|
Title: |
Humani Generis
|
|
Descr.: |
Concerning Some False Opinions Threatening To Undermine The Foundations Of Catholic Doctrine
|
|
Pope: |
Pope Pius XII
|
|
Date: |
August 12, 1950
|
|
To
Our Venerable Brethren, Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops,
Bishops, and Other Local Ordinaries Enjoying Peace and Communion
with the Holy See
Venerable
Brethren, Greetings and Apostolic Benediction
1.
Disagreement and error among men on moral and religious matters
have always been a cause of profound sorrow to all good men, but
above all to the true and loyal sons of the Church, especially
today, when we see the principles of Christian culture being
attacked on all sides.
2.
It is not surprising that such discord and error should always
have existed outside the fold of Christ. For though, absolutely
speaking, human reason by its own natural force and light can
arrive at a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God,
Who by His providence watches over and governs the world, and also
of the natural law, which the Creator has written in our hearts,
still there are not a few obstacles to prevent reason from making
efficient and fruitful use of its natural ability. The truths that
have to do with God and the relations between God and men,
completely surpass the sensible order and demand self-surrender
and self-abnegation in order to be put into practice and to
influence practical life. Now the human intellect, in gaining the
knowledge of such truths is hampered both by the activity of the
senses and the imagination, and by evil passions arising from
original sin. Hence men easily persuade themselves in such matters
that what they do not wish to believe is false or at least
doubtful.
3.
It is for this reason that divine revelation must be considered
morally necessary so that those religious and moral truths which
are not of their nature beyond the reach of reason in the present
condition of the human race, may be known by all men readily with
a firm certainty and with freedom from all error.(1)
4.
Furthermore the human intelligence sometimes experiences
difficulties in forming a judgment about the credibility of the
Catholic faith, notwithstanding the many wonderful external signs
God has given, which are sufficient to prove with certitude by the
natural light of reason alone the divine origin of the Christian
religion. For man can, whether from prejudice or passion or bad
faith, refuse and resist not only the evidence of the external
proofs that are available, but also the impulses of actual grace.
5.
If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian
fold, he will easily discover the principle trends that not a few
learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold
that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain
of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and
audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the
world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to
this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of
every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously
defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.
6.
Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is
absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new
erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and
pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it
concerns itself only with existence of individual things and
neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.
7.
There is also a certain historicism, which attributing value only
to the events of man's life, overthrows the foundation of all
truth and absolute law, both on the level of philosophical
speculations and especially to Christian dogmas.
8.
In all this confusion of opinion it is some consolation to Us to
see former adherents of rationalism today frequently desiring to
return to the fountain of divinely communicated truth, and to
acknowledge and profess the word of God as contained in Sacred
Scripture as the foundation of religious teaching. But at the same
time it is a matter of regret that not a few of these, the more
firmly they accept the word of God, so much the more do they
diminish the value of human reason, and the more they exalt the
authority of God the Revealer, the more severely do they spurn the
teaching office of the Church, which has been instituted by
Christ, Our Lord, to preserve and interpret divine revelation.
This attitude is not only plainly at variance with Holy Scripture,
but is shown to be false by experience also. For often those who
disagree with the true Church complain openly of their
disagreement in matters of dogma and thus unwillingly bear witness
to the necessity of a living Teaching Authority.
9.
Now Catholic theologians and philosophers, whose grave duty it is
to defend natural and supernatural truth and instill it in the
hearts of men, cannot afford to ignore or neglect these more or
less erroneous opinions. Rather they must come to understand these
same theories well, both because diseases are not properly treated
unless they are rightly diagnosed, and because sometimes even in
these false theories a certain amount of truth is contained, and,
finally, because these theories provoke more subtle discussion and
evaluation of philosophical and theological truths.
10.
If philosophers and theologians strive only to derive such profit
from the careful examination of these doctrines, there would be no
reason for any intervention by the Teaching Authority of the
Church. However, although We know that Catholic teachers generally
avoid these errors, it is apparent, however, that some today, as
in apostolic times, desirous of novelty, and fearing to be
considered ignorant of recent scientific findings, try to withdraw
themselves from the sacred Teaching Authority and are accordingly
in danger of gradually departing from revealed truth and of
drawing others along with them into error.
