Summa summae S. Thomae, Tomus III

What is heresy, and how manyfold?

Heresy is a Greek word importing choice, because the heretic by his own judgment chooses to believe what he wills.

I say 1°: Heresy is « a pertinacious error manifestly contrary to the faith, in one who has professed the faith of Christ in truth. »

It is called error, that is, a positive assent to the false, or dissent from the true.

It is called manifestly contrary to the faith, because if anyone held something contrary to the faith about which it were not certain and manifest that it was contrary to it, he would not be a heretic, at least a formal one. That, moreover, is certainly and manifestly of the faith which is manifestly and certainly revealed by God, whether privately, or in Scripture, or in the definitions of the Church, and which all Catholics hold as of faith.

It is called pertinacious error. Pertinacity is an obstinate adhesion to one's own opinion against the faith sufficiently manifested: for this neither length of time is required, nor that one be canonically admonished several times; but voluntary dissent from the faith sufficiently proposed by the Church suffices, which can occur in an instant.

That such pertinacity is required for heresy is clear partly from the very name; for it is, as we said, a choice: partly because, just as for faith there is required the pious motion of the will inclining the intellect to assent with certainty to truth obscurely revealed, so for heresy, which is opposed to faith, there is required the perverse affection of the will to dissent pertinaciously from the truth proposed by the Church: partly from the law, cap. Dixit, cap. Qui in Ecclesia, cause 24, q. 3, and Clement. Ex gravi, book V, title 5, on usuries, where those only are acknowledged as heretics who have been pertinacious in denying some article of faith. Hence that saying of Augustine: « I may err, but I shall not be a heretic, » namely through want of pertinacity. The same St Thomas, q. 8 de Malo and on chapter 11 of I Cor., lecture 4. Hence you will infer that one who through ignorance, even culpable, crass, and supine, yet not affected, withstands the faith, being ready to assent if instructed, is not a formal heretic; for although he sins mortally against the affirmative precept of the faith by voluntarily ignoring what he ought to know, he would not nevertheless be pertinacious. Nay, he would not even sin, if his ignorance were involuntary and inculpable, as happens among uneducated Catholics, or those neglected through the carelessness of parents and pastors, and even among those brought up among heretics, who have never heard anything of the Catholic faith except mockeries and blasphemies against it, nor are they beset by any doubt in this matter; so that, if they hold what must be believed under necessity of means, and are disposed in mind to believe the rest if duly proposed, they do not seem to be outside the way of salvation. Nor does it stand in the way that outside the Church no one is saved; for these, by reason of baptism, likewise of the faith which they have, and of their interior disposition to believe the rest, can be said to be in the Church.

Nor does it stand in the way that for other sins voluntariness in the cause suffices: thus one who kills a man through culpable ignorance is truly a homicide. For the disparity is that other sins are not said to arise from election, as heresy is, for which the common voluntariness, whereby every sin must be voluntary, does not suffice, but there is required a special and pertinacious voluntariness opposed to the faith.

You will ask whether one doubting in the faith is a heretic.

It seems that he is not; because the doubter has no error in the intellect, since he neither assents nor dissents; for doubt is a suspension between assent and dissent.

Before the resolution, a twofold doubt must be distinguished: one negative, the other positive. Negative, which some call in actu exercito, is when someone, having apprehended both opposite sides, whether this be true or false, assenting to neither, remains suspended without any positive act. Positive, which others call in actu signato, is when someone likewise, having apprehended both opposite sides, assenting to neither, judges by a positive act that the thing is doubtful and uncertain.

I answer. 1°. Whoever deliberately doubts with a positive doubt concerning some article of the faith sufficiently proposed by the Church, v. g., whoever judges it doubtful whether there is a Purgatory, whether Christ is in the Eucharist, while knowing that it is so handed down and believed by the whole Church, is formally a heretic; because, although he does not deny the truth about which he doubts, he nevertheless judges positively that it, and the infallibility of the Church, are not certain: and thus he has a positive and pertinacious error in the intellect, if not explicitly against the truth of faith about which he doubts, at least against the firmness and certitude of the Church's infallibility, which is of the essence of the faith. By which the argument set down at the beginning is answered. And of one so doubting is verified what is said in the law: « Doubting in the faith, he is an unbeliever, » and he incurs the excommunication reserved to the Pope, no otherwise than other heretics.

I answer. 2°. Whoever doubts with a merely negative doubt about some article of the faith sufficiently proposed by the Church, that is, precisely suspends judgment without any positive act, because, v. g., he wishes now to attend to other things, or does not wish at the moment to fatigue his head in a matter so great, or wishes to inquire more fitly and agreeably into the motives for assenting, or on account of like motives, is not formally a heretic; because, since he has no judgment, for he suspends it, he has no positive error in the intellect. Nor does he seem to sin of itself, at least mortally, setting aside the danger of consenting to a positive doubt, unless the affirmative precept of the faith then press.

