32                     TRUE

The union of charity is the natural fruit of union in truth. Therefore it is of paramount importance to uphold the integrity of the Faith, without which no one can please God (Heb. 11:6).

FALSE

Keeping souls united in charity is more important than keeping them united in truth.

Explanation: Admitting something more fundamental than the Faith necessarily leads to the conclusion that difference of religion is secondary, and that all inter-denominational activity is justified. Nevertheless, in reality, union in the Faith is so capital that we must recognize it as the dominant and indispensable value in our relations, not only with persons outside the Church, but also with her own children. To these we owe a special duty of charity. But should they use their condition as Catholics to spread error within the Church, then they would have to be the object of a vigorous opposition on our part. It is superfluous to add that, even in the heat of battle, charity must be preserved.

Moreover, if the refuted sentence were granted, then all the struggles, some even centuries old, that the Church has had to sustain in order to preserve the integrity of the Faith, would be inexplicable. When you think that these combats involved persecutions, martyrdom, and the rending of the Mystical Body of Christ, then you can understand the capital importance which our Lord Jesus Christ attached to the integrity of the sacred deposit He entrusted to His Church.

33                     TRUE

God has given to all the grace of recognizing the true and the good in such wise that errors committed in good faith, in their regard, are accidental and abnormal. Real Christian meekness, which implies no condescension in faith and morals, is even more effective and preferable in dealing with heretics and sinners. But when obstinacy is opposed to the gentle, persuasive action of charity, and when insolence gives cause for scandal to the faithful, then the use of energetic, combative methods is in order.

FALSE

Heretics and sinners, often well-intentioned persons but mistaken in their appreciation of truth and goodness, must never be rebuked, at least directly, for their ideas and morals. Such a way of proceeding would necessarily alienate them.

Explanation: The refuted sentence seems simplistic and one-sided. Certainly, there are heretics, unbelievers, and sinners who are susceptible of being drawn by Christian meekness. It would obviously be an error to utilize an inappropriate harshness in relations with them. Nevertheless, there are also (and at certain eras they are unfortunately very numerous) heretics or sinners who are touched only by the energetic condemnation of their error and the salutary fear of their moral state. Such was the case of the prophet Nathan in dealing with David.

On this subject, it is equally necessary to consider the diversity of temperaments. To convert the Apostle to the Gentiles, Providence, full of love, deemed it necessary to hurl him to the ground. Moreover, the choice of apostolic methods must not take into consideration the desires of the heretic or the sinner only, but also and foremost the salvation and edification of those who live in God's grace. When a heretic or sinner, instead of keeping humbly in obscurity, prides himself on his error and even propagates it by word and deed, it is often indispensable to constrain him by force. The Sacred Scriptures are full of examples in support of this doctrine; as, for instance, Jesus Christ with the Scribes and Pharisees, St. Peter with Ananias and Saphira, St. Paul with the incestuous Corinthian.

34                        TRUE

"Hate error, love those who err," St. Augustine says. Therefore, one must attack error or sin by diffusing Catholic doctrine, by fighting false doctrines, and by warning the faithful against those who err or sin. So doing, no want of charity is shown, for correcting those who err and preventing the diffusion of error is a work of mercy. 

FALSE

"Hate error, love those who err," St. Augustine says. Therefore, only errors and sins should be attacked, never those who err or sin.

Explanation: The refuted sentence seems to suppose that any chastisement of those who err is an act of hostility towards them. The Church teaches, on the contrary, that in itself, it is a work of mercy. Such would not be the case if the treatment were dictated by hatred, envy, or ill-will, or if it were excessive or inopportune.

The entire history of the Church, from its beginnings and even before its foundation, from the period of preparation up to the time of its most recent Doctors (for example, St. Francis de Sales), is full of examples of inveighing against sinners and heretics. Let us recall St. John the Baptist's "genimina viperarum against the Pharisees, and Jesus Christ's "whited sepulcres" and "hypocrites" against the same group of people, etc.

35                       TRUE

The Church's doctrine and morals are perfect and apt to awaken men's admiration, either by their arduous aspect or by their consoling principles. Moreover, no man lacks the interior help of grace. In certain cases, it is certainly more opportune to stress the truths and precepts that are more easily acceptable. But this is only in exceptional situations. Normally, it is necessary to insist on all the points of Catholic doctrine.

FALSE

In relations with unbelievers and sinners, it is preferable to pass over the truths of Catholic doctrine on which they do not agree and the austerity of the moral precepts they transgress, and to emphasize, principally, the truths they profess and the attractiveness of the evangelical precepts. It is by staying on common ground that Catholics succeed in winning over unbelievers and sinners and converting them.

36                       TRUE

Just and opportune polemics is one of the means of encouraging charity by contributing to unite minds in truth. Not to engage in polemics can, in certain cases, constitute what might be called "heresy" against charity.

FALSE

Polemics between Catholics or between Catholics and non-Catholics, which necessarily sacrifices charity, is always bad. Those who engage in polemics, if they are not heretics as regards truth, are so as regards charity.

Explanation: The misleading sentence supposes that divergences in the order of dogma should be left aside, but it is divergences on points of doctrine that occasion polemics. This mental attitude, which is characteristic of "irenicists," can lead to a theoretical inter-denominationalism with its baneful repercussions in the practical order since it naturally leads to religious indifferentism. It is implicitly condemned in the proscription of Quesnel's proposition 94, as we saw above, because this proposition attacks the firmness of the Church, and it concerns, as history shows, firmness in the faith, since the Jansenists taxed the Church with being exaggerated in her requirements.

