations Catho­ lics could give this material presence at non-Catholic religious serv­ ices, provided they openly profess their faith otherwise and avoid all association of cult, in order to escape the penalty or for another sufficiently grave reason. If there is danger of perversion,29 it must be guarded against, otherwise Catholics may not comply with the regulation. The Fathers of the Second Plenary Council of Balti­ more showed their repugnance to these situations when they reminded the Bishops to take prudent measures to effect that Catholic soldiers and sailors be not obliged to assist at non-Catholic worship, because by law the secular power is not to usurp any right of mingling in sacred matters.30 Certainly these conditions are not found so gener­ ally nowadays. Whenever they are present, the same solution is to be given. A response of the Holy Office indicates the judgment to be given in cases where Catholic pupils are made to assist at non-Catholic religious functions with non-Catholic pupils. The case in point con­ cerned the public schools in some of the Russian provinces. The Catholic pupils were obliged not only to enter schismatic churches and to be present at the functions, but also to participate in the rites by kissing a cross held by the minister, by kneeling, by taking blessed bread, and so forth. The Holy Office said that this could 28Konings, op. cit., Vol. I, n. 254, 4°, p. 112. 29 Konings, loc. cit. Cf. Noldin-Schmitt, loc. cit., n. 39, 5, c, p. 41; Prümmer, loc. cit.; Sabetti-Barrett, loc. cit., n. 154, 9°, p. 159; Davis, loc. cit., p. 283; Michel, loc. cit.; Lehmkuhl, op. cit., Vol. I, n. 809, (4), note 1, p. 448. Concilii Plenarii Baltimorensis 11 Acta et Decreta, n. 400, pp. 206-207. Applications 69 not be considered a mere material presence, but that it contained a communication in religious matters which was altogether illicit. If the teachers of religion in the schools were asked about it by the pupils or their parents, they were to say the practice could not be tolerated. If they were not asked, in the absence of scandal they could refrain from giving an admonition and leave the people in good faith, and stand by the decision of the Bishop. Confessors, too, could leave the people in good faith; but if the matter came up in confession the parents were not to be absolved if they did not seriously promise to abstain from telling their children to practice such communication.31 This doctrine follows from the unlawful­ ness of formal communication in non-Catholic worship. In such cases culpable parents are guilty of formal scandal, and incur the guilt of the sin of communication of their children. No reason, however grave, can justify formal communication. The most that can be allowed is dissimulation for most weighty reasons in the pres­ ence of good faith, provided there is no public scandal, danger of perversion, or harm to the public good of the Catholic religion. It is noteworthy that the case in point here concerned a schismatic, not an heretical, religion. In some places where the government orders civil officials and Bishops to be present at religious services of schismatics, the Holy Office has decided, in an Instruction, that a merely material pres­ ence of the officials may be tolerated, provided no Mass is said, but that Bishops may never go to a schismatic church to take part in the functions or to chant the doxology. In doing so the Catholic Bishops would put themselves on a par with the schismatic bishops as legiti­ mate ministers of public cult.32 At the coronation of King Edward VII of England his Catholic subjects were allowed to enter West­ minster Abbey for his coronation because of his presence. In India, however, Catholics were not allowed to enter the non-Catholic churches to attend the celebration of his coronation because he was 31 April 26, 1894, Coll. S.C.P.F., Vol. Π, n. 1868, pp. 303-304. Cf. NoldinSchmitt, loc. cit., n. 39, 5, a, p. 40; Coronata, Institutiones luris Canonici, Vol. l 70 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics not present. In England the presence of the King sufficiently indi­ cated that the presence of Catholics was intended merely as a mark of civil homage.33 When the present King of England, George VI, was crowned the members of the Papal Mission to the Coronation did not enter Westminster Abbey. They viewed the arrival of the King and Queen and the Coronation procession from the special tribune erected for them outside the Abbey.34 Authors differ on whether it is illicit to be present materially at non-Catholic services one or the other time out of curiosity. Castro Paolo does not consider curiosity a sufficiently grave reason, because entering a church gives others occasion for thinking that a person is using the heretical rites, or that he is an heretic, or wishes to be.85 Noldin-Schmitt exclude curiosity as a reason for entering churches while services are going on.36 Priimmer seems to do so, too, because he refers only to looking at the beauty and art of the church, or to hearing a concert.37 A fortiori, then, these authors would exclude material assistance at non-Catholic services from a motive of curiosity. The Salmanticenses 38 and Sporer 39 say that it would not be a mortal sin to attend such services one or the other time out of curiosity. Génicot-Salsmans hold that, in places where Catholics live with non-Catholics, merely material assistance at non­ Catholic services is not looked upon as a grave fault, provided there is no appearance of adherence to the sect, no scandal, and no danger of perversion.40 Merkelbach considers it a sin to be materially pres­ ent at non-Catholic services and sermons out of mere curiosity, be­ cause it has the appearance of evil; it is probably only a venial sin se Littera Encyclica S. C. de Prop. Fide, April 25, 1902, Coll. S.C.P.E., Vol. II, n. 2136, p. 425. 84 The Tablet, Vol. 169, n. 5062 (May 15, 1937), p. 699. 35 Opus Morale, Tom. I, Tract. IV, Disp. I, Punct. XVII, n. 12, p. 264. z$Op. cit., Tom. II, n. 39, 4, a, p. 40. 37 Op. cit., Tom. I, n. 527, p. 373. Cursus Theologiae Moralis, Tom. V, Tract. XXI, Cap. II, Punct. XI, n. 121, p. 92. 89 Op. cit., Tom. I, Tract. II, in I Praecepto Decalogi, Cap. II, Assert. V, § IV, III, p. 170. 49 Op. cit., Noï. I, n. 200, 2°, p. 151. Applications 71 unless there are grave circumstances or a special prohibition.41 Aertnys-Damen take a milder view, saying that it is not illicit in itself to assist passively at the services of non-Catholics one or the other time out of curiosity.42 Davis 4344and Beste 41 also allow it, provided there is no circumstance present vitiating the act. Those allowing material presence at a service even out of curi­ osity refer to a response given by the Holy Office in 1818. This response has been quoted already.4546 The Holy Office stated that entering non-Catholic churches is indifferent in itself, and mentioned certain circumstances in which it is bad. Then it added that when these circumstances are absent a Catholic may enter non-Catholic churches without fault, even out of mere curiosity of seeing the churches.40 Lehmkuhl believes it was not the mind of the Holy Office to extend this to times when a sermon or a religious rite was being held. He holds that in places where the people are of mixed religions the common estimation is that the visiting of non-Catholic churches is not gravely wrong, unless there is joined the danger of perversion, scandal, participation in a non-Catholic rite, or a grave prohibition against it.47 This seems to be the better view. The Holy Office in this response said that a Catholic may enter a non­ Catholic church in order to look at it, since it is like any other build­ ing. Ordinarily speaking it would be incongruous to inspect a church while services were going on, especially if a sermon were being preached. Moreover, in 1770 the Holy Office said that as a rule (regulariter) it is not licit for Catholics to be present at the sermons, baptisms, and marriages of heretics or schismatics.48 The general law of the Church tolerates the material assistance of Catholics at solemnities, not the ordinary services, of non-Catholics, for a grave reason of civil duty or honor. Therefore, material assistance at 41 Summa Theologiae Moralis, Tom. I, n. 758, (4), p. 586. 42 Op. cit., Tom. I, n. 314, II, Quaer. 5°, p. 237. 43 Op. cit., Vol. I, p. 283. 44 Introductio in Codicem, pp. 614-615. 45 Cf. p. 61. 46 Jan. 14, 1818, Coll. S.C.P.F., Vol. I, n. 727, p. 428. 47 Op. cit., Vol. I, n. 651, note 1, p. 390. 43 Coll. S.C.P.F., Vol. I, n. 478, pp. 301-302. Cf. Vol. II, n. 1410, ad 2, pp. 76-77. J 72 Communication in Religious Worship with Aon-Catholics non-Catholic services out of mere curiosity, even one or the other time, is against canon 1258, § 2, although in such cases, barring grave circumstances, there is lightness of matter.4" If there should be an immemorial custom in some places allowing this presence one or the other time out of curiosity, and the Ordinary has not taken steps to remove it, the custom is still in force by reason of canon 5. It is worthy of mention that in Rome to assist materially at non­ Catholic services or to listen to their sermons out of curiosity is a mortal sin. The Vicar of Rome forbade each in this way on July 12, 1878,50 and this prohibition is still in force by virtue of canon 6, 6°.51 It is an active participation, and, therefore, a formal communi­ cation, in non-Catholic rites to pray together with the non-Catholics in their public functions, or to join in their services, or to carry torches.52 B. Singing or Playing Musical Instruments Singing or playing musical instruments in non-Catholic religious services is an active participation, and, therefore, a formal com­ munication. Concerning this point La Croix says that it is not licit to sing psalms together with non-Catholics in their churches or meet­ ings, nor is it licit to play the organ or other musical instruments in their temples, because such things seem to be a public approbation of, or a scandalous communication in, sacred things.53 The author of the Appendix to the article Fides in the Bibliotheca of Ferraris says that they ratify a false rite and cult, who play the organ or exercise the musical art in another way in churches of schismatics and heretics.54 Kenrick holds that in this country those who sing hymns or play the organ in the churches of heretics become partici­ pants in the cult, and, therefore, betray their faith in some way.5540 * 40 The prohibition of the Church seems to be a better reason than the one given by Merkelbach. 50.4S5, Vol. XI, pp. 174-175. 51 Blat, op. cit., Lib. Ill, Pars 3, n. 129, p. 174. Coll. S.C.P.F., Vol. I, n. 727, p. 428. 53 Theologia Moralis, Tom. I, Lib. II, Tract. I, Cap. Ill, n. 68, p. 17o. 34 Prompta Bibliotheca, art. Fides, Appendix, n. 57, Tom. Ill, col. 1137. 55 Op. cit., Tom. II, Tract. XIII, n. 37, p. 48. A pplications 73 Konings states that to perform the office of organist, even only one or the other time, in the churches of heretics in their religious gather­ ings would be illicit, for it involves a communication in their reli­ gious rites or a formal co-operation,56 Noldin-Schmitt,57 MarcGestermann,58 Priimmer,59 Merkelbach,80 and Aertnys-Damen81 agree that singing or playing the organ in religious services is wrong, because each involves a participation in the cult. Noldin-Schmitt expressly call these actions formal communications in the worship.62 Wouters makes the same judgment about playing the organ, but does not mention singing.83 Lehmkuhl04 and Augustine 05 call singing and playing the organ formal co-operations. Sabetti-Barrett con­ sider singing in a non-Catholic religious service as an active part in the cult, and, therefore, intrinsically wrong.08 In 1889 the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith stated, with the ap­ probation of Pope Leo XIII, that it is illicit to play the organ in the churches of heretics when they are exercising false cult there; the seriousness of this matter is made clear when it is remembered that this was a reply to a petition for permission to play the organ in Protestant churches on feast days so that the organist could provide for himself.87 Davis allows a Catholic organist to continue in his position in a non-Catholic church so long as he is in grave necessity, provided there is no serious scandal.88 This opinion indicates that he looks upon this action as a form of proximate material co-operation. Vermeersch expressly states that he considers organ playing as a proxicit., Vol. I, n. 313, (1), p. 142. op. cit., Tom. II, n. 39, 4, c, p. 40. 58 op. cit., Tom. I, n. 449, 6°, p. 288. 59 Op. cit., Tom. I, n. S26, d, p. 372. coop, cit., Tom. I, n. 758, (3), p. 586. ei Op. cit., Tom. I, n. 314, I, Quaer. 4°, p. 236. β2 OP- cit., Tom. II, n. 38, 2, p. 38. es Op- cit., Tom. I, n. 557, 5, p. 391. 64 Op· cit., Vol. I, n. 813, p. 450. es Op. cit., Vol. VI, p. 197. e» op. cit., n. 154, 10°, pp. 159-160. e? Epistola S. C. de Prop. Fide, July 8, 1889, Coll. S.C.P.F., Vol. II, n. 1713, p. 240. as Op- cit., Vol. I, p. 286. st 4 74 Communication in Religious Worship -with Non-Cat holies C /l mate material co-operation.09 These opinions are too mild. In licit material co-operation there is required an action which is at least indifferent. Playing the organ in a non-Catholic service adds beauty, solemnity, and appeal to the worship, and as such is inseparable from the religious rite. Therefore in that circumstance it is intrin­ sically bad, and is a formal co-operation. Because of the strength of the intrinsic arguments for this opinion, and of the great weight of extrinsic authority favoring it, the view of Davis and Vermeersch is somewhat singular and exceptional, to say the least. Sabetti-Barrett cite, without approval, an opinion that a Cath­ olic may sing in non-Catholic services in a very rare case, when the following conditions are verified: (1) there is nothing contrary to the faith in the hymns; (2) there is no scandal or danger of perver­ sion; (3) there is a most grave necessity. The reason given is that in these circumstances the malice seems to be, not on the part of the action, but on the part of other persons, and hence the co-operation is only material, and can be permitted for a just cause. On the other hand, Sabetti-Barrett believe that singing must be considered as an active part in non-Catholic worship, and intrinsically wrong. Hence it involves a formal co-operation, and the intention, or the grave necessity, of the singer cannot change the nature of the act placed in such circumstances.69 70 It is difficult to see how singing in the religious services of non-Catholics can be viewed in any other way. Regarding singing in non-Catholic services, it makes no difference whether the hymns are orthodox or not.71 Even if they are ortho­ dox, they are used as a part of non-Catholic worship. Non-Catholic worship, even when it contains nothing false, is conducted in defiance of the Catholic Church, the only organization authorized by God to establish public worship. Vermeersch says that for Catholics to sing the Te Deum together with non-Catholics in a non-Catholic church as an expression of common joy, even when it has a religious significa­ tion, is not intrinsically wrong, although Catholics should not do it.72 69 Op. cit., Tom. II, n. 147, 8, p. 124. to Op. cit., n. 154, 10°, pp. 159-160. 