ConneJI "Tranci-s 

— Co* cbe.ca.fi <sv-> <rr-- • 
V A n M O T W _ 

CO-OPERATION OF CATHOLICS IN NON-
CATHOLIC RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES 

by 

F R A N C I S J. C O N N E L L , C . S S . R . 

Reprinted from T H E AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW 

Made in the United States of America 

VOL. CXXXIV, 1956 



A S p e c i a l lepAittt— 

CHEMICAL COMFORT AND 
CHRISTIAN VIRTUE 

by JOHN C. FORD, S.J. 

This article was originally published in the December 
1959 issue of The American Ecclesiastical Review 

20 pages—5Vi x 8V2 

Sample copy 

In lots of 25 

In lots o f 50 

. 25(f 

.224 ea. 

2 0 1 ea. 

PRICES POSTPAID 

Œf)e American Cccleataattcal ftebieto 
The Catholic University of America Washington 17, D. C. 

JUVENILE COURTSHIPS 
by V. Rev. Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R. 

A reprint from 
THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL 

REVIEW 

Mo*u in iU 

7tU . . 

Single copy 25c 
In lots of 25 20c ea. 
In lots of 100 16c ea. 

Prices Postpaid 

Address: T H E 
AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW 
The Catholic University of America 

Washington 17, D. C. 

A Special Reprint 

Is the Baltimore 
Catechism Outmoded? 

I>!J 
V. Rev. Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R. 

This article was originally published 
in the January I960 issue of The 
Antcncau Ecclexiimtical Kcrieir. 

12 pages — 5</s x 8VS 

Sample copy ig<. 
In lots of 25 10c ea. 
In lots of 10« <)c ea. 

Prices Postpaid 

THE 
AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL 

REVIEW 
The Catholic University of America 

Washington 17, D. C. 

Dsacîdlîied 



CATHOLIC RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES 

I PART I 

Moral problems concerned with the association of Catholics 
with non-Catholics frequently arise in the United States, as must 
occur in any land where the proportion of the citizens deprived 
of actual membership in the one true Church of Jesus Christ is very 
great. Most of the relations of American Catholics with their non-
Catholic fellow citizens,are of a business or social nature, and, 
generally speaking, these offer no special theological difficulty. In 
stores and factories, in schools and libraries, in trains and buses, 
in restaurants and hotels, in political and-social gatherings, our 
Catholic people meet men and women of other religious beliefs, 
converse with them, do business with them, and treat them as 
friends and neighbors. On the whole, these associations are pleasant 
and amicable. Certainly, as far as Catholics are concerned, they 
should be such, for the Catholic religion teaches us that we must 
practice Christian charity to all human beings, whatever may be 
their religious beliefs. 

Hence, the fact that the corner grocer is a Methodist should 
not deter Catholics from purchasing sugar and flour from him. 
If a Catholic girl is offered a position as secretary to the Baptist 
bank president, she need not refuse to accept on the ground that 
he is not a member of the true Church. If a Jew is sick, his Catholic 
neighbor should not hesitate to visit him, but on the contrary 
should realize that he has an opportunity to practice one of the 
deeds of mercy which Christ expects of his followers.1 And Catholics 
should be fully aware that in our land we willingly accept and prac-
tice the principle that equal civil rights are to be given to all citi-
zens, whatever may be their particular religious affiliation. 

Catholics were not always allowed this mil freedom of associa-
tion with non-Catholics. In the Middle Ages, the social and business 
relationships of Catholics with heretics were greatly restricted, 
since all heretics were considered to be under the gravest form of 
excommunication, which banned them from mingling with the 

i Matt. 25:36. 

1 



2 CO-OPERATION IN NON-CATHOLIC ACTIVITIES 

members of the household of thp faith even in the affairs of daily 
life.2 No apology is needed for this attitude of the Church in view 
of the circumstances of the times, for it was recognized that most 
heretics were fanatical in their desire to win Catholics to their cause, 
and the Church in her motherly concern for the souls of her 
children quite reasonably took this measure to protect them from 
the loss of the precious gift of the Catholic faith. Speaking of the 
association of Catholics with unbaptized infidels, St. Thomas dis-
tinguishes those Catholics who are strong in the faith and may 
associate with unbelievers because they may thus convert them, and 
those who are weak or ignorant and consequently should be for-
bidden familiarity with infidels.8 

In 1418, Pope Martin V issued a more lenient set of rules con-
cerning association with heretics, distinguishing between the vitandi 
and the tolerati* Most heretics belonged to this latter class. The 
Code has gone still further, and does not prohibit association in 
non-religious matters with any non-Catholics or excommunicated 
persons except one who has been excommunicated as a vitandus; 
and a Catholic is excused even from this prohibition for a reason-
able cause, as are also the members of the family, servants and 
subjects of the vitandus.5 

This does not mean that Catholics may regard it as perfectly 
unobjectionable to associate with non-Catholics as frequently and 
as intimately as with Catholics. Undoubtedly, frequent and unneces-
sary association with those who are not of the household of the 
faith may tend to foster a spirit of indifferentism, especially if the 
non-Catholics are accustomed to argue in favor of their particular 
religious tenets or to maintain the notion that it makes little 
difference what religion a person profess.es. It also is likely to 
promote mixed marriages. Hence, Catholics (especially our young 
folk) should be urged to give preference to good Catholics in 
choosing their intimate friends and associates. 

However, the chief problems connected with the association of 
Catholics with persons of other religions center about religious 
communication and co-operation. These two terms are not synony-

2 Cf. J. Bancroft, Communication in Religious worship with non^CathoIics 
(Washington, D. C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1943), 
p. 28. 

3 Sum. theol., II-II, q. 10, a. 9. 
4 Fontes juris canonici, I, n. 45. 6 Can. 2267. 



THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW 3 

mous, as used in theology. Communication in sacris signifies par-
ticipation in public (official) non-Catholic religious rites. This is 
active when it involves a real participation in the functions, such 
as the reception of the sacraments, singing or organ-playing, join-
ing in the prayers, etc. It is passive when it consists of one's mere 
presence at the service without any active participation. The rules 
for religious communication are thus expressed in the Code of 
Canon Law: 

1. It is never lawful for the faithful to assist actively in any way or 
to take part in the religious rites of non-Catholics. 

2. Passive, or merely material presence can be tolerated, by reason 
of civil duty or honor, for a grave reason, to be approved by the Bishop 
in case of doubt, at the funerals, marriages and similar solemnities of 
non-Catholics, provided there is no danger of perversion and scandal.® 

However, the purpose of the series of articles now beginning 
is to consider problems of co-operation, rather than communication, 
on the part of Catholics in the religious activities of non-Catholics. 
Co-operation has a wider scope than communication. There are 
many ways of co-operation in religious matters without being 
present at religious functions. Decisions of. the Holy See have given 
directions regarding many of the problems of co-operation in non-
Catholic religious activities; but many others are left to the judg-
ment of theologians and canonists. In the United States such prob-
lems are numerous at the present day ; hence, it is my purpose to 
discuss a number of such problems, in the hope that this discussion 
may be helpful to our priests, so often confronted with questions 
of this nature. I shall be grateful if my brother-priests who read 
these articles and have encountered some unusual cases pertinent 
to this type of co-operation will send them to me for inclusion in 
this series. 

CO-OPERATION I N GENERAL 

Co-operation, in general, as theologians use the term, signifies 
the concurrence of a person in the sinful deed of another.7 Strictly 

« Can. 1258. 
7 In its full and proper sense, "co-operation" includes also participation in 

another's good deeds. But since most moral problems in co-operation are 
concerned with evil deeds, theologians generally restrict the use of the 
term to such cases, usually treating the topic in connection with the virtue 
of charity. 



4 CO-OPERATION IN NON-CATHOLIC ACTIVITIES 

speaking, co-operation indicates a secondary or subordinate par-
ticipation in the sinful act. It supposes that the principal agent takes 
the initiative in the performance of the sinful deed, and the co-
operator merely assists him or makes it easier for him to act. 
Sometimes, however, there is a departure from this sense, as when 
the mandans is classified as a co-operator in sins of injustice.8 

Co-operation can be either physical or moral. Physical co-
operation embraces actions of a physical nature in or toward the 
other's sin, such as helping a robber loot a store, or selling a 
contraceptive. Moral co-operation consists in encouragement, 
request, recommendation, etc., by which the principal agent is 
helped toward the performance of the sinful deed. Thus, a man 
who asks a doctor to perform an abortion on his wife is a moral 
co-operator. 