Were the refuted sentence true, the fight against the Church's external enemies and especially her internal enemies who, disguised in sheep's clothing, seek to decimate the flock, would prove impossible. St. Pius X, in a letter to His Eminence Cardinal Ferrari, Archbishop of Milan, shows how harmful to the Church such a line of conduct can be:

...those who take up in their writings all the errors of modernism, those who simulate an exterior submission in order to remain in the sheepfold so as to propagate their errors more surely, those who pursue their baneful undertaking by means of secret lectures and meetings, those who, in a word, betray the Church by pretending to be her friends....Who cannot see what a sorry impression is made and what scandal is given to souls by considering as Catholics these wretches whom, in order to obey the Apostle St. John, we should refuse even to greet.¹

37                       TRUE

Intransigence is to virtue what the instinct of self-preservation is to life. A virtue without intransigence or which hates intransigence does not exist or else merely seems to. A faith without intransigence is either dead or superficial, because it has lost its spirit. Faith being the basis of the supernatural life, tolerance in matters of faith is the starting point for all the evils, notably heresy.

FALSE

It is necessary to employ very great energy in reducing those who are intransigent in defending Catholic doctrine. There is no error more pernicious than intransigence regarding truth.

Explanation: St. Pius X pointed out as one of the characteristics of the Modernists an extreme tolerance towards the Church's enemies, and a bitter intolerance against those who energetically defend orthodoxy. As a matter of fact, this attitude is flagrantly incoherent because those who make a point of tolerating all opinions should logically tolerate those who uphold the rights of intransigence. But contradiction is the hallmark of all heresiarchs. The most varied sects unite with great cordiality and close their eyes to the matters that separate them every time there is occasion to fight the Church's intransigence in matters of Faith. In this attitude we find a criterion for appreciating the singular importance that intolerance in doctrinal matters has for the life of the Church.

It is evident that excesses in regard to intransigence, by the very fact of being excesses, must be repressed, because every excess is an evil. But we must never forget the wise norms dictated by the Holy See concerning the manner of correcting the excesses of the courageous Catholic polemicists engaged in fighting against error. Writing to Cardinal Ferrari, Archbishop of Milan, about the newspaper the Awakening, which had sounded the alarm at the modernist infiltration in his diocese, the eminent Cardinal de Lai, Secretary of the Sacred Consistorial Congregation, said:

All these facts explain the fear that certain good Catholics feel concerning their dear diocese, and they raise their voices in a call to arms. Perhaps they exaggerate. But, when the battle's raging, who could reasonably reproach the defenders when they fail to measure their blows with mechanical precision? This was the reply St. Jerome made to those who reproached him his ardor, often impetuous and harsh, in fighting against the heretics and miscreants of his time. On this subject, I shall say as much to Your Eminence as regards the attack of the Awakening. That there are evils there (at Milan) in line with the reported facts, none can deny. Yet, the fact that a few have raised their voices cannot be called unjust. Did they overstep the measure? Then it is right to regret it; but it is not absolutely bad that, sounding the alarm, they slightly exaggerated the danger. It is always better to exaggerate a little so as to warn against evil than to be silent and let it grow....In the last analysis, in the midst of the great license of the bad press, with the dangers that encompass the Church, it does not seem opportune to excessively accuse the defenders who are fighting the evils, thereby discouraging them.²

The holy Pope himself, writing on Aug. 12, 1909, to Msgr. Mistrangelo, Archbishop of Florence, on the subject of a modification ordered in the direction of the newspaper Unitd Cattolica, declared:

It is all well and good when it comes to respecting persons, but I would not want the result to be that, for the sake of peace, they would compromise, and that, to avoid bother, they would fall short, however little, of the true mission of Catholic Unity, which is to keep an eye on principles and to be the forward sentinel who sounds the alarm (even if this must only be in the manner of the Capitoline geese) and awakens the sleeping. For then Unitd Cattolica would no longer have a reason for existing...³

38                       TRUE

Collaboration by the faithful with non-Catholics in order to attain common objectives is only allowed by the Church on a temporary basis. It would be much more serious for Catholics to be associated on a permanent basis in a specific organization with persons of other religions. The Church regards these associations with apprehension and forbids membership in them. When, in an exceptional circumstance in order to avoid greater evils, she considers herself obliged to tolerate collaborations of this nature, she does so with dread and regret.

FALSE

Catholics are to be praised who associate with persons affiliated with other religions, such as Protestants, schismatics, etc., in order to assure the defense of values common to all the Christian confessions.

Explanation: The danger these collaborations pose can be aggravated by the very nature of the end they propose: thus, a collaboration having an exclusively technical-professional goal is less serious than a collaboration for cultural ends. The Christian Youth Association, for example, is prohibited by the Church because, joining Christians from divers sects, it tries to associate Catholics in an educational endeavor that seeks to foster "Christian" morality, that is to say, a vague religiosity that will suit heretics and Catholics both.

One of the reasons why St. Pius X condemned Le Sillon, the democratic, cultural, and social movement of Marc Sangnier, was its avowed interdenominationalism. Among other things, the holy Sovereign Pontiff wrote:

"But all of us, Catholics, Protestants and Free-Thinkers will have at heart to arm young people, not in view of the fratricidal struggle, but in view of a disinterested emulation in the field of social and civic virtues" (Marc Sangnier speaking in Paris, May 1910).... These declarations and this new organization of the Sillonist action call for very serious remarks. Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character, for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, an historical fact....What are we to think of an association in which all religions and even Free-Thought may express themselves openly and in complete freedom? For the Sillonists who, in public lectures and elsewhere, proudly proclaim their personal faith, certainly do not intend to silence others, nor do they intend to prevent a Protestant from asserting his Protestantism, and the skeptic from asserting his skepticism.⁴