Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 5.djvu/58

 DISCUS

34

DISCUSSIONS

Dc recanditd vet. Eccl. theol. (Helrastedt, 1670); Scholusger, Dissert, de Disc. arc. (Venice, 1756); Liexhardt, De antiq. lilurg. el de disc. arc. (Strasburg. 1823); Toklot, De Disc. arc. (Cologne. 1836); Weiss. Die allkirchliche Padagogik (1869); Martignt. Diet.: Newman, AriaTis, i, §3. Among Protestant works: Fromann. De Disc. arc. in vet. Eccl. (Jena. 1833); RoTHE, De disc. arc. (Heidelberg, 1841); Credner in Jenaer Literaturzeitung (1844); Bon'wetsch, Veber Wesen, Entslehung u. Fortgang d. Arkanidisziplin in Zeitschr. jiir hist. Theol. (1873), II, 203-299; of. also Bingham, Antiq. Eccl.. and Had- DAN in Did. of Christ. Antiq., s. v. The doubts raised by Abbe Batiffol in Etudes d'Hist. el de Theologie positive (Paris. 1902), 1— i2, as to the antiquity and customary view of the Dis- ciplina Arcani seem to have been satisfactorily quieted by the learned treatise of Ignaz von Funk. Das Alter der .Arkani- disziplin in his Theologisch^ Abhandlungen (Paderborn, 1907). Ill, 42-57; MacDonald, The Discipline of the Secret in The Am. Eccl. Rev. (Philadelphia, 1904), xxx.

Arthur S. Barnes.

Discus. See Paten.

Discussions, Religious (Conferences, Disputa- tions, Debates), as contradistinguished from polem- ical writings, designate oral dialectical duels, more or less formal and public, between champions of diver- gent religious beliefs. For the most part, the more celebrated of these discussions have been held at the instigation of the civil authorities; for the Church has rarely shown favour to this method of ventilating re- vealed truth. This attitude of opposition on the part of the Church is wise and intelligible. A champion of orthodoxy, possessed of all the qualifications essential to a public debater, is not easily to be found. More- over, it seems highly improper to give the antagonists of the truth an opportunity to assail mysteries and in- stitutions which should be spoken of with reverence. The fact that the Catholic party to the controversy is nearly always obliged to be on the defensive places him at a disadvantage before the public, who, as Demosthenes remarks, " listen eagerly to revilings and accusations". At any rate, the Church, as custodian of Revelation, cannot abdicate her office and permit a jury of more or less competent indi\'iduals to decide upon the truths committed to her care.

St. Thomas (II-II, Q. x, a. 7) holds that it is lawful to dispute publicly with unbelievers, under certain conditions. To discuss as doubting the truth of the faith, is a sin; to discuss for the purpose of refuting error, is praiseworthy. At the same time the character of the audience must be considered. If they are well instructed and firm in their belief, there is no danger; if they are simple-minded then, where they are solici- ted by unbelievers to abandon their faith, a public defence is needful, provided it can be undertaken by competent parties. But where the faithful are not exposed to such perverting influences, discussions of the sort are dangerous. It is not, tlien, surprising that the question of disputations with heretics has been made the subject of ecclesiastical legislation. By a decree of Alexander IV (1254—1261) inserted in "Sextus Decretalium", Lib. V, c. ii, and still in force, all laymen are forbidden, under threat of excommuni- cation, to dispute publicly or privately with heretics on the Catholic Faith. The text reads: "Inhibemus quoque, ne cuiquam laicae personae liceat publice vel privatim de fide catholica disputare. Qui vero contra fecerit, excommunicationis laqueo innodetur." (We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dis- pute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication.) This law, like all penal laws, must be very narrowly construed. The terms Catholic Faith and dispute have a technical signification. The former term refers to questions purely theological; the latter to disputa- tions more or less formal, and engrossing the attention of the public. There are numerous questions, some- what connected with theology, which many laymen who have received no scientific theological training can treat more intelligently than a priest. In modern life, it frequently happens that an O'Connell or a Mon- talembert must stand forward as a defender of Catho-

lic interests upon occasions when a theologian would be out of place. But when there is a question of dog- matic or moral theology, every intelligent layman will concede the propriety of leaving the exposition and defence of it to the clergy.

But the clergy are not free to engage in public dis- putes on religion without due authorization. In the "Collectanea S. Cong, de Prop. Fide" (p. 102, n. 294) we find the following decree, issued 8 March, 1625: " The Sacred Congregation has ordered that public dis- cussions shall not be held with heretics, because for the most part, either owing to their loquacity or audacity or to the applause of the audience, error prevails and the truth is crushed. But should it happen that such a discussion is unavoidable, notice must first be given to the S. Congregation, which, after weighing the cir- cumstances of time and persons, will prescribe in de- tail what is to be done. " The Sacred Congregation enforced this decree with such vigour, that the custom of holding public disputes with heretics wellnigh fell into desuetude. [See the decree of 1631 regarding the missionaries in Constantinople; also the decrees of 1645 and 1662, the latter forbidding the General of the Capuchins to authorize such disputes (Collectanea, 1674, n. 302).]

That this legislation is still in force appears from the letter addressed to the bishops of Italy by Cardinal Rampolla in the name of the Cong, for Ecclesiastical Affairs (27 Jan., 1902) in which it is declared that dis- cussions with Socialists are subject to the decrees of the Holy See regarding public disputes with heretics; and, in accordance with the decree of Propaganda, 7 Feb., 1645, such public disputations are not to be per- mitted unless there is hope of producing greater good and unless the conditions prescribed by theologians are fulfilled. The Holy See, it is added, considering that these discussicais often produce no result at all or even result in harm, has frequently forbidden them and ordered ecclesiastical superiors to prevent them; where this cannot be done, care must be taken that the discussions are not held without the authorization of the Apostolic See; and that only those who are well quaUfied to secure the triumph of Christian truth shall take part therein. It is evident, then, that no Catho- lic priest is ever permitted to become the aggressor or to issue a challenge to such a debate. If he receives from the other party to the controversy a public chal- lenge under circumstances which make a non-accept- ance appear morally impossible, he must refer the case to his canonical superiors and be guided by their coun- sel. We thus reconcile two apparently contradictory utterances of the Apostles: for according to St. Peter (I Pet., iii, 15) you should be "ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you", while St. Paul admoni.shes Timothy (II Tim., ii, 14), "Contend not in words, for it is to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers".

Historic Disput.\tions in Early Times. — The disputes of St. Stephen and St. Paul, mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, were rather in the nature of Apos- tolic pleading than of formal discussions. St. Justin's "Dialogue with Trj^shon" was, in all probability, a literary effort after the model of Plato's dialogues. St. .\ugustine, the ablest disputant of all time, en- gaged in several set debates with Arians, Manichseans, Donatists, and Pelagians. An interesting summary of each of these great disputations is preserved among the saint's works, and ought to be closely studied by those who are called to defend the Catholic cause. Of particular interest is the celebrated Conference of Car- thage, convened by order of Emperor Honorius to fin- ish the inveterate schism of the Donatists. It opened 1 June, 411, and lasted three days. The tribune Mar- cellinus represented the emperor, and in the presence of 286 Catholic and 279 Donatist bishops, St. Augus- tine, as chief spokesman of t he Catholics, so completely upset the sectarian arguments, that the victory was