It should be emphasized that in designating public non-Catholic 
religious rites as sinful, we do not base our argument ultimately 
on the claim that they necessarily include or imply false doctrine. 
Usually this is the case j but it can happen that all the doctrines 
expressed or implied in a non-Catholic function -are perfectly true 
(for example, in a Mass celebrated by a schismatic priest). Yet, 
even in that event, the religious function is unlawful, because it is 
contrary to the order of things established by the Son of God. In 
the words of Father Bancroft: "Even though a form of cult exer-
cised by a non-Catholic religious body contains nothing false, it is 
not a legitimate act of religion, because that body has no authority 
to prescribe and to practice religious acts, as a body existing 
against the order of things established by Christ."9 In other words, 
Christ deputed only His Church to prescribe and to practice acts 
of public religious worship, so that public cult unauthorized by the 
Church is contrary to the will of God. 

Co-operation can be either positive or negative, the former con-
sisting in some action, the latter in the omission of an act which one 
is obliged to perform to prevent another's sin. Thus, a Catholic par-
ent who would suggest to his son that he attend an immoral show 
would be guilty of positive co-operation, while one who would not 
use his parental authority to forbid his son such attendance, when 

8Cf. Merkelbach, Summa theologiae moralis (Paris, 1938), II, n. 311. 
9 Bancroft, op. cit., p. 14. 



THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW 5 

the boy is planning to attend, would be guilty of negative 
co-operation. 

Co-operation can be either formal or material. Formal co-opera-
tion consists in a real participation in the other's sin, or at least in 
the evil will of the principal agent.10 Thus, a doctor would be a 
formal co-operator in the sin of abortion if he physically aided 
another doctor in the performance of a sinful operation of this 
nature. He would also be a formal co-operator if he recommended 
an operation of this kind to another doctor, or even if he merely 
assisted at a therapeutic abortion, giving the anaesthetic, but 
approving the procedure. As is evident, formal co-operation is 
entirely forbidden, for by its very nature it is a participation in 
a sinful deed, or at least involves the will that something contrary 
to God's law be done.11 

Material co-operation is given when a person performs an action 
that in itself is morally good or indifferent, though in the circum-
stances it provides the principal agent with the means of com-
mitting sin, or makes it easier for him to sin, presuming the 
co-operator does not will the sin of the principal agent. This may 
be either proximate or remote, the distinguishing factor between 
these two being, not the element of time or of place, but rather the 
degree of influence and aid rendered by the co-operator. Thus, 
the publisher of an obscene book is a more proximate co-operator 
toward the sin of those who will derive sinful pleasure from the 
book than the clerk who sells the book to a customer. 

1 0 1 am following the classification of Aertnys-Damen (Theologia moralis, 
I, n. 398) who distinguish formal co-operation into co-operation ex parte 
fine operis and ex parte finis operantis tantum. The former consists in an 
action which by its nature is directed toward participation in the sin of the 
principal agent; the latter consists in an action which in itself is morally 
indifferent but is intended by the agent to help the principal agent to commit 
sin, or at least to sin more easily. 

1 1 In certain circumstances a person may suggest to another the per-
formance of a sinful deed—namely, when this is the only means of preventing 
him from committing a more serious sin. But this is not reckoned as formal 
co-operation, since what is actually suggested is the lessening of the planned 
sin. Again, a person may take an active part in a theft if his life is at stake 
(the bank clerk threatened with death if he does not open the safe), but 
this is an application of the principle "that one in extreme necessity may use 
another's goods to save his life. Finally, co-operation, even physical, in the 
violation of a positive human law may be permissible at times on the ground 
that such a law does not bind when it would cause a great hardship. 



6 CO-OPERATION IN NON-CATHOLIC ACTIVITIES 

Material co-operation toward another's sin is per se (that is, 
abstracting from justifying circumstances) illicit, since any action 
that will contribute toward another's spiritual harm is per se for-
bidden by the law of charity. However, since charity does not bind 
when one would otherwise have to suffer great inconvenience or 
loss, material co-operation can per accidens become lawful, when 
a sufficiently serious hardship or loss of some benefit would come 
to the person called on to co-operate if he refused co-operation.13 

This is an application of the principle of the double effect. It 
should be noted that in evaluating the good and the bad effect in 
problems of material co-operation, the comparison is not made 
between the sin of the principal agent and the benefit accruing 
to the co-operator through his act of-material co-operation. (For 
the evil contained in a sin outweighs any benefit that a person 
might receive.) The comparison is rather between the toleration of 
the other's evil act, or the omission of a deed of charity (which 
one would perform by refusing to do something that will help the 
principal agent to commit a sin) and the benefit that the co-
operation will bring (at least the avoidance of some inconvenience). 
Accordingly, even purely natural benefits may be sufficiently desir-
able to justify material co-operation toward another's sin. For a 
person is not bound to perform acts of charity, including the 
attempt to prevent another's sin, when these deeds of charity would 
entail proportionately grave material loss. In such a case he is 
justified in tolerating the other's sin. For example, the truck driver 
who is ordered to transport a consignment of paper to a publishing 
house that prints obscene books is not bound to risk his job by 
refusing, even though he will otherwise become a material 
co-operator toward the publication of literature that will induce 
some persons to sin. 

In judging the proportion between the evil effect of co-operating 
materially toward another's sin and the benefit the act may entail 
to the co-operator, many factors must be considered, especially 
the gravity of the sin and the greatness of the benefit. Thus, 
material co-operation toward a religious service in honor of a false 
god (for example, Buddha) would require a much greater benefit 
to balance it than material co-operation toward the cult of a 
Protestant sect, in which the true God is worshipped. But even 

12 Cf. Aertnys-Damen, op. cit., n. 399. 



THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW 7 

in the latter case, there can be differences of gravity in the form 
of worship. To co-operate toward a religious service in which the 
minister believes erroneously that he is a priest and can consecrate 
bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ (for example, 
by supplying him with hosts) would surely require a much graver 
justifying reason than co-operation toward a mere preaching serv-
ice (for example, by selling the clergyman a hymn book). Again, 
to co-operate materially when there is only a probability that the 
other will sin can be justified more easily than when it is certain 
that wrong will be done. Furthermore, as is evident, the greater 
the number of persons who will be aided to perform some evil 
deed, the greater must be the benefit to excuse the act of 
co-operation. 

The main factor to be considered, however, is the proximity 
(in the sense explained above) of the co-operation to the wrong-
doing. Merely to drive a good non-Catholic in an automobile to 
his church where he will participate in the services is remote 
co-operation, and can be justified by a slight reason, such as the 
desire of a cab driver to earn a fare, or the laudable wish of a 
Catholic neighbor to perform an act of courtesy. But to provide a 
non-Catholic clergyman with the vestments he wishes to use in a 
ritual function would be very proximate co-operation, justifiable 
only for a very grave reason. 

The fact that the principal agent is in good faith (unaware of 
the sinfulness of his action) does not justify formal co-operation, 
at least when the act is contrary to the law of God, as distinct from 
some human law. Thus, even though all the members of a Protestant 
congregation are presumably sincere in their worship (and will be 
rewarded by God for their good will), a Catholic would not be 
allowed to play the organ. But in judging the permissibility of 
material co-operation, the subjective attitude of the principal agent 
may be considered. Thus, the Catholic driving his car to Mass on 
Sunday could certainly accede to the request of his sincere 
Protestant neighbor to take him to his Protestant church. But he 
could not show the same consideration to a renegade Catholic on 
his way to a non-Catholic church to marry a divorced woman (apart 
from a most grave reason, such as a threat with a gun!) 

Finally, in judging the lawfulness of material co-operation, the 
danger of scandal must be considered, since this would make it 
more difficult to justify the act. In a thoroughly Catholic land this 



8 CO-OPERATION IN NON-CATHOLIC ACTIVITIES 

scandal, in the case of material co-operation in non-Catholic reli-
gious activities, would consist in providing circumstances that 
might put some Catholics in grave danger of renouncing their 
faith. In our country today the chief scandal would seem to be 
the promotion of the idea that all religions are equally good in 
the sight of God. Catholics, as well as non-Catholics, are likely to 
receive this impression if there is too much of a spirit of collabora-
tion toward non-Catholic activities on the part of Catholics. 

In proposing a solution of the various problems that I intend 
to consider, I have tried to judge fairly the many factors involved, 
so that our Catholic people will not be burdened and restricted in 
their associations with their fellow citizens of other creeds more 
than the principles of Catholic theology and the decisions of the 
Church demand. But I have also tried to bear in mind that Cath-
olics must avoid all compromise in matters of faith. It is a glorious 
privilege to belong to the one true Church of Jesus Christ, and our 
people should realize that, if necessary, they must be willing to 
sacrifice material and social advantages rather than collaborate 
unlawfully in any activities contrary to the true faith, however 
sincere may be the non-Catholics who are conducting them. 

