|
Title: |
Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Cont.
|
|
Descr.: |
On The Doctrines Of The Modernists
|
|
Pope: |
Pope St. Pius X
|
|
Date: |
September 8, 1907
|
|
Criticism
and its Principles
31.
And as history receives its conclusions, ready-made, from
philosophy, so too criticism takes its own from history. The
critic, on the data furnished him by the historian, makes two
parts of all his documents. Those that remain after the triple
elimination above described go to form the real history; the rest
is attributed to the history of the faith or as it is styled, to
internal history. For the Modernists distinguish very carefully
between these two kinds of history, and it is to be noted that
they oppose the history of the faith to real history precisely as
real. Thus we have a double Christ: a real Christ, and a Christ,
the one of faith, who never really existed; a Christ who has lived
at a given time and in a given place, and a Christ who has never
lived outside the pious meditations of the believer - the Christ,
for instance, whom we find in the Gospel of St. John, which is
pure contemplation from beginning to end.
32.
But the dominion of philosophy over history does not end here.
Given that division, of which We have spoken, of the documents
into two parts, the philosopher steps in again with his principle
of vital immanence, and shows how everything in the history of the
Church is to be explained by vital emanation. And since the cause
or condition of every vital emanation whatsoever is to be found in
some need, it follows that no fact can antedate the need which
produced it - historically the fact must be posterior to the need.
See how the historian works on this principle. He goes over his
documents again, whether they be found in the Sacred Books or
elsewhere, draws up from them his list of the successive needs of
the Church, whether relating to dogma or liturgy or other matters,
and then he hands his list over to the critic. The critic takes in
hand the documents dealing with the history of faith and
distributes them, period by period, so that they correspond
exactly with the lists of needs, always guided by the principle
that the narration must follow the facts, as the facts follow the
needs. It may at times happen that some parts of the Sacred
Scriptures, such as the Epistles, themselves constitute the fact
created by the need. Even so, the rule holds that the age of any
document can only be determined by the age in which each need had
manifested itself in the Church. Further, a distinction must be
made between the beginning of a fact and its development, for what
is born one day requires time for growth. Hence the critic must
once more go over his documents, ranged as they are through the
different ages, and divide them again into two parts, and divide
them into two lots, separating those that regard the first stage
of the facts from those that deal with their development, and
these he must again arrange according to their periods.
33.
Then the philosopher must come in again to impose on the historian
the obligation of following in all his studies the precepts and
laws of evolution. It is next for the historian to scrutinize his
documents once more, to examine carefully the circumstances and
conditions affecting the Church during the different periods, the
conserving force she has put forth, the needs both internal and
external that have stimulated her to progress, the obstacles she
has had to encounter, in a word everything that helps to determine
the manner in which the laws of evolution have been fulfilled in
her. This done, he finishes his work by drawing up in its broad
lines a history of the development of the facts. The critic
follows and fits in the rest of the documents with this sketch; he
takes up his pen, and soon the history is made complete. Now we
ask here: Who is the author of this history? The historian? The
critic? Assuredly, neither of these but the philosopher. From
beginning to end everything in it is a priori, and a priori in a
way that reeks of heresy. These men are certainly to be pitied,
and of them the Apostle might well say: "They became vain in their
thoughts...professing themselves to be wise they became fools"(18); but, at the same time, they excite just
indignation when they accuse the Church of torturing the texts,
arranging and confusing them after its own fashion, and for the
needs of its cause. In this they are accusing the Church of
something for which their own conscience plainly reproaches them.
How
the Bible is Dealt With
34.
The result of this dismembering of the Sacred Books and this
partition of them throughout the centuries is naturally that the
Scriptures can no longer be attributed to the authors whose names
they bear. The Modernists have no hesitation in affirming commonly
that these books, and especially the Pentateuch and the first
three Gospels, have been gradually formed by additions to a
primitive brief narration - by interpolations of theological or
allegorical interpretation, by transitions, by joining different
passages together. This means, briefly, that in the Sacred Books
we must admit a vital evolution, springing from and corresponding
with evolution of faith. The traces of this evolution, they tell
us, are so visible in the books that one might almost write a
history of them. Indeed this history they do actually write, and
with such an easy security that one might believe them to have
with their own eyes seen the writers at work through the ages
amplifying the Sacred Books. To aid them in this they call to
their assistance that branch of criticism which they call textual,
and labor to show that such a fact or such a phrase is not in its
right place, and adducing other arguments of the same kind. They
seem, in fact, to have constructed for themselves certain types of
narration and discourses, upon which they base their decision as
to whether a thing is out of place or not. Judge if you can how
men with such a system are fitted for practicing this kind of
criticism. To hear them talk about their works on the Sacred
Books, in which they have been able to discover so much that is
defective, one would imagine that before them nobody ever even
glanced through the pages of Scripture, whereas the truth is that
a whole multitude of Doctors, infinitely superior to them in
genius, in erudition, in sanctity, have sifted the Sacred Books in
every way, and so far from finding imperfections in them, have
thanked God more and more the deeper they have gone into them, for
His divine bounty in having vouchsafed to speak thus to men.
Unfortunately, these great Doctors did not enjoy the same aids to
study that are possessed by the Modernists for their guide and
rule, - a philosophy borrowed from the negation of God, and a
criterion which consists of themselves.
We
believe, then, that We have set forth with sufficient clearness
the historical method of the Modernists. The philosopher leads the
way, the historian follows, and then in due order come internal
and textual criticism. And since it is characteristic of the first
cause to communicate its virtue to secondary causes, it is quite
clear that the criticism We are concerned with is an agnostic,
immanentist, and evolutionist criticism. Hence anybody who
embraces it and employs it, makes profession thereby of the errors
contained in it, and places himself in opposition to Catholic
faith. This being so, one cannot but be greatly surprised by the
consideration which is attached to it by certain Catholics. Two
causes may be assigned for this: first, the close alliance,
independent of all differences of nationality or religion, which
the historians and critics of this school have formed among
themselves; second, the boundless effrontery of these men. Let one
of them but open his mouth and the others applaud him in chorus,
proclaiming that science has made another step forward; let an
outsider but hint at a desire to inspect the new discovery with
his own eyes, and they form a coalition against him; deny it - and you are
an ignoramus; embrace it and defend it - and there is no praise
too warm for you. In this way they win over any who, did they but
realize what they are doing, would shrink back with horror. The
impudence and the domineering of some, and the thoughtlessness and
imprudence of others, have combined to generate a pestilence in
the air which penetrates everywhere and spreads the contagion. But
let us pass to the apologist.