11.
Another danger is perceived which is all the more serious because
it is more concealed beneath the mask of virtue. There are many
who, deploring disagreement among men and intellectual confusion,
through an imprudent zeal for souls, are urged by a great and
ardent desire to do away with the barrier that divides good and
honest men; these advocate an "eirenism" according to
which, by setting aside the questions which divide men, they aim
not only at joining forces to repel the attacks of atheism, but
also at reconciling things opposed to one another in the field of
dogma. And as in former times some questioned whether the
traditional apologetics of the Church did not constitute an
obstacle rather than a help to the winning of souls for Christ, so
today some are presumptive enough to question seriously whether
theology and theological methods, such as with the approval of
ecclesiastical authority are found in our schools, should not only
be perfected, but also completely reformed, in order to promote
the more efficacious propagation of the kingdom of Christ
everywhere throughout the world among men of every culture and
religious opinion.
12.
Now if these only aimed at adapting ecclesiastical teaching and
methods to modern conditions and requirements, through the
introduction of some new explanations, there would be scarcely any
reason for alarm. But some through enthusiasm for an imprudent
"eirenism" seem to consider as an obstacle to the
restoration of fraternal union, things founded on the laws and
principles given by Christ and likewise on institutions founded by
Him, or which are the defense and support of the integrity of the
faith, and the removal of which would bring about the union of
all, but only to their destruction.
13.
These new opinions, whether they originate from a reprehensible
desire of novelty or from a laudable motive, are not always
advanced in the same degree, with equal clarity nor in the same
terms, nor always with unanimous agreement of their authors.
Theories that today are put forward rather covertly by some, not
without cautions and distinctions, tomorrow are openly and without
moderation proclaimed by others more audacious, causing scandal to
many, especially among the young clergy and to the detriment of
ecclesiastical authority. Though they are usually more cautious in
their published works, they express themselves more openly in
their writings intended for private circulation and in conferences
and lectures. Moreover, these opinions are disseminated not only
among members of the clergy and in seminaries and religious
institutions, but also among the laity, and especially among those
who are engaged in teaching youth.
14.
In theology some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of
dogmas; and to free dogma itself from terminology long established
in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic
teachers, to bring about a return in the explanation of Catholic
doctrine to the way of speaking used in Holy Scripture and by the
Fathers of the Church. They cherish the hope that when dogma is
stripped of the elements which they hold to be extrinsic to divine
revelation, it will compare advantageously with the dogmatic
opinions of those who are separated from the unity of the Church
and that in this way they will gradually arrive at a mutual
assimilation of Catholic dogma with the tenets of the dissidents.
15.
Moreover, they assert that when Catholic doctrine has been reduced
to this condition, a way will be found to satisfy modern needs,
that will permit of dogma being expressed also by the concepts of
modern philosophy, whether of immanentism or idealism or
existentialism or any other system. Some more audacious affirm
that this can and must be done, because they hold that the
mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts
but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the
truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted.
Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether
necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in place
of the old ones in keeping with the various philosophies which in
the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should
give human expression to divine truths in various ways which are
even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say. They add
that the history of dogmas consists in the reporting of the
various forms in which revealed truth has been clothed, forms that
have succeeded one another in accordance with the different
teachings and opinions that have arisen over the course of the
centuries.
16.
It is evident from what We have already said, that such tentatives
not only lead to what they call dogmatic relativism, but that they
actually contain it. The contempt of doctrine commonly taught and
of the terms in which it is expressed strongly favor it. Everyone
is aware that the terminology employed in the schools and even
that used by the Teaching Authority of the Church itself is
capable of being perfected and polished; and we know also that the
Church itself has not always used the same terms in the same way.
It is also manifest that the Church cannot be bound to every
system of philosophy that has existed for a short space of time.
