Summa summae S. Thomae, Tomus III

Twofold is the precept concerning the external act of faith, as we said concerning hell: one negative, not to deny the faith externally; the other affirmative, to confess the faith externally.

I say 1°: In no case whatsoever, even to avoid death, is it licit to deny by word or deed the faith retained in the heart, or to profess or simulate it false externally.

It is clear 1° from the words of Christ, Matt., X, 33, and Luc., XII, 9, where he says: He that shall deny me before men, I will deny him before my Father. And Apost., 2 Tim., II, 12: If we deny him, he also will deny us. It is therefore a divine negative precept not to deny the faith. Such however is the nature of a negative precept that it binds always and forever.

2° To deny the faith is to say that God revealed what is false, or did not reveal a dogma of faith. But either is a lie injurious to God. Therefore it is never licit.

I said 1°: « By word or deed; » because in both there is a lie ¹, with this sole difference, that a lie by deed is called simulation.

I said 2°: « Or profess or simulate it false externally; » because to simulate and outwardly profess a false faith or religion is just as much as to deny the true one; for he who says in word, or exhibits in deed, that he is a Calvinist denies himself to be a Catholic.

You will ask when in practice someone is judged by deed to simulate or outwardly profess a false religion.

I answer. And let it be a general rule. To make use of signs, rites, ceremonies, vestments, actions which are primarily distinctive of sect from sect, or which either of themselves, or by institution, or from circumstances are primarily significant of the profession of a false faith, is to profess that false faith externally; and therefore never licit. Those things however which distinguish not primarily sect from sect but nation from nation, or which only per accidens, indirectly and secondarily, are significant of the profession of a false faith, although they are to be avoided lest we give some occasion for believing that we denied the faith — provided nevertheless there subsist a just cause of necessity preponderating over this deception — may be used licitly; because this is not absolutely to profess a false faith. From this rule rightly understood and applied you will resolve many cases. I shall relate some.

Hence therefore you will infer 1° that it has never been licit to bend the knee before an idol, to offer incense to it, even if the intention be directed to a hidden crucifix, to wear the image of Mohammed hung about the neck, to take the supper of the Calvinists, to sing psalms in their temples, to play the organs, to contract marriage before a minister blessing the nuptials according to the rite of his sect; because these are primarily distinctive of sect from sect, and per se primarily significant of a false religion.

[By the constitution Ex quo singulari, given 11 July 1742, Benedict XIV, confirming the constitution of Clement XI Ex illa die, declared that Chinese Christians might not exhibit external signs of adoration to an idol, although the intention were directed to a cross hidden under their garments. He permitted them to keep only those usages which could be held as civil only, such as those which had been instituted in honor of Confucius, provided all rites in which religious worship was included were amended.

You will infer 2° that it is regularly not licit for Catholics to be present at the sermons, baptisms and marriages of heretics or schismatics, as was declared by the Congregation of the Holy Office on 10 May 1770. Whence conclude that undertaking the office of godfather at the baptism of heretics, and of witness at their marriages, is forbidden a fortiori by the same decree. This is elicited from the Instruction of Pius VI of 26 September 1791, and from his replies to the clergy of France of 28 May 1793. — As to mere assistance, it was said that it is regularly not licit, because if the presence be merely material, as can sometimes happen, and it be sufficiently gathered from the circumstances that it contains or supposes no communication in divine things with heretics, and moreover offers no occasion of scandal, it can be excused from sin. — But truly, as evidently appears, if any Catholic, despising the laws of the Church, contracts marriage before a minister of a dissenting cult, it is licit to no Catholic to assist at such a marriage, even though he do not inwardly assent to it. Nay, parents and those more closely joined by blood are bound positively to disapprove it. — To the question: « Is it licit for Catholics to enter the temples of heretics? » the Congregation of the Holy Office replied on 14 January 1718: « It is licit, if they enter out of mere curiosity, without any communication in sacred things. » — If funerals of heretics be in question, a distinction must be made. Things pertaining to a merely civil office, such as accompanying the body to the door of the temple or cemetery, can be permitted. Other things which have the nature or species of communion with heretics are to be prohibited. Moreover several things which could be admitted in one place cannot be tolerated in another, because from circumstances or from the customs of the region they receive a different signification. Whence one must attend to local custom, and in doubt superiors must be consulted. So Gury-Dumas, num. 192, 5°.

You will infer 3° that those gravely sin who are present at the merely civil funerals of those who abjured the Catholic faith; because funerals of this kind, from which all signs of religion are deliberately excluded, are nothing but an open profession of impiety, which not even the relatives of the deceased may cooperate in.]