The
Modernist as Apologist
35.
The Modernist apologist depends in two ways on the philosopher.
First, indirectly, inasmuch as his theme is history - history
dictated, as we have seen, by the philosopher; and, secondly,
directly, inasmuch as he takes both his laws and his principles
from the philosopher. Hence that common precept of the Modernist
school that the new apologetics must be fed from psychological and
historical sources. The Modernist apologists, then, enter the
arena by proclaiming to the rationalists that though they are
defending religion, they have no intention of employing the data
of the sacred books or the histories in current use in the Church,
and composed according to old methods, but real history written on
modern principles and according to rigorously modern methods. In
all this they are not using an argumentum ad hominem, but are
stating the simple fact that they hold, that the truth is to be
found only in this kind of history. They feel that it is not
necessary for them to dwell on their own sincerity in their
writings - they are already known to and praised by the
rationalists as fighting under the same banner, and they not only
plume themselves on these encomiums, which are a kind of salary to
them but would only provoke nausea in a real Catholic, but use
them as an offset to the reprimands of the Church.
But
let us see how the Modernist conducts his apologetics. The aim he
sets before himself is to make the non-believer attain that
experience of the Catholic religion which, according to the
system, is the basis of faith. There are two ways open to him, the
objective and the subjective. The first of them proceeds from
agnosticism. It tends to show that religion, and especially the
Catholic religion, is endowed with such vitality as to compel
every psychologist and historian of good faith to recognize that
its history hides some unknown element. To this end it is
necessary to prove that this religion, as it exists today, is that
which was founded by Jesus Christ; that is to say, that it is the
product of the progressive development of the germ which He
brought into the world. Hence it is imperative first of all to
establish what this germ was, and this the Modernist claims to be
able to do by the following formula: Christ announced the coming
of the Kingdom of God, which was to be realized within a brief
lapse of time and of which He was to become the Messiah, the
divinely-given agent and ordainer. Then it must be shown how this
germ, always immanent and permanent in the bosom of the Church,
has gone on slowly developing in the course of history, adapting
itself successively to the different mediums through which it has
passed, borrowing from them by vital assimilation all the
dogmatic, cultural, ecclesiastical forms that served its purpose;
whilst, on the other hand, it surmounted all obstacles,
vanquished all enemies, and survived all assaults and all combats.
Anybody who well and duly considers this mass of obstacles,
adversaries, attacks, combats, and the vitality and fecundity
which the Church has shown throughout them all, must admit that if
the laws of evolution are visible in her life they fail to explain
the whole of her history - the unknown rises forth from it and
presents itself before us. Thus do they argue, never suspecting
that their determination of the primitive germ is an a priori of
agnostic and evolutionist philosophy, and that the formula of it
has been gratuitously invented for the sake of buttressing their
position.
36.
But while they endeavor by this line of reasoning to secure access
for the Catholic religion into souls, these new apologists are
quite ready to admit that there are many distasteful things in it.
Nay, they admit openly, and with ill-concealed satisfaction, that
they have found that even its dogma is not exempt from errors and
contradictions. They add also that this is not only excusable but
- curiously enough - even right and proper. In the Sacred Books
there are many passages referring to science or history where
manifest errors are to be found. But the subject of these books is
not science or history but religion and morals. In them history
and science serve only as a species of covering to enable the
religious and moral experiences wrapped up in them to penetrate
more readily among the masses. The masses understood science and
history as they are expressed in these books, and it is clear that
had science and history been expressed in a more perfect form this
would have proved rather a hindrance than a help. Then, again, the
Sacred Books being essentially religious, are consequently
necessarily living. Now life has its own truth and its own logic,
belonging as they do to a different order, viz., truth of
adaptation and of proportion both with the medium in which it
exists and with the end towards which it tends. Finally the
Modernists, losing all sense of control, go so far as to proclaim
as true and legitimate everything that is explained by life.
We,
Venerable Brethren, for whom there is but one and only truth, and
who hold that the Sacred Books, "written under the inspiration of
the Holy Ghost, have God for their author"(19) declare that this is equivalent to attributing to God
Himself the lie of utility or officious lie, and We say with St.
Augustine: "In an authority so high, admit but one officious lie,
and there will not remain a single passage of those apparently
difficult to practice or to believe, which on the same most
pernicious rule may not be explained as a lie uttered by the
author willfully and to serve a purpose"(20). And thus it
will come about, the holy Doctor continues, that everybody will
believe and refuse to believe what he likes or dislikes. But the
Modernists pursue their way gaily. They grant also that certain
arguments adduced in the Sacred Books, like those, for example,
which are based on the prophecies, have no rational foundation to
rest on. But they will defend even these as artifices of
preaching, which are justified by life. Do they stop here? No,
indeed, for they are ready to admit, nay, to proclaim that Christ
Himself manifestly erred in determining the time when the coming
of the Kingdom of God was to take place, and they tell us that we
must not be surprised at this since even Christ was subject to the
laws of life! After this what is to become of the dogmas of the
Church? The dogmas brim over with flagrant contradictions, but
what matter that since, apart from the fact that vital logic
accepts them, they are not repugnant to symbolical truth. Are we
not dealing with the infinite, and has not the infinite an
infinite variety of aspects? In short, to maintain and defend
these theories they do not hesitate to declare that the noblest
homage that can be paid to the Infinite is to make it the object
of contradictory propositions! But when they justify even
contradiction, what is it that they will refuse to justify?
Subjective
Arguments
37.