Nevertheless, the things that have been composed through common
effort by Catholic teachers over the course of the centuries to
bring about some understanding of dogma are certainly not based on
any such weak foundation. These things are based on principles and
notions deduced from a true knowledge of created things. In the
process of deducing, this knowledge, like a star, gave
enlightenment to the human mind through the Church. Hence it is
not astonishing that some of these notions have not only been used
by the Oecumenical Councils, but even sanctioned by them, so that
it is wrong to depart from them.
17.
Hence to neglect, or to reject, or to devalue so many and such
great resources which have been conceived, expressed and perfected
so often by the age-old work of men endowed with no common talent
and holiness, working under the vigilant supervision of the holy
magisterium and with the light and leadership of the Holy Ghost in
order to state the truths of the faith ever more accurately, to do
this so that these things may be replaced by conjectural notions
and by some formless and unstable tenets of a new philosophy,
tenets which, like the flowers of the field, are in existence
today and die tomorrow; this is supreme imprudence and something
that would make dogma itself a reed shaken by the wind. The
contempt for terms and notions habitually used by scholastic
theologians leads of itself to the weakening of what they call
speculative theology, a discipline which these men consider devoid
of true certitude because it is based on theological reasoning.
18.
Unfortunately these advocates of novelty easily pass from
despising scholastic theology to the neglect of and even contempt
for the Teaching Authority of the Church itself, which gives such
authoritative approval to scholastic theology. This Teaching
Authority is represented by them as a hindrance to progress and an
obstacle in the way of science. Some non-Catholics consider it as
an unjust restraint preventing some more qualified theologians
from reforming their subject. And although this sacred Office of
Teacher in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and
universal criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has
been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith -
Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition - to be preserved, guarded
and interpreted, still the duty that is incumbent on the faithful
to flee also those errors which more or less approach heresy, and
accordingly "to keep also the constitutions and decrees by
which such evil opinions are proscribed and forbidden by the Holy
See,"(2) is sometimes as little known as if it did not exist.
What is expounded in the Encyclical Letters of the Roman Pontiffs
concerning the nature and constitution of the Church, is
deliberately and habitually neglected by some with the idea of
giving force to a certain vague notion which they profess to have
found in the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks. The Popes,
they assert, do not wish to pass judgment on what is a matter of
dispute among theologians, so recourse must be had to the early
sources, and the recent constitutions and decrees of the Teaching
Church must be explained from the writings of the ancients.
19.
Although these things seem well said, still they are not free from
error. It is true that Popes generally leave theologians free in
those matters which are disputed in various ways by men of very
high authority in this field; but history teaches that many
matters that formerly were open to discussion, no longer now admit
of discussion.
20.
Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical
Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such
Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their
Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary
teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who
heareth you, heareth me";(3) and generally what is expounded
and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons
appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in
their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to
that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according
to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer
considered a question open to discussion among theologians.
21.
It is also true that theologians must always return to the sources
of divine revelation: for it belongs to them to point out how the
doctrine of the living Teaching Authority is to be found either
explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures and in Tradition.(4)
Besides, each source of divinely revealed doctrine contains so
many rich treasures of truth, that they can really never be
exhausted. Hence it is that theology through the study of its
sacred sources remains ever fresh; on the other hand, speculation
which neglects a deeper search into the deposit of faith, proves
sterile, as we know from experience. But for this reason even
positive theology cannot be on a par with merely historical
science. For, together with the sources of positive theology God
has given to His Church a living Teaching Authority to elucidate
and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only
obscurely and implicitly. This deposit of faith our Divine
Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the
faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching
Authority of the Church. But if the Church does exercise this
function of teaching, as she often has through the centuries,
either in the ordinary or in the extraordinary way, it is clear
how false is a procedure which would attempt to explain what is
clear by means of what is obscure. Indeed, the very opposite
procedure must be used. Hence Our Predecessor of immortal memory,
Pius IX, teaching that the most noble office of theology is to
show how a doctrine defined by the Church is contained in the
sources of revelation, added these words, and with very good
reason: "in that sense in which it has been defined by the
Church."
