**RATIONAL CREDIBILITY OF CATHOLIC FAITH**
I. Concept.
"Credible" etymologically means anything that can be the object of belief or faith. However, these two words are understood in different senses by modern psychologists. For some, belief is a persuasion without evidence. According to others, belief is an assent that excludes doubt but depends more on the will, sentiment, instinct, education, or environment than on reflection; some even go so far as to affirm that people are born believers just as they are born unbelievers. More commonly, belief is taken to mean a conviction not founded on solid rational grounds and thus does not imply certainty. It would differ from opinion only in that opinion is aware of the insufficiency of the reasons on which it is based. The word "faith," then, is commonly taken as a synonym for belief.
Applying such concepts to Catholic faith, it is asserted that this is adherence to a set of ideas without sufficient proof; or the certain and invincible persuasion of alleged truths revealed by God, even if demonstrated to be irrational; or a purely subjective conviction, not deduced from reasoning but the work of sentiment; or an aspiration of the will toward the infinite; or an almost instinctive need for the divine, etc. These conceptions of Catholic faith are entirely false.
In theological language, as in common usage, something is said to be reasonably credible when it is attested by a person worthy of belief—that is, competent and truthful. There is a divine faith and a human faith, depending on whether the attesting authority is human or divine. In both cases, faith is an act of the intellect, since the knowledge of a truth cannot be the object of a volitive or sensitive power.
Catholic faith is defined by the Vatican Council as "a supernatural virtue by which, with the inspiration and help of God’s grace, we believe the things He has revealed to be true, not because we see their intrinsic truth by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself who cannot deceive nor be deceived" (Denz.-U., 1789).
For the rational credibility of human faith, it is necessary and sufficient to demonstrate the fact of the testimony and the competence and sincerity of the attesting party. A similar process is followed for the rational credibility of Catholic faith. Once the philosophical demonstration of God’s existence, the infinite Truth, is established, the historical existence of divine Revelation is proven, preserved legitimately and authentically interpreted and taught by the Roman Catholic Church. These two demonstrations are the two premises of the following syllogism, whose conclusion constitutes the judgment of credibility: everything that God, the infallible Truth, reveals is reasonably credible; but God has revealed the truths of Catholic faith; therefore, these truths are reasonably credible.
In this reasoning, the will also intervenes, but only indirectly. The will, like sentiments and passions, greatly influences our reasoning, especially when dealing with truths that require lengthy and complex research, arouse difficulties and objections, and impose serious burdens. All too often, "affection binds the intellect," and "we believe what we wish to believe."
Greater attention from the intellect, perseverance in study, objectivity, courage to silence sophistic doubts and vain anxieties, mastery over passions, and love of truth at any cost are then required. Creating such moral dispositions, removing obstacles that hinder the recognition of truth, and directing the entire soul toward truth are tasks of the will; yet the will neither substitutes for nor objectively strengthens any rational argument.
The syllogism of the credibility of Catholic faith applies to all truths contained in the deposit of divine Revelation. Rational credibility is a common property of all and each of the truths of faith. It does not provide intrinsic evidence, direct vision, or scientific knowledge of Catholic dogmas or Christian mysteries, which remain incomprehensible. It does, however, demonstrate their extrinsic truth—that is, their real existence—as guaranteed by the infallible authority of God.
The judgment of credibility is not yet the act of supernatural faith. Once the rational credibility of Catholic faith is known, our intellect performs another preparatory act for this faith. Considering that the religion revealed by God is the only true one and obligatory for all, and that eternal salvation for each person depends on its practice, we must logically conclude that Catholic faith is an indispensable duty for us. This conclusion is called, in technical theological language, the judgment of belief. It is distinct from the judgment of credibility because it is motivated by different arguments, such as our necessary submission to the divine magisterium and our eternal salvation.
When, with the inspiration and help of divine grace, our intellect freely pays homage to God in faith, it believes not for the motives of belief but for the authority of the revealing God—the formal motive of Catholic faith. Therefore, the motives of credibility must be carefully distinguished from the motives of belief and from the formal motive of faith.
II. Necessity.
The judgment of rational credibility is a necessary condition for every believer so that their faith may be reasonable, firm, and obligatory, as it must be according to Catholic doctrine. Divine wisdom could not have imposed on us the acceptance of truths beyond our comprehension, necessary for our eternal salvation, to be believed solely on the authority of the revealing God with such firm and irrevocable faith that one would rather suffer martyrdom than renounce them, without having given us certain and secure proofs that such truths were truly revealed by God.