But it is not solely by objective arguments that the non-believer
may be disposed to faith. There are also subjective ones at the
disposal of the Modernists, and for those they return to their
doctrine of immanence. They endeavor, in fact, to persuade their
non-believer that down in the very deeps of his nature and his
life lie the need and the desire for religion, and this not a
religion of any kind, but the specific religion known as
Catholicism, which, they say, is absolutely postulated by the
perfect development of life. And here We cannot but deplore once
more, and grievously, that there are Catholics who, while
rejecting immanence as a doctrine, employ it as a method of
apologetics, and who do this so imprudently that they seem to
admit that there is in human nature a true and rigorous necessity
with regard to the supernatural order, and not merely a capacity
and a suitability for the supernatural, such as has at
all times been emphasized by Catholic apologists. Truth to tell it
is only the moderate Modernists who make this appeal to an
exigency for the Catholic religion. As for the others, who might
be called intergralists, they would show to the non-believer,
hidden away in the very depths of his being, the very germ which
Christ Himself bore in His conscience, and which He bequeathed to
the world. Such, Venerable Brethren, is a summary description of
the apologetic method of the Modernists, in perfect harmony, as
you may see, with their doctrines - methods and doctrines brimming
over with errors, made not for edification but for destruction,
not for the formation of Catholics but for the plunging of
Catholics into heresy; methods and doctrines that would be fatal
to any religion.
The
Modernist as Reformer
38.
It remains for Us now to say a few words about the Modernist as
reformer. From all that has preceded, some idea may be gained of
the reforming mania which possesses them: in all Catholicism there
is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten. Reform of
philosophy, especially in the seminaries: the scholastic
philosophy is to be relegated to the history of philosophy among
obsolete systems, and the young men are to be taught modern
philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we
live. Reform of theology; rational theology is to have modern
philosophy for its foundation, and positive theology is to be
founded on the history of dogma. As for history, it must be for
the future written and taught only according to their modern
methods and principles. Dogmas and their evolution are to be
harmonized with science and history. In the Catechism no dogmas
are to be inserted except those that have been duly reformed and
are within the capacity of the people. Regarding worship, the
number of external devotions is to be reduced, or at least steps
must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed,
some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more
indulgent on this head. Ecclesiastical government requires to be
reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary
and dogmatic parts. Its spirit with the public conscience, which
is not wholly for democracy; a share in ecclesiastical government
should therefore be given to the lower ranks of the clergy, and
even to the laity, and authority should be decentralized. The
Roman Congregations, and especially the index and the Holy Office,
are to be reformed. The ecclesiastical authority must change its
line of conduct in the social and political world; while keeping
outside political and social organization, it must adapt itself to
those which exist in order to penetrate them with its spirit. With
regard to morals, they adopt the principle of the Americanists,
that the active virtues are more important than the passive, both
in the estimation in which they must be held and in the exercise
of them. The clergy are asked to return to their ancient lowliness
and poverty, and in their ideas and action to be guided by the
principles of Modernism; and there are some who, echoing the
teaching of their Protestant masters, would like the suppression
of ecclesiastical celibacy. What is there left in the Church which
is not to be reformed according to their principles?
Modernism
and All the Heresies
39.
It may be, Venerable Brethren, that some may think We have dwelt
too long on this exposition of the doctrines of the Modernists.
But it was necessary, both in order to refute their customary
charge that We do not understand their ideas, and to show that
their system does not consist in scattered and unconnected
theories but in a perfectly organized body, all the parts of which
are solidly joined so that it is not possible to admit one without
admitting all. For this reason, too, We have had to give this
exposition a somewhat didactic form and not to shrink from
employing certain uncouth terms in use among the Modernists. And
now, can anybody who takes a survey of the whole system be
surprised that We should define it as the synthesis of all
heresies? Were one to attempt the task of collecting together all
the errors that have been broached against the faith and to
concentrate the sap and substance of them all into one, he could
not better succeed than the Modernists have done. Nay, they have
done more than this, for, as we have already intimated, their
system means the destruction not of the Catholic religion alone
but of all religion. With good reason do the rationalists applaud
them, for the most sincere and the frankest among the rationalists
warmly welcome the modernists as their most valuable allies.
For
let us return for a moment, Venerable Brethren, to that most
disastrous doctrine of agnosticism. By it every avenue that leads
the intellect to God is barred, but the Modernists would seek to
open others available for sentiment and action. Vain efforts! For,
after all, what is sentiment but the reaction of the soul on the
action of the intelligence or the senses. Take away the
intelligence, and man, already inclined to follow the senses,
becomes their slave. Vain, too, from another point of view, for
all these fantasies on the religious sentiment will never be able
to destroy common sense, and common sense tells us that emotion
and everything that leads the heart captive proves a hindrance
instead of a help to the discovery of truth. We speak, of course,
of truth in itself - as for that other purely subjective truth,
the fruit of sentiment and action, if it serves its purpose for
the jugglery of words, it is of no use to the man who wants to
know above all things whether outside himself there is a God into
whose hands he is one day to fall. True, the Modernists do call in
experience to eke out their system, but what does this experience
add to sentiment? Absolutely nothing beyond a certain intensity
and a proportionate deepening of the conviction of the reality of
the object. But these two will never make sentiment into anything
but sentiment, nor deprive it of its characteristic which is to
cause deception when the intelligence is not there to guide it; on
the contrary, they but confirm and aggravate this characteristic,
for the more intense sentiment is the more it is sentimental. In
matters of religious sentiment and religious experience, you know,
Venerable Brethren, how necessary is prudence and how necessary,
too, the science which directs prudence. You know it from your own
dealings with souls, and especially with souls in whom sentiment
predominates; you know it also from your reading of ascetical
books - books for which the Modernists have but little esteem, but
which testify to a science and a solidity very different from
theirs, and to a refinement and subtlety of observation of which
the Modernists give no evidence. Is it not really folly, or at
least sovereign imprudence, to trust oneself without control to
Modernist experiences? Let us for a moment put the question: if
experiences have so much value in their eyes, why do they not
attach equal weight to the experience that thousands upon
thousands of Catholics have that the Modernists are on the wrong
road? It is, perchance, that all experiences except those felt by
the Modernists are false and deceptive? The vast majority of
mankind holds and always will hold firmly that sentiment and
experience alone, when not enlightened and guided by reason, do
not lead to the knowledge of God. What remains, then, but the
annihilation of all religion, atheism? Certainly it is not the
doctrine of symbolism that will save us from this. For if all the
intellectual elements, as they call them, of religion are pure
symbols, will not the very name of God or of divine personality be
also a symbol, and if this be admitted will not the personality of
God become a matter of doubt and the way opened to Pantheism? And
to Pantheism that other doctrine of the divine immanence leads
directly. For does it, We ask, leave God distinct from man or not?