22.
To return, however, to the new opinions mentioned above, a number
of things are proposed or suggested by some even against the
divine authorship of Sacred Scripture. For some go so far as to
pervert the sense of the [First] Vatican Council's definition that God is
the author of Holy Scripture, and they put forward again the
opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from
error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God
or of moral and religious matters. They even wrongly speak of a
human sense of the Scriptures, beneath which a divine sense, which
they say is the only infallible meaning, lies hidden. In
interpreting Scripture, they will take no account of the analogy
of faith and the Tradition of the Church. Thus they judge the
doctrine of the Fathers and of the Teaching Church by the norm of
Holy Scripture, interpreted by the purely human reason of
exegetes, instead of explaining Holy Scripture according to the
mind of the Church which Christ Our Lord has appointed guardian
and interpreter of the whole deposit of divinely revealed truth.
23.
Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense
of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under
the Church's vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now
to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or
spiritual. By means of this new exegesis of the Old Testament,
which today in the Church is a closed source, would finally be
thrown open to all the faithful. By this method, they say, all
difficulties vanish, difficulties which hinder only those who
adhere to the literal meaning of the Scriptures.
24.
Everyone sees how foreign all this is to the principles and norms
of interpretation rightly fixed by our predecessors of happy
memory, Leo XIII in his Encyclical "Providentissimus
Deus," and Benedict XV in the Encyclical "Spiritus
Paraclitus," as also by Ourselves in the Encyclical "Divino
Afflante Spiritu."
25.
It is not surprising that novelties of this kind have already
borne their deadly fruit in almost all branches of theology. It is
now doubted that human reason, without divine revelation and the
help of divine grace, can, by arguments drawn from the created
universe, prove the existence of a personal God; it is denied that
the world had a beginning; it is argued that the creation of the
world is necessary, since it proceeds from the necessary
liberality of divine love; it is denied that God has eternal and
infallible foreknowledge of the free actions of men - all this in
contradiction to the decrees of the [First] Vatican Council.(5)
26.
Some also question whether angels are personal beings, and whether
matter and spirit differ essentially. Others destroy the gratuity
of the supernatural order, since God, they say, cannot create
intellectual beings without ordering and calling them to the
beatific vision. Nor is this all. Disregarding the Council of
Trent, some pervert the very concept of original sin, along with
the concept of sin in general as an offense against God, as well
as the idea of satisfaction performed for us by Christ. Some even
say that the doctrine of transubstantiation, based on an
antiquated philosophic notion of substance, should be so modified
that the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist be reduced
to a kind of symbolism, whereby the consecrated species would be
merely efficacious signs of the spiritual presence of Christ and
of His intimate union with the faithful members of His Mystical
Body.
27.
Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in our
encyclical letter of a few years ago, and based on the sources of
revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the
Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.(6) Some reduce
to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true
Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle
the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith.
28.
These and like errors, it is clear, have crept in among certain of
Our sons who are deceived by imprudent zeal for souls or by false
science. To them We are compelled with grief to repeat once again
truths already well known, and to point out with solicitude clear
errors and dangers of error.
29.
It is well known how highly the Church regards human reason, for
it falls to reason to demonstrate with certainty the existence of
God, personal and one; to prove beyond doubt from divine signs the
very foundations of the Christian faith; to express properly the
law which the Creator has imprinted in the hearts of men; and
finally to attain to some notion, indeed a very fruitful notion,
of mysteries.(7) But reason can perform these functions safely and
well only when properly trained, that is, when imbued with that
sound philosophy which has long been, as it were, a patrimony
handed down by earlier Christian ages, and which moreover
possesses an authority of an even higher order, since the Teaching
Authority of the Church, in the light of divine revelation itself,
has weighed its fundamental tenets, which have been elaborated and
defined little by little by men of great genius. For this
philosophy, acknowledged and accepted by the Church, safeguards
the genuine validity of human knowledge, the unshakable
metaphysical principles of sufficient reason, causality, and
finality, and finally the mind's ability to attain certain and
unchangeable truth.