71 Prümmer, loc. cit. V* Loc. cit., n. 147, 9, pp. 124-125. Applications It seems, however, that an action of this kind always has a religious signification, and hence it implies an approval of non-Catholic wor­ ship, and is an expression of religious indifference. It seems, there­ fore, to be wrong. The Holy See has allowed Catholic civil officials to assist only passively at non-Catholic religious celebrations com­ manded by the state at which the doxology was sung.73 The mind of the Church is that Catholics have their religious celebrations sepa­ rately in their own churches.74 Playing the organ, or other musical instruments in the course of a non-Catholic religious service, but not as a part, or as an orna­ ment of it, will not constitute a religious participation, for example, to do so in honor of a non-Catholic king who is present.75 Similarly, it contains no religious communication to play the organ or other musical instruments, or to sing hymns which are orthodox, for pro­ fane purposes in non-Catholic churches outside all occasion of cult.70 The use of the church, however, brings in some co-operation, and there must be a proportionate reason present to justify such activ­ ity. For a Catholic to sing hymns containing errors in faith, even outside the occasion of a religious function, is a formal religious communication, as an external expression of wrong doctrine. This could apply to some negro spirituals. On the part of a Catholic or­ ganist accompanying such hymns there is a formal co-operation, be­ cause in the circumstance the music makes the external expression of wrong doctrine more appealing. C. Sermons and Speeches Per se, to listen to heretical and schismatic sermons is not con- ■ί 76 Communication in Religious Worship with N on-Catholics Catholics, is that the hearing of them is indifferent in itself, but to hear them regularly demands a just and proportionate cause, be­ cause of the dangers of scandal, perversion, or communicating in re­ ligious rites, or because of an ecclesiastical law forbidding it. Becanus says that the hearing of such sermons can be ordained to different ends: to the cult of a false religion; to the refutation of error, which is a licit purpose if there is no scandal or danger of per­ version present. As a confirmation of this, he maintains that hearing the word of Christ can be done to learn His doctrine or to oppose it.78* The refutation of errors is the most usual cause given to justify the hearing of such sermons.70 Becanus calls this the common prac­ tice, and says that prudent men are seen to do it without scruple. The Salmanticenses note that this is especially for the learned. Busembaum demands a just cause,80 and Castro Paolo a grave cause.81 Sanchez believes that scandal is present very easily, especially if only heretics usually attend the sermons. The Salmanticenses say that to hear such sermons once or twice out of curiosity would not be mortal, but to do so frequently, even from this motive, would surely be mor­ tal, because of the scandal involved, and because it would not justify exposing one’s self to the great danger of perversion. Sporer holds that it is surely mortal to hear these sermons frequently and without a legitimate cause, but that to do so one or the other time out of curiosity would be venial or no sin at all. De Lugo and Castro Paolo do not consider curiosity a sufficient reason. In 1770 the Holy 78 Summa Theologiae Scholasticae, Pars III, Tract I, Cap. IX, Qu. 5, n. 17, p. 470. 70 Salmanticenses, Cursus Theologiae Moralis, Tom. V, Tract. XXI, Cap. II, Punct. XI, n. 122, p. 92; De Lugo, De Virtute Fidei Divinae, Disp. XIV, Sect. V, § VI, η. 171, op. cit. Tom. I, p. 561; Sanchez, op. cit., Tom. I, Lib. II, Cap. IV, n. 26, p. 97; De \;alentia, Commentarii Theologicis in totam Summam S. Thomae Aq., Tom. Ill, Disp. I, Qu. Ill, Punct. II, pp. 416-417; Sporer, op. cit., Tom. I, Tract. II, in I Praecepto Decalogi, Cap. II, Assert. V, § IV, III, p. 170; Bonacina, op. cit., Tom. II, Disp. Ill, Qu. II, Punct. Ill, n. 22, p. 153 ; Laymann, op. cit., Lib. II, Tract. I, Cap. XI, n. 5, p. 1S3. 80 In La Croix, Theologia Moralis, Tom. I, Lib. II, Tract. I, Cap. Ill, n. 54, XI, p. 169. 87 Op. cit., Tom. I, Tract. IV, Disp. I, Punct. XVII, n. 12, p. 264. Applications 77 Office stated that as a rule (regulariter) it is not licit for Catholics to be present at the sermons of heretics or schismatics.82 In our times hearing sermons is a part of the exercise of religious worship. In fact, sermons frequently constitute the principal part of non-Catholic services. Sermons in the various churches are at­ tended usually only by the members of each sect. To unite one’s self, even only materially, with such a group is liable to be regarded as a communication in religious matters. Kenrick seems to confirm this view when he states that the sermons of heretics are not to be heard because of the danger and appearance of favoring heresy.83 Noldin-Schmitt expressly say that to assist at non-Catholic sermons is a religious participation per se.8i Prümmer implies that non­ Catholic sermons are a religious function, for, after saying that they may be heard on occasion, he goes on to mention attendance at other religious functions.85 This being the case, material assistance at them is to be governed by canon 1258, § 2. Ordinary sermons, that is,.those which are not a part of the solemnities at which material presence can be tolerated for a grave reason of civil duty or honor, are to be judged according to the principles justifying such presence at ordinary non-Catholic services. When they are not a part of a solemnity embraced by canon 1258, § 2, material presence at them can be tolerated for a proportionately grave reason, other than one of mere civil duty or honor, the dangers of scandal and perversion being excluded. The statement of Sabetti-Barrett that among us material presence at non-Catholic sermons is no sin, when from the circum­ stances it is evident that there is no participation in non-Catholic rites,88 seems to be too broad. It is true in so far as the hearing of such sermons at times, as a part of some religious solemnity, is looked upon in this light. But it seems there is no such general common esti­ mation regarding sermons only. If there is a custom of this kind in some places, although it is to be deplored, Catholics may observe it as long as the Bishop does nothing about it, and as long as the natural law is not violated. Prümmer believes that, in practice, it is rare for 78 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics all danger of perversion to be absent when these sermons are heard.87 Hence, it must be guarded against when a Catholic, is otherwise justi­ fied in listening to them. It will be practical, perhaps necessary at times, to take means to be distracted from the sermons. The refutation of errors is a cause given even by some modern authors as sufficient to justify the hearing of these sermons.88 Such occasions will be very rare, and will hardly ever occur for a lay per­ son, unless perhaps one very capable and strong in the faith were delegated by a priest to do so for some very special reason. Re­ garding curiosity as a cause, the same is to be said as for ordinary non-Catholic services, although Aertnys-Damen allow this reason one or the other time without sin.89* There is greater reason for ex­ cluding curiosity as a justifying cause for the hearing of sermons, because, all other things being equal, there is greater possibility of harm to one’s self. Some authors treat the question of hearing non-Catholic sermons over the radio.80 This is not forbidden by the law of the Church,91 because it does not contain a participation in non-Catholic rites, nor a physical presence at them. The morality is to be taken from the natural law, which generally enters in, because of the dangers of scandal and of perversion. Marc-Gestermann seem to hold that it is not licit in general to hear sermons in this way, unless in a particular case all dangers are excluded. It would be clearly wrong to listen to these sermons by means of a radio with a wrong intention, or out of sympathy with any false doctrine they may contain, or with fre­ quency. Scandal is present especially when parents allow their chil­ dren the free use of the radio at a time when sermons are being broadcast, if there is danger that the children will listen to the ser­ mons.82 There can be scandal, too, when the radio is tuned in so 87 Loc. cit. 88 Merkelbach, op. cit., Tom. I, n. 758, (4), p. 586; Noldin-Schmitt, op. cit., Tom. I, n. 39, 4, b, B, p. 40. 89 Op. cit., Tom. I, n. 314, II, Quaer. 5°, p. 237. 80 Priimmer, op. cit., Tom. I, n. 527, p. 373; Marc-Gestermann, op. cit., Tom. I, n. 449, 1°, note 1, p. 287; Sabetti-Barrett, op. cit., Addenda, n. 115, pp. I1431144; Iorio, op. cit., Vol. I, n. 277, 3°, p. 231. 81 Sabetti-Barrett, loc. cit. 82 Sabetti-Barrett, loc. cit. Applications loudly that the neighbors can know what is being heard. To listen in on these sermons rarely out of curiosity will not be wrong when no dangers are present; to do so frequently will involve some danger, and will be wrong, according to the gravity of the danger. The safe and ordinary rule for Catholics, however, should be never to listen to these sermons over the radio. According to Iorio it is licit for Catholics, for a just and grave cause, to listen to non-Catholic sermons being delivered on street corners, or in parks.93 A cause of this kind will be verified only very rarely. There is danger of an informal discussion on religion aris­ ing, for which a Catholic must be firm in the faith, and sufficiently learned, and he must judge that benefit will be derived from the dis­ cussion.9* A discussion of this kind may easily prove detrimental to the faith of a Catholic, because of the art and cunning of the pro­ ponents of the non-Catholic cause. However, this would probably not be a formal discussion on religion with non-Catholics as for­ bidden by the law of the Church.95 An associated question is that of Catholics giving sermons, or talks, in non-Catholic churches, or in mixed gatherings, at which a non-Catholic minister presides or offers prayers. Various possi­ bilities present themselves. If there is question of a Catholic priest preaching in a non-Catholic church, regard must be had for a re­ sponse given by the Sacred Penitentiary in 1674." The Holy See was asked whether Catholic missionaries and priests could preach in such churches at the request of schismatics. In the reply a distinction was made. They could do so when invited to preach Catholic doc­ trine and even against the errors of the schismatics; they could not, if they were to give a sermon treating of virtues and vices, which are to be practiced or avoided by both Catholics and non-Catholics. In applying this matter to our country, Konings concludes that a priest is not to be blamed who preaches Catholic truth in a non-Catholic church, not upon the invitation of non-Catholics, but at his own re83 Loc. cit. e* Cf. Merkelbach, op. cit., Tom. I, n. 757, 3, p. 585. Η < y t > i I 80 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics quest, when there is no Catholic church or another suitable place, as a hall, available. Outside this case he believes it better to abstain in order to avoid any kind of association in matters of religion, and to prevent the faithful from entering non-Catholic churches/'7 It might be mentioned that Bishop John England often preached in non­ Catholic churches.88 A layman may be called upon to give a speech on temperance, liberty, and so forth, in non-Catholic churches. Although religious communication is not necessarily involved here, this should not be done, especially if non-Catholics are to speak on the same occasion, for they not infrequently exceed just limits, and bring in much con­ trary to the faith, which the Catholic may, or may not, answer. A layman is not always able to answer objections satisfactorily; if he does not answer them, his silence may be considered as an appro­ bation of false doctrine, or as an admission that his religion cannot be defended.88 These possibilities, when realized, bring about at least an external communication in error, and are an occasion of scandal. When a Catholic is invited to give a speech in a non-Catholic church and a non-Catholic minister presides, or offers prayers before or after the talk, the Catholic can hardly be allowed to accept, be­ cause in the circumstances it seems to involve an association of reli­ gion. It seems that in a case of this kind there is an active participa­ tion in a non-Catholic religious service; the circumstances of the place and the prayers of the minister seem to be so closely connected with the talk that the latter cannot be considered as a separate and distinct entity.100 When a profane place, or the open air, is substi­ tuted for a non-Catholic church, a Catholic may give a talk on the occasion of some national feast, or of some civil solemnity, for ex­ ample, the dedication of a new auditorium, or the anniversary of a battle at the graves of those who sacrificed their lives, even though 07 Op. cit., Vol. I, n. 254, 6°, (a), p. 112. 08 Guilday, The Life and Times of John England, Vol. II, pp. 2 and 7. Ba Konings, loc. cit., n. 254, 6°, (b), p. 113. 