CO-OPERATION TOWARD THE CONSTRUCTION OF 

NON-CATHOLIC CHURCHES 

A church is not only a place of worship but is also a constant 
reminder of the religion practiced therein and, in a sense, an inani-
mate proponent and advocate of this religion. Hence, a non-Catholic 
church proclaims to the community the conviction of its congrega-
tion that their creed, though not in accord with Catholicism, is true 
and good. Accordingly, any Catholic who aids in the erection of 
a non-Catholic church is co-operating toward a form of worship 
that is opposed to the law of God. 

Formal co-operation in the purpose intended by non-Catholics 
in erecting their church would be an intrinsically evil act. For 
example, if a disgruntled Catholic contributed toward the erection 
of such an edifice with the express desire to see the influence of 
the Catholic Church weakened in the town and the influence of 
a non-Catholic sect increased, the co-operation would be formal 
ex parte finis operands. If a Catholic, without such a malicious 
intent, but out of a mistaken notion of brotherhood and liberalism, 
urged a non-Catholic clergyman to come and preach his doctrines 



THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW 9 

in the town, the co-operation (moral) would be formal ex parte 
finis opens. 

Usually, however, the co-operation of Catholics toward the 
erection of non-Catholic churches is merely material. Surely, the 
building of an edifice of wood or stone is, in itself, a morally 
indifferent act, and Catholics who collaborate are presumed to do 
so, not for a bad purpose, but to avoid some inconvenience or 
obtain some good. In solving the concrete problems of this kind, 
the nature and the proximity of the co-operation are the factors 
of greatest importance. Thus, the architect and the builder are 
much more proximate co-operators than the ordinary workmen, 
and accordingly need a much graver reason to justify them morally 
in undertaking the work. A reasonable solution of this problem is 
thus expressed in the recent theological work of Regatillo-Zalba, 
S.J.: 

It is permitted to workmen to construct churches for heretics, schis-
matics, Jews and Mohammedans, and also buildings for Masonic and 
other reprobated societies, for the sake of avoiding an ordinary incon-
venience, otherwise to be endured, because the co-operation is remote 
and not necessary.13 And in this co-operation scandal is hardly present 
today because of the lamentable relegation of religion to the internal 
forum. . . . Architects and contractors, since they are more proximate 
and more efficacious in co-operation, can undertake the construction of 
temples of a false religion in which the true God is worshipped, only 
because of a truly grave inconvenience, provided other similar temples 
are already in the place.14 

From this it can be concluded, I believe, that the mason, car-
penter, electrician, etc., sent by his employer to work on a Protes-
tant church or Jewish synagogue (or even a Mohammedan mosque) 
could undertake the work, since the desire of getting his wages 
would be a sufficiently justifying reason. Of course, if he could just 
as easily get an assignment in some other construction work, he 
should take this in preference; but usually this opportunity is not 
given. 

It is different with the architect, builder, etc. Their co-operation 
is proximate; hence, they need a more serious reason to permit 

13 The meaning is that, if they refuse to perform the work, others will 
surely perform it. 

14 Theologia moralis (Madrid, 1954), I, nn. 982-83. A similar decision 
was given by the Cardinal Vicar of Rome to the parish priests of that city, 
in 1878. Cf. Genicot-Salsmans, Theologia moralis (Brussels, 1946), I, n. 237. 



10 CO-OPERATION IN NON-CATHOLIC ACTIVITIES 

them to undertake the planning or the construction of a non-
Catholic edifice of worship. An example of such a serious reason 
might be found in the case of the young architect in the employ 
of a prominent firm, chosen to draw the designs for a Protestant 
church. If he does a good job, his future success may be assured; 
if he refuses, he may be excluded from future desirable chances, 
or even discharged from the firm. Another example would be the 
contractor who is having a hard time financially and is now offered 
a lucrative contract for the construction of a Protestant church. 
But, on the other hand, the well-established architect or builder 
who would suffer very little, either in finances or in reputation, 
if he turned down the offer, would not be morally justified in giving 
his services to the building of a non-Catholic church, which would 
offer only one of many opportunities to succeed and to prosper. 
A real-estate agent, requested to obtain land for a non-Catholic 
church, would be in the same class as the architect and the builder. 

It is interesting to note that this solution of Regatillo-Zalba sup-
poses a church in which the true God will be worshipped, and in 
this category the authors generally put the Mohammedan mosque. 
It is different, however, with a building that is intended for pagan 
or idolatrous worship, such as a shrine to Buddha. Only for a most 
grave cause could even the ordinary workman take employment 
in the construction of such an edifice.15 A Masonic temple could 
be put in the same category with a Protestant church in our coun-
try, I believe. 

The problem of contributions toward the erection of non-Catholic 
churches frequently faces Catholics in our land. This comes under 
the heading of material co-operation and is justified only for a 
grave cause,18 or at least a just and reasonable cause.17 As was 
previously pointed out, one who contributes with the i itention of 
promoting non-Catholic preaching or worship would be a formal 
co-operator ex parte finis operantis. The need of avoiding grave 
opposition and antagonism from one's non-Catholic neighbors 
might be a sufficient reason for this act of material co-operation. 
Hence, the Catholic shopkeeper who would be boycotted as a bigot 
unless he gave a contribution to the new Protestant church might 

16 Cf. Merkelbach, op. cit., I, n. 764. 
1« Ibid., n. 766. 
17 Cf. Iorio, Theologia moralis (Naples, 1946), I, n. 291. 



THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW 11 

find a justification in this fact,18 and similarly, in those places where 
non-Catholics have been very generous in giving to Catholic causes, 
the need of showing a similar generosity might be a sufficient 
reason to justify a contribution.19 It is apposite to remark that it 
is not advisable for Catholics, either lay or clerical, to seek dona-
tions for their churches from non-Catholics since this often furnishes 
an occasion for similar requests on their part to our people. More-
over, it may be putting a strain on the consciences of non-Catholics 
to give money to the spread of the Catholic faith, and though this 
is an erroneous conscience, we should not furnish them with an 
occasion of formal sin. 

What about the sale of a Catholic Church, no longer needed, to 
a non-Catholic sect? If the building is to be used as a hall or a 
school, it might be permissible. But if the edifice is to be used as 
a house of worship, it seems impossible to justify the sale even 
though considerable financial loss is at stake. In addition to the 
co-operation involved in such a transaction, it would be gravely 
scandalous for a building in which Our Lord dwelt in the Blessed 
Sacrament to be used for a form of worship that represents His 
teachings erroneously, and even denies explicitly the doctrine of 
the Real Presence. Similarly, I could not see any justification in 
the sale of an altar or even an organ for non-Catholic worship. At 
most it might be permitted to sell to a non-Catholic church appur-
tenances that have no intimate connection with worship, such as the 
pews or the furnace or the electric lights, but I would urge that 
even this be not done. 

FRANCIS J . CONNELL, C . S . S . R . 

The Catholic University of America 
Washington, D. C. 

18 Cf. Konings, Theclogia moralis (Boston, 1874), n. 313. Genicot-
Salsmans, Institutiones theologiae moralis (Brussels, 1946). These authors 
merely express their uncertainty and give no positive approval of donations 
by Catholics toward the erection of non-Catholic churches. Piscetta-Gennaro 
(Elementa theologia moralis [Turin, 1941], II, n. 276) regard such gifts 
as probably lawful, provided it is evident that they are given only to avoid 
some grave harm. Iorio (cited below) has the most lenient view that I have 
seen. 

19 Iorio (loc. cit.) admits gratitude and friendship as a sufficient reason 
for giving such contributions if otherwise considerable inconvenience would 
arise. 



CO-OPERATION OF CATHOLICS IN 
NON-CATHOLIC RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES 

PART I I 

In a previous article I discussed the nature and the various 
types of co-operation and the application of the moral principles 
of co-operation to some of the problems encountered by Catholics 
in the matter of collaboration toward non-Catholic religious activi-
ties, particularly the building of churches and the contributing of 
funds toward this objective.1 In the present article I shall attempt 
to apply the principles of co-operation to the question of the col-
laboration of Catholics in the religious rites of non-Catholics. 

GENERAL PRINCIPLES 

The Code of Canon Law clearly states the Church's rulings 
regarding the actual participation of Catholics in public or official 
non-Catholic religious rites. Active participation, such as the 
reception of the sacraments, singing or praying as a part of the 
service, etc., is entirely forbidden; passive participation, which is 
mere presence without any active part, can be tolerated for a grave 
reason, provided there is no danger of scandal and perversion. 
Passive participation can be justified particularly in the case of 
funerals and weddings.2 

However, co-operation in a religious service does not necessarily 
include presence or participation. Thus, one who urges a person 
to take an active part in a non-Catholic religious function is a 
formal co-operator, and one who provides the vestments or the 
book of prayers is a material co-operator, though neither may 
attend the service. Co-operation, therefore, is wider than commu-
nicatio in sacris. 

