TOLERATION
767
TOLERATION
sonal ronrprn of the individual. And in this matter
the Church shows the greatest possible consideration
for the good faith and the innocence of the erring per-
son. Not that she refers, as is often stated, the
eternal salvation of the heterodox solely and exclu-
eivelj' to "invincible ignorance", and thus makes
sanctifying ignorance a convenient gate to heaven for
the stupid. She places the efficient cause of the
eternal salvation of all men objectively in the merits
of the Redeemer, and subjectively in justification
through baptism or through good faith enUvened by
the perfect love of God, both of which may be found
outside the Cathohc Church. Whoever indeed has
recognized the true Church of Christ, but contrary to
his better knowledge refuses to enter it, and whoever
becomes perplexed as to the truth of his belief, but
fails to investigate his doubts seriously, no longer lives
in good faith, but exposes himself to the danger of
I eternal damnation, since he rashly contravenes an
important command of God. Otherwise the gentle
breathing of grace is not confined within the walls of
the Cathohc Church, but reaches the hearts of many
who stand afar, working in them the marvel of justi-
fication and thus ensuring the eternal salvation of
numberless men who either, like upright Jews and
pagans, do not know the true Church, or, like so many
Protestants educated in gross prejudice, cannot ap-
preciate her true nature. To all such, the Church
does not close the gate of Heaven, although she insists
that there are essential means of grace which are not
within the reach of non-Cathohcs. In his allocution
"Singulari quadam" of 9 December, 1854, which
emphasized the dogma of the Church as necessary for
salvation, Pius IX uttered the consoling principle:
"Sed tamen pro certo pariter habendum est, qui
verie religionis ignorant ia laborent, si ea est invinci-
bilis, nulla ipsos obstringi hujusce rei culpa ante oculos
Domini" (But it is likewise certain that those who are
ignorant of the true rehgion, if their ignorance is in-
vincible, are not, in this matter, guilty of any fault
in the sight of God). (Denzinger-Bannwart, 11th ed.,
Freiburg, 1911, n. 1647.)
As early as 1713 Clement XI condemned in his dogmatic BuU "Unigenitus" the proposition of the Jansenist Quesnel: "Extra ecclesiam nulla con- ceditur gratia", i. e. no grace is given outside the Church (op, cit., n. 1379), just as Alexander VIII had already condemned in 1690 the Jansenistic propo- sition of Arnauld: "Pagani, Jud:ei, ha!retici aliique hujus generis nullum omnino accipiimt a Jesu Christo infiuxum" (Pagans, Jews, heretics, and other people of the sort, receive no influx |of grace] whatsoever from Jesus Christ) (op. cit., n. 129.5). In her tolerance toward the erring the Church indeed goes farther than the large catechism of Martin Luther, which on "pagans or Turks or Jews or false Christians" passes the general and stern sentence of condemnation: "wherefore they remain under eternal WTath and in everlasting damnation." Catholics who are conver- sant with the teachings of their Church know how to draw the proper conclusions. Absolutely unflinching in their fidelity to the Church as the sole means of salvation on earth, they will treat with respect, as ethically due, the religious convictions of others, and will see in non-Catholics, not enemies of Christ, but brethren. Recognizing from the Cathohc doctrine of grace that the possibility of justification and of eternal salvation is not withheld even from the heathen, they will show towards all Christians, e. g. the various Protestant bodies, kindly consideration. Concerning these dogmatic questions, cf. Pohle, "Dogmatik", II (5th ed., Paderborn, 1912), 444 sqq., 4.53 sqq.
III. The Obligation to Show Practical Cmc ToLERATio.N. — For the practical attitude of Catholics toward.s the heterodox the Church has inculcated the strict command of neighbourly love, which corre-
sponds to Christian charity: "Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself." The sincerest love for the
erring is indeed quite compatible with keen repug-
nance for the error to which they cling. From the
very definition of practical civic tolerance (see above,
1, 2) springs the maxim which St. Augustine expresses
as follows: "Dihgite homines, interficite errores; sine
superbia de veritate pra^sumite, sine sa-vitia pro veri-
tate certate" (Love men, slay error; without pride be
bold in the truth, without cruelty fight for the truth)
(Contra ht. Petil., I, xxix, n. 31, in P. L., XLIII, 259).
God is a God of love, and consequently His children
cannot be sons of hate. The gospel of the Divine
paternity in heaven is also the joyous tidings of the
brotherhood of all men on earth. For all without ex-
ception the Saviour prayed in His capacity of high-
priest during the night before His Passion, and for all
He shed His Blood on the Cross. The sublime ex-
ample of Christ affords a striking indication of the
manner in which we shovdd regulate our conduct to-
wards those who differ from us in faith, for we know
that, so to speak, a drop of the redeeming Blood of
Christ ghstens on every human soul. To penetrate
into the inner shrine of another's conscience with feel-
ings of doubt and distrust is forbidden to all in ac-
cordance with the principle: "Nemo pra^sumitur
malus, nisi probetur" (No one is presumed to be
evil until proved to be so). And St. Paul declares:
"Charity is patient, is kind: charity envieth not,
dealeth not perversely . . ., is not pro\oked to anger,
thinketh no evil" (I Cor., xiii, 4 sq.). By this Chris-
tian love alone is the truly tolerant man, the true
disciple of Christ, recognized. But did not the me-
dieval Chm"ch by her bloody persecution of heretics
trample under foot this commandment of love and
thus nullify in practice what in theory indeed she
always inculcated with honeyed words? The ene-
mies of the Church search eagerly the musty docu-
ments which tell of inquisitional courts, aitlos-da-fe,
chambers of horror, instruments of torture, and
blazing pyres. Without any palliation of the histori-
cal facts, let us examine a little more closely this re-
proach, and see what importance is to be attached
to it.
(1) When the inglorious origin of his forbears is constantly cast in the teeth of an honest nobleman, with the spiteful idea of wounding his feelings, no upright person will regard such conduct as tactful or just. What has the Church of to-day to do with the fact that long-vanished generations inflicted, in the name of religion, cruelties with which the modern man is disgusted? The children's children cannot beheld accountable for themisdeedsof.their forefathers. Prot- estants also must take refuge in this principle of justice. However much they endeavour to bhnk the fact, they have also to regret similar occurrences dur- ing the Reformation epoch, when, as everyone knows, the Reformers and their successors made free use of the existing penal ordinances and punished with death many inconvenient and, according to their view, hereiical persons (e. g. the anti-Trinitarians Servetus and Sylvanus, the Osiandrist Funk, the Calvinist Nicholas Krell at Dresden). Hundreds of faithful Catholics, who fell victims to the Reformation in Eng- land, are venerated to-day as the English martyrs. The greater number of execut ions occurred, not under Mary the Catholic, but under (Jueon Elizabeth. It is, however, unjust to hold modern Protest ant ism, in the one in.stance, and Catholicism ui the other responsi- ble for these atrocities.
(2) In every age the Church has drawn a funda- mental distinction (which, on account of its import- ance, should never be overlooked) between formal and merely material heretics, and her penal legislation was directed solely against the former category. As the open and obstinate rebellion of a Catholic against tlie Divinely instituted teaching authority of the Cbiircb,