100 A confirmation of this is the fact that Kenrick says that it is illicit for Catholics to hear musical concerts in non-Catholic churches, for generally a minister offers a prayer, or gives a sermon, by which the occasion has the ap­ pearance of a sacred rite, op. cit., Tom. II, Tr. XIII, n. 35, p. 47. Applications 81 a non-Catholic minister offers prayers. In these circumstances, the Catholic, in giving a talk, is not considered to enter into an associa­ tion of religion. If he were considered to do so, the same could be said of Catholic speakers in legislative bodies, for it frequently hap­ pens that a non-Catholic minister prays at the beginning of each ses­ sion. What is said of Catholic speakers in this latter case applies, also, to Catholic individuals, and Catholic societies. The societies may bring their banners, too, which bear the image of the Saint, under whose invocation they exist, for their assistance is only a civil communication.101 D. Manner of Acting During non-Catholic Religious Services Since Catholics may be materially present at non-Catholic serv­ ices under certain conditions, it is in order to determine what they may do without exceeding the limits of material or passive presence. Older authors hold that servants may kneel (genufleet ere) when the master does so, because it is a part of their task.102 This opinion is based on the conduct of Naaman as mentioned in Holy Scrip­ ture.108 De Lugo disapproves of kneeling in these circumstances, because, to his mind, it is no more a mark of respect for the master than striking the breast would be when he did so ; striking the breast is a sign of religious worship; kneeling, too, is a sign, not of civil re­ spect, but of reverence on the part of the one kneeling. He does not consider the example of kneeling on the part of Naaman as an excep­ tion to his opinion, for he knelt to be in a position to support the king.104 Kenrick believed that, among us, kneeling was looked upon as done only for the sake of politeness. He does not favor this atti­ tude, however, for he teaches that kneeling is to be reprobated en­ tirely as favoring heresy, and as involving the danger of perversion and bad example. Hence, he does not allow servants to do it, when their masters are wont to insist upon it.105 Konings cites this pasCf. Konings, loc. cit., n. 254, 6°, (c), p. 113. 102 Salmanticenses, Cursus Theologiae Moralis, Tom. V, Tract. XXI, Cap. Π, Punct. XI, n. 121, p. 92. They say this is the common opinion to which De Lugo is an exception. i»8 IV Kings 5/18-19. Cf. p. 42. io* De Virtute Fidei Divinae, Disp. XIV, Sect. V, § VI, η. 173, Disputa­ tiones Scholasticae et Morales, Tom. I, pp. 561-562. 103 Op. cit., Tom. II, Tr. XIII, n. 33, p. 47. 82 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics sage of Kenrick’s, but he believes that kneeling has a signification of politeness only when it is done occasionally.116 Marc-Gestermann do not disapprove of kneeling, provided it is not done formally and only at times.107 In itself kneeling at religious worship implies a reli­ gious attitude, rather than one of mere respect and decorum, which is all that should be reasonably expected at religious services when a person does not adhere to the tenets and practices of a sect. Even if there is a custom looking upon kneeling merely as an act of polite­ ness, it is not to be encouraged by Catholics. It will hardly ever be in order, except when one is in the presence of the Blessed Sacra­ ment, as in a schismatic church.108 There it is licit to show rever­ ence to the Blessed Sacrament (for example, to genuflect), and to pray privately before It or the statues of the saints, provided it is sufficiently clear that a formal union with others present is not indi­ cated by this manner of acting.109 But to kneel before the “sacra­ ment” in an Anglican church would be an act of idolatry, if a min­ ister with Anglican orders attempted the consecration. Not to kneel during non-Catholic services will not give offense ordinarily, for it generally happens that non-Catholics do not kneel when they attend Catholic services. There is no need for Catholics to be “broad­ minded” in a matter of this kind. Kneeling on such occasions, be­ sides the dangers mentioned by Kenrick, fosters the all too preva­ lent attitude of religious indifference. Apart from this, courtesy and etiquette demand that a Catholic observe the ordinary marks of respect, when he is present at non­ Catholic services, at the same time abstaining from all religious at­ tention, even only external. Marks of respect bear only a civil signification. Vermeersch particularizes this principle when he says that acts indifferent in themselves, which are considered as required by politeness in some way, ought not to be omitted on these occa­ sions, as, for example, to uncover the head, and to stand when the others stand.110 i°eOp. cit., Vol. I, n. 254, 5°, p. 112. 107 Op. cit., Tom. I, n. 449, 9°, p. 288. 108 Vermeersch, op. cit., Tom. IT, n. 52, (b), p. 46. «“Cf. Merkelbach, op. cit., Tom. I, n. 758, (2), p. 586. 110 Loc. cit., pp. 46-47. Applications S3 E. “Simultaneous” Churches At times Catholics may have their own services in churches which are not exclusively Catholic. This may be in a non-Catholic church, as belonging to some sect, or in a church for the use of two, or more, religions. A common, or “simultaneous” church is one in which Catholics and non-Catholics hold services at different hours.111 The use of the same church by both Catholics and non-Catholics pertains per se to communication in religious matters, for it has the appear­ ance of an acknowledgment of non-Catholic rites, or it offers Cath­ olics an occasion of communication with non-Catholics in their reli­ gious rites.112 It can be tolerated by the Church at times, however, if nothing else can be done and conditions render the confusion of religions impossible, and if there is no scandal,113 because this use is not, by its very nature, a communication in the same sacred things.114 The Church has forbidden, and forbids today in her common law, the celebration of Mass in schismatic or heretical churches,115 even though different altars are used.118 Clement XI permitted Catholic services in “simultaneous” churches in Switzerland.117 The Holy See has allowed missionaries to say Mass in schismatic churches under certain conditions for a grave cause in order to promote conversions more easily through the sight of the sacred ceremonies. This con­ tained the provision that the common altar be a bare table, which was to be arranged for Mass with an altar stone, cloths, crucifix, candlesticks, and all else required by the rite in which it was cele­ brated.118 On December 1, 1757, the Holy Office said that the simultaneous use of a schismatic church could be tolerated if the in Augustine, op. cit., Vol. IV, p. 174, note 85. 112 Merkelbach, op. cit., Tom. I, n. 753, (d), p. 583; Tanquerey, Synopsis Theologiae Moralis, Tom. II, n. 681, (b), p. 487. 113 Merkelbach, loc, cit. 114 Noldin-Schmitt, op. cit., Tom. II, n. 39, 1, pp. 38-39. us S. C. de Prop. Fide, May 21, 1627, Coll. S.C.P.F., Vol. I, n. 34, p. 11; canon 823, § 1. ne5. C. de Prop. Fide, August 13, 1627, Coll. S.C.PJF., No\. I, n. 36, p. 11. nr S. C. S. Officii, June 13, 1634, Coll. S.C.P.F., Vol. I, n. 75, p. 19. us S. C. S. Officii, April 12, 1704, Coll. S.C.P.F., Vol. I, n. 265, p. 90. 84 Communication in Religious Worship with N cm-Catholies Catholics and the schismatics had separate parts of the church for their services. If this were not the case the Catholic priest should use a portable altar.110 Pope Pius IX forbade the toleration of the use of the same church by Catholics and “Old Catholics” in 1873.120 Today different sects are allowed to use the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem for their religious rites.1-1 Many, if not most, of the chapels provided in the camps of our armed forces are “simultaneous” chapels. The faculties given to our chaplains allow them “to celebrate all the divine offices and eccle­ siastical functions in chapels assigned to the armed forces, whether or not these chapels have been reserved exclusively to Catholics, un­ less prevented by the rubrics.” 122 This faculty refers to a response of the Holy Office given on June 5, 1889, concerning a “simulta­ neous” chapel provided by the British Government.123 In this re­ sponse it was stated that the use of the chapel could be tolerated ac­ cording to the mind of the Holy See, provided there was no other church the Catholic soldiers could use, and provided there was no scandal. The mind of the Holy See was that an attempt should be made to obtain a chapel for the exclusive use of the Catholics from the government, and that, if the government refused, a Catholic chapel should be built as soon as possible to be paid for by offerings secured from any source. The fact that this response is cited seems to indicate that this is still the mind of the Holy See. It is impos­ sible, however, to fulfill it, and use of the “simultaneous” chapels is being made to the spiritual advantage of our Catholic service men, with the evils being guarded against. It is interesting to note that there is an exclusively Catholic chapel, distinct from the post chapel, at the United States Military Academy in West Point, New York. It was provided by private funds contributed by Catholics. 110 Coll. S.C.P.F., Vol. I, n. 408, p. 258. 120 Cf. Konings-Putzer, Commentarium in Facultates Apostolicas, n. 161, III, b, p. 240. 131 Cf. Noldin-Schmitt, op. cit., Tom. II, n. 39, 1, pp. 38-39; McHughCallan, Moral Theology, Vol. I, n. 972, (a), p. 381. 122 Facultates Castrenses, p. 19; ER, Vol. CVII (1942), p. 30. The rubrics are those for semi-public oratories. 123 Coll. S.C.P.F., Vol. II, n. 1707, p. 237. A pplications 85 F. Prayers with non-Catholic Individuals Per se it is not illicit to offer orthodox prayers, that is, those con­ taining nothing against faith, or those not distinctively non-Catholic, privately with non-Catholics.124 This is true even if the non-Catholics give the invitation and lead the prayers. It will be illicit, if there is danger of violating the natural law, for example, by way of scandal or perversion. Hence, the Catholic version of the Our Father may be said privately with non-Catholics;125* a Catholic wife and her children may say this prayer with a non-Catholic father of the family.128 Although the Protestant termination of the Our Father contains nothing false, a Catholic may not say it with non-Catholics, even privately, because it is an official Protestant prayer. A writer in Perfice Munus mentions the case of saying night prayers with a non-Catholic family.127 This might happen in the case of a Catholic servant, or of a Catholic child being raised in a non-Catholic house­ hold. He says that, although this is not forbidden per se, it should not be done spontaneously, for it may easily be dangerous. It may lead to a gradual loss of a horror for heresy, and to the persuasion that truth can be harmonized with error. He believes that spiritual harm is inevitable if prayers to the Blessed Virgin are excluded; this omission, besides, has an implication of heresy. This is a reasonable attitude for such cases, and the practice cannot be justified ordinarily. It is wrong to join in the recitation of prayers offered before or after a meal by an heretical minister as a minister. When he does so as the oldest person dedicated to sacred things, where custom gives that duty to the senior, it does not seem to be forbidden, because there is no authority given to him as a minister.128 Vermeersch believes, however, that in the absence of a custom of this kind it should not be done. All this presupposes the prayers contain nothing against the faith. 124 Cf. Aertnys-Damen, op. cit., Tom. I, n. 314, II, Quaer. 5°, p. 237 ; NoldinSchmitt, op. cit., Tom. II, n. 38, 2, b, p. 38; Beste, op. cit., p. 613; Perfice Munus, Vol. XI (1936), p. 79; and others. 125 Noldin-Schmitt, loc. cit. 120 Beste, loc. cit. 127 Loc. cit., pp. 81-82. 128 Vermeersch, op. cit., Tom. II, n. 147, 10, p. 125. I 86 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics When a Catholic has a legitimate reason for being present where unorthodox prayers are said privately he must be passive. Barring any dangers of violation of the natural law, the reason need not be very great. If the non-Catholics take offense, the Catholic should explain his manner of acting in such a way as to render that offense unnecessary. G. Swearing on the non-Catholic Bible Catholics are not to be disturbed who swear by touching or kiss­ ing the non-Catholic Bible, as is sometimes required when taking a public oath.129* In these cases the Bible is looked upon as a sacred book, and not as unduly edited or perhaps falsified?" A Catholic may not swear by touching or kissing the non-Catholic Bible, ii it is a sign of an approval of Protestantism, or Masonry; nor may he swear by words or by other signs, which according to local usage, manifest belief in the creed of some sect.131 McHugh-Callan warn that, if swearing by touching or kissing the non-Catholic Bible is not general, there might be scandal if no protest is made. Article II. Sacraments and Sacramentals A. General Observations In treating the matter of communication in sacraments given by non-Catholics, there can be question only of validly ordained min­ isters in regard to most of them. Such ministers are absolutely necessary for all the sacraments except Baptism and Matrimony. The religious communication contained in matrimony itself, that is, in mixed marriages, will not be discussed. It is a lengthy and com­ plicated question having a history and legislation all its own. The participation in the sacraments administered by non-Catholic ministers embraces a problem distinct from that of receiving sacra­ ments from excommunicated clerics. The delicts of heresy, schism, and apostasy are only three of those punished with excommunication. The rules regarding the conferring of sacraments by excommunicated clerics are contained in canon 2261. This canon refers to the clerics 129 5. C. S. Officii, Feb. 23, 1820, Coll. S.CB.F., Vol. I, n. 739, p. 432. 13° Merkelbach, op. cit., Tom. I, n. 788, (2), note 1, p. 586. 