If yes, in what does it differ from Catholic doctrine, and why
reject external revelation? If no, we are at once in Pantheism.
Now the doctrine of immanence in the Modernist acceptation holds
and professes that every phenomenon of conscience proceeds from
man as man. The rigorous conclusion from this is the identity of
man with God, which means Pantheism. The same conclusion follows
from the distinction Modernists make between science and faith.
The object of science they say is the reality of the knowable; the
object of faith, on the contrary, is the reality of the
unknowable. Now what makes the unknowable unknowable is its
disproportion with the intelligible - a disproportion which
nothing whatever, even in the doctrine of the Modernist, can
suppress. Hence the unknowable remains and will eternally remain
unknowable to the believer as well as to the man of science.
Therefore if any religion at all is possible it can only be the
religion of an unknowable reality. And why this religion might not
be that universal soul of the universe, of which a rationalist
speaks, is something which certainly does not seem to Us apparent. Certainly this suffices to show
superabundantly by how many roads Modernism leads to the
annihilation of all religion. The first step in this direction was
taken by Protestantism; the second is made by Modernism; the next
will plunge headlong into atheism.
THE
CAUSE OF MODERNISM
40.
To penetrate still deeper into Modernism and to find a suitable
remedy for such a deep sore, it behooves Us, Venerable Brethren,
to investigate the causes which have engendered it and which
foster its growth. That the proximate and immediate cause consists
in a perversion of the mind cannot be open to doubt. The remote
causes seem to us to be reduced to two: curiosity and pride.
Curiosity by itself, if not prudently regulated, suffices to
explain all errors. Such is the opinion of Our Predecessor,
Gregory XVI, who wrote: "A lamentable spectacle is that presented
by the aberrations of human reason when it yields to the spirit of
novelty, when against the warning of the Apostle it seeks to know
beyond what it is meant to know, and when relying too much on
itself it thinks it can find the fruit outside the Church wherein
truth is found without the slightest shadow of error."(21)
But
it is pride which exercises an incomparably greater sway over the
soul to blind it and plunge it into error, and pride sits in
Modernism as in its own house, finding sustenance everywhere in
its doctrines and an occasion to flaunt itself in all its aspects.
It is pride which fills Modernists with that confidence in
themselves and leads them to hold themselves up as the rule for
all, pride which puffs them up with that vainglory which allows
them to regard themselves as the sole possessors of knowledge, and
makes them say, inflated with presumption, We are not as the rest
of men, and which, to make them really not as other men, leads
them to embrace all kinds of the most absurd novelties; it is
pride which rouses in them the spirit of disobedience and causes
them to demand a compromise between authority and liberty; it is
pride that makes of them the reformers of others, while they
forget to reform themselves, and which begets their absolute want
of respect for authority, not excepting the supreme authority. No,
truly, there is no road which leads so directly and so quickly to
Modernism as pride. When a Catholic laymen or a priest forgets
that precept of the Christian life which obliges us to renounce
ourselves if we would follow Jesus Christ and neglects to tear
pride from his heart, then it is he who most of all is a fully
ripe subject for the
errors of Modernism. Hence, Venerable Brethren, it will be your
first duty to thwart such proud men, to employ them only in the
lowest and obscurest offices; the higher they try to rise, the
lower let them be placed, so that their lowly position may deprive
them of the power of causing damage. Sound your young clerics,
too, most carefully, by yourselves and by the directors of your
seminaries, and when you find the spirit of pride among any of
them reject them without compunction from the priesthood. Would to
God that this had always been done with the proper vigilance and
constancy.
41.
If we pass from the moral to the intellectual causes of Modernism,
the first which presents itself, and the chief one, is ignorance.
Yes, these very Modernists who pose as Doctors of the Church, who
puff out their cheeks when they speak of modern philosophy, and
show such contempt for scholasticism, have embraced the one with
all its false glamour because their ignorance of the other has
left them without the means of being able to recognize confusion
of thought, and to refute sophistry. Their whole system, with all
its errors, has been born of the alliance between faith and false
philosophy.
Methods
of Propagandism
42.
If only they had displayed less zeal and energy in propagating it!
But such is their activity and such their unwearying capacity for
work on behalf of their cause, that one cannot but be pained to
see them waste such labor in endeavoring to ruin the Church when
they might have been of such service to her had their efforts been
better employed. Their articles to delude men's minds are of two
kinds, the first to remove obstacles from their path, the second
to devise and apply actively and patiently every instrument that
can serve their purpose. They recognize that the three chief
difficulties for them are scholastic philosophy, the authority of
the fathers and tradition, and the magisterium of the Church, and
on these they wage unrelenting war. For scholastic philosophy and
theology they have only ridicule and contempt. Whether it is
ignorance or fear, or both, that inspires this conduct in them,
certain it is that the passion for novelty is always united in
them with hatred of scholasticism, and there is no surer sign that
a man is on the way to Modernism than when he begins to show his
dislike for this system. Modernists and their admirers should
remember the proposition condemned by Pius IX: "The method and
principles which have served the doctors of scholasticism when
treating of theology no longer correspond with the exigencies of
our time or the progress of science."(22) They
exercise all their ingenuity in diminishing the force and
falsifying the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its
weight. But for Catholics the second Council of Nicea will always
have the force of law, where it condemns those who dare, after the
impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical
traditions, to invent novelties of some kind...or endeavor by
malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions
of the Catholic Church; and Catholics will hold for law, also, the
profession of the fourth Council of Constantinople: We therefore
profess to conserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy
Catholic and Apostolic Church by the Holy and most illustrious
Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by
every one of those divine interpreters the Fathers and Doctors of
the Church. Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX,
ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following
declaration: I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and
ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions
of the Church.
