HERESY
257
HERESY
"defined" or is not clearly proposed as an article of
faith in the ordinary, authorized teaching of the
Church, an opinion opposed to it is styled sententia
hwred proxima, that is, an opinion approaching
heres}'. Next, a doctrinal proposition, without di-
rectly contratlicting a received dogma, may yet in-
volve logical consequences at variance with revealed
truth. Such a proposition is not heretical, it is a
proposilio theologice enonea, that is, erroneous in the-
ology. Further, the opposition to an article of faith
may not be strictly demonstrable, but only reach a
certain degree of probability. In that case the doc-
trine is termed sententia de lurresi suspecta, hceresim
sapiens; that is, an opinion suspected, or savouring,
of heresy (see Censures, Theologic.vl).
IV. Gravity of the Sin of Heresy. — Heresy is a sin because of its nature it is destructive of the virtue of Christian faith. Its malice is to he measured there- fore by the excellence of the good gift of which it deprives the soul. Now faith is the most precious possession of man, the root of his supernatural life, the pledge of his eternal salvation. Privation of faith is therefore the greatest evil, and deliberate rejection of faith is the greatest sin. St. Thomas (II-II, Q. x, a. 3) arrives at the same conclusion thus: " All sin is an aversion from God. A sin, therefore, is the greater the more it separates man from God. But infidelity does this more than any other sin, for the infidel (un- believer) is without the true knowledge of God: his false knowledge tloes not bring him help, for what he opines is not God: manifestly, then, the sin of unbe- lief (infidelitas) is the greatest sin in the whole range of perversity." .Vnd he adds: "Although the Gentiles err in more things than the Jews, and although the Jews are farther removed from true faith than here- tics, yet the unbelief of the Jews is a more grievous sin than that of the Gentiles, because they corrupt the Gospel itself after having adopted and professed the same. ... It is a more serious sin not to perform what one has promised than not to perform what one has not promised." It cannot be pleaded in attenua- tion of the guilt of heresy that heretics do not deny the faith which to them appears necessary to salvation, but only such articles as they consider not to belong to the original deposit. In answer it suffices to remark that two of the most evident truths of the depositum fidei are the unity of the Church and the institution of a teaching authority to maintain that unity. That unity exists in the Catholic Church, and is preserved by the function of her teaching body: these are two facts which anyone can verify for himself. In the constitution of the Church there is no room for private judgment sorting essentials from non-essentials: any such selection disturbs the unity, and challenges the Divine authority, of the Church ; it strikes at the very source of faith. The guilt of heresy is measured not so much liy its subject-matter as by its formal princi- ple, which is the same in all heresies: revolt against a Divinely constituted authority.
V. Origin, Spre.\d, and Persistence op Heresy. — (a) Origin of Heresy. — The origin, the spread, and the persistence of heresy are due to different causes and influenced l^y many external circumstances. The un- doing of faith infused and fostered by God Himself is possible on account of the human element in it, namely, man's free willy The will determines the act of faith freely because its moral dispositions move it to obey God, whilst the non-cogency of the motives of creililiility allows it to withhold its consent and leaves room for doubt and even denial. The non-cogency of the motives of credibility may arise from three causes: the obscurity of the Divine testimony {inevidentia at- testantis) ; the obscurity of the contents of Revelation; the opposition between the obligations imposed on us by faith and the evil inclinations of our corrupt nature. To find out how a man's free will is led to withdraw from the faith once professed, the best way is observa-
VII.— 17
tion of historical cases. Pius X, scrutinizing the
causes of Modernism, says: "The proximate cause is,
without any doubt, an error of the mind. The re-
moter causes are two: curiosity and pride. Curiosity,
unless wisely held in bounds, is of itself sufficient to
account for all errors. . . . But far more effective in
obscuring the mind and leading it into error is pride,
which has, as it were, its home in Modernist doctrines.
Through pride the Modernists overestimate them-
selves. . . . We are not like other men . . . they
reject all submission to authority . . . they pose as
reformers. If from moral causes we pass to the intel-
lectual, the first and most powerful is ignorance ....
They extol modern philosophy .... completely ig-
noring the philosophy of the Schools antl thus depriv-
ing themselves of the means of clearing away the
confusion of their ideas and of meeting sophisms.
Their system, replete with so many errors, had its
origin in the wedding of false philosophy with faith"
(Encycl. " Pascendi", S September, 1907).
So far the pope. If now we turn to the Modernist leaders for an account of their tlefections, we find none attributing it to pride or arrogance, but they are almost unanimous in allowing that curiosity — the desire to know how the old faith stands in relation to the new science — has been the motive power behind them. In the last instance, they appeal to the sacred voice of their individual conscience which forbids them outwardly to profess what inwardly they hon- estly hold to be untrue. Loisy, to whose case the De- cree" Lamentabili " applies.tells his readers that he was brought to his present position " by liis studies chiefly devoted to the history of the Bible, of Christian ori- gins and of comparative religion". Tyrrell says in self-defence: " It is the irresistible facts concerning the origin and composition of the Old and New Testa- ments; concerning the origin of the Christian Church, of its hierarchy, its institutions, its dogmas; concern- ing the gradual development of the papacy; concern- ing the history of religion in general — that create a difficulty against which the synthesis of scholastic theology must be and is alreadj' shattered to pieces. " " I am able to put my finger on the exact point or moment in my experience from which my ' immanen- tism ' took its rise. In his ' Rules for the Discernment of Spirits' . . . Ignatius of Loyola saj-s . . . etc." It is psychologically interesting to note the turning- point or rather the breaking-point of faith in the auto- biographies of seceders from the Church. A study of the personal narratives in " Roads to Rome " and " Roads from Rome " leaves one with the impression that the heart of man is a sanctuary impenetraljle to all but to God and, in a certain measure, to its owner. It is, therefore, advisaljle to leave individuals to them- selves and to study the spread of heresy, or the origin of heretical societies.
(b) Spread of Heresy. — The growth of heresy, like the growth of plants, depends on surround- ing influences, even more than on its vital force. Philosophies, religious ideals and aspirations, social and economic conditions, are brought into contact with revealed truth, and from the impact result both new affirmations and new negations of the traditional doctrine. The first requisite for success is a forceful man, not necessarily of great intellect and learning, but of strong will and daring action. Such were the men who in all ages have given their names to new sects. The second requisite is accommodation of the new doc- trine to the contemporary mentality, to social and political conditions. The last, but by no means the least, is the support of secular rulers. A strong man in touch with his time, and supported by material force, may deform the existing religion and build up a new heretical sect. Modernism fails to combine into a body separate from the Church because it lacks an acknowledged leader, because it appeals to only a small minority of contemporary minds, namely, to a