It is important that Catholics in our land be familiar with the 
general principles relating to co-operation in non-Catholic religious 
rites, and especially with the reasons on which they are based. 
For problems in this matter frequently arise and our people need 
guidance and direction as to the manner in which they must 

1 CF. AER, CXXXIV, 2 (Feb. 1956), 98-108. 
2 Can. 1258. 

12 



13 CO-OPERATION IN NON-CATHOLIC ACTIVITIES 

solve these problems consistently with their Catholic faith. They 
are too prone to seek a solution in concrete terms rather than 
on the basis of a principle. Thus, a Catholic hears from another 
Catholic that this latter was told by a priest that he might attend 
a wedding in a Protestant church. The first individual concludes 
that a Catholic may always attend a wedding in a Protestant 
church. Of course, this conclusion is far too wide. Such attend-
ance (even though passive) demands a grave reason—a condition 
that was doubtless fulfilled in the case of his friend, but may not 
be present in his own case to justify his presence at a particular 
wedding he wishes to attend. If he were familiar with the principle 
involved, he would not be so likely to make an erroneous decision. 

Catholics should realize particularly that in proposing legislation 
regarding co-operation in non-Catholic religious activities, the 
Church is not laying down merely ecclesiastical law. It is the 
law of God that is at stake. For our Divine Saviour established 
only one Church entitled to perform and to authorize acts of 
public worship, particularly the Holy Sacrifice and the sacraments. 
It is only when these sacred ceremonies are conducted with the 
authorization of the one true Church that they are objectively 
lawful and conformable to the will of God. Even when a non-
Catholic religious function contains nothing that is false, it is not 
a licit act of worship because it lacks the approbation of Christ's 
Church. For this reason, a Catholic does not satisfy his obligation 
of Sunday Mass if he is present at a Liturgy celebrated in a 
schismatic rite, even though a true eucharistic sacrifice is offered.3 

Sometimes, it is true, a Catholic is permitted to receive the 
ministrations of a non-Catholic priest. For example, a Catholic 
in danger of death is allowed to receive the sacrament of Penance 
from a schismatic priest.4 However, this is not an exception to 
the principle just enunciated. For in such a case the schismatic 
priest is approved by the Church to administer the sacrament, and 
receives the same jurisdiction that the Church confers in such 
circumstances on Catholic priests. 

8 Cf. Can. 1249. Bancroft, Communication in Religious Worship with non-
Catholics (Washington, D. C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 
1943), p. 116. 

4 Cf. Szal, The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics (Washington, 
D. C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1948), p. 93. 



THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW 14 

It is especially necessary that our Catholic people should be 
aware of the principles governing religious communication and 
co-operation nowadays because of the strong tendency outside the 
Church to "bury differences," and there are many well-intentioned 
non-Catholics who believe that a mutual participation and collabo-
ration in the religious rites of different groups is one of the most 
effective means to amity and brotherhood. Beyond doubt, there 
is often genuine good will on the part of many who hold this view, 
which may render it more difficult for a Catholic to maintain his 
stand without: compromise than if he were being attacked in a 
spirit of hostility. Thus, a Catholic is a week-end guest of a 
Protestant friend. On Sunday morning his host may attend 
Mass with him as a mark of friendship. But when he himself 
is visiting the Catholic, he may expect this latter to accompany 
him to the Protestant church, and may even be offended if this 
mark of courtesy (as he regards it) is refused. A Catholic placed 
in such a situation should not be content with the bare statement: 
"My Church forbids me to attend non-Catholic services," but 
should be able to explain the reasonable and logical basis of this 
prohibition by the Catholic Church. In a word, qur Catholic laity 
should have an intelligent grasp of the Church's teaching on co-op-
eration and communicatio in sacris. 

As was stated in the previous article, co-operation in another's 
action can be either physical or moral. Under these two headings 
we shall consider some of the more frequent occasions presented 
to Catholics in our land of co-operation in non-Catholic religious 
activities. 

PHYSICAL CO-OPERATION 

By physical co-operation we mean collaboration consisting 
essentially in some physical act, such as providing articles to be 
used in a non-Catholic religious service, allowing such a service 
to be held in a place under one's jurisdiction, etc. Participation in 
a service would be a form of physical co-operation—active partici-
pation being formal co-operation, passive participation ordinarily 
being material co-operation. The general rule is that formal 
co-operation is never allowed, material co-operation is per se for-
bidden, but for a sufficiently grave reason can per accidens become 
licit.® 

5Cf. Aertnys-Damen, Theologia moralis (Turin, 1950), I, n. 399. 



15 CO-OPERATION IN NON-CATHOLIC ACTIVITIES 

To provide articles for use in non-Catholic religious services, 
such as sacramental bread and wide, sacred vessels, candles, etc., 
is in itself material co-operation—though it would become formal 
co-operation ex parte finis operantis if the one performing the 
action explicitly directed it toward the promotion of unauthorized 
or false religious worship. The more important an article is toward 
the conducting of non-Catholic worship, the graver reason must a 
Catholic have to justify him in consigning it to the church or the 
clergyman. Thus, a more serious reason would be needed to allow 
a Catholic to sell vestments for a non-Catholic service than to sell 
flowers. Moreover, the measure of authority a person possesses 
over an object would vary the problem. The express man who 
is told to deliver a box of candles to be used in the Protestant 
church can regard the fact that this is his assigned job a sufficient 
justification for this act of material co-operation; whereas the 
owner of the candles needs a much greater reason to sell or donate 
them to the church for use in religious ceremonies. 

In determining the lawfulness of this type of material co-opera-
tion we must make an important distinction between tradespeople 
and private individuals. The former generally are morally justified 
in selling whatever goods they have on display to anyone who 
requests them, whatever his creed or church. It would impose con-
siderable hardship on a salesman if he had to ask the religious 
belief of every customer. Moreover, in some places a manifestation 
of discrimination on religious grounds might result in the loss 
of the storekeeper's license.6 But it is different with private indi-
viduals. Apart from most extraordinary instances they would not 
be justified in providing articles that proximately serve for use 
in non-Catholic worship, such as altar-vessels, wine, vestments, 
etc. Thus, a community of nuns could not contract to make a 
set of vestments for a Protestant church, even though they are 
greatly in need of financial resources. I believe that a like judg-
ment would have to be passed in the case of the Oriental schismatic 
church, even though their Liturgy is a true eucharistic sacrifice. 

6 It is not true, however, that a storekeeper will always be liable to the 
loss of his license if he refuses to deal with a certain customer. Hence, a 
Catholic tradesman should refuse to make or sell a chalice for non-Catholic 
religious functions unless he has a very grave reason to justify him. The 
mere fact that he will derive considerable profit from the transaction is not 
a sufficient reason. 



THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW 16 

I have heard of instances in which a Protestant clergyman 
requested a priest to lend or give him some altar-breads for his 
religious services. In such a case, the only answer must be a 
courteous but firm refusal, even though the result will be a definite 
severence of friendly relations. As I stated in a previous issue of 
this periodical: "The co-operation toward an objectively sinful 
religious service would be so proximate on the part of a priest who 
would furnish the Protestant minister with altar breads specially 
prepared for communion that it is difficult to see how there could 
be a sufficiently grave reason to justify it."7 

A somewhat different case occurred, I have been told, in our 
armed forces in the East in recent years. The army furnished 
large quantities of altar-breads for all chaplains, and sometimes one 
of the Catholic chaplains was assigned to distribute them. In such 
a case, he need have no qualms of conscience in providing non-
Catholic chaplains with their share, for since the altar-breads were 
the property of the army, intended for Protestants as well as 
Catholics, all had the same right to them. However, it is certainly 
more desirable that Catholic chaplains provide themselves with 
altar-breads intended only for use in Catholic services. 

In a hospital the utensils employed in sick-calls that are of a 
definitely religious character—such as the candles, the crucifix, 
the holy water sprinkler—should be reserved for use by the Cath-
olic priest. If a public hospital provides such articles, but in 
such wise that all clergymen are free to use them, the priest should 
purchase a set for his own use. On the other hand, there would 
be no objection to the common use of a table, spoons, drinking-
glasses, etc., which the priest utilizes on a communion-call. In 
a Catholic hospital the Protestant clergyman should, be permitted 
to have a place for whatever articles he wishes to use on his sick-
calls. Moreover, in a Catholic hospital it is permissible, for the 
authorities to allow the use of a room for the circumcision of 
Jewish children.8 

t AER, CXI, 1 (July 1944). A somewhat easier judgment could be 
passed on the Catholic baker from whom a non-Catholic clergyman orders 
bread, even though the baker suspects that it will be used for sacramental 
purposes. For bread baked in a loaf is not specifically adapted to liturgical 
use. 