The Modernists pass the same judgment on the most
holy Fathers of the Church as they pass on tradition; decreeing,
with amazing effrontery that, while personally most worthy of all
veneration, they were entirely ignorant of history and criticism,
for which they are only excusable on account of the time in which
they lived. Finally, the Modernists try in every way to diminish
and weaken the authority of the ecclesiastical magisterium itself
by sacrilegiously falsifying its origin, character, and rights,
and by freely repeating the calumnies of its adversaries. To all
the band of Modernists may be applied those words which Our
Predecessor wrote with such pain: "To bring contempt and odium on
the mystic Spouse of Christ, who is the true light, the children
of darkness have been wont to cast in her face before the world a
stupid calumny, and perverting the meaning and force of things and
words, to depict her as the friend of darkness and ignorance, and
the enemy of light, science, and progress."(23) This being so, Venerable Brethren, no
wonder the Modernists vent all their gall and hatred on Catholics
who zealously fight the battles of the Church. But of all the
insults they heap on them those of ignorance and obstinacy are the
favorites. When an adversary rises up against them with an
erudition and force that render him redoubtable, they try to make
a conspiracy of silence around him to nullify the effects of his
attack, while in flagrant contrast with this policy towards
Catholics, they load with constant praise the writers who range
themselves on their side, hailing their works, exuding novelty
in every page, with choruses of applause; for them the scholarship
of a writer is in direct proportion to the recklessness of his
attacks on antiquity, and of his efforts to undermine tradition
and the ecclesiastical magisterium; when one of their number falls
under the condemnations of the Church the rest of them, to the
horror of good Catholics, gather round him, heap public praise
upon him, venerate him almost as a martyr to truth. The young,
excited and confused by all this glamour of praise and abuse, some
of them afraid of being branded as ignorant, others ambitious to
be considered learned, and both classes goaded internally by
curiosity and pride, often surrender and give themselves up to
Modernism.
43.
And here we have already some of the artifices employed by
Modernists to exploit their wares. What efforts they make to win
new recruits! They seize upon chairs in the seminaries and
universities, and gradually make of them chairs of pestilence.
From these sacred chairs they scatter, though not always openly,
the seeds of their doctrines; they proclaim their teachings
without disguise in congresses; they introduce them and make them
the vogue in social institutions. Under their own names and under
pseudonyms they publish numbers of books, newspapers, reviews, and
sometimes one and the same writer adopts a variety of pseudonyms
to trap the incautious reader into believing in a whole multitude
of Modernist writers - in short they leave nothing untried, in
action, discourses, writings, as though there were a frenzy of
propaganda upon them. And the results of all this? We have to
lament at the sight of many young men once full of promise and
capable of rendering great services to the Church, now gone
astray. And there is another sight that saddens Us too: that of so
many other Catholics, who, while they certainly do not go so far
as the former, have yet grown into the habit, as though they had
been breathing a poisoned atmosphere, of thinking and speaking and
writing with a liberty that ill becomes Catholics. They are to be
found among the laity, and in the ranks of the clergy, and they
are not wanting even in the last place where one might expect to
meet them, in religious institutes. If they treat of biblical
questions, it is upon Modernist principles; if they write history,
it is to search out with curiosity and to publish openly, on the
pretext of telling the whole truth and with a species of
ill-concealed satisfaction, everything that looks to them like a
stain in the history of the Church. Under the sway of certain a
priori rules they destroy as far as they can the pious traditions
of the people, and bring ridicule on certain relics highly
venerable from their antiquity. They are possessed by the empty
desire of being talked about, and they know they would never
succeed in this were they to say only what has been always said.
It may be that they have persuaded themselves that in all this
they are really serving God and the Church - in reality they only
offend both, less perhaps by their works themselves than by the
spirit in which they write and by the encouragement they are
giving to the extravagances of the Modernists.
REMEDIES
44.
Against this host of grave errors, and its secret and open
advance, Our Predecessor Leo XIII, of happy memory, worked
strenuously especially as regards the Bible, both in his words and
his acts. But, as we have seen, the Modernists are not easily
deterred by such weapons - with an affectation of submission and
respect, they proceeded to twist the words of the Pontiff to their
own sense, and his acts they described as directed against others
than themselves. And the evil has gone on increasing from day to
day. We therefore, Venerable Brethren, have determined to adopt at
once the most efficacious measures in Our power, and We beg and
conjure you to see to it that in this most grave matter nobody
will ever be able to say that you have been in the slightest
degree wanting in vigilance, zeal or firmness. And what We ask of
you and expect of you, We ask and expect also of all other pastors
of souls, of all educators and professors of clerics, and in a
very special way of the superiors of religious institutions.
I.
- The Study of Scholastic Philosophy
45.
In the first place, with regard to studies, We will and ordain
that scholastic philosophy be made the basis of the sacred
sciences. It goes without saying that "if anything is met with
among the scholastic doctors which may be regarded as an excess of
subtlety, or which is altogether destitute of probability, We have
no desire whatever to propose it for the imitation of present
generations".(24) And let it be clearly
understood above all things that the scholastic philosophy We
prescribe is that which the Angelic Doctor has bequeathed to us,
and We, therefore, declare that all the ordinances of Our
Predecessor on this subject continue fully in force, and, as far
as may be necessary, We do decree anew, and confirm, and ordain
that they be by all strictly observed. In seminaries where they
may have been neglected let the Bishops impose them and require
their observance, and let this apply also to the Superiors of
religious institutions. Further let Professors remember that they
cannot set St. Thomas aside, especially in metaphysical questions,
without grave detriment.
46.
On this philosophical foundation the theological edifice is to be
solidly raised. Promote the study of theology, Venerable Brethren,
by all means in your power, so that your clerics on leaving the
seminaries may admire and love it, and always find their delight
in it. For "in the vast and varied abundance of studies opening
before the mind desirous of truth, everybody knows how the old
maxim describes theology as so far in front of all others that
every science and art should serve it and be to it as handmaidens."(25) We will add that
We deem worthy of praise those who with full respect for
tradition, the Holy Fathers, and the ecclesiastical magisterium,
undertake, with well-balanced judgment and guided by Catholic
principles (which is not always the case), seek to illustrate
positive theology by throwing the light of true history upon it.