131 McHugh-Callan, op. cit., Vol. I, n. 971, (a), p. 380. Applications 87 as excommunicated individuals, not as ministers functioning in the name of some non-Catholic sect. When a validly ordained minister functions as a minister of a non-Catholic sect, his ministrations are representative of the doctrine of that sect, and, hence, communica­ tion in the sacraments with him contains a communication in his sect, and that, indeed, formal. Such communication contains a recogni­ tion of an unauthorized minister of religion, which implies an ap­ proval of unauthorized cult of God. In times immediately following the separation from Catholicism in the various countries there was a latitude in applying the Consti­ tution of Martin V regarding the reception of the sacraments from heretical ministers. This latitude was restricted, however, within the limits of ecclesiastical law. De Lugo states expressly that the divine law must be observed in these cases. It will be involved if the dan­ ger of perversion is to be feared, if scandal follows, if there is an implicit communication in false doctrine or false rites, if an occa­ sion of administering a sacrament unworthily is given to an heretic unnecessarily, and so forth.382 Sayrus Anglus also mentions these circumstances, including the apparent consent, or approval, of the sect of the minister.132 133134Konings, in considering the reception of sacraments from excommunicated ministers in relation to the divine law, says that it is ordinarily forbidden to receive them publicly from a tolerated minister, at least on account of the contempt of the censure which proceeds from that act. Then he adds: This is to be extended a fortiori to those excommunicated ministers who have been enrolled in an heretical or schismatic sect. For, although it cannot be doubted that they are commonly to be listed among those who are tolerated, the Church has al­ ways regarded communication with them as illicit in general, because by this communication the divine or natural law is wounded by reason of the danger of perversion, or of participa­ tion in an heretical or schismatic rite, or of the danger and occa­ sion of scandal.334 132 Virtute Fidei Divinae, Disp. XXII, Sect. I, n. 3, Disputationes Scholasticae et Morales, Tom. II, p. 83; Sect. II, n. 11, p. 86. 133 Clavis Regia Sacerdotum, Casuum Conscientiae sive Theologiae Moralis, Lib. II, Cap. Π, n. 20, p. 99. 134 Op. cit., Vol. II, n. 1243, Qu. 5°, p. 18. 88 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics Merkelbach puts down the general principle that it is illicit to ask for the sacraments from the minister of an heretical or schis­ matic sect, because a request of that kind is an implicit acknowledg­ ment of the authority of the minister and of the sect.135 Because these circumstances are ordinarily present the authors concern them­ selves with the reception of sacraments in danger of death, in cases where these circumstances can be removed. In danger of death formal communication is eliminated when it is manifest that the j non-Catholic minister is not used as a minister of his sect, but as a minister authorized by the Catholic Church for this case. When this is evident the factor of any scandal, except accepted {scandalum acceptum), is removed, and this latter can be permitted on account of the grave reason that is present. The danger of perversion must be guarded against. Even if these circumstances introducing viola­ tions of faith or charity are not present, it will still be illicit, outside a case of extreme necessity, to communicate in the sacraments with these ministers, because they are ordinarily unapproved by the Church and legitimately function in her name only in certain cir­ cumstances. This presupposes the minister will probably use the Catholic rite of administration. If he uses a non-Catholic rite there can be no question of consenting to his ministration;130 a non-Cath­ olic rite introduces an immediate participation in illicit cult, and an implicit profession of a false sect.137 A non-Catholic rite is one hav­ ing the authorization of a non-Catholic religious body. It may be invalid, or it may be essentially and substantially valid as to the matter and form of a sacrament and different in accidental cere­ monies, some of which may be hostile to the Church. A non-Cath­ olic rite, even if it is the same as a Catholic rite, is used by a non­ Catholic priest with the authorization of a non-Catholic sect when he functions as a minister of that sect. For the valid ministration of the sacraments a minister must have the power of orders,138 he must have the intention at least of do­ is3 Op. cit., Tom. I, n. 755, p. 584. 136 Schmalzgrueber, Jus Ecclesiasticum Universum, Tom. V, Pars I, Tit. VII, n. 218, p. 348; Gotti, Theologia Scholastico-Dogmatica iuxta mentem Divi Thomae Aquinatis, Tom. II, Tract. X, Q. Ill, Dub. Ill, § II, η. X, p. 385. 137 Merkelbach, loc. cit. 138 This is de fide, Trent, Sess. VII, canon 10, DB, 853. Applications 89 ing what the Church does,139 and he must use matter and form which are substantially integral, that is, there must be no substantial defect or change in either of them.140 Exceptions to the requirement of the power of orders are found in the administration of Baptism, in the distribution of the Holy Eucharist, which are permitted to a lay person in a sufficiently grave necessity, and in the sacrament of Matrimony. The validity of a sacrament does not depend on the faith of the minister. The Council of Trent has defined that Baptism given by a heretic is valid; 141 it is theologically certain concerning the other sacraments from the common consent and practice of the Church, and from a parity with the arguments used for Baptism.142 The attitude of the Church in this matter has been made manifest in many pronouncements.143 The sacraments operate, not by virtue of the faith of the minister, but by divine power and through the merits of Christ. St. Thomas argues that faith pertains to the per­ sonal perfection of a man, not to the perfection of a sacrament which he administers instrumentally. Hence a person without the virtue of faith can give a true sacrament, provided what is necessary for the sacrament is present.144 For the lawful administration of the sacraments a minister ( 1 ) must have legitimate authorization, (2) must be in the state of grace, (3) must be attentive, (4) must have certitude of the matter and form, and of the capacity of the subject, (5) must observe the rites of the Church, and (6) must distinguish between those who approach worthily and unworthily.145 Since, however, not all these 188 This is de fide, Trent. Sess. VII, canon 11, DB, 854. It is certain that the intention must be internal, Lercher, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. IV, η. 251, p. 283. 140 Aertnys-Damen, op. cit., Tom. II, η. 6, II, p. 7. 141 Trent, Sess. VII, canon 4, DB, 860. 143 Merkelbach, op. cit., Tom. III, n. 75, p. 68. 143 Councils: Aries (314), canon 8, Mansi, Tom. II, coi. 472; Constantinople I (381), canon 6, Mansi, Tom. III, cois. 573-574; Nice (325), canons 8 and 19, Mansi, Tom. II, cols. 671, 675-678. Innocent III, Professio Fidei Waldensibus Praescripta, DB, 424; John XXII, Contra Fratricellos, DB, 486 and 488; Eugene IV, Decretum pro Armenis, DB, 696. 144 III, q. 64, a. 9. 145 Aertnys-Damen, op. cit., Tom. II, nos. 9-22, pp. 12-21. 90 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics conditions have a direct bearing on the point here, not all will be treated. The legitimate authorization to administer the sacraments derived from the Church is necessary because the effecting and the administra­ tion of the sacraments have been committed to the ministry of the Church by Christ. Therefore, no one has the right to do either un­ less deputed by the Church. Speaking in general, only those having the priesthood, as ordinary ministers, and deacons, as extraordinary ministers for solemn Baptism and Holy Communion with the (at least presumed) permission of a pastor, are destined to administer the sacraments (but the fullness of the priesthood is necessary in the minister of Sacred Orders) ; this is through the character of Holy Orders. Matrimony and private Baptism are to be excepted; for in the former sacrament the spouses are the ministers toward each other, and in regard to Baptism any person who has the use of rea­ son can baptize validly, and licitly, too, in necessity. In addition to the power of orders, ministers of the sacraments need the power of jurisdiction, either ordinary, from an office, or delegated, from one who has ordinary power. Although jurisdiction is necessary usually only for lawfulness, in the sacrament of Penance it is necessary for validity. The minister of Penance is a judge, and in a judge juris­ diction is necessary for the validity of the judgment.146 Moreover, a priest must not have lost the authorization to administer the sacra­ ments, as the excommunicated do under certain conditions.147 As a rule, validly ordained priests of non-Catholic sects do not have juris­ diction to administer the sacraments to Catholics; they never have ordinary care of the souls of Catholics; only rarely will they have jurisdiction delegated to them by the Church. In one place St. Thomas taught that the administration of Bap­ tism alone is permitted to heretical and schismatic ministers, but that in no case can they licitly consecrate the Eucharist, or confer the other sacraments.148 This does not agree with his teaching that I lip! I 'P ' j;| 148 It is certain that jurisdiction is necessary by divine law for the minister of Penance, and that it is not received in ordination, cf. Trent, Sess. XIV, Cap. 7, DB, 90S; Merkelbach, op. cit., Tom. Ill, n. 577, p. 531. Cf. Aertnys-Damen, loc. cit., n. 9, p. 12. 148 III, q. 82, a. 7, ad 2. Applications a penitent can be absolved by any priest in articulo mortis148 149*Sylvius explains this difficulty by saying that heretics and schismatics can licitly baptize in necessity even if they remain such and impenitent, but that no other sacrament can be conferred by them licitly unless they repent at least internally. In the administration of the other sacraments it is necessary that they act as ministers of Christ spe­ cially deputed and consecrated for this office. Hence they should conform to Him through a true conversion of heart. In administering Baptism at a time of necessity they can act, not as persons deputed for administering it, but as complying with the necessity.150 Ministers of the sacraments are obliged to use the rite of the Church. They are not to administer them, outside a case of urgent necessity, unless they observe the solemnities and ceremonies insti­ tuted by the Church.151 The law of the Church demands that the rites and ceremonies prescribed in the approved ritual books be accurately observed.152 The use of a non-Catholic rite, that is, one not authorized by the Church, is illicit, because the Church is the only legitimate supervisor of the public cult of God. A non-Catholic rite is unauthorized for legitimate public cult, and implies an approval of an illegitimate authority in religious matters. When a non-Cath­ olic priest is allowed to administer a sacrament to a Catholic, how­ ever, the use of non-Catholic ceremonies can be tolerated, provided the rite is essentially and substantially valid, and provided any ap­ proval of the rite or sect, as well as any other violation of the divine law, is removed.158 It is sinful to co-operate in an illicit administration of the sacra­ ments without a sufficient reason. A person about to receive a sacra­ ment is obliged by charity and religion to receive it from a worthy minister, to avoid scandal in asking for it, and to avoid co-operation 148 Supplementum, q. 8, a. 6. 180 Commentarium in Summam S. Thomae Aquinatis, Tom. IV, p. 289. 181 The Council of Trent has defined that the rites accustomed to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments cannot be contemned or omitted at will without sin, or changed for new ones by any pastor of the Church, Sess. VII, canon 13, DB, 856. Canon 733, § 1. 188 Cf. Suarez, Defensio Fidei, Lib. VI, Cap. IX, n. 29, Opera Omnia, Tom. li­ 92 Communication tn Religious Worship with Non-Catholics in its irreverent administration. He sins gravely who asks for or re­ ceives a sacrament from a minister who will administer it invalidly, or with doubtful validity, because he directly induces, or co-operates in, an act which is intrinsically wrong. He sins gravely, too, who asks for or receives a sacrament from an heretical or schismatic min­ ister as such, because of the formal religious communication in­ volved; this excludes cases of extreme necessity when the non-Catholic minister receives authorization from the Church in certain con­ ditions.154 B. Baptism 1. Non-Catholic Ministers Baptism of water in reality, or in desire, is necessary for the sal­ vation of all men with a necessity of means.155* The baptism of de­ sire will not suffice, if it is at all possible to receive baptism of water. This is true even if one has been mortally wounded as a future mar­ tyr of the faith, and there is still an opportunity to baptize him with water. Baptism, then, admits of cases of extreme necessity, for example, when a baby is in danger of death and has not been baptized. If there would be a possibility of solemn Baptism in a case of extreme necessity, which will rarely happen, only a Catholic priest, or a deacon who has at least legitimately presumed jurisdiction, may administer it.158 When only private Baptism can be administered, the Church lays down definite norms to determine who is to be the minister: If a priest is present, he is to be preferred to a deacon, a deacon to a subdeacon, a cleric to a lay person, a man to a woman, unless for the sake of decency it is more becoming for a woman rather than a man to baptize, or unless a woman knows the form and manner of baptizing better. It is not licit for a father or a mother to baptize their child, except in danger of death, when there is no one else present who may baptize.157 154 Cf. Merkelbach, op. cit., Tom. Ill, n. 79, 1 and 2, p. 72. 155 This is de fide, Trent, Sess. VII, canon 5, DB, 861 ; Sess. V, canon 4, DB, 791 ; Sess. VI, Cap. 4, DB, 796. iso Canons 738, § 1, and 741. 151 Canon 742, § 2, and § 3. Applications 93 Lehmkuhl says that this rule is to be understood in the sense that any faithful member of the Church, whether a man or a woman, provided the manner of baptizing is known to the person, is to be pre­ ferred altogether to any heretic, schismatic, or vitandus, even a priest.158 Cappello is equally definite, for he says that Catholic lay­ men are certainly to be preferred to heretics and schismatics, even clerics.159 As a basis for this opinion he cites a response of the Holy Office, wherein it was stated that schismatic priests were not to be permitted to administer the sacrament of Baptism except in a case of necessity when no Catholic at all was present?00 Merkelbach states expressly that Baptism may be received from a non-Catholic min­ ister only in extreme necessity, and in the absence of a Catholic lay­ man.181 When a priest is a minister of an heretical or a schismatic ■ sect, the possibility of scandal must be taken into consideration, as well as the danger of perversion in the case of the baptism of an adult, and, also, that other Catholics can easily look upon such com­ munication as a profession of a false sect?02 It would be grave sin per se to prefer an infidel, an heretic, a schismatic, or a vitandus to a Catholic layman.183 Lehmkuhl makes a priest of a non-Catholic sect equal to a vitandus for practical purposes, so there will be the same morality in preferring him to a Catholic layman.184 When there is question of a choice between lay non-Catholics and non-Catholic «8 Op. cit., Vol. II, n. 93, p. 54. Cf. St. Alphonsus, op. cit., Lib. VI, n. 117, Dub. 2°, ed. Gaudé, Tom. Ill, pp. 103-104. 