30.
Of course this philosophy deals with much that neither directly
nor indirectly touches faith or morals, and which consequently the
Church leaves to the free discussion of experts. But this does not
hold for many other things, especially those principles and
fundamental tenets to which We have just referred. However, even
in these fundamental questions, we may clothe our philosophy in a
more convenient and richer dress, make it more vigorous with a
more effective terminology, divest it of certain scholastic aids
found less useful, prudently enrich it with the fruits of progress
of the human mind. But never may we overthrow it, or contaminate
it with false principles, or regard it as a great, but obsolete,
relic. For truth and its philosophic expression cannot change from
day to day, least of all where there is question of self-evident
principles of the human mind or of those propositions which are
supported by the wisdom of the ages and by divine revelation.
Whatever new truth the sincere human mind is able to find,
certainly cannot be opposed to truth already acquired, since God,
the highest Truth, has created and guides the human intellect, not
that it may daily oppose new truths to rightly established ones,
but rather that, having eliminated errors which may have crept in,
it may build truth upon truth in the same order and structure that
exist in reality, the source of truth. Let no Christian therefore,
whether philosopher or theologian, embrace eagerly and lightly
whatever novelty happens to be thought up from day to day, but
rather let him weigh it with painstaking care and a balanced
judgment, lest he lose or corrupt the truth he already has, with
grave danger and damage to his faith.
31.
If one considers all this well, he will easily see why the Church
demands that future priests be instructed in philosophy
"according to the method, doctrine, and principles of the
Angelic Doctor,"(8) since, as we well know from the
experience of centuries, the method of Aquinas is singularly
preeminent both for teaching students and for bringing truth to
light; his doctrine is in harmony with Divine Revelation, and is
most effective both for safeguarding the foundation of the faith
and for reaping, safely and usefully, the fruits of sound
progress.(9)
32.
How deplorable it is then that this philosophy, received and
honored by the Church, is scorned by some, who shamelessly call it
outmoded in form and rationalistic, as they say, in its method of
thought. They say that this philosophy upholds the erroneous
notion that there can be a metaphysic that is absolutely true;
whereas in fact, they say, reality, especially transcendent
reality, cannot better be expressed than by disparate teachings,
which mutually complete each other, although they are in a way
mutually opposed. Our traditional philosophy, then, with its clear
exposition and solution of questions, its accurate definition of
terms, its clear-cut distinctions, can be, they concede, useful as
a preparation for scholastic theology, a preparation quite in
accord with medieval mentality; but this philosophy hardly offers
a method of philosophizing suited to the needs of our modern
culture. They allege, finally, that our perennial philosophy is
only a philosophy of immutable essences, while the contemporary
mind must look to the existence of things and to life, which is
ever in flux. While scorning our philosophy, they extol other
philosophies of all kinds, ancient and modern, oriental and
occidental, by which they seem to imply that any kind of
philosophy or theory, with a few additions and corrections if need
be, can be reconciled with Catholic dogma. No Catholic can doubt
how false this is, especially where there is question of those
fictitious theories they call immanentism, or idealism or
materialism, whether historic or dialectic, or even
existentialism, whether atheistic or simply the type that denies
the validity of the reason in the field of metaphysics.
33.
Finally, they reproach this philosophy taught in our schools for
regarding only the intellect in the process of cognition, while
neglecting the function of the will and the emotions. This is
simply not true. Never has Christian philosophy denied the
usefulness and efficacy of good dispositions of soul for
perceiving and embracing moral and religious truths. In fact, it
has always taught that the lack of these dispositions of good will
can be the reason why the intellect, influenced by the passions
and evil inclinations, can be so obscured that it cannot see
clearly. Indeed St. Thomas holds that the intellect can in some
way perceive higher goods of the moral order, whether natural or
supernatural, inasmuch as it experiences a certain "connaturality"
with these goods, whether this "connaturality" be purely
natural, or the result of grace;(10) and it is clear how much even
this somewhat obscure perception can help the reason in its
investigations. However it is one thing to admit the power of the
dispositions of the will in helping reason to gain a more certain
and firm knowledge of moral truths; it is quite another thing to
say, as these innovators do, indiscriminately mingling cognition
and act of will, that the appetitive and affective faculties have
a certain power of understanding, and that man, since he cannot by
using his reason decide with certainty what is true and is to be
accepted, turns to his will, by which he freely chooses among
opposite opinions.