Certainly more attention must be paid to positive theology than in
the past, but this must be done without detriment to scholastic
theology, and those are to be disapproved as of Modernist
tendencies who exalt positive theology in such a way as to seem to
despise the scholastic.
47.
With regard to profane studies suffice it to recall here what Our
Predecessor has admirably said: "Apply yourselves energetically to
the study of natural sciences: the brilliant discoveries and the
bold and useful applications of them made in our times which have
won such applause by our contemporaries will be an object of
perpetual praise for those that come after us".(26) But this do without interfering with sacred
studies, as Our Predecessor in these most grave words prescribed:
"If you carefully search for the cause of those errors you will
find that it lies in the fact that in these days when the natural
sciences absorb so much study, the more severe and lofty studies
have been proportionately neglected - some of them have almost
passed into oblivion, some of them are pursued in a half-hearted
or superficial way, and, sad to say, now that they are fallen from
their old estate, they have been disfigured by perverse doctrines
and monstrous errors".(27) We ordain, therefore, that the
study of natural science in the seminaries be carried on under
this law.
II
- Practical Application
48.
All these prescriptions and those of Our Predecessor are to be
borne in mind whenever there is question of choosing directors and
professors for seminaries and Catholic Universities. Anybody who
in any way is found to be imbued with Modernism is to be excluded
without compunction from these offices, and those who already
occupy them are to be withdrawn. The same policy is to be adopted
towards those who favor Modernism either by extolling the
Modernists or excusing their culpable conduct, by criticizing
scholasticism, the Holy Father, or by refusing obedience to
ecclesiastical authority in any of its depositaries; and towards
those who show a love of novelty in history, archaeology, biblical
exegesis, and finally towards those who neglect the sacred
sciences or appear to prefer to them the secular. In all this
question of studies, Venerable Brethren, you cannot be too
watchful or too constant, but most of all in the choice of
professors, for as a rule the students are modeled after the
pattern of their masters. Strong in the consciousness of your
duty, act always prudently but vigorously.
49.
Equal diligence and severity are to be used in examining and
selecting candidates for Holy Orders. Far, far from the clergy be
the love of novelty! God hates the proud and the obstinate. For
the future, the doctorate of theology and canon law must never be
conferred on anybody who has not made the regular course of
scholastic philosophy; if conferred it shall be held as null and
void. The rules laid down in 1896 by the Sacred Congregation of
Bishops and Regulars for the clerics, both secular and regular, of
Italy concerning the frequenting of the Universities, We now
decree to be extended to all nations.(28) Clerics and priests
inscribed in a Catholic Institute or University must not in the
future follow in civil Universities those courses for which there
are chairs in the Catholic Institutes to which they belong. If
this has been permitted anywhere in the past, We ordain that it be
not allowed for the future. Let the Bishops who form the Governing
Board of such Catholic Institutes or Universities watch with all
care that these Our commands be constantly observed.
III.
- Episcopal Vigilance Over Publications
50.
It is also the duty of the bishops to prevent writings infected
with Modernism or favorable to it from being read when they have
been published, and to hinder their publication when they have
not. No book or paper or periodical of this kind must ever be
permitted to seminarians or university students. The injury to
them would be equal to that caused by immoral reading - nay, it
would be greater for such writings poison Christian life at its
very fount. The same decision is to be taken concerning the
writings of some Catholics, who, though not badly disposed
themselves but ill-instructed in theological studies and imbued
with modern philosophy, strive to make this harmonize with the
faith, and, as they say, to turn it to the profit of the faith.
The name and reputation of these authors cause them to be read
without suspicion, and they are, therefore, all the more dangerous
in preparing the way for Modernism.
51.
To give you some more general directions, Venerable Brethren, in a
matter of such moment, We bid you do everything in your power to
drive out of your dioceses, even by solemn interdict, any
pernicious books that may be in circulation there. The Holy See
neglects no means to put down writings of this kind, but the
number of them has now grown to such an extent that it is
impossible to censure them all. Hence it happens that the medicine
sometimes arrives too late, for the disease has taken root during
the delay. We will, therefore, that the Bishops, putting aside all
fear and the prudence of the flesh, despising the outcries of the
wicked, gently by all means but constantly, do each his own share
of this work, remembering the injunctions of Leo XIII in the
Apostolic Constitution Officiorum: "Let the Ordinaries, acting in
this also as Delegates of the Apostolic See, exert themselves to
prescribe and to put out of reach of the faithful injurious books
or other writings printed or circulated in their dioceses."(29) In this
passage the Bishops, it is true, receive a right, but they have
also a duty imposed on them. Let no Bishop think that he fulfils
this duty by denouncing to us one or two books, while a great many
others of the same kind are being published and circulated. Nor
are you to be deterred by the fact that a book has obtained the
Imprimatur elsewhere, both because this may be merely simulated,
and because it may have been granted through carelessness or
easiness or excessive confidence in the author as may sometimes
happen in religious Orders. Besides, just as the same food does
not agree equally with everybody, it may happen that a book
harmless in one may, on account of the different circumstances, be
hurtful in another. Should a Bishop, therefore, after having taken
the advice of prudent persons, deem it right to condemn any of
such books in his diocese, We not only give him ample faculty to
do so but We impose it upon him as a duty to do so. Of course, it
is Our wish that in such action proper regard be used, and
sometimes it will suffice to restrict the prohibition to the
clergy; but even in such cases it will be obligatory on Catholic
booksellers not to put on sale books condemned by the Bishop. And
while We are on this subject of booksellers, We wish the Bishops
to see to it that they do not, through desire for gain, put on
sale unsound books. It is certain that in the catalogues of some
of them the books of the Modernists are not infrequently announced
with no small praise. If they refuse obedience let the Bishops
have no hesitation in depriving them of the title of Catholic
booksellers; so too, and with more reason, if they have the title
of Episcopal booksellers, and if they have that of Pontifical, let
them be denounced to the Apostolic See. Finally, We remind all of
the XXVI article of the above mentioned Constitution Officiorum:
"All those who have obtained an apostolic faculty to read and keep
forbidden books, are not thereby authorized to read books and
periodicals forbidden by the local Ordinaries, unless the
apostolic faculty expressly concedes permission to read and keep
books condemned by anybody."