8 Cf. AER, CX, 3 (March 1944), 223. 



17 CO-OPERATION IN NON-CATHOLIC ACTIVITIES 

The question was once presented to me whether a pastor could 
allow the local Protestant congregation the use of his hall for 
their services on Sunday, when their church had been destroyed by 
fire. The problem is indeed a difficult one, and there may be 
theologians who would answer in the affirmative. But, while 
admiring the sincerity and good will of the Protestants who wish 
to keep up their religious functions in this difficult situation, I 
answered that the co-operation in this case was too proximate to 
justify the granting of the permission, even though misunderstand-
ing and hard feeling would very likely follow. For, the opening of 
the Catholic hall to Protestant worship would surely tend to give 
the impression that differences of belief are an affair of little 
consequence. 

MORAL CO-OPERATION 

Co-operation is not limited to physical activity in or toward 
another's action. Co-operation may consist in moral concurrence— 
for example, advice, counselling, urging, which will induce or help 
another to act. If such advice or counselling or inducement is 
directed to the performance of an action that is intrinsically wrong, 
it ordinarily constitutes formal co-operation in the evil act, and 
consequently is intrinsically wrong and partakes of the nature and 
gravity of the evil act to which it is directed. I say that ordinarily 
such co-operation is intrinsically wrong, because theologians com-
monly admit a principle that has an important bearing on the par-
ticular problem we are considering—the principle that when a 
person is definitely determined to commit a sin and can be deterred 
from performing the evil deed only by inducing him to commit a 
sin of lesser gravity, it is morally justifiable to persuade him to 
commit this lesser sin. An example is the man who is determined 
to kill his wife, but who can be deterred from this base deed only by 
persuading him to get drunk and thus to forget his troubles. In such 
a case, according to the teaching of reliable theologians, it is per-
missible to induce the individual in question to drink to excess.9 

However, the primary principle to be emphasized is that it is 
ordinarily sinful to persuade a person to commit a sin, even though 
he himself is not aware of the sinfulness of the act—namely, even 
though it is only a material sin. As it is expressed by Merkelbach: 

9Cf. Aertnys-Damen, Theologia moralis (Turin, 1950), I, n. 379. 



THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW 18 

"It is not lawful to invite others to the services or sermons of 
heretics, either by persuasion or by authority or by any other type 
of invitation, because this is to induce them directly to commit sin, 
which is intrinsically wrong."10 

The problem most frequently adduced in this connection is that 
of the Catholic nurse who is requested by the non-Catholic patient 
to summon a clergyman of his own creed to confer on him some 
sacramental rite. A decision of the Holy Office, given on March 
IS, 1848, declared that the nurse (actually, the question was 
concerned with a nursing sister) could not licitly fulfil the request.11 

The question seems to have visualized an explicit request on the 
part of the nurse that the minister perform some spiritual ministra-
tion. This would be formal co-operation toward unauthorized cult, 
and consequently would be forbidden. In practice, however, at 
least as far as this country is concerned, the solution of the problem 
seems very simple. The nurse can simply transmit to the clergy-
man the request that he come and visit the patient, without making 
reference to any rites or ceremonies he may wish to perform. 
Surely, no minister should demand more than this information, 
which is all that a priest would expect in the case of a Catholic 
patient. And, when the nurse confines herself to this simple 
request, she is free from any formal co-operation in non-Catholic 
rites, and can have the assurance that her material co-operation 
is sufficiently justified by the fact that a hospital that opens its 
doors to persons'of all creeds is expected to show to all patients 
the courtesy c5f inviting a clergyman of whatever denomination 
they may choose to come and visit them.12 

When we study the problem of moral co-operation toward non-
Catholic services on a broader scale, we must begin with an 
important distinction—the distinction between merely conveying 
to others the information that such a service is to be held, and 
recommending or advising the conducting of non-Catholic worship 
or active participation in it. It is only this latter that constitutes 
formal co-operation. Merely to announce, in word or in writing, 
that a non-Catholic ceremony is to take place in a certain church 

10 Merkelbach, Sumtna theologiae moralis (Paris, 1938), I, n. 763. 
1 1 Cf. Fanfani, Manuale theologiae moralis (Rome, 1950), II, n. 42. 
12 Cf. Genicot, Institutiones theologiae moralis (Brussels, 1946), I, n. 20. 



19 CO-OPERATION IN NON-CATHOLIC ACTIVITIES 

at a certain hour is material co-operation, which can be justified 
for a sufficient reason. 

Let us illustrate by some concrete cases. A Catholic manager 
in a large hotel may be asked by a guest about the hour of Sunday 
services in the neighboring Protestant church. He would be per-
mitted to inquire about the matter and convey the information 
to the guest. Similarly, the Catholic editor of a newspaper could 
print the schedule of services in the various non-Catholic houses 
of worship. It is well to note that in giving out information of 
this kind (an act of material co-operation) the Catholic is not 
justified merely because of any temporal benefits he may thereby 
gain. There can and should be a sincere regard for the sincerity 
and good will of those who are striving to worship God according 
to their conscience; and though this will not justify formal 
co-operation, it can at times serve as a potent reason for material 
co-operation. Indeed, this point was explicitly mentioned by Pope 
Pius XII in his discourse Ci riesce, of Dec. 6, 1953, in which 
he adduced as one of the reasons why the Church is lenient toward 
those who profess non-Catholic creeds "regard for those who in 
good conscience (though erroneous but invincibly so) are of 
different opinion."13 Hence, we can say that the earnest desire 
of non-Catholic inquirers to worship in accord with their con-
science can provide the hotel manager and the editor described 
above with a sufficient reason to perform the act of material co-op-
eration entailed in giving information as to the place and time 
of non-Catholic worship. 

However, the case is different when there is question of urging 
or advising non-Catholics to take part in worship that a Catholic 
logically regards as contrary to the will of God. The well-instructed 
Catholic will see the fallacy and the indifferentism contained in 
the phrase, so commonly circulated today, that "everyone should 
be encouraged to worship God in the form of religion he prefers." 
To follow this principle in such a manner that one would urge 
Protestants, Jews, Mohammedans, etc., to practice their respective 
religious rites would be formal co-operation in false and unauthor-
ized worship of a most extreme type, a deplorable disregard of 
the fact that the Son of God established and authorized only one 
Church entitled to render true public worship to the Creator. 

13 Cf. AER, CXXX, 2 (Feb. 1954), 137. 



THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW 20 

Hence, the Catholic delivering a radio talk on the need of 
religion in present-day life should not advise all his hearers to 
'"go regularly to their respective churches to participate in the 
services," although he may urge them to pray, since prayer is a 
private act of religious cult which is a good deed, no matter what 
may be the creed of the one who prays, as long as it contains no 
erroneous doctrine. (Indeed, Catholics may pray privately with 
non-Catholics, as long as the prayer contains nothing false.) 

Neither may Catholics participate in campaigns with the slogan 
"worship in the church of your choice," a movement that is becom-
ing rather common in America nowadays. In such participation, 
it would seem, there is not only formal co-operation but also a 
very pronounced factor of indifferentism. 

It may be asked whether the principle proposed above, that 
one may sometimes suggest to another the performance of a lesser 
evil if this is the only way in which he can be deterred from a 
greater evil, can be applied to this question of co-operation. In the 
present problem the greater evil is the entire neglect of religious 
interests and activities, the lesser evil is participation in a form 
of worship that is unauthorized, and usually false to some extent, 
but yet contains elements of truth and goodness and furnishes 
some inspiring motives to virtuous conduct. I believe that this 
principle can be utilized in certain specific instances. Thus, about 
ten years ago, I wrote as follows in respect to two possible applica-
tions of this principle in the matter of recommending attendance 
at non-Catholic religious instruction and worship: 

Catholics believe that'Catholicism alone is true and all other religions 
are false, and hence they regard .it as per se sinful to urge anyone to 
participate actively in non-Catholic religious services or to attend 
non-Catholic religious instruction. We say that per se this is sinful, 
for there is a moral principle that might justify such conduct in 
certain circumstances. It is the principle, admitted by many good 
theologians, that when a person is going to do something wrong, 
another may lawfully urge him to do something less sinful, if this 
is the only way of deterring him from the greater evil. Now, it might 
be argued that at the present day the majority of non-Catholic children 
in our great cities will be brought up in entire ignorance of religion 
and morality if they are not given instruction in the released-time 
program, and that it would be a lesser evil to have them receive non-
Catholic instruction (which contains much that is true and good, even 
though it contains error) than if they were brought up utterly devoid 
of religion. If conditions are such in a city that the released-time 
program will not be introduced unless Catholics are willing to urge 



21 CO-OPERATION IN NON-CATHOLIC ACTIVITIES 

non-Catholics to attend non-Catholic instructions, this principle might 
be applied. But in these circumstances Catholic lay workers should 
be properly instructed, lest they become imbued with indifferentistic 
ideas. Similarly, Catholic chaplains might use this principle at times 
to allow them to urge non-Catholic soldiers and sailors to attend their 
own services. If it can be reasonably judged that the men will derive 
some religious ideals from these services and will be induced to lead 
better lives, whereas they would exclude God from their lives entirely 
if they did not attend, a Catholic chaplain might be justified in urging 
such attendance as the lesser of two evils.14 

But to apply this principle in a general way to justify the indis-
criminate urging of non-Catholics to take part in their particular 
church services is utterly unjustifiable. For there are many non-
Catholics who have a considerable amount of religious practice 
in their private and domestic lives, and it surely cannot be said 
of these persons that if they do not attend their church services 
their lives will be entirely irreligious and godless. However, it is 
only on this last supposition that the principle of the recommenda-
tion of the lesser of two evils can be utilized. 