If, however, such suspension of judgment proceeded from a motion of the will on account of difficulties propounded by the intellect, which nevertheless does not judge, as though terrified by them and beguiled about the truth: some hold, not improbably, that the malice of heresy is included therein, so that the suspension ensuing upon that evil motion of the will is a kind of virtual and implicit judgment concerning the uncertainty of the object of faith. Moreover, the matter is exceedingly perilous, and there is no doubt that voluntary negative doubt can easily pass into positive, or arise from it.

[That every doubt concerning things that are of the faith is grave sin the Vatican Synod defined by the following canon: « If anyone shall say that the condition of the faithful and of those who have not yet attained to the one only true faith is equal, so that Catholics may have a just cause for calling into doubt, with suspended assent, the faith which they have already received under the magisterium of the Church, until they shall have completed a scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith: let him be anathema. »]

I say 2°: Heresy is divided 1° into material and formal. Formal is that which we defined and have explained hitherto. Material is the error of a baptized man against the truth of the faith arising from ignorance, and without pertinacity. This is clear from what has been said.

2° Heresy is divided into internal only, external only, and internal and external together. Internal only is the voluntary error against the faith abiding in the mind alone and manifested by no exterior sign. External only is when one denies by mouth or by deed the faith retained in the heart. Internal and external together, which is complete heresy, is that which, conceived in the mind, is outwardly manifested by word or sign, even if no one be present; provided only the sign be such that, if anyone were present, he would straightway understand that an article of the faith is denied, of which more presently.

3° External heresy is divided into occult and manifest. Occult is that which becomes known to none or to few; manifest, that which is known to many.

§ II. On the punishments of heretics.

The punishments of heretics are of twofold genus. Some are spiritual, as excommunication, irregularity, deprivation of every benefice, jurisdiction, and ecclesiastical dignity, likewise of ecclesiastical burial. Others are corporal, as confiscation of all goods, exemption of subjects from the oath of fidelity, infamy, and capital punishment. The temporal punishments belong to the secular forum. Wherefore, omitting these, we shall speak only of the spiritual ones.

I say 1°: Neither the material heretic, nor the merely internal, nor the merely external heretic incurs the excommunication and the other spiritual punishments of heretics.

The first part is clear; for the material heretic is not truly and formally a heretic, because he is not pertinacious.

The second part is likewise evident; because, although the merely internal heretic is in the forum of conscience and before God truly a heretic, he is not such in the external forum and before the Church, which does not judge of interior things, and therefore he is not subjected to the punishments decreed by her against heretics.

The third part is likewise evident; because the merely external heretic, as one who either through fear, or hope of gain, or anger, or some other like motive, retaining faith in the heart, utters a heretical proposition, tramples upon the crucifix or the images of the saints, exhibits worship to an idol, shares in the banquets of heretics, etc., although he sins most grievously, is not nevertheless truly a heretic; because heresy is an error of the mind. Ecclesiastical punishments, however, are inflicted only upon those who are truly heretics.

Nor does it matter that one who kills a man through fear or hope of gain is truly a homicide. The disparity is that for homicide the slaying of a man without legitimate authority suffices; for heresy, however, error in the mind is required.

And all these consequently can be absolved by any confessor; unless the external heretic has been publicly denounced as a heretic by the Church (which judges nothing but exterior things, and from exterior things presumes the interiors); for then, on account of scandal, he would have to be avoided, nor ought he to be absolved unless reconciled to the Church.

I say 2°: The internal heretic, by this very act whereby he manifests his heresy outwardly, distinctly, and assertively, even if no one hear or see him, incurs excommunication reserved specially to the Pope alone. Cap. Excommunicamus, de haereticis; cap. Noverit, de sent. excommunicat.; and in the Bulla Coenae.

I said: « Even if no one hear or see him; » for it suffices that the sign be such that, if anyone were present, he would straightway understand that the faith is denied. For such heresy belongs to the outward forum of the Church, and thus it lies under excommunication, which is of the external forum; but that it cannot be proven is not because of itself it is not of the external forum, but per accidens, through defect of witnesses.