IV.
- Censorship
52.
But it is not enough to hinder the reading and the sale of bad
books - it is also necessary to prevent them from being printed.
Hence let the Bishops use the utmost severity in granting
permission to print. Under the rules of the Constitution
Officiorum, many publications require the authorization of the
Ordinary, and in some dioceses it has been made the custom to have
a suitable number of official censors for the examination of
writings. We have the highest praise for this institution, and We
not only exhort, but We order that it be extended to all dioceses.
In all episcopal Curias, therefore, let censors be appointed for
the revision of works intended for publication, and let the
censors be chosen from both ranks of the clergy - secular and
regular - men of age, knowledge and prudence who will know how to
follow the golden mean in their judgments. It shall be their
office to examine everything which requires permission for
publication according to Articles XLI and XLII of the
above-mentioned Constitution. The Censor shall give his verdict in
writing. If it be favorable, the Bishop will give the permission
for publication by the word Imprimatur, which must always be
preceded by the Nihil obstat and the name of the Censor. In the
Curia of Rome official censors shall be appointed just as
elsewhere, and the appointment of them shall appertain to the
Master of the Sacred Palaces, after they have been proposed to the
Cardinal Vicar and accepted by the Sovereign Pontiff. It will also
be the office of the Master of the Sacred Palaces to select the
censor for each writing. Permission for publication will be
granted by him as well as by the Cardinal Vicar or his Vicegerent,
and this permission, as above prescribed, must always be preceded
by the Nihil obstat and the name of the Censor. Only on very rare
and exceptional occasions, and on the prudent decision of the
bishop, shall it be possible to omit mention of the Censor. The
name of the Censor shall never be made known to the authors until
he shall have given a favorable decision, so that he may not have
to suffer annoyance either while he is engaged in the examination
of a writing or in case he should deny his approval. Censors shall
never be chosen from the religious orders until the opinion of the
Provincial, or in Rome, of the General, has been privately
obtained, and the Provincial or the General must give a
conscientious account of the character, knowledge and orthodoxy of
the candidate. We admonish religious superiors of their solemn
duty never to allow anything to be published by any of their
subjects without permission from themselves and from the Ordinary.
Finally We affirm and declare that the title of Censor has no
value and can never be adduced to give credit to the private
opinions of the person who holds it.
Priests
as Editors
53.
Having said this much in general, We now ordain in particular a
more careful observance of Article XLII of the above-mentioned
Constitution Officiorum. It is forbidden to secular priests,
without the previous consent of the Ordinary, to undertake the
direction of papers or periodicals. This permission shall be
withdrawn from any priest who makes a wrong use of it after having
been admonished. With regard to priests who are correspondents or
collaborators of periodicals, as it happens not infrequently that
they write matter infected with Modernism for their papers or
periodicals, let the Bishops see to it that this is not permitted
to happen, and, should they fail in this duty, let the Bishops
make due provision with authority delegated by the Supreme
Pontiff. Let there be, as far as this is possible, a special
Censor for newspapers and periodicals written by Catholics. It
shall be his office to read in due time each number after it has
been published, and if he find anything dangerous in it let him
order that it be corrected. The Bishop shall have the same right
even when the Censor has seen nothing objectionable in a
publication.
V.
- Congresses
54.
We have already mentioned congresses and public gatherings as
among the means used by the Modernists to propagate and defend
their opinions. In the future Bishops shall not permit Congresses
of priests except on very rare occasions. When they do permit them
it shall only be on condition that matters appertaining to the
Bishops or the Apostolic See be not treated in them, and that no
resolutions or petitions be allowed that would imply a usurpation of
sacred authority, and that no mention be made in them of
Modernism, presbyterianism, or laicism. At Congresses of this
kind, which can only be held after permission in writing has been
obtained in due time and for each case, it shall not be lawful for
priests of other dioceses to take part without the written
permission of their Ordinary. Further no priest must lose sight of
the solemn recommendation of Leo XIII: "Let priests hold as sacred
the authority of their pastors, let them take it for certain that
the sacerdotal ministry, if not exercised under the guidance of
the Bishops, can never be either holy, or very fruitful or
respectable."(30)
VI
- Diocesan Watch Committees
55.
But of what avail, Venerable Brethren, will be all Our commands
and prescriptions if they be not dutifully and firmly carried out?