III. Demonstratability.
The rational credibility of Catholic faith can be demonstrated with certainty (v. APOLOGETICS). The proofs of this demonstration are called by theologians by different names: they are called criteria (logical) insofar as they distinguish divine Revelation from false human revelations; signs because they designate the true revelation; motives because they move the intellect to assent; arguments in consideration of their demonstrative value.
These arguments are manifold, of varying probative value, and can be classified in different ways; some theological treatises present long and complicated lists of them. Essentially, they can be seen, according to their nature, in two classes: intrinsic and extrinsic (to revealed doctrine); and, according to their demonstrative value, in two other categories: primary and secondary. The intrinsic arguments, also called internal, are drawn from the characteristics or qualities of revealed doctrine, the manner of its preaching, and its connatural fruits. The extrinsic arguments, also called external, reduce to miraculous facts, generally performed by God to prove the divine and revealed origin of the truths that are the object of Catholic faith. Arguments that give certainty are called primary; those that prove only with probability are called secondary. The latter, although insufficient on their own, are nonetheless of great importance, as they remove prejudices against revealed doctrine, make it better appreciated and loved, move the intellect to a more attentive examination of the primary arguments, of which they offer confirmation; for this reason, they are also called auxiliary and confirmatory. On the primary arguments V. MIRACLE.
BIBL.:
Denzinger, H., *Enchiridion Symbolorum*, ed. 25a, Friburgi Brisgoviae 1932, nn. 1785-1794.
The secondary arguments for c. can be summarized as follows. The doctrine proposed to our faith by the Catholic Church as revealed by God: a) is free from evident absurdities in the logical order and from evident contradictions with the natural moral law; b) constitutes an organic, coherent, perfect, sublime system, transcending all other philosophical or religious systems; c) admirably responds to the needs, desires, and highest aspirations of human nature, particularly those of upright and virtuous persons; d) when practiced, makes the faith attainable with every kind of good; e) considered in its essential and integral elements, cannot be explained by a natural evolution from other religions or philosophies. Moreover, the revealers of this transcendent doctrine are humble, simple, unlettered persons; they declare that they teach, not their own doctrine, but what God has manifested to them; and this their assertion appears in itself worthy of belief to anyone who considers their wisdom and holiness.
The truth, perfection, transcendence, fruitfulness, and originality of the doctrine of faith, and the human authority of its revealers, are undoubtedly a valid argument for its divine and revealed origin. They are, however, not a certain argument in itself, sufficient or primary, as some apologists claim when they make it the principal and almost exclusive argument of their demonstration. The absence of evident errors and immoralities in Catholic doctrine proves only the possibility of its divine origin, inasmuch as it is not unworthy of God. Absolutely speaking, one could suppose a non-revealed religious doctrine that was not in contradiction with the certain principles of reason nor with the dictates of our conscience. Nor does the transcendent perfection of Catholic doctrine demonstrate with certainty its revealed origin. One cannot determine what degree of perfection is required so that a doctrine must necessarily be called revealed, since we do not know to what extent human genius can attain with its own natural powers or even with divine assistance in the natural order. Furthermore, it must be borne in mind that the majority of the truths of faith, and the most fundamental ones, are supernatural mysteries, transcending human intelligence, whose intrinsic evidence cannot even be demonstrated after Revelation. Moreover, the examination of the sublimity, beauty, and harmony of the ethical-religious system of the Catholic religion requires an intelligent, cultivated, and unprejudiced mind, free from passions, mature in years, and long-studied; it is therefore not an argument within the reach of all. As for the correspondence of Catholic doctrine with the spiritual aspirations of human nature, it must be observed that it does not extend to all the beliefs, laws, and maxims of Catholic doctrine; that to be verified by our internal experience it presupposes already the practice of that faith whose c. r. must have been demonstrated certain by other arguments; and that the verification of the identity of Catholic beliefs with the spiritual laws of human life depends greatly on our subjective dispositions, is usually inconstant, and a source of errors and illusions. Finally, the beneficial fruits of Catholic doctrine prove that this doctrine is true; but if everything revealed by God is true, not everything that is true is also revealed by God. And in the demonstration of the c. r. of f. c., it is necessary to prove that the object of this faith comes from God “through a supernatural revelation,” because it must be believed, not for its intrinsic evidence, but for the infallible authority of God revealing, as has already been said.
Only when the effects produced by Catholic doctrine exceed the powers of human nature can one argue from them the divine and revealed origin of this doctrine; but in these cases, we are already dealing with miraculous facts and thus with extrinsic arguments.