CONCLUSION 

Priests must expect resentment and bewilderment on the part 
of some hearers if they proclaim as they should the principles of 
Catholic theology concerning the co-operation of Catholics toward 
the religious worship of non-Catholics. For, beyond doubt, the 
attitude that all religions are good and should be favored, that 
we must forget our differences, etc., has been accepted by many 
Catholics. It is a very comfortable attitude as far as this world is 
concerned, winning for Catholics from their non-Catholic neigh-
bors the encomium that they are really very broad-minded persons, 
much less bigoted than the Catholics of past generations. But 
such praise is a poor compensation for the spiritual loss entailed 
by the compromise of a fundamental Catholic principle, the prin-
ciple that all forms of public worship devoid of the approval of 
the Catholic Church are opposed to the will of God. It is the 
duty of priests to provide their people with proper instruction and 
inspiration on this important matter. We must try to develop 
intelligent lay Catholics, who will fully realize that, while Christian 
charity must be manifested to all men, the beliefs and worship of 
those who are separated from the Catholic Church are not in 
harmony with the divine plan for human salvation. 

i*AER, CXIII, 6 (June 1945), 474. 



CO-OPERATION OF CATHOLICS IN NON-
CATHOLIC RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES 

PART I I I 

In two previous articles1 we considered some of the moral 
problems pertinent to the co-operation of Catholics in non-
Catholic religious activities, such as the building of Protestant 
churches, the selling of articles to be used in non-Catholic religious 
functions, the advertising of non-Catholic services, etc. I t is the 
purpose of this article to discuss several other particular problems 
that are likely to be proposed to the priests of our country, and 
to essay a solution that will represent the proper Catholic attitude 
and will serve as a prudent guide for priests and people. 

MEMBERSHIP I N THE Y.M.C.A. 

Membership in the Young Men's Christian Association 
(Y.M.C.A.) and its corresponding female organization, the Young 
Women's Christian Association (Y.W.C.A.), has been a topic 
of considerable discussion among Catholic priests in our land, and 
it would seem that the practice of our people in this matter differs 
greatly in different parts of the country. The Y.M.C.A. claims 
to be undenominational, and welcomes among its members, not 
only Catholics but (at least in some places) Jews. It provides a 
program of lectures, instructions, social events, athletic facilities, 
etc., that offer a strong attraction to the average young person. 

It cannot be denied that in its origin and spirit the Y.M.C.A. 
is Protestant. It was established in Scotland and England before 
the middle of the nineteenth century chiefly for the religious 
instruction and improvement of young Protestants of the working 
classes. As late as 1911 the Encyclopedia Brittanica stated that 
to be a member of the Y.M.C.A. "means a definite acceptance of the 
doctrines of the Evangelical Christian faith."2 However, in the 
United States Catholics are admitted as members, though formerly 
it was the ruling that Catholics could not be elected to any of 
the superior or directing offices of the organization, and in some 

i AER, CXXXIV, 2, 3, (February, March, 1956), 98-108; 190-200. 
2Encyclopedia Brittanica, ed. 11 (1911), "Young Men's Christian Asso-

ciation," XXVIII, 940. 

22 



23 CO-OPERATION IN NON-CATHOLIC ACTIVITIES 

chapters the number of Catholics admitted to membership could 
not be more than five percent of the whole group.3 However, I 
have been informed by an official of the organization that nowadays 
these restrictions no longer exist and that Catholics may be mem-
bers of the board of management and hold other official posts. 

As to the moral problem of the participation of Catholics in the 
activities of the Y.M.C.A., it is very evident that they may not 
take part in any religious functions, for these are surely Protestant 
in character. Neither could they attend Bible classes, religious 
lectures, etc. At most, it would be permissible for a Catholic to 
join the Y.M.C.A. in order to take advantage of the athletic 
facilities, and perhaps some of the social or cultural functions.4 

From this, however, it does not follow that every boy or young 
man must be permitted to join the organization as long as he 
promises to restrict his interests to the social, cultural and ath-
letic features. Some Catholic youths would be spiritually endan-
gered even if they were limited to these spheres of activities, either 
because they are not staunch in the faith or because in the par-
ticular chapter efforts are being made to weaken the loyalty of 
Catholics to their Church. Hence, a priest should carefully con-
sider the case of each Catholic boy who wishes to join the Y.M.C.A. 
in order to benefit by the features that in themselves are not 
opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church. For the particular 
circumstances may render such affiliation wrong, even though the 
mode of affiliation may not be in itself sinful. It should be noted 
that the spirit of indifferentism—the notion that differences of 
religion are unimportant—is more dangerous than positive opposi-
tion to the Catholic Church. It is this fact that induced the Holy 
Office, in 1920, to warn Catholics against affiliation with the 
Y.M.C.A.6 

As to the participation of Catholics in the Y.M.C.A. as mem-
bers of the board of directors or other officials, I cannot see any 
other solution than an absolute denial unless the office is 

3 Cf. AER, LXIV, 3 (March, 1921), 242-49; LXVI, 3 (March, 1922), 
297-99. 

4 By licit cultural functions I mean such events as lectures on literature 
or history, classes in the study of languages, etc., provided no anti-Catholic 
spirit is injected into them. 

BCf. A AS, XII (1920), 595-97. 



THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW 24 

definitely restricted to non-religious functions. How can a Catholic 
consistently take an active part in promoting a movement that 
supports Protestantism, or at least proposes all forms of Christi-
anity as good and commendable? Similarly, it is utterly inconsistent 
for a Catholic to take part in a membership drive for the Y.M.C.A., 
thus suggesting that Protestant youth be encouraged to profess 
and practice Protestantism fervently, if he is convinced that the 
Son of God established only one religion, the Catholic religion, 
for all mankind. 

The solution of the question of Catholic co-operation toward 
the work of the Salvation Army follows very logically from the 
principles just enunciated. The Salvation Army is a Protestant 
movement, in which many sincere and good Protestants partici-
pate. But it is not a movement in which Catholics may actively 
participate. When this organization inaugurates a drive for a 
particular purpose that involves no distinctively Protestant activity 
—such as Thanksgiving or Christmas dinner for the poor—it is 
surely lawful for Catholics to contribute. But to co-operate toward 
the spread of the organization in itself, which includes, the propa-
gation of non-Catholic doctrine, is entirely forbidden to those who 
believe that Jesus Christ established only one religion, and that 
the religion which He established is promulgated only by the 
Catholic Church. 

THE" JEWISH PASCHAL MEAL 

In connection with the Passover celebration the Jews partake 
of the paschal meal; and sometimes a Catholic is invited to the 
repast by a Jewish family. May the Catholic accept this invita-
tion? I have consulted Catholic scholars familiar with the Jewish 
religion on this point, but I hesitate to give a definite answer. 
The point at issue is whether or not the paschal supper is to be 
regarded as an official liturgical function of the Jewish religion 
or merely as a family meal with some religious accessories of a 
private nature. The latter seems to be the more probable interpre-
tation; nevertheless, I recommend that a Catholic who receives 
such an invitation courteously decline. His Jewish neighbors may 
have invited him in a spirit of sincere friendliness, without any 
intention of having him violate his conscientious convictions. But, 
since there are surely some religious connotations connected with 



25 CO-OPERATION IN NON-CATHOLIC ACTIVITIES 

the mealj it is at least the better procedure for Catholics not to be 
present. 