[From the constitution of the Apostolic See, 4° idus octobris 1869, promulgated by Pius IX, « all apostates from the Christian faith, and each and every heretic, by whatever name they be accounted and of whatever sect they exist; their believers, their receivers, favorers, and generally any defenders whatsoever of them, » lie under the excommunication latae sententiae reserved in a special manner to the Roman Pontiff. The Bulla Coenae, § 1, accords plainly. — Likewise, by the same constitution, « all and singular those knowingly reading, without the authority of the Apostolic See, the books of the same apostates and heretics upholding heresy, as well as the books of any author prohibited nominatim by apostolic letters, and retaining, printing, and defending those same books in any way whatever, » are excommunicated. So the bull Coenae, § 1, and reg. X of the Index. — The articles mentioned above will be expounded in the treatise on Censures.]

As to the other spiritual punishments of heretics, some hold that manifest heretics are not by this very fact deprived of their benefices, but that the sentence of a judge is required, because in cap. Ut commissi, de Haeret., in 6°, the Pontiff says they are to be deprived, or declared deprived. Others hold that by this very fact they are deprived of the title of benefice, but not of the possession.

[Indeed, from the prefaced chapter it seems that deprivation of all dignity, benefice, and office is incurred by the law itself, but that only after a declaratory sentence is this deprivation to be brought into execution¹]

As to ecclesiastical burial, Sylvius here holds that a manifest heretic ought to be deprived of it before the sentence of a judge; because in cap. Quicumque, de Haereticis, in 6°, it is decreed indefinitely that heretics, believers, harborers, defenders, and favorers are to be deprived of burial, and that those who presume to do otherwise are excommunicated. Yet, supposing the truth of this opinion, I judge it must be understood of heretics and of the others designated insofar as they are so manifest that by no tergiversation and by no plea of law could they be excused, which I deem rare in practice; otherwise material would be furnished for lawsuits and contentions.

[This interpretation agrees with the text of the chapter; for the punishment of excommunication is decreed against those who knowingly presume to hand over heretics to ecclesiastical burial. Now only they truly violate this law knowingly who concede ecclesiastical burial to manifest heretics. The aforesaid excommunication is not enunciated so generically in the constit. Apostolicae Sedis, but is comprehended limitatively in the following, which is the 17th among the excommunications simply reserved to the supreme Pontiff: « Clerics knowingly and spontaneously communicating in divine things with persons excommunicated nominatim by the Roman Pontiff, and receiving them in offices. » This excommunication, therefore, is incurred, and by these alone, who knowingly and spontaneously concede ecclesiastical burial to heretics excommunicated nominatim by the Roman Pontiff, because they receive them in liturgical offices, of which mention is made here.

By the same constit., « those ordering or compelling notorious heretics, or persons excommunicated or interdicted nominatim, whether by the Pope or by the bishop, to be delivered to ecclesiastical burial, » lie under excommunication latae sententiae reserved to no one. Alexander VI, cap. Quicumque, de Haereticis, in 6°; Clement V, cap. Eos qui, de sepult.

But whoever admitted to ecclesiastical burial one excommunicated nominatim by a bishop would be punished with simple interdict, according to the same constit.: « Those knowingly... admitting those excommunicated nominatim... to ecclesiastical burial incur by the law itself interdict from entrance into the church, until they have made due satisfaction to the arbitrament of him whose sentence they contemned. »]

As to irregularity, some hold that it is incurred as soon as heresy becomes external, although it remain occult, from the same chapter Quicumque. Others hold that it must be noted and manifest, because Boniface VIII, cap. Statutum 2, on the same title de Haereticis, seems to interpret the praised chapter Quicumque, as regards irregularity, of manifest and proven heretics.

Nor do heretics alone incur irregularity, but the believers themselves, their harborers and favorers, nay, even their children, unto the second generation, if the father die in heresy; unto the first, if the mother die in heresy, from both chapters cited above, Quicumque and Statutum.

[It must be noted, however, that in regions where heretics are constituted in religious society, and heresy is not held as an infamous crime, the children of heretics are not irregular from this source²

Irregularity arisen from heresy is reserved to the supreme Pontiff.]

As to the deprivation of jurisdiction, the difficulty is graver. It is certain by the ancient law that all manifest heretics are deprived of jurisdiction. Thus St Thomas resolves it, below q. 39, a. 3, o. But the question is of the more recent law in the Council of Constance. Hence

I say 3°: Heretics, even manifest ones, unless they be denounced nominatim, or unless they themselves withdraw from the Church, retain jurisdiction and absolve validly.