159 De Sacramentis, Vol. I, n. 147, p. 127. ιβο August 20, 1671, Coll. S.C.P.F., Vol. I, n. 198, p. 69. lei Op. cit., Tom. I, n. 755, (2), p. 584. i®9 Lehmkuhl, op. cit., Vol. II, n. 72, III, p. 42. Cf. De Lugo, De Virtute Fidei Divinae, Disp. XIV, Sect. V, § V, η. 161, op. cit., Tom. I, p. 558. ieaLehmkuhl, op. cit., Vol. II, n. 93, p. 54; Merkelbach, op. cit., Tom. II, n. 139, 3°, p. 116; Marc-Gestermann, op. cit., Tom. II, n. 1463, 2°, p. 44. Vermeersch-Creusen admit that this is taught by some, but think a change in the order is venial, Epitome luris Canonici, Tom. II, n. 25, p. 13. The order seems to refer to Catholics, however; to prefer a non-Catholic to a Catholic would seem to be grave, otherwise an atheist who knew how to baptize would have to be preferred to a faithful Catholic woman. le* Cf. Marc-Gestermann, op. cit., Tom. II, n. 1439, 1°, p. 29; NoldinSchmitt, op. cit., Tom. Ill, n. 43, 3, b, p. 42, who say that, although public heretics and schismatics are not vitandi in the juridic sense, it is not licit to ask for sacraments from them except in proximate danger of death. 94 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics priests, it seems the former are to be given the preference.165 This is because of the special sinfulness connected vzith the employment of a minister of a non-Catholic sect. In preferring the layman the evils would be avoided, and the salvation of the person needing Baptism would be sufficiently safeguarded. In case only a Catholic parent is present besides a non-Catholic priest, the parent should do the baptizing, because of the pronouncement of the Holy See, cited above, which requires that no other Catholic be present in allowing the administration of Baptism by a schismatic priest. Therefore, on account of the dangers involved and of the ap­ pearance of religious communication, a priest of a non-Catholic sect should be allowed to administer Baptism in extreme necessity when no Catholic lay person, and it seems, also, when no lay non-Catholic is present, who is able to baptize validly. The non-Catholic priest would be preferred, however, if there were some doubt about the ability of the lay person to baptize. When a non-Catholic priest is employed, precautions must be taken against any dangers which are present. If any scandal remains after sufficient precautions have been used against it, it will be accepted scandal, and need not be taken into consideration.186 It must be made evident to the min­ ister that he is being allowed to administer Baptism only through necessity,166 167 and he should be limited to doing only what is necessary for a valid Baptism in as far as this can be done. Any accidental cere­ monies proper to a non-Catholic rite could be tolerated in necessity.168* What has been said has referred to the administration of Baptism by a validly ordained priest. The doctrine applies a fortiori to a non­ Catholic minister who is not ordained; he has no consecration to act as a minister of the sacraments. He is really only a layman. 166 Cf. Müller, Theologia Moralis, Lib. Ill, T. II, § 59, 3, p. 150; Pius VI to the Bishops of France, May 28, 1793, Bullarii Romani Continuatio, Tom. 20, Pars 3, n. CMXLI, Qu. 5, p. 2622. In this response it was stated that Catholics could not approach one of the schismatic priests for the administration of Bap­ tism, except in a case of extreme necessity when no other person was present, who was capable of baptizing. ieeCf. Sylvius, op. cit., Tom. IV, Qu. 64, a. 6, Quaer. Ill, p. 171. 167 De Lugo, De Virtute Fidei Divinae, Disp. XIV, Sect. V, § V, η. 161, op. cit., Tom. I, p. 558. ia8Cf. p. 91. Applications 95 A difficult problem is introduced when parents are commanded by civil law under penalty to have their child baptized by a preacher. La Croix held that it is true, absolutely speaking, that parents com­ mit a mortal sin in obeying such a command. He brings forth rea­ sons for doubt, however, for he says that in a necessity of that kind the preacher is considered not as a lawful, but as a valid, minister of Baptism. If the parents were asked why they were seeking Baptism from that minister they would say, “because we are forced, and can­ not avoid unjust vexation otherwise.” This would not be a religious communication, but only a permission, and that under force, of those ceremonies, which could licitly be permitted in view of the grave harm to the parents.160 In the opinion of St. Alphonsus a mortal sin is certainly involved here, because the parents are made to contemn the true religion, or at least to honor a false one, by this order. He refers to an Instruction of Pope Clement VIH (August 31, 1595) de­ claring that it is illicit to ask for the sacraments from schismatics out­ side cases of extreme necessity.170 The response of the Holy Office of August 20, 1671, cited above, says the same about Baptism in particular. The Holy Office has made two other pronouncements on this point, one to Holland, and the other to Ireland, saying it is illicit for Catholics to offer their child for Baptism, or to consent to Bap­ tism, by an heretical minister even under penalty of a fine.171 The case in Ireland concerned a child who has been baptized already, but the parents consented to the heretic’s ministrations to avoid the con­ fiscation of their property. The Holy Office said these parents sinned gravely. Although the chief concern in this case may have been the unlawfulness of two baptisms, still the other pronouncements show that it is illicit to approach an heretical minister for Baptism. Voit seems to favor the lawfulness of allowing the baptism in the circumstances on the grounds that a very few, at most, consider Bap­ tism as a sign expressive of that religion in the rite of which it is re160 Theologia Moralis, Tom. II, Lib. VI, p. 1, n. 282, p. 193. ito Op, cit., Lib. VI, n. 117, Dub. 5°, ed. Gaudé, Tom. Ill, p. 105. Fontes luris Canonici, Vol. I, n. 179, pp. 343 seq. Ci. 96 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics ceived, because heretics have their children baptized by Catholics.1’2 It is difficult to agree with this argumentation. Baptism cannot be looked upon as mere baptism without reference to a sect in the event of such a command, otherwise baptism alone would be ordered, and not baptism by a minister of a particular sect. A command of this kind is calculated to favor a non-Catholic sect, and to inflict public harm on the Catholic religion. Therefore, Catholics may not obey it, or positively permit its fulfillment, no matter what temporal loss they suffer in consequence. Noldin-Schmitt say that Catholic parents cannot positively permit it, but, if it cannot be avoided with­ out a grave inconvenience, they can be allowed to be passive.1’3 Davis holds that a Catholic may never ask for Baptism from an heretical or schismatic minister, but that a Catholic might allow such baptism for a child, if resistance had been tried and found use­ less.173 174 It seems, then, that the proper solution for such cases is that Catholic parents may remain passive in the face of a grave incon­ venience. When it is certain that a child is going to be validly baptized by a non-Catholic minister, De Lugo believes it is better not to have a Catholic Baptism previously. For it seems to be a lesser evil to be baptized by a non-Catholic minister than to be re-baptized; of two evils the lesser is to be permitted when both cannot be avoided.175 In the solution given, however, there is no positive permission of the non-Catholic baptism. There is no culpable connection of the Cath­ olic parents with that baptism. In having a Catholic Baptism for their child they act within their rights, and the re-baptism is due to the malice of others. Even if De Lugo’s opinion were followed, and if the child were not baptized by the non-Catholics within a reason­ able time, Catholic Baptism should be administered first. If there is doubt about the validity of the non-Catholic baptism, certain Catholic Baptism should be given before or after. 172 Theologia Moralis, Pars II, Tract, de Sacramentis, n. 161, p. SO. 173 Op. cit., Tora. II, n. 39, 2, b, p. 39. Ct. Merkelbach, op. cit., Tom. I, '62, p. 588. i’< Op. cit., Vol. I, p. 283. 175 De Virtute Fidei Divinae, Disp. XIV, Sect. V, § V, η. 164, op. cil., Tom. I, p. 558. Applications 97 2. Catholic Sponsors at non-Catholic Baptisms Some theologians have allowed Catholics to act as sponsors at the baptism of non-Catholics by non-Catholic ministers in places where Catholics and non-Catholics formed a mixed community, provided no heretical or schismatic rite was used.1™ This was not looked upon as a sign of the profession of a false cult, or of religious com­ munication, in those places. Laymann argues as follows in favor of this view because of conditions in Germany: (1) The office of a sponsor is to be the spiritual educator of the child. By a true Bap. tism the child becomes a member of the Church, and needs Catholic instruction which the prelates of the Church have the duty to give. But, because they are not always free to do so, ancient custom has substituted another person in their place. (2) The sponsor in this case does not concur actively or passively, nor co-operate in any way, with an undue administration of Baptism. If he were not spon­ sor, an heretic would promise to educate the child in heresy. The Catholic hinders this at the will of the parents, and by his act pro­ tests, expressly or tacitly, that he will instruct the child in the Cath­ olic faith. (3) If the Catholic refused because the Baptism was per­ formed by a Lutheran minister, the Lutherans would be offended. To the objection that the Lutherans omit some of the accidentals of Baptism through contempt, and substitute a sermon, all of which the Catholic sponsor seems to approve with scandal and even a tacit profession of a false religion, Laymann replies that the parents pro­ fess the Catholic faith in having a Catholic sponsor, or insinuate that they are satisfied to have the child raised a Catholic. If there is scandal because the heretics want to show that the Catholic, in act­ ing as sponsor, is inclined to their sect, Laymann teaches that the Catholic must protest expressly that he wishes to receive the child as a Catholic sponsor, and to bring him up a Catholic in so far as he can.177 ΐ’β Laymann, op. cit., Lib. V, Tract. II, Cap. IX, nos. 5-6, p. 220; Diana, Opera Omnia, Tom. I, Res. 97 de Bapt., n. 4, p. 45 ; Sporer op. cit., Tom. I, Tract. II, in I Praecepto Decalogi, Cap. II, Assert. V, § IV, II, p. 170; Busembaum, in La Croix, op. cit., Tom. I, Lib. II, Tract. I, Cap. Ill, n. 54, XI, p. 169; La Croix, loc. cit., n. 65, 5, p. 170; St. Aiphonsus, op. cit., Lib. II, n. 16, 11°, ed. Gaudé, Tom. I, pp. 307-308. 177 Loc. cit. 98 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics De Lugo does not think that in practice Catholics may act as sponsors at these baptisms, because (1) ordinarily an heretical or schismatic rite is used, and (2) the minister is commonly a lay per­ son, from whom Baptism cannot be asked licitly.178 In 1745 the Holy Office, at the command of Benedict XIV, gave a response say­ ing that it is safer for Catholics to abstain from this practice, either because the Baptism is conferred in an heretical or schismatic rite, or because, although interiorly promising to instruct the child in the Catholic faith, they exteriorly seem to promise to instruct it in heresy, since, when asked, they are considered to reply according to the will and intention of the heretical minister, which is surely foreign to Catholic dogma.179 This response did not absolutely forbid, or tol­ erate, the practice. A later one, however, said, absolutely, that it was not licit to be a sponsor, either personally or by proxy, at the Baptism of the children of heretics administered by heretics.180 From this time there has been no room for a difference of opinion on this point.181 Pope Pius VI, when writing to France in 1793, said that for a Catholic to act as sponsor at a Baptism administered by one of the schismatic priests, no matter in what way it is considered, is vicious, bad, and forbidden. For the Catholic by his action co­ operates in schism, and approves that crime.182 In 1871 the Holy See said that it has constantly held that it is illicit for Catholics to be sponsors at the baptisms of the children of heretics administered in a non-Catholic rite.183 In view of this stand on the question, this seems to be a case where for a time some authors were not objectively correct in allow­ ing Catholics to act as sponsors at these baptisms. They do not seem to have realized sufficiently that it is impossible for the spon­ sor not to request the Baptism from the minister. In ordinary cir178 De Virtute Fidei Diviniae, Disp. XIV, Sect. V, § V, π. 162, op. cit., Tom I, p. 558. 179 Dec. 9, 1745, Coll. S.C.P.F., Vol. I, n. 355, p. 181. 180 5. C. S. Officii, May 10, 1770, Coll. S.C.P.F., Vol. I, n. 478, p. 302. 181 Noldin-Schmitt, op. cit., Tom. II, n. 39, 2, a, p. 39. 182 May 28, 1793, Bullarii Romani Continuatio, Tom. 20, Pars 3, n. CMXLI, Qu. 7, p. 2622. 183 Instructio S. C. S. Officii, Jan. 3, 1871, Fontes luris Canonici, Vol. IV, n. 1013, 1, p. 317. Applications 99 cumstances it is illicit for the non-Catholic minister to baptize. The sponsor asks for something the minister cannot do licitly ; it is illicit to make such a request.184 Moreover, acting as sponsor in these circumstances is intrinsically wrong as a formai religious communi­ cation with non-Catholics, because the sponsor participates in the rite and implicitly approves it as solemnly conferred by a non-Catholic minister, since he offers the child to be baptized and requests the sacrament.183 Performing the office of sponsor at these baptisms, then, must be considered as a violation of the divine law, even apart from any dangers of scandal or perversion. 3. Material Presence at non-Catholic Baptisms Baptism is one of the non-Catholic solemnities at which the mate­ rial presence of Catholics may be tolerated for a grave reason of civil duty or honor.188 This opinion has its basis in canon 1258, § 2, and in a response of the Holy Office stating that as a rule, or ordinarily (regulariter) Catholics are not allowed to be present at the baptism of heretics or schismatics.187 For a more grave reason a Catholic servant could hold the child during the baptism.188 This is looked upon as a service pertaining to his work as a servant, and not as a sign of union with the cult; the servant is not considered as taking part in the religious ceremony, or as approving it. Since closer material co-operation is involved here, than in mere material presence, and since the possibility of scandal or perversion is greater, some reason besides that of being a servant seems to be required to justify it, such as danger of losing the position. 