MINISTERIAL ASSOCIATIONS 

In some parts of our country the clergymen of different creeds 
form a society known as the "Ministerial Association," or some 
such similar title. Sometimes the local priest is invited to become 
a member of this organization. I earnestly exhort Catholic priests 
to refrain from membership. Beyond doubt, the invitation in many 
instances proceeds from a sincere desire to promote good will 
and friendship among the different clergymen of the community; 
and this in itself is a desirable good. But by joining an organiza-
tion of this kind the priest implies that his ministerial office is 
on the same plane as that of the Protestant minister; and our faith 
teaches that the priest is elevated by his ordination to a dignity 
immeasurably superior to that of any other human being. 

The priest may and should collaborate with non-Catholic clergy-
men toward the social and moral improvement of the community. 
He can, for example, join in movements to procure better housing 
conditions, to protect public schools from Communistic infiltra-
tion, to eliminate racial segregation, etc. And certainly, in his asso-
ciation with non-Catholic clergymen he should ever manifest the 
courtesy and kindness that are expected of one whose life is sup-
posed to be an outstanding exemplification of Christian charity. 
He could even address a meeting of the Ministerial Association 
to explain the teachings of the Church, though in such an event 
he must be sure that he has first obtained the permission of the 
Ordinary—at least if the meeting can be classed as a disputatio 
or a collatio.e But when there is a question of association with non-
Catholic clergymen in a way that implies equality of ministry with 
them and the acceptance of their creeds as something good, the 
priest must take an uncompromising stand and decline to enter 
such an association. 

PUBLICATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF NON-CATHOLIC LITERATURE 

The problems of co-operation in the matter of the publication 
and the distribution of non-Catholic books, magazines, pamphlets, 
etc., are numerous in these days when the business of publishing 

«Can. 132S, § 3; "Instructio S. Officii de Motione Oecumenica," A AS, 
XLII (1950), 142-47. 



26 THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW 26 

and selling various types of reading matter is so extensive. Only 
the more common problems can be considered in this brief discus-
sion, but the general norms will be presented. 

A Catholic may never, for any reason whatsoever, publish a 
book or article that upholds false religious doctrine. For the pub-
lisher of a piece of literature co-operates formally in proclaiming 
the doctrines that it proposes and defends.7 This principle applies 
both to errors in faith (for example, a work that denounces 
Christian revelation) and to errors in morality (for example, a 
book defending contraception). This same prohibition applies to 
the Catholic owner of a printing plant. 

However, those who work in a publishing house or printing 
plant without any right to determine what books are to be pub-
lished are only material co-operators with respect to the spread 
of error and the harm it may do to readers. Hence, in certain cir-
cumstances they may licitly hold their jobs—namely, if there are 
sufficiently grave reasons to render their particular type of material 
co-operation permissible. The proximity (in importance and influ-
ence) of their co-operation and especially the frequency with 
which books containing false doctrine are published are the main 
factors to be considered in determining whether or not these 
workers may be permitted to continue their tasks. Thus, the lino-
typer certainly needs a graver reason to work on a book pro-
claiming a false religion than the man who loads the printed 
copies on a truck. Generally speaking, if an establishment only 
occasionally prints a book that contains false doctrine, the workers 
are allowed to keep their jobs; but it is difficult to see how a 
Catholic could work in any capacity in a printing plant that 
specializes in anti-Catholic literature. Even those whose co-operation 
is quite remote could not be allowed to remain, except, perhaps, 
for a brief time, until they can get another job.8 

Those who publish books by apostates, heretics or schismatics 
upholding apostasy, heresy or schism incur ipso facto an excom-

7 It would not necessarily be wrong to publish a book in which false 
doctrine is enunciated, as long as the publisher makes it known that he is 
not approving of the error—for example, when it is published with a refu-
tation, or when an erroneous statement of some individual is merely reported 
as a fact. We are referring to the case of a publisher whose act of publish-
ing a book is reasonably interpreted as an approval of its contents. 

8Cf. Merkelbach, Surnma theologiae moralis (Paris, 1938), n. 767. 



27 CO-OPERATION IN NON-CATHOLIC ACTIVITIES 

munication specially reserved to the Holy See.9 The printer as 
such does not incur this censure, though he might be included 
under it indirectly—namely, as a necessary participant.10 However, 
this would seem to refer only to the owner of the plant, not to the 
workmen. The norms laid down above would have to be applied 
to determine whether or not their material co-operation is justifiable. 

Catholics who own bookstores may not expose to sale (venales 
ne habeant) books forbidden by the Church, either by name in the 
Index or by the general norms of Canon 1399. However, they 
may retain privately forbidden books (except those that ex 
professo treat of obscene subjects) and sell them to persons whom 
they prudently judge may lawfully read them.11 Thus, a book-
seller could keep in some secluded place books that attack Catholic 
doctrine and sell them to priests (or lay persons) who have received 
permission to read them. 

Those who work as clerks in a bookstore conducted by non-
Catholics are permitted to retain their jobs if the store, for the 
most part, carries good books—not, however, if it specializes in 
false or immoral books. In the former situation the clerks could 
sell even prohibited books to those who ask for them. The same 
rule can be followed" by an attendant in a public library. In the 
words of Bishop Pernicone: 

A librarian in such public institutions is allowed te use some dis-
cretion as to the persons to whom he gives books and as to the kind of 
books he lends. A Catholic librarian is bound, as far as he is per-
mitted, to use this power for the observance of the laws of God and 
of the Church in this matter. However, since he is a servant of the 
library, when he has used all that discretion which the library statutes 
permit him, he cannot be obliged further. Therefore, he need not ask 
everyone who requests a forbidden book whether he has permission or 
not he did so, he might lose his position. Besides, it is impossible to 
know whether every person coming to the public library is baptized 
and therefore bound by the laws of the Church; it is also impossible 
for him to know all the publications which are forbidden.12 

» Can. 2318, § 1. 
10 Cf. Pernicone, The Ecclesiastical Prohibition of Books (Washington, 

D. C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1932), p. 229. 
1 1 Can. 1404. 
12 Pernicone, op. cit.. pp. 208-9. 



THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW 28 

PUBLICATION AND SALE OF PROTESTANT BIBLES 

Particular attention must be given to the problem of the publi-
cation and sale of Protestaht Bibles by Catholics. As to the publi-
cation, the matter is clear from the Code of Canon Law. One who 
publishes an edition of the Sacred Scripture without ecclesiastical 
approbation (and certainly this applies to one who publishes a 
Protestant Bible) incurs ipso facto an excommunication nemini 
reservatam,18 While this excommunication can be taken away 
by any confessor in the sacramental forum,14 the confessor can-
not absolve one from this censure unless he promises to give up 
the work of publishing this type of Bible. 

As to the sale of Protestant Bibles, Church law is more lenient. 
As was stated above, Catholic booksellers could keep such Bibles 
in stock (privately) and sell them to persons who presumably 
have the right to read them. Now, according to the prescriptions 
of the Church, those who are engaged in theological or biblical 
studies may use Bibles published without ecclesiastical approba-
tion, provided they have been edited faithfully and integrally and 
the dogmas of Catholic faith are not impugned in their foreword 
or footnotes.1® I have been informed by competent Scripture 
scholars that many Protestant editions of the Bible today measure 
up to these conditions. Hence, Catholic book dealers may sell such 
Bibles to persons engaged in theological or biblical studies.16 Under 
this category of theologians or biblical students would come, not 
only priests and seminarians (in their Scripture course), but also 
lay persons who are seriously devoted to theological or biblical 
studies—for example, the Catholic college student preparing for 
an examination on the Bible in his religion course.17 It should 
be emphasized, however, that ordinarily the Catholic lay person 
will find all that he requires for his intellectual and devotional needs 
in the Catholic edition of the Bible with its helpful notes. Further-
more, in quoting passages from the Bible, either in speech or in 

is Can. 2318, § 2. 
« Can. 2253, § 1. 
1 6 Can. 1400. 
16 However, the same Scripture experts informed me that there are some 

editions of the Bible that contain dangerous attacks on the faith, such as 
the Jehovah's Witnesses edition. 

1 7 Cf. Pernicone, op. cit., p. 195. 