And, in order that this may be done, it has seemed expedient to Us
to extend to all dioceses the regulations laid down with great
wisdom many years ago by the Bishops of Umbria for theirs. "In
order," they say, "to extirpate the errors already
propagated and to prevent their further diffusion, and to remove
those teachers of impiety through whom the pernicious effects of
such diffusion are being perpetuated, this sacred Assembly,
following the example of St. Charles Borromeo, has decided to
establish in each of the dioceses a Council consisting of approved
members of both branches of the clergy, which shall be charged the
task of noting the existence of errors and the devices by which
new ones are introduced and propagated, and to inform the Bishop
of the whole so that he may take counsel with them as to the best
means for supressing the evil at the outset and preventing it spreading
for the ruin of souls or, worse still, gaining strength and
growth."(31) We decree, therefore, that in every diocese
a council of this kind, which We are pleased to name "the
Council of Vigilance," be instituted without delay. The
priests called to form part in it shall be chosen somewhat after
the manner above prescribed for the Censors, and they shall meet
every two months on an appointed day under the presidency of the
Bishop. They shall be bound to secrecy as to their deliberations
and decisions, and their function shall be as follows: They shall
watch most carefully for every trace and sign of Modernism both in
publications and in teaching, and, to preserve from it the clergy
and the young, they shall take all prudent, prompt and efficacious
measures. Let them combat novelties of words remembering the
admonitions of Leo XIII: "It is impossible to approve in Catholic publications of a
style inspired by unsound novelty which seems to deride the piety
of the faithful and dwells on the introduction of a new order of
Christian life, on new directions of the Church, on new
aspirations of the modern soul, on a new vocation of the clergy,
on a new Christian civilization."(32) Language of this kind is not to
be tolerated either in books or from chairs of learning. The
Councils must not neglect the books treating of the pious
traditions of different places or of sacred relics. Let them not
permit such questions to be discussed in periodicals destined to
stimulate piety, neither with expressions savoring of mockery or
contempt, nor by dogmatic pronouncements, especially when, as is
often the case, what is stated as a certainty either does not pass
the limits of probability or is merely based on prejudiced
opinion. Concerning sacred relics, let this be the rule: When
Bishops, who alone are judges in such matters, know for certain
the a relic is not genuine, let them remove it at once from the
veneration of the faithful; if the authentications of a relic
happen to have been lost through civil disturbances, or in any
other way, let it not be exposed for public veneration until the
Bishop has verified it. The argument of prescription or
well-founded presumption is to have weight only when devotion to a
relic is commendable by reason of its antiquity, according to the
sense of the Decree issued in 1896 by the Congregation of
Indulgences and Sacred Relics: Ancient relics are to retain the
veneration they have always enjoyed except when in individual
instances there are clear arguments that they are false or
suppositions. In passing judgment on pious traditions be it always
borne in mind that in this matter the Church uses the greatest
prudence, and that she does not allow traditions of this kind to
be narrated in books except with the utmost caution and with the
insertion of the declaration imposed by Urban VIII, and even then
she does not guarantee the truth of the fact narrated; she simply
does not forbid belief in things for which human evidence is not
wanting. On this matter the Sacred Congregation of Rites, thirty
years ago, decreed as follows: "These apparitions and revelations
have neither been approved nor condemned by the Holy See, which
has simply allowed that they be believed on purely human faith, on
the tradition which they relate, corroborated by testimonies and
documents worthy of credence."(33) Anybody who
follows this rule has no cause for fear. For the devotion based on
any apparition, in as far as it regards the fact itself, that is
to say in as far as it is relative, always implies the hypothesis
of the truth of the fact; while in as far as it is absolute, it
must always be based on the truth, seeing that its object is the
persons of the saints who are honored. The same is true of relics.
Finally, We entrust to the Councils of Vigilance the duty of
overlooking assiduously and diligently social institutions as well
as writings on social questions so that they may harbor no trace
of Modernism, but obey the prescriptions of the Roman Pontiffs.
VII
- Triennial Returns
56.
Lest what We have laid down thus far should fall into oblivion, We
will and ordain that the Bishops of all dioceses, a year after the
publication of these letters and every three years thenceforward,
furnish the Holy See with a diligent and sworn report on all the
prescriptions contained in them, and on the doctrines that find
currency among the clergy, and especially in the seminaries and
other Catholic institutions, and We impose the like obligation on
the Generals of Religious Orders with regard to those under them.
57.
This, Venerable Brethren, is what we have thought it our duty to
write to you for the salvation of all who believe. The adversaries
of the Church will doubtless abuse what we have said to refurbish
the old calumny by which we are traduced as the enemy of science
and of the progress of humanity. In order to oppose a new answer
to such accusations, which the history of the Christian religion
refutes by never failing arguments, it is Our intention to
establish and develop by every means in our power a special
Institute in which, through the cooperation of those Catholics
who are most eminent for their learning, the progress of science
and other realms of knowledge may be promoted under the guidance
and teaching of Catholic truth. God grant that we may happily
realize our design with the ready assistance of all those who bear
a sincere love for the Church of Christ. But of this we will speak
on another occasion.
58.
Meanwhile, Venerable Brethren, fully confident in your zeal and
work, we beseech for you with our whole heart and soul the
abundance of heavenly light, so that in the midst of this great
perturbation of men's minds from the insidious invasions of error
from every side, you may see clearly what you ought to do and may
perform the task with all your strength and courage. May Jesus
Christ, the author and finisher of our faith, be with you by His
power; and may the Immaculate Virgin, the destroyer of all
heresies, be with you by her prayers and aid. And We, as a pledge
of Our affection and of divine assistance in adversity, grant most
affectionately and with all Our heart to you, your clergy and
people the Apostolic Benediction.
Given
at St. Peter's, Rome, on the 8th day of September, 1907, the fifth
year of our Pontificate.
Endnotes:
1. Acts 20:30. |
2. Titus 1:10. | 3. ii Tim. 3:13. | 4. De Revelatione, can. 1. |
5. Ibid., can. 2. | 6. De Fide, can. 3. | 7. De Revelatione, can.
3. | 8. Gregory XVI, encyclical of June 25, 1834, Singulari Nos. |
9. Brief to the Bishop of Breslau, June 15, 1857. | 10. Gregory IX
Epist. ad Magistros theol. Paris. July 7, 1223. | 11. Proposition
29, condemned by Leo X in the bull of May 16, 1520, Exsurge Domine.
| 12. Sess. Vll, De Sacramentis in genere, can. 5. | 13.
Propositions 2 & 3. | 14. Pius IX, encyclical of November 9,
1846, Qui pluribus. | 15. Syllabus, Prop. 5. | 16. Constitution
Dei Filius, cap. 4. | 17. Loc. cit. | 18. Rom. 1:21-22. | 19.
Vatican Council, De Revelatione con. 2. | 20. Epist. 28. | 21.
Gregory XVI, encyclical of June 25, 1834, Singulari Nos. | 22.
Syllabus, Prop. 13. | 23. Motu Proprio of March 14, 1891, Ut
mysticam. | 24. Leo XIII, encyclical of August 4, 1879, Aeterni
Patris. | 25. Leo XIII, Apostolic letter of December 10, 1889, In
magna. | 26. Leo XIII, allocution of March 7, 1880. | 27. Loc.
cit. | 28. Cf. AAS, 29:359ff. | 29. Cf. AAS, 30:39ff. | 30. Leo
XIII, encyclical of February 10, 1884, Nobilissima Gallorum. | 31.
Acts of the Congress of the Bishops of Umbria, November, 1849,
tit. 2, art. 6. | 32. Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of
Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, January 27, 1902. | 33.
Decree of May 2, 1877.
The above is provided for informational purposes only and may not be comprehensive. By using this site you agree to all terms. For terms
information, see "Important Notice" above and click
here.
|