18*Lehmkuhl, op. cit., Tom. II, n. 99, p. 59. 185Noldin-Schmitt, loc. cit. Ci. Merkelbach, op. cit., Tom. I, n. 755, (3), p. 584; Vermeersch, op. cit., Tom. II, n. 52, (b), p. 45; Marc-Gestermann, op. cit., Tom. I, n. 449, 5°, p. 288; Davis, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 283; SabettiBarrett, op. cit., n. 154, 7°, p. 159; Aertnys-Damen, op. cit., Tom. I, n. 314, Quaer. 4°, p. 236; Priimmer, op. cit., Tom. I, n. 526, (a), p. 371. 188 Konings, op. cit., Vol. I, n. 254, 3°, pp. 111-112; Noldin-Schmitt, loc. cit., n. 39, 2, b, p. 39; Sabetti-Barrett, loc. cit., n. 154, 6°, p. 159; Blat, op. cit., Lib. Ill, Pars III, n. 128, p. 166. is? May 10, 1770, Coll. S.C.P.F., Vol. I, n. 478, p. 302. ls8Kenrick, op. cit., Tom. II, Tr. XIII, n. 33, p. 47; Konings, loc. cit.; Marc-Gestermann, loc. cit., n. 449, 4°, p. 288; Sabetti-Barrett, loc. cit., n. 154, 8°, p. 159; Merkelbach, loc. cit., n. 755, (4), p. 584. 100 Communication in Religious W orship with N on-Catholics Another form of more proximate material co-operation, which is civil, rather than religious, is the acting as witness or honorary spon­ sor at baptism. This, too, can be allowed for a proportionate cause.189 A Catholic, who has the duty to act as a civil witness of a non-Catholic baptism, merely testifies that a person was baptized in a certain manner. He does not ask for the baptism, nor does he give an approval, even tacit, of it, since he is merely passive in this regard. The case would be different if contempt of Catholic Bap­ tism, or of the Catholic religion, were implied. C. Penance The sacrament of Penance admits of extreme necessity when a baptized person in mortal sin is in danger of death. It is de fide that this sacrament is necessary by its actual reception, or at least by a desire to receive it, for those who have fallen into mortal sin after Baptism.190 For the salvation of a sinner it is necessary that his sins be removed from his soul. Sin cannot be removed except by the means instituted by Christ in which the virtue of His Passion operates to the remission of sin. Christ applies the virtue of His Passion through the sacraments. Among the sacraments the one destined per se for the remission of sins committed after Baptism is Penance. Therefore, the sacrament of Penance is necessary for the salvation of the baptized sinner.191 The necessity here is a necessity of means, not absolute, but such as can be supplemented by some­ thing else in the event that it is impossible to receive the sacrament. Perfect contrition outside the sacrament removes sin, but it must contain at least implicitly a desire of the sacrament of Penance. Sorrow for sin based on the supernatural love of God as infinitely good in Himself implicitly contains the wish to use all the means instituted by God for the remission of sins.192 One of the essential parts of the sacrament of Penance is the confession of one’s sins. For all who have sinned gravely after le» Noldin-Schmitt, loc. cit.; Prümmer, loc. cit. 190 Trent, Sess. VI, canon 29, DB, 839; Sess. XIV, Cap. 2, DB, 895. 191 Merkelbach, op. cit., Tom. Ill, n. 449, p. 396. i» Trent. Sess. XIV, Cap. 4, DB, 898; Merkelbach, loc. cit. Ί Applications I j i } ). h; 'i 101 Baptism the sacramental confession of each and every mortal sin is necessary by divine law for forgiveness and salvation.193 When there is question of a necessity of means for an end regard­ ing something that requires an human act, there is a necessity of precept, too. The divine precept of receiving the sacrament of Penance obliges per se certainly at the moment of death, and in the very probable danger of death, when one has been guilty of mortal sin that has not yet been directly forgiven by the sacrament of Penance. One, who, while in the truly probable danger of death, does not fulfill the divine precept, rashly exposes himself to the probable danger of never fulfilling it.104 Culpably to enter upon the probable danger of violating a precept is the same in the moral order as actu­ ally to violate it. The cause of the very probable danger of death makes no difference provided the danger is present. The danger can arise from sickness, a battle, a sentence of a judge, a dangerous childbirth, an operation, a very dangerous voyage, and so forth. The very prob­ able danger of perpetual insanity, or of another impediment from which one sees he will never have an opportunity to confess his sins, is equivalent to a very probable danger of death.188 A person in mortal sin in these circumstances is per se in extreme need of the services of a priest, because only a priest is the valid minister of this sacrament.186 For validity a priest must have juris­ diction, either ordinary or delegated, over the penitent.191 For this extraordinary case jurisdiction is delegated to a priest by the law itself. This is known as supplied jurisdiction, and has the charac­ teristic that it is conferred only in the very act of confession, and is afterwards removed.198 In danger of death all priests have juris­ diction to hear confessions and to absolve from all sins and censures with certain express exceptions. Canon 882 contains this provi­ sion: 183 This is de fide, Trent, Sess. XIV, Cap. S, DB, 899; Sess. XIV, canons 6 and 7, DB, 916 and 917. ™ Merkelbach, op. cit., Tom. Ill, n. 512, A, 1°, p. 458. 185 Merkelbach, loc. cit. 198 This is de fide, Trent, Sess. XIV, canon 10, DB, 920. Canon 871. 19 T This is certain, Trent, Sess. XIV, Cap. 7, DB, 903. Canon 872. 198 Merkelbach, op. cit., Tom. Ill, n. 584, p. 540. 102 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics In danger of death all priests, although not ap­ proved for confessions, validly and licitly absolve any penitents from any sins or censures, no matter how re­ served or notorious, even if there is an approved priest present, saving the prescriptions of canons 884 and 2252.199 I ' 1 1 II ' rl I'1 II1 ■ i bl ■ i. -1 ’ If 1 lIkl! ’ 1“' 1,1 Ί '1 I· ill* 11' !L i di (hi 1 R II 1 By virtue of canon 884 the absolution by a priest of his ac­ complice in peccato turpi is invalid, except in danger of death, and even in danger of death it is illicit outside a case of necessity. There is no case of necessity if another priest can hear the confession, with­ out danger of grave infamy to the two accomplices or of scandal to others and the dying person is willing to confess to him. In such circumstances the absolution of the priest who sinned is valid, but gravely illicit.200 Canon 2252 decrees that persons, who in danger of death re­ ceived absolution from some censure reserved ab homine, or from a censure reserved specialissimo modo to the Apostolic See, from a priest lacking a special faculty, are bound, after they have recovered, to have recourse within a month, under penalty of falling back into the censure, either to him who imposed the censure, if it is a censure ab homine, or to the Sacred Penitentiary or to the Bishop, or to an­ other endowed with the faculty, according to the norm of canon 2254, § 1, if it is a censure a jure, and to obey their mandates. Canon 882 does not contain the special faculty required here. So that any priest who has no faculty outside of the danger of death to absolve from the censures mentioned in canon 2252 is a priest not possessing a special faculty for these censures.201 The circumstance of danger of death must be verified for the validity of the absolution, if the priest has no jurisdiction from an188 In periculo mortis omnes sacerdotes, licet ad confessiones non appro­ bati, valide et licite absolvunt quoslibet poenitentes a quibusvis peccatis aut censuris, quantumvis reservatis et notoriis, etiamsi praesens sit sacerdos appro­ batus, salvo praescripto can. 884, 22S2. 200 Ci. Moriarty, The Extraordinary Absolution from Censures, p. 74. 201 Moriarty, op. cit., p, 89. For a commentary on this canon cf. this same work, pp. 89-112. ( Applications 103 other source.202 Danger of death is that which arises from a hazard­ ous condition, or situation, in which it is truly and seriously prob­ able that a person may die as a result of it.203 It is sufficient that the danger be truly probable, and it is not necessary that it be cer­ tain, or most probable, or imminent.204 The danger may be said to be probable, when such is the nature of the cause, whether intrinsic or extrinsic, that death follows from it frequently and per se. That death need not be imminent seems to mean that death need not be actually impending. If a probable, or even certain, danger of death is clearly remote, for example, when there is cancer of a vital organ in its early stages, it seems that per se such a danger would not be sufficient for this canon. In some cases, however, the danger arising from either intrinsic or extrinsic causes may not be clearly proxi­ mate, but it is probable in the sense that it may appear unexpectedly at any time, as in cases of serious illness, extreme old age, those about to enter war, and so forth.205 In ordinary circumstances it seems that an airplane trip does not introduce the danger of death required here, because death cannot be said to result frequently and per se.20e A response of the Sacred Penitentiary has declared that every soldier in a state of mobilization, and all men and women who pertain in some way to mobilized armies, can be regarded as equiva­ lent to those in danger of death, and can be absolved by any priest.207 This seems to refer, however, only to mobilization for war that is actually being waged, or that is imminent.208 Danger of death need not be present objectively. It is sufficient if it is for good reasons prudently judged to be probably present. If the priest who hears the confession has a positive doubt about the exist­ ence of the danger of death, he can validly and licitly absolve by reason of canon 209. If an erroneous judgment is made in good faith about the danger of death, the absolution is valid and licit, 202 Moriarty, op. cit., p. 73. 203 Moriarty, op. cit., p. 70. 204 Cappello, De Censuris, n. 114, 1, p. 107. 205 Moriarty, loc. cit., pp. 70-71. 208 Cf. Merkelbach, op. cit., Tom. Ill, n. 585, 2°, p. 541. 202March 18, 1912, May 29, 1915, AAS, Vol. VII (1915), pp. 281-282. Cf. Dec. 4, 1915, AAS, Vol. VII (1915), p. 526. 208 Aertnys-Damen, op. cit., Tom. II, n. 361, 1°, p. 253. 104 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics unless the penitent falsely pretended to be in danger of death, In the latter event the absolution would be invalid, and, on the part of the penitent, illicit.208 The Council of Trent, in making a similar provision, used the expression in articulo mortis.210 There was a difference of opinion among the authors regarding the extent of the meaning of this term. Some held that it should be given its proper sense,211 others said it also included the probable danger of death.212 The broad sense of danger of death came to be held as the common opinion, namely, that the articulus mortis included the probabile periculum mortise11 The Code canonized this time-honored interpretation by using the term periculum mortis in canon 882. The valid and licit minister of absolution in danger of death is any validly ordained priest. After the pronouncement of Trent some authors excluded certain priests, for example, heretics, from juris­ diction even in articulo mortis.21* Suarez holds that heretical priests have jurisdiction in such a case, but that, as long as they remain in heresy, they are unworthy to administer the sacraments. He bases t' 209 Moriarty, op. cit., p. 72. 2ΐθ Sess. XIV, Cap. 7, DB, 903. 231 Cf. Suarez, De Poenitentia, Disp. XXVI, Sect. IV, n. 2, Opera Omnia, Tom. XXII, p. 549, for authors holding this. 212 Suarez, loc. cit., n. 3; Diana, op. cit., Tom. I, Tract. V, Res. I, p. 191; De Lugo, De Sacramento Poenitentiae, Disp. XVIII, Sect. II, n. 21, op. cit., Tom. V, p. 170, who says that the more true and more common opinion teaches that articulus and periculum mortis are equivalent in this matter. Articulus mortis was described as the condition when death is proximate, morally certain, and almost inevitable. Periculum mortis was that condition when there is a probable doubt, and death frequently happens, as in actual war, a long voyage on ship, childbirth, and so forth, Suarez, loc. cit. Some authors allowed a proximate danger of death to satisfy the words of the Coun­ cil of Trent, for example, not at the beginning of a journey on ship, but when a storm has arisen, when a difficult childbirth is perceived, De Lugo, loc. cit., n. 20, p. 170. 218 Cf. Reiffenstuel, Jus Canonicum Universum, Lib. V, Tit. VII, n. 407, Vol. V, p. 293; Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, art. Absolvere, art. I, nos. 4950, Tom. I, col. 144; St. Alphonsus, op. cit., Lib. VI, n. 561, ed. Gaudé, Tom. Ill, p. 575. 214 Cf. Suarez, De Censuris, Disp. XI, Sect. I, n. 14, op. cit., Tom. XXIII, p. 294; Sayrus Anglus, op. cit., Lib. II, Cap. II, n. 18, p. 98. Applications 105 fais argument for their having jurisdiction on the general wording of the Council. In danger of death the penitent need not be disturbed over the unworthiness of the minister, because he does not induce the minister to sin, and he can permit the sin in pursuing his right to absolution.215 Priests denounced and excommunicated for heresy could validly administer this sacrament in extreme necessity, and the people could licitly ask for it from them, according to Sayrus Anglus.216 He notes that this holds in regard to such ministers when (1) no danger of perversion is feared, (2) the penitent does not appear to consent to, or approve, the sect of the heretic, (3) there is no danger of abuse of the sacrament by the heretic, (4) no other priest can be had. If any of these conditions are not verified, it is illicit to confess to the heretic.217 These conditions must be verified today in receiving absolution from a priest of a non-Catholic sect. By virtue of canon 882 a priest who is a public apostate, an heretic, or a schismatic, or is a minister of an heretical or a schismatic sect, may validly absolve a person in danger of death.218 He cannot always absolve licitly, however. A Catholic in danger of death can licitly make his con­ fession to such a priest, if there is no Catholic priest to whom he can confess without great difficulty or repugnance. In a case of this kind a Catholic priest is not morally available, and in this extreme necessity the non-Catholic priest can licitly give absolution. More­ over, consideration must be had for scandal and the danger of per­ version, for the minister can easily try to attract the penitent to his sect, and in the eyes of the faithful such communication can easily seem to be a profession of a false sect.219 The Holy Office has de­ 215 Suarez, loc. cit., nos. 14-15, pp. 294-295. 