29 CO-OPERATION IN NON-CATHOLIC ACTIVITIES 

writing, Catholics should use a translation approved by Catholic 
ecclesiastical authorities. In those places where public schools 
begin their classes with a reading from the Bible the Catholic 
teacher should bring her own Bible to school and read it.18 

What about the sale of Protestant Bibles to Protestants by 
Catholics? Catholics working for non-Catholic book dealers as 
salesmen, whether in a shop or by a house-to-house procedure, 
may certainly sell such editions as do not distort the true text 
and contain no attacks on Catholicism (such as the present King 
James edition, the Authorized Translation, the Chicago edition) 
to Protestants who request them. But, may a Catholic who owns 
a book shop keep these editions and sell them indiscriminately 
to non-Catholics ? If the store is definitely known as a Catholic 
book store, I would answer in the negative. For, it would savor 
of scandal for a store professedly committed to the sale of books 
approved by the Church to sell indiscriminately those that are 
explicitly rated as forbidden books by Canon Law. However, if 
the establishment is a book store of a more general character, 
though in the ownership of a Catholic, a more generous policy 
might be followed in regard to the editions of the Bible just 
described. For, it would seem, these books are not forbidden 
by divine law, since they present the inspired word without dis-
tortion or deceptive omissions. Indeed, they are good and inspir-
ing in their message. Hence, if their sale to non-Catholics is 
forbidden it is only because of ecclesiastical law; and there are 
some authors who hold that the Church's laws on forbidden books 
do not bind even baptized non-Catholics.19 At any rate, the 
Church law itself implies a solution to Catholic book dealers who 
would wish to sell Protestant Bibles to all who request them. For 
the Code prescribes that book dealers shall not expose for sale 
forbidden books unless they have received permission from the 
Holy See, thus implying that such permission may be given.20 

1 8 Cf. Cornell, "The Catholic Public School Teacher," Morals in Politics 
and Professions (Westminster, Md., 1946), p. 157. 

1 9 E.g., Augustine, A Commentary on Canon Law (St. Louis, 1919), VI, 
454. Most authorities do not regard this view as sufficiently probable. 
However, one might defend the practice suggested on the ground that it is 
a lesser evil for non-Catholics to have a Bible that is good in itself, even 
though forbidden by Church law, than not to have a Bible at all. 

20 Can. 1404. 



THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW 30 

Hence, I recommend that a Catholic book merchant who deems 
he has sufficient reason to sell Protestant editions of the Bible 
to all who ask for them seek permission from the Holy Office to 
sell them indiscriminately. 

ATTENDANCE AT CREMATION 

The law of the Church commands that the "bodies of the 
faithful shall be buried," and "reprobates their cremation."21 

From this it can be inferred that (apart from most extraordinary 
circumstances) a Catholic may not assist, even passively, at the 
cremation of one who was a Catholic, since his mere presence 
would be regarded as an approval of this forbidden method of 
disposing of the body. It is true, the decrees of the Church allow 
for a case in which funeral rights and ecclesiastical burial can be 
granted to one whose body is cremated, not at his own request 
but at the instance of other persons; but this will be allowed 
only when scandal can be prevented.22 But even in such a case 
a Catholic must absent himself from the cremation, even though 
he might attend the funeral rites and the interment of the ashes. 
In the case of a non-Catholic a somewhat more lenient judgment 
must be passed on Catholics who wish to assist, because the law 
forbids cremation only with respect to "corpora fidelium defunc-
torum." I believe, however, that even in such an instance attend-
ance would be wrong because it would be a source of scandal 
to those who cannot make fine distinctions. But there would 
not seem to be any objection to the presence of a Catholic at the 
funeral rites of such a person in a church or home, if the condi-
tions for passive presence laid down by Canon 1258, § 2, are 
verified. 

The participation of a Catholic undertaker in a funeral that 
is to terminate in cremation offers a practical problem. If the 
deceased was a Catholic who, in defiance of the Church's prohibi-
tion, stipulated that his body was to be disposed of in this way 
it is difficult to see how. a Catholic undertaker could lawfully take 
charge of the funeral. But if the deceased was a non-Catholic, a 
Catholic undertaker could conduct the funeral, including the 

2 1 Can. 1203, § 1. 
22 Collactanea S.C. dc Prop. Fide, n. 166S; A AS, XVIII (1926), 282-83. 



31 CO-OPERATION IN NON-CATHOLIC ACTIVITIES 

delivery of the body to the" crematorium. Material co-operation of 
a remote nature could be allowed to a Catholic working in the 
crematorium—for example, a clerk recording the cremations, a 
laboring man washing the windows and corridors—but not the 
proximate (or even formal) co-operation of one who is deputed 
to the actual task of burning the corpses. 

SECRETARIAL WORK 

A Catholic could serve as secretary to a non-Catholic clergyman 
if her work consisted regularly in assistance of a secular nature, 
such as writing letters regarding the management of a hospital, 
making arrangements for social affairs, etc., but not if her usual 
work was copying sermons, making arrangements for church serv-
ices, etc. In this latter case, the co-operation would be material; 
but it would be so proximate that it is difficult to find a reason 
to justify it. The case would be different if the secretary's employer 
were a non-Catholic business or professional man who would 
occasionally dictate a letter pertaining to religious activities. In 
such circumstances the slight co-operation thus rendered would 
be sufficiently balanced by her normal desire to retain a good 
position. 

SUMMER SCHOOLS AND KINDERGARTENS UNDER 

NON-CATHOLIC AUSPICES 

Catholic parents are sometimes invited to send their small 
children to vacation schools or kindergartens under nor-Catholic 
church auspices; and often the advantages to an over-worked 
mother are very tempting. However, such a procedure is entirely 
forbidden if the children are to receive any form of non-Catholic 
instruction, engage in Bible-reading, or recite non-Catholic prayers. 
If none of these features are present, it would not be per se wrong 
for a Catholic child to attend, but even in this event it is possible 
that the children will be subjected to non-Catholic propaganda or 
the spirit of indifferentism. Hence, Catholic parents should be 
urged not to accept an invitation of this kind, even though the 
intentions of those who give it are evidently most sincere and 
generous. Their good will does not make up for the real danger 
to the faith of Catholic boys and girls from attendance at such 
schools. 



THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW 32 

CONCLUSION 

Doubtless many jion-Catholics would characterize as casuistical 
and even pharasaical the distinctions and the details that have been 
made in this series of articles on the co-operation of Catholics 
in non-Catholic religious activities. But that realization should 
not deter the Catholic priest from making an earnest effort to 
acquire the requisite knowledge to guide his people aright in the 
many practical problems on this matter that they encounter in 
present-day America. Probably, too, there are some theologians 
who would take a different view from myself on some of the solu-
tions I have proposed, and to this there can be no reasonable 
objection as long as they safeguard the principles of Catholic 
theology and the declarations of the Church. 

But, above all, it is important that priests keep constantly before 
their people the vast distinction between charity and tolerance, 
on the one hand, toward persons of other creeds, and compromise 
in religious truth on the other. To all we must show the charity 
of Christ, whatever may be their particular religious beliefs. Here 
in the United States we must be most conscientious in granting 
full civil equality to non-Catholics. The Catholic who would vote 
for a Catholic because he is a coreligionist and refuse his vote 
to a non-Catholic more worthy of office would thereby commit a 
sin. But in religious matters, when the teachings of Jesus Christ 
as proposed by His Church are at stake, we cannot yield even 
though we thereby draw down ridicule and the charge that we are 
bigoted and narrow. We must be willing to endure any temporal 
evil rather than be guilty of disloyalty to the one true faith to 
which God in His mercy has called us. 

FRANCIS J . CONNELL, C . S S . R . 

The Catholic University of America 
Washington, D. C. 



Now in its Fourth Reprinting 

HUMAN EVOLUTION—1956 
with APPENDIX 

THE PRESENT CATHOLIC ATTITUDE TOWARDS EVOLUTION 
by J. Franklin Ewing, S.J., Ph.D. 

( A reprint from the Oct. 1956 issue of : 

) ANTHROPOLOGICAL QUARTERLY j 
Father Ewing is Professor of Physical Anthropology at Fordham. This 

authoritative article should be of particular interest to all Catholic Students 
and Educators. 
52 pages, 5 figures 

Single copy -v— $1.00 
In lots of 5 l i M i j l -90 ea. 
In lots of 10 ;,,' .80 ea. 
In lots of 25-J-.-__- .70 ea. 

Prices Postpaid 
Yearly subscription to the Quarterly—$3.00 

ANTHROPOLOGICAL QUARTERLY 
$20 Michigan Avenue, N.E. Washington 17, D. C. 

HOW SHOULD PRIESTS DIRECT 
PEOPLE REGARDING THE MOVIES? JH&^ian 

I with APPENDIX—1957 , 
L — — < H 

By ^becency. 

Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R. 

(Reprinted by Popular Demand) ^^S^^^^fflffl^MM 

This article originally appeared in the Apr i l 1946 edition of The Ameri-
can Ecclesiastical Review. A n Appendix has been added, and the 16-
page reprint is now available in an attractively bound, paper cover. 

Single copy 30^ 
In lots of 10 25^ ea. 
In lots of 25 2 H ea. 
In lots of 50 20fi ea. 

Prices Postpaid 
• 

QH)t American Ccclesiiasitrcal JXefcrieto 
The Catholic University of America Washington 17, D.C. 

I^p igggg: :: M 88$ SS i y. SS&tt ^ ,
 s' v s " ^ ^ ^ ^