Proof. From the bull Ad evitanda scandala of Martin V, in the Council of Constance, wherein, as related by St Antoninus, III p., lit. 25, c. 2, it is thus enacted: « To avoid scandals and many perils which can befall timorous consciences, we mercifully grant to the faithful of Christ, by the tenor of these presents, that no one henceforth be bound to abstain from communion with anyone, in the administration or reception of the sacraments, or in other divine things whatsoever, or outside them, on pretext of any sentence or censure ecclesiastical promulgated generally by law or by man, or to avoid anyone, or to observe an ecclesiastical interdict, unless such sentence or censure has been published and denounced specially and expressly by a judge against a person, or against a college, or community, church, or place, or a certain land; notwithstanding the apostolic constitutions and whatsoever others making to the contrary. » Then it excepts only the notorious assailants of clerics. From which it is argued thus. The Church grants to the faithful that they may receive the sacraments from heretics not denounced expressly and nominatim. Therefore she leaves to them jurisdiction for the valid administration of the sacraments; otherwise the concession made to the faithful would be null.

Confirmation. From the practice of the whole Church today. For no one thinks today that Lutherans and Calvinists, notoriously heretical and excommunicate, are to be avoided. No one avoids his own pastor, even as regards the reception of the sacraments, so long as he is left in his benefice, although he be manifestly, in the judgment of all or at least of many, a Jansenist and rebellious against the definitions of the Church. And so of the rest.

I said in the conclusion: « Or unless they themselves withdraw from the Church; » partly because by this very act whereby they withdraw from the Church they renounce its jurisdiction, which therefore the Church is not considered to continue to them; partly because the council speaks of heretics living among Catholics, insofar as, if manifest heretics were to be avoided before denunciation, dangers of souls and anxieties of consciences would be bred while it was not established that they were manifest, some affirming it, others denying it, as in fact occurs in the case of Jansenism, and it would be most difficult for a layman to discern with certainty whether anyone is manifestly a heretic or not, since the matter of heresy for the most part surpasses their grasp. For which reasons the council rightly enacted that only the denounced are to be avoided. These causes, however, cease while the heretics themselves withdraw from the Church.

You will say: This bull is not found in the acts of the Council of Constance. Therefore.

I answer. It is related by St Antoninus, a contemporary of the council, and by all authors everywhere.

I insist. 1°: This bull is related partly by the Council of Basel, session XX, and the Fifth Lateran, session XI, with the greater exception; for it declares that all notoriously excommunicated persons, for whatever cause they be excommunicated, are to be avoided. Therefore.

I answer. That this addition made by those councils has not been received in usage. Hence Dominic Soto, in IV Sentent., dist. 22, q. 1, a. 4, after relating these councils, says: « By the custom and usage of the Church it is most received that we avoid only those two species of excommunications (namely those denounced nominatim, and the notorious assailants of clerics), which the aforesaid council (of Constance) commanded... And thus it must be held without any fear. » And it is clear from the confirmation of the conclusion.

You will ask 1° who can absolve from heresy.

I answer. The Council of Trent, session XXIV, chapter 6, de Reformat., grants to bishops the faculty of absolving by themselves, or through a vicar specially deputed for this, from all occult cases reserved to the Holy See, and from the occult crime of heresy by themselves alone.

But this faculty seems revoked by the bull Coenae, as issued after Trent by Sixtus V, Gregory XIII, Clement VIII, and Paul V, not only as regards heresy, but even as regards the other cases contained in this bull; hence in places where this bull prevails, it seems that, apart from danger of death, the Pontiff alone, or he to whom he commits it, can absolve from occult heresy and the other occult cases of the bull Coenae.

[And indeed, by the constit. Apostolicae Sedis, « all apostates from the Christian faith, and each and every heretic, by whatever name they be accounted and of whatever sect they exist; their believers, their receivers, favorers, and generally any detainers whatsoever of them, » incur the excommunication reserved in a special manner to the Roman Pontiff. This excommunication is renewed by the bull Coenae, § 1. Hence bishops cannot absolve from it, even if they have obtained the general faculty of absolving from the cases reserved to the Holy See, unless it be enunciated specially and expressly in the indult.

Nevertheless, since excommunication is not incurred except on account of contumacy, which must be proven in the external forum, any confessor can absolve both the guilty of merely internal heresy and heretics who, by reason of ignorance, have incurred no censure.]

You will ask 2° what punishment those incur who read the books of heretics.

[I answer. They are excommunicated with excommunication latae sententiae, reserved in a special manner to the Roman Pontiff: « all and singular those knowingly reading, without the authority of the Apostolic See, the books of apostates and heretics upholding heresy, as well as the books of any author prohibited nominatim by apostolic letters, and retaining, printing, and defending those same books in any way whatever. » So the constit. Apostolicae Sedis, after the bull Coenae and several constitutions of the Pontiffs, namely of Pius IV, constit. 77, of Sixtus V, constit. 74, of Clement VIII, constit. 36, in Cherubin. See what has been said concerning the authority of the Index of prohibited books, in the treatise on Laws, dissertation III, art. 1, You will ask 3°.]