218 Loc. cit. Cf. St. Alphonsus, op. cit., Lib. VI, n. 560, ed. Gaudé, Tom. Ill, p. 573, note (b). The authors here are speaking of formally excommuni­ cated and vitandi, but it has been pointed out that the ministers of heretical and schismatic sects are equivalent to them in some sense in regard to the sacraments. w Loc. cit., n. 20, p. 99. 218 Cappello, De Poenitentia, Vol. II, Pars I, n. 408, 3°, p. 322. 219 Cappello, loc. cit., n. 409, 9°, p. 323; Génicot-Salsmans, op. cit., Vol. II, n. 130, V, 3°, p. 116, and n. 332, I, 2°, p. 292; Lehmkuhl, op. cit., Vol. II, n. 509, p. 297. Cf. St. Alphonsus, loc. cit., n. 560, pp. 573-575. 106 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics dared that the sacrament of Penance may be received from a schis­ matic priest in danger of death, provided (dummodo) scandal is not given to other Catholics, there is no other Catholic priest present, there is no danger that the dying Catholic will be perverted by the heretic, and finally it is probably believed that the heretical priest will administer the sacrament according to the rites of the Church.220 In the previous century Pope Pius VI, in answer to a request re­ garding the reception of absolution in articulo vel periculo mortis from a schismatic priest, said that it could be permitted when a Catholic priest was lacking.221 The conclusion, then, is that an heretical or a schismatic priest cannot licitly absolve a Catholic who is in danger of death, unless there is no Catholic priest present, morally speaking, although even in this event his absolution would be valid. The reason these con­ ditions are required seems to be to avoid the danger of violating the divine law, and to safeguard the common good of the Church. When a Catholic chooses a non-Catholic priest in the presence of a suit­ able Catholic priest he chooses an unauthorized minister and sub­ jects himself to the dangers involved. In fact, the danger of scandal to others, and possibly to the non-Catholic minister, too, will be all the greater when he is chosen in the presence of a Catholic priest. In case the penitent would have a justifiable repugnance to confess to a Catholic priest, and in this necessity confesses to a non-Catholic priest, greater precautions must be taken to remove the dangers. With merit, for some cases at least, do Noldin-Schmitt remark that it would be better for a Catholic in such circumstances to make an act of perfect contrition and commit himself to the mercy of God, rather than expose himself to the danger of perversion.222 This suggestion need not be insisted upon too much in regard to accepted scandal, because the Catholic could take the safer course by receiv220 5. C. S. Officii, July 7, 1864, ad 6, Coll. S.C.P.F., Vol. I, n. 1257, p. 693. On Feb. 17, 1761, the Holy Office said that in no case, not even of neces­ sity, is it licit for a Catholic to confess his sins to and obtain absolution from a schismatic priest, op. cit., Vol. I, n. 439, p. 281. 221 May 28, 1793, BuUarii Romani Continuatio, Tom. 20, Pars 3, n. CMXLI, Qu. 9, p. 2622. )ί ,, Applications 107 ing the sacrament, since he may be only attrite.223 Moreover, it seems that a Catholic in extreme necessity would be obliged to re­ ceive the sacrament of Penance from a non-Catholic priest when he is the only minister available, provided there is no danger to him­ self which would render the obligation to receive the sacrament mor­ ally impossible of fulfillment.224 The source of jurisdiction for the sacrament of Penance in danger of death has been controverted among the authors. Some have held that it is from the divine law. The reasons are: (1) the granting of jurisdiction in this case is handed down in a constant tradition of the Church, the beginning of which is not known; a tradition of this kind is a sign of the divine law; (2) if the Church had power to change this, that power and its use would not be for the good of the faithful, but for their harm.225 Suarez considers it the true opinion that the jurisdiction comes from the Church.226 The words of the Council of Trent22T signify that this tradition has arisen from the Church, and is at most an Apostolic tradition. All the documents granting this jurisdiction indicate that it is a grant of the Church. In giving this jurisdiction the Church has always prescribed an order and a manner to be observed. Therefore, its actual grant is not im­ mediately from Christ, but it has been given to His vicars, who are bound by the divine, and even natural, precept of charity to provide sufficiently for the necessity of the faithful. Z>. Extreme Unction Extreme Unction, also, can admit cases of extreme necessity. Such cases will not occur per se, but per accidens. Penance is the228 228 Cf. De Lugo, De Sacramento Poenitentiae, Disp. XVIII, Sect. II, n. 19, op. cit., Ύοτα. V, p. 170. 224 Wladimir Soloviev, a convert from the Russian Orthodox Church, availed himself of the services of the village priest (who was of the Orthodox rite) on his death-bed, because no Catholic priest was obtainable, Gerrard, The Russian Newman, Catholic World, Vol. CV (1917), p. 336. 228 Cf. Suarez, De Poenitentia, Disp. XXVI, Sect. IV, n. 6, op. cit., Tom. XXII, p. 550. 228 Loc. cit., pp. 550-551. Cf. St. Thomas, IV Sent., Dist. 19, q. 1, a. 3, and Dist. 20, q. 1, a. 1, q. 2. 227 “Ne aliquis periret, custoditum in Ecclesia semper fuit,” etc., DB, 903. 108 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics sacrament instituted primarily for the remission of sins committed after Baptism, and it must certainly be received in danger of death by a person in mortal sin, if possible. Extreme Unction, however, remits sins, too.228 St. James in his celebrated text clearly mentions this effect, “et si in peccatis sit, remittentur ei.” 228 229 This is plainly supported by tradition, and has been taught by all theologians. Formulas of consecration ask in some way for the sanctification of the oil in order that it may become a means of salvation.230 The form of the sacrament in our Latin rite proclaims this effect, Indulgeat tibi Dominus . . . quidquid deliquisti. Since no qualifica­ tions are made as to what kind of sins are forgiven, it is certain that mortal sins are remitted by this sacrament. This is in har­ mony with the purpose of the sacrament, which was instituted to give every needful help to the Catholic in danger of death.231232 234 233 Ordinarily a person should receive this sacrament in the state of grace, because it is primarily and per se a sacrament of the living. It requires that the sick person be already reconciled to God, for the words of St. James are conditional, si in peccatis sit, and the Coun­ cil of Trent says “if any sins are still unexpiated.” 282 This follows most certainly from the doctrine on the necessity of the sacrament of Penance. If another sacrament would remit grave sin per se by its primary institution, the definition of the Church would be false.283 Nevertheless, since Extreme Unction remits mortal sins, it partakes in some degree of the nature of a sacrament of the dead. Primarily, however, it is a sacrament of the living, and forgives mortal sins only per accidens. Per se a person is not obliged to put himself in the state of grace for this sacrament by going to confession. It is sufficient that he be contrite for his sins, and that there be no danger that he will die be­ fore fulfilling the divine precept of confessing in danger of death.284 228 This is de fide, Trent, Sess. XIV, canon 2, DB, 927. 228 5/15. 230 Cf. Sacramentarium Gelasianum, Missa Chrismatis in Feria V Maj. Hebdom., PL, Tom. LXXIV, col. 1100. 231 Kilker, Extreme Unction, p. 29. 232 Sess. XIV, Cap. 2, DB, 909. 233 Lehmkuhl, op. cit., Vol. II, n. 712, p. 412. 234 Kilker, op. cit., p. 237. Cf. Lehmkuhl, loc. cit.; St. Alphonsus, op. cit. This doctrine does not conflict with the obligation whereby all in mortal sin are bound by divine law to receive the sacrament of Penance in danger of death. For in cases of lingering illness where death is not extremely close, confession can be made after the unc­ tion, and not necessarily before it.235 When the subject of this sacrament is excused from putting him­ self in the state of grace beforehand, to receive first grace he must be actually, or at least habitually, attrite. Attrition is any sorrow for sin from a supernatural motive other than the love of God. Habitual attrition arises from an act of imperfect contrition made previously and not revoked. Schell238 has proposed a milder and singular opinion regarding the disposition requisite in a sinner, who is unable to make an act of attrition. He says that a person can be disposed to receive Extreme Unction fruitfully, provided he places no obstacle to grace by final impenitence. It is enough to have a general purpose and intention of afterwards formally repenting and dying in the friendship of God. This purpose can be had even while sinning. This opinion cannot be held, for we must hold that there is no remission of sin without supernatural attrition, at least, for the Council of Trent explicitly demands sorrow for the forgiveness of sin.287 Schell’s opinion amounts to an interpretative intention of having attrition, for a person so disposed, by reason of his purpose, would have actual attrition if he knew he were in danger of death. It would not be to the point here to discuss what danger of death is required for the valid reception of Extreme Unction. A non­ Catholic priest never has jurisdiction for the lawful administration of this sacrament to Catholics in ordinary cases; that is reserved to the pastor of the place in which the sick person is, or to one having at least legitimately presumed delegation from him, except for a bishop in danger of death, and for certain religious and those living in their houses day and night.238 In addition to the fact that a nonLib, VI, n. 716, ed. Gaudé, Tom. Ill, p. 731; Suarez, De Sacramentis, Pars 3, Disp. XLIV, Sect. I, n. 9, op. cit., Tom. XXII, p. 867, Vermeersch-Creusen, Epitome luris Canonici, Tom. II, n. 226, pp. 128-129. 233 Kilker, op. cit., p. 234. 236 Katholische Dogmatik, B. Ill, pp. 633 seq. 232 Sess. XIV, Cap. 4, DB, 897. 238 Canon 938, § 1 and § 2. Cf. Kilker, op. cit., pp. 93-98. Applications 110 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics Ill Catholic priest is an illicit minister for ordinary cases, if a Catholic a state of impenitence. Hence, they are to be given Extreme Unc­ were to receive Extreme Unction from one outside a case of necessity tion as long as they are not known to be unwilling to receive it, even under certain conditions, he would be guilty of formal religious com­ though they became unconscious in these circumstances. For, if munication. In a case of necessity any priest can licitly administer they have made an act of attrition, which is not altogether improb­ Extreme Unction, because he is given permission to do so in canon able, their salvation is secured more safely by Extreme Unction, 938, § 2. A dying Catholic is in extreme need, which only the sacra­ than by Penance.242 ment of Extreme Unction can help, who (1) is unconscious, (2) has Besides the condition of extreme necessity on the part of the mortal sin on his soul, (3) has not externally manifested, and can­ subject, there must be lack of a Catholic priest before a non-Catholic not manifest, sorrow or a desire for absolution, and (4) is only atpriest may lawfully give this sacrament, that is, no Catholic priest trite.2SS> Per accidens the only means of salvation for him is Extreme is available. If a non-Catholic priest is chosen, when a Catholic Unction. priest can be had, the non-Catholic is put on a par with the Catholic In these cases of extreme necessity circumstances will dictate as a legitimate public minister of religion. There is a formal reliwhether Extreme Unction is to be administered absolutely or condi- ; gious communication with the non-Catholic minister as such, for he tionally. It seems to be the more common opinion that it is to be is not authorized by the Catholic Church to act in her name unless administered absolutely as often as it is known that a person is cap­ there is a case of extreme necessity. The Salmanticenses 243 allow able of receiving it validly, and that it is to be conferred condition­ anointing by an heretical priest, and Gotti 244 by an heretical or a ally when there is doubt whether it can be received validly. The schismatic priest, in danger of death when the sacrament of Penance condition should not refer to any requisite for a fruitful reception 1 cannot be received, provided the same conditions required for the of the sacrament, otherwise its probable reviviscence in the same f reception of Penance are present. Gotti mentions these conditions: danger of death would be excluded.240 1 (1) no scandal is given; (2) no Catholic priest is present; (3) there By virtue of canon 942 this sacrament is to be refused to dying is no danger of perversion; (4) it is probable that the sacrament will Catholics who contumaciously persevere in manifest mortal sin; be administered according to the rite of the Church. Suarez holds if there is a doubt whether this state exists, it is to be given condi, that in extreme necessity Extreme Unction may be received from tionally. There are differences of opinion among authors on what | an heretical minister, when it is impossible to receive the sacrament formula should be used for conditional administration in these cases. i of Penance, because of the analogy of the cases.245 Merkelbach 248 It should never be si dispositus es, for the reason mentioned ; above.241 Kilker suggests that, since the condition need not be ex1 242 Cf. Aertnys-Damen, loc. cit., II, p. 378; St. Alphonsus, op. cit., Lib. VI, n. 732, ed. Gaudé, Tom. Ill, p. 741; Lehmkuhl, op. cit., Vol. II, n. 724, p. 418; pressed, it may be advisable to give the sacrament ad mentem EcI Diana, op. cit., Tom. I, Tr. IV, Res. 65, p. 189; Konings, op. cit., Vol. II, n. clestae, or ad normam iuris. Non-Catholic priests, when adminis’ 1508, q. 8, p. 203; Ballerini-Palmieri, Opus Theologicum Morale, Vol. V, Tr. X tering Extreme Unction in the name of the Church, should observe de Sac., Sect. VI, de Ext. Unct., n. 32, p. 697; Génicot-Salsmans, op. cit., Vol. her positive dispositions, but it is not to be presupposed that they II, n. 423, p. 380; Kilker, op. cit., pp. 239-247. will have this knowledge to guide them. > 243 Cursus Theologiae Moralis, Tom. V, Tract. XXI, Cap. Il, Punct. XI, It is well to remember that Catholics who are dying unconscious n. 126, p. 93. 