You will infer 4° that on the contrary it is licit, for a just cause, to wear long Turkish dress, or even what they call a turban, to conceal the faith. For although it has never been licit to deny the faith, it is nevertheless licit sometimes to hide and dissemble it; nor is that garment primarily for the distinction of religion but of nation, nor does the Catholic assume it so that he be believed to profess the Turkish religion, but that the occasion of attending to and inquiring about his religion be taken away. Say the same of the vestments of other idolatrous nations which are not destined precisely for the uses of their religion. Say the same of their standards in war, that thus they may be deceived and conquered.

I say 2°: By the precept of Christ the faithful is bound sometimes to confess his faith externally ².

It is proved. Christ, Matt., X, 32, says: Every one that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father. Luc., IX, 26: He that shall be ashamed of me and of my words, him will the Son of man be ashamed of. And the Apostle, Rom., X, 10: With the heart we believe unto justice; but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Therefore confession is sometimes necessary to salvation.

The Author here ³ assigns two cases in which this affirmative precept of confessing the faith binds, namely: « When through omission of this confession honor due to God would be withheld, and also utility to be bestowed on neighbors: suppose that anyone questioned about the faith kept silence, and from this it were believed either that he had no faith, or that the faith was not true, or that others were turned away from the faith by his silence. » All theologians follow the Saintly Doctor. And deservedly, for the precept of confessing the faith binding sometimes being supposed, cases cannot be assigned in which its observance presses more than these two which St. Thomas assigns.

[Whence the following proposition was condemned by Innocent XI, on 2 March 1679, which is the 18th: « If anyone be questioned by the public authority, I counsel him sincerely to confess the faith, as glorious to God and the faith; I do not condemn silence as sinful. »

It must be noted however that this proposition was condemned as too general, because namely it includes also the cases in which silence would be equivalent to denial of the faith. For it is commonly admitted, with St. Liguori, lib. III, n. 13, that for a just cause it is licit to conceal the faith, or to cover truth with words or other ambiguous and indifferent signs, whenever the precept of professing the faith does not press, which, insofar as it is affirmative, binds indeed always but not forever. Hence one questioned about the faith not in juridical form may keep silence or answer obscurely. For it is not generally true that one questioned by those who exercise public authority is bound to profess the faith, unless this profession be made necessary by the circumstances, lest he seem to deny the faith before bystanders. Much more will it be lawful for anyone to refuse to satisfy the curiosity of private persons: unless questioned about the faith out of hatred of religion he would seem, by acting thus, to deny the truth; which is to be judged from the circumstances.]

I say 3°: By ecclesiastical law, under mortal sin, the following are bound to external profession of faith, from the Council of Trent, session XXIV, cap. 12 de reform.: « Those provided with benefices of whatever kind having care of souls shall be bound, from the day of acquired possession, within at least two months, in the hands of the bishop himself, or, he being hindered, before his general vicar or official, to make public profession of the orthodox faith, and to promise and swear that they will persevere in obedience to the Roman Church. Those provided moreover with canonries and dignities in cathedral churches are bound to do the same not only before the bishop or his official, but also in chapter. Otherwise let all the aforesaid provisors, as above, not receive their fruits, nor let possession avail them. » — From the tenor of this decree, those provided with canonries in merely collegiate churches, or with simple benefices, are not bound to the said profession. — The most sacred council commands moreover, session XXV, cap. 2 de reform., that patriarchs, primates, archbishops and bishops emit the same profession of faith in the first provincial synod in which they themselves take part; likewise that the same be done in the first diocesan synod in which all the rest who are to hold ecclesiastical benefices ought to assemble. Pius IV extends this law to all prelates of religions, even military, and Pius VI to all who are to be promoted to doctors, masters, regents and professors. De Angelis warns, Praelect. iuris canon., lib. I, tit. 1, n. 2, « that the constitution of Pius IV is not received in usage as regards those prelates who are placed over the government of religious not by the Holy See but by their superiors or by the chapter. » Sanchez truly, c. 3, n. 4, says the decree of Pius V does not bind where it was not received in usage. As regards the penalty of not receiving his fruits imposed by Trent upon those omitting the profession of faith, St. Liguori judges, lib. III, n. 11, that these are not bound to it before sentence.

It must be noted that this profession of faith is to be made according to the formula prescribed by Pius IV, into which, by order of Pius IX, express mention is to be inserted of those things « which have been handed down, defined and declared by the ecumenical Vatican Council, especially concerning the primacy and infallible magisterium of the Roman Pontiff. »

Although it is probable that this profession can be made through a procurator, it is nevertheless more probable that the promoted person is bound personally. The reason is that otherwise it does not seem that satisfaction is sufficiently made by oath, which must be made personally. St. Lig., lib. I, n. 11.