CAN CONDEMNED PROPOSITIONS BE SAFELY TAUGHT?

Note, this chapter is updated in Election Update.

It is the common teaching and practice of traditionalists that one may teach anything, so long as it is not formally heretical. In fact, in cases of heresy, they will appeal against
a decree of a Council or an infallible teaching of a pope, because it is not clear to them (when to any reasonable person there is no doubt, whatsoever). The Church has condemned numerous errors, not as heretical, but as being false. Are we permitted to teach something which the Church condemns as merely being untrue? Does error have rights, as long as it is not heresy?
Canon 2242, paragraph 1 provides that: "Only offenses which are grave are punished with censures." A grave offense is a mortal sin. Therefore, only mortal sins are punished with censures. Canon 2257 states: "Excommunication is a censure by which one is excluded from the communion of the faithful with the consequences enumerated in the following Canons, which consequences are inseparable. It is also called anathema, especially when inflicted with the solemnities described in the Pontificale Romanum."
For many centuries, before the codification of canon law, the censure of excommunication was inflicted ipso facto, when one publicly or privately defended or taught a condemned proposition, no matter what type of condemnation may have been attached to the proposition. Therefore, the Church presumed that such is a mortal sin, as we have already proven. (Unbelief, Part I.) Before making our Profession of Faith, we must understand with what authority the Church condemns propositions, and we must understand that we are bound under pain of moral sin to condemn all that the Holy Catholic Church condemns!
Some propositions are condemned with a censure attached. For instance, the Church might have said that anyone who teaches a certain proposition is excommunicated. Now, Canon 6, paragraph 5 provides that no censure of excommunication, suspension, or interdict exists, unless it is restated in the Code of Canon Law. This law is to simplify matters and refer people to one list of censures, which Woywod provides in the back of his commentary. However, Canon 2317 provides that: "Persons who stubbornly teach or defend, either publicly or privately, a doctrine which has been condemned by the Aposto-lic See or by an Ecumenical Council not, however, as formally heretical, shall be barred from the ministry of preaching the Word of God and of hearing sacramental confessions, and from every other office of teaching, without prejudice to other penalties which the sentence of condemnation of the doctrine may perhaps have decreed... ." Canon 2317 hereby revokes the
general provision of Canon 6, paragraph 5 and retains in force each and every penalty attached to a particular condemned proposition in the bull of condemnation. Therefore, a censure may very well be attached to a condemned proposition, and as such, may be inflicted ipso facto, by the teaching of the proposition.
In comparing Canon 2317 and the Constitution Avostolica Sedis of Pius XI, Reverend Leech, J.C.L., writes: "The new law (Canon 2317) has a wider extension in this case than the Constitution. By the latter, it was forbidden under penalty to defend or teach not every condemned proposition, but only those condemned under pain of excommunication; the new law comprehends in the present instance every condemned propo-sition that is not formally heretical, without regard to penalties attached to the condemnation." (Note well, that teaching a heretical proposition is covered under Canon 2314, which provides for an ipso facto, excommunication, as we have already discussed.) "It must be noted that those penalties, even of excommunication, which the Holy See or a General Council, when condemning a proposition attached to the teaching of such propositions, are still in force and are in-curred according to the conditions set down in the particular sentence of condemnation." Reverend Leech further discusses that this Canon is a contradiction to Canon 6, paragraph 5, which provides that a censure which is not contained in the Code, is abrogated.
Reverend Charles Augustine, in his A Commentary on the Code of Canon Law lists the following decrees, found in Denziger's Enchiridion Svmbolorum, which come under the provision of Canon 2317:
1.Errors of Wycliff and Hus, censured in Inter cunctas, by Martin V.
2.Errors of Luther, which are not heretical, condemned in Exsurge Domine, by Leo X.
3.The proposition condemned by Clement VIII, stating that confession and absolution can be made by letter or message.
4.The 45 propositions condemned by the Holy Office in decrees dated September 24, 1665 and March 18, 1666.
5.The 65 propositions condemned by the Holy Office on March 4, 1679.
6.The 68 propositions of Michael de Molinos, condemned in Coelestis Pater, by Innocent XI. (Quietism.)
7.The 32 propositions condemned by Alexander VIII on August 24 and December 7, 1690. (Jansenism.)
8.The 101 propositions of Quesnel, condemned in the Bull Unigenitus and Pastoralis Officio by Clement XI. (Jansenism.)
9.Five proposition condemned in Destestabilem, by Benedict XIV.
10.Eighty-five propositions condemned in Auctorem Fidei, by Pius VI. (These are the propositions of the Jansenist Synod of Pistoia, which have raised their ugly head at Vatican II and among traditionalists.)
11.Finally, the errors of modernists, which are not formally heretical.
12.The censures contained in Lamentabili and Pius X's Syllabus of Errors are also included, if the specific proposition is to be censured.
Remember that those propositions condemned as formally heretical are covered under Canon 2314. (See Apostasv. and Schism in the Code of Canon Law, above.) The balance in the above decrees, if taught, render the teacher excommunicated by the act of teaching them. This applies even if he is in good faith, as we have already seen above.
Remember also, St. Thomas Aquinas' definition of heresy:
"Now a thing can be of faith in two ways, stated above, in one way directly and principally; e.g., the articles of faith; in another way, indirectly and secondarily; e.g., those matters, the denial of which lead to corruption of some article of faith; and there may be heresy in either way, even as there can be faith." Let us remember, that although these propositions are not con-demned as heretical of themselves, they may lead to heresy in their application, which is one reason for their condemnation. Not only must we avoid heresy, we must avoid error, for to teach falsehood or error is to work for the Father of False-hoods and Errors, the Devil. To work for the Devil is to work against Our Lord, Jesus Christ and His Teachings, which are Truth. He who does not love God and His Truth, unqualifiedly serves the Devil and is preparing a place in hell for himself.
If one cannot say placet to each and every teaching of the Church (many of which are presented in Henry Denziger's Enchiridion Svmbolorum), he cannot be considered as Catholic. This should be kept in mind while studying the following pro-fession of faith, which enumerates many current errors and the Church's position, as reported by Denziger. We strongly reco-mmend ordering a copy of Denziger's book, which contains the foundations of nearly all the arguments we have presented here.