244 Theologia Scholastico-Dogmatica juxta mentem Divi Thomae Aquinatis, are not to be considered as certainly impenitent from the fact that Tom. II, Tract. X, Qu. Ill, Dub. Ill, § II, pp. 385-386. they lost the use of their senses while in the act of grave sin, or in 230 Cf. Blat, op. cit., Lib. Ill, Pars I, n. 288, p. 346; Kilker, op. cit., p. 271. 240 Cf. Aertnys-Damen, op. cit., Tom. II, n. 547, I, p. 378. 241 Cf. Kilker, op. cit., pp. 247-249. 245 De Censuris, Disp. XI, Sect. I, n. 23, op. cit., Tom. XXIII, pp. 297- 298. 246 Op. cit., Tom. I, n. 755, (2), p. 584. Tom. VI, col. 2233. Cf. Michel, art. Hérésie, DThC, 112 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics allows the reception of Extreme Unction from a priest of a non­ Catholic sect, if he uses the Catholic rite, when Penance cannot be received, according to the norms of the response of the Holy Office, July 7, 1864,217 regarding Penance from a schismatic minister. He remarks that the circumstance of extreme necessity ordinarily effects that the petition for the sacrament is no longer considered as a recog­ nition of the sect; if this were not the case the petition would be illicit. It will be remembered that the conditions laid down by the Holy Office are the same as those just cited from Gotti. The reception of Extreme Unction from a non-Catholic priest is not treated by many authors. Suarez testifies to this for the authors at his disposal.248 Sayrus Anglus is a dissenting voice to the opin­ ion given.249 After discussing the questions concerned in receiving the sacraments of Baptism, Penance, and Holy Eucharist from heretical ministers, he says that all teach that the other four sacra­ ments cannot be licitly asked for from them. His reason is that a person is never constituted in a necessity for these sacraments. This argument, however, is not well considered. A person can be constituted in a necessity for Extreme Unction. The conclusion is that the reception of the sacrament of Ex­ treme Unction from a non-Catholic priest is to be allowed in extreme necessity under the same conditions as for the sacrament of Penance in the danger of death, when the latter cannot be received in the ordinary way with confession. The non-Catholic priest should give conditional absolution first to prevent the possibility of a violation of the divine law obliging a person in mortal sin to receive the sacra­ ment of Penance in danger of death. The divine law does not for­ bid his ministrations when it is made evident that there is no formal religious communication with him as a non-Catholic minister, and when the danger of scandal, or of perversion, is not present. The Church will not forbid his ministrations, because of the extreme spir­ itual need of the subject. Ordinarily a non-Catholic priest must help a Catholic under a serious obligation of charity, when the con­ ditions requisite for allowing his ministrations are present. When Coll. S.C.P.F., Vol. I, n. 1257, ad 6, p. 693. 248 Loc. cit. 248 Op. cit., Lib. Π, Cap. II, p. 99. Applications 113 a person in mortal sin has refused the sacraments up to the time he lapses into unconsciousness, however, it is hard to say that a priest hàs an obligation to administer Extreme Unction.250 When a non-Catholic priest encounters an unconscious person, who is discovered to be a Catholic, and administers Extreme Unc­ tion to him, the providence and the mercy of God can be expected to safeguard the person from all dangers. A case of this kind might occur in an accident, in some disastrous event caused by nature or war, or when a person suffers a heart attack, and so forth. E. Holy Eucharist The sacraments of Baptism, Penance, and Extreme Unction ex­ haust the possibilities for cases of extreme necessity. It has been seen that, in the mind of the Church, extreme necessity is a con­ ditio sine qua non for the reception of sacraments from priests of a non-Catholic sect. It will be to our point, however, to discuss more of the sacraments. 1. Holy Communion a. Outside the Danger of Death There is a divine precept to receive the Holy Eucharist at times during life, and, most probably, in danger of death; the ecclesias­ tical law determines when the obligation binds during life.201 The reception of the Holy Eucharist is necessary for salvation with a necessity only of precept, not of means, so that it is possible for eternal happiness to be obtained without its actual reception. It is de fide that the actual reception of the Eucharist is not necessary with a necessity of means for children without the use of reason.252 It is certain that it is not simpliciter necessary as a means for adults, but it is common teaching that its reception is morally necessary as a means of salvation.333 The Holy Eucharist, moreover, was not 250 Kilker, op. cit., p. 246. 251 Merkelbach, op. cit., Tom. Ill, n. 294, pp. 242-243. Cf. Iorio, op. cit., Vol. Ill, n. 172, p. 113. 252 Trent, Sess. XXI, canon 4, DB, 937. 233 Aertnys-Damen, op. cit., Tom. II, n. 138, I, pp. 100-101. 114 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics instituted to confer first grace per sc.2·'4 The conditions on the part of the subject for its reception are such as will allow the reception of the sacrament of Penance. Therefore, a case of extreme neces­ sity cannot be verified in regard to Holy Communion. Apart from the reception of the Holy Eucharist as Viaticum, it can be stated definitely that the precept to receive It presupposes the presence of an authorized minister.-58 Génicot-Salsmans say that the Paschal precept does not induce a necessity to approach a schis­ matic minister. For this precept does not urge in circumstances in which it can be fulfilled only against the prohibitions of the Church. This is true even in a case in which no scandal is to be feared, for example, when Easter Communion could be received occultly from a schismatic priest, for the positive prohibition against religious com­ munication is universal.250 Catholics never have a right to receive Holy Communion, apart from Viaticum, in a church of schismatics from a schismatic priest. This prohibition is universal, too, and the obligation of the Paschal season, or the absence of a Catholic priest, does not justify its violation.254 257 But receiving Holy Communion, 256 255 apart from Viaticum in certain circumstances, from a schismatic priest, involves more than a prohibition of positive ecclesiastical law, for it includes a recognition of a non-Catholic priest, and an implicit acknowledgment of his sect. It contains a formal religious com­ munication. b. In the Danger of Death It seems that Viaticum may be received from priests of a non­ Catholic sect in some cases. The Holy See has not expressed itself on this point, but it seems to exclude the reception of Viaticum under ordinary circumstances from such ministers in that it allows the re­ ception of sacraments, which are necessary for salvation, in danger of death, when no Catholic priest is present.288 Merkelbach im254 Cf. Trent, Sess. XIII, Cap. 2, DB, 87S, and canon 5, DB, 887. 255 Cf. Sayrus Anglus, doc. cit. 256 Casus Conscientiae, Casus 596, p. 412. 257 Souarn, Memento de Théologie Morale, n. 197, pp. 198-199. 2SS S. C. S. Officii, August 20, 1671, and July 7, 1864, ad 6, Coll. S.C.P.F., Vol. I, nos. 198 and 1257, pp. 69 and 693; Pius VI, May 28, 1793, Bullarii Romani Continuatio, Tom. 20, Pars 3, n. CMXLI, Qu. 9, p. 2622. j ? ; ‘ j ζ, Applications I ■ ; ; i i I 1 plicitly excludes Viaticum, for he allows the reception of Baptism, and Penance or Extreme Unction, in extreme necessity.259 Tanquèrey also implicitly excludes Viaticum.200 Some may argue for the lawfulness of its reception from such ministers from an analogy with canon 2261, § 3. It has been seen that priests of a non-Catholic sect are to be considered as vitandi in regard to the administration and reception of the sacraments, with the exception that there is a grave circumstance added by reason of the fact that they represent a non-Catholic sect.261 According to canon 2261, § 3, a vitandus may be asked for the sacraments only in danger of death; he may be asked for absolution, and if another priest is not present for the other sacraments and sacramentals. But this argument is weakened by the fact that the Holy See has required that there be a case of extreme necessity, and that no Catholic priest be present, before either Penance or Extreme Unction may be received from a non­ Catholic priest, thus seeming to exclude authorization of such a minister to act in her name for the administration of Viaticum. A stronger argument favoring the reception of Viaticum from a non­ Catholic priest seems to be that, since there is most probably an obligation to receive Viaticum by divine positive law, the Church cannot forbid its reception. If, then, in a particular case there would be no violation whatsoever of the divine law, natural or positive, in receiving Viaticum from a non-Catholic priest, it seems that it may be received from one. Noldin-Schmitt say that a non-Catholic priest may be asked to administer Viaticum.262 McHugh-Callan testify that theologians allow the reception of Viaticum from a minister of this kind, but refer to no particular authors.263 But the request for Viaticum could never be made licitly from a non-Catholic priest, when a Catholic priest is available. Because of the dangers to faith and charity, however, which can be present so easily when there is question of using a minister of this kind, it seems that Ahaticum should not be received from a 2™ Op. cit., Tom. I, η. 755, (2), p. 584. 260 Synopsis Theologiae Moralis, Tom. Π, η. 678, 1°, p. 485. 2βι Cf. p. 93. ζβ2 Op. cit., Tom. ΠΙ, n. 43, 3, p. 42. 263 op, cit., Vol. I, n. 970, (b), p. 379. 116 Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics heretic or schismatic as a general rule.201 Such procedure does not violate the divine precept to receive the Holy Eucharist in danger of death, because the possible harm to one's self, to the neighbor, and to the common good of the Church render the fulfillment of the divine precept morally impossible. Only an exceptional case in which these possibilities are not present, and when no Catholic priest is available, seems to warrant the reception of Viaticum from a non­ Catholic priest.265 In some localities schismatic priests carry Viaticum publicly to dying schismatics. In reply to questions regarding how a Catholic should act when he meets a procession of this kind, the Holy Office has said that he can and should adore the Blessed Sacrament.260 Several conditions were mentioned, namely, that the Catholic should avoid meeting the schismatic priest if possible, that he should adore only as the Blessed Sacrament passes, and that he should not join in the procession nor enter the schismatic church. 2. The Sacrifice of the Mass Catholics are forbidden to assist formally at the Sacrifice of the Mass in schismatic churches.266 267 These prohibitions expressly state that they oblige even in places where there are no Catholic priests; the precept of hearing Mass does not oblige when a Catholic priest cannot be had. Iorio says that this is true even when the non­ Catholic priest celebrates Mass in a Catholic rite, for the general law of canon 1258, § 1, prevails, which, according to canon 21, al­ ways urges, even if in a particular case danger is not present.268 But we hold that this prohibition is a re-statement of the divine law, 264 Cf. Noldin-Schmitt, loc. cit. 285 Wladmir Soloviev received Communion from an Orthodox priest on his death-bed because no Catholic priest was available, Iswolsky, Light Before Dusk, p. S3. 266 June 30 and July 7, 1864, ad 5, Coll. S.C.P.F., Vol. I, n. 1257, pp. 692-693. 267 s. C. S. Officii, Dec. 5, 1668, and Aug. 7, 1704, ad 1, Coll. S.C.P.F., Vol. I, nos. 171 and 267, pp. 54 and 91. Cf. Perfice Munus, Vol. XI (1936) p. 79. 268 Op. cit., Vol. I, n. 278, Qu., p. 232. rfw -, - Applications 117 because formal assistance at a Mass of a non-Catholic priest is an active participation in unauthorized worship, and an acknowledgment of his ministry and sect.269 Furthermore, Iorio holds that a Catholic does not fulfill the precept of hearing Mass, if he assists ! at a Mass celebrated in an heretical or other non-Catholic rite, or in i a non-Catholic church.279 On the other hand, however, it seems probable that the precept of hearing Mass would be fulfilled when a Catholic hears a Mass celebrated in a Catholic rite by a validly ordained priest of a non-Catholic sect, although a mortal sin would be committed by attending it.271 There are times when a Catholic may lawfully be present at the Mass of a schismatic priest,272 although never when commanded by law in recognition of the sect.273 His presence can be justified according to the principles of canon 1258, § 2. During the Mass he must sincerely adore the Blessed Sacrament, yet he may not unite with the schismatics in any way, even in the recitation of prayers which are in no way contrary to faith; 274 his adoration should be externalized by kneeling.275 A Catholic is forbidden by divine law to give even an external approval to a schismatic sect. The presence of scandal will be governed by local custom, or by the fact whether or not the Catholic is known to be a Catholic. The question might arise whether a non-Catholic priest should be called to finish a Mass which has been begun substantially by a Catholic priest. By divine law the Sacrifice of the Mass must be completed once the consecration of the bread has taken place. Re­ gardless of what opinion is held on what constitutes the essence of the sacrifice, whether it is the consecration of one, or of both, species,289 ' j ! 289 Cf. Vermeersch, op. cit., Tom. II, n. 52, (b), p. 46. 270 Loc. cit., note (1), p. 232. Cf. canon 1249. 271 Guiniven, The Precept of Hearing Mass, pp. 110-111. Cf. VermeerschCreusen, Epitome luris Canonici, Tom. II, n. 563, pp. 349-350; Vermeersch, Theologiae Moralis Principia, Responsa, Consilia, Tom. Ill, η. 859, p. 729. 272 Vermeersch, op. cit., Tom. II, η. 52, p. 46. 279 Instructio S. C. S. Officii, May 12, 1841, ad 2, Coll. S.C.P.F., Vol. I, n. 921, p. 519. 27Loc. cit. 841 Loc. cit. In the time of Kenrick and Konings such marriages were valid in some parts of our country. 342 Institutiones Theologiae Moralis, Vol. I, n. 201, p. 151. 843 Loc. cit., note (4), p. 39. 844 Op. cit., Tom. I, n. 449, 3°, p. 288. 348 Op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 285-286. »