34.
It is not surprising that these new opinions endanger the two
philosophical sciences which by their very nature are closely
connected with the doctrine of faith, that is, theodicy and
ethics; they hold that the function of these two sciences is not
to prove with certitude anything about God or any other
transcendental being, but rather to show that the truths which
faith teaches about a personal God and about His precepts, are
perfectly consistent with the necessities of life and are
therefore to be accepted by all, in order to avoid despair and to
attain eternal salvation. All these opinions and affirmations are
openly contrary to the documents of Our Predecessors Leo XIII and
Pius X, and cannot be reconciled with the decrees of the Vatican
Council. It would indeed be unnecessary to deplore these
aberrations from the truth, if all, even in the field of
philosophy, directed their attention with the proper reverence to
the Teaching Authority of the Church, which by divine institution
has the mission not only to guard and interpret the deposit of
divinely revealed truth, but also to keep watch over the
philosophical sciences themselves, in order that Catholic dogmas
may suffer no harm because of erroneous opinions.
35.
It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which,
although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless
more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In
fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take
these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly
would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but
caution must be used when there is rather a question of hypotheses,
having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine
contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such
conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the
doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized
can in no way be admitted.
36.
For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not
forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human
sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the
part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to
the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the
origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living
matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are
immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a
way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable
and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the
necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that
all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom
Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the
Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.(11) Some
however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they
act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and
living matter were already completely certain and proved by the
facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on
those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine
revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in
this question.
37.
When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion,
namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy
such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which
maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true
men who did not take their origin through natural generation from
him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a
certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how
such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of
revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the
Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a
sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through
generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.(12)
38.
Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in
the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the
limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular
way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the
historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this
system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the
Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by
the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies.(13) This letter, in
fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of
Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the
historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by
competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history
in a true sense, which however must be further studied and
determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points
out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality
of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths
which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular
description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people.
If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from
popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be
forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration,
through which they were rendered immune from any error in
selecting and evaluating those documents.
39.
Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted
into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par
with myths or other such things, which are more the product of an
extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and
simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament,
is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to
be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers.
40.
Truly, we are aware that the majority of Catholic doctors, the
fruit of whose studies is being gathered in universities, in
seminaries and in the colleges of religious, are far removed from
those errors which today, whether through a desire for novelty or
through a certain immoderate zeal for the apostolate, are being
spread either openly or covertly. But we know also that such new
opinions can entice the incautious; and therefore we prefer to
withstand the very beginnings rather than to administer the
medicine after the disease has grown inveterate.
41.
For this reason, after mature reflection and consideration before
God, that We may not be wanting in Our sacred duty, We charge the
Bishops and the Superiors General of Religious Orders, binding
them most seriously in conscience, to take most diligent care that
such opinions be not advanced in schools, in conferences or in
writings of any kind, and that they be not taught in any manner
whatsoever to the clergy or the faithful.
42.
Let the teachers in ecclesiastical institutions be aware that they
cannot with tranquil conscience exercise the office of teaching
entrusted to them, unless in the instruction of their students
they religiously accept and exactly observe the norms which We
have ordained. That due reverence and submission which in their
unceasing labor they must profess toward the Teaching Authority of
the Church, let them instill also into the minds and hearts of
their students.
43.
Let them strive with every force and effort to further the
progress of the sciences which they teach; but let them also be
careful not to transgress the limits which We have established for
the protection of the truth of Catholic faith and doctrine. With
regard to new questions, which modern culture and progress have
brought to the foreground, let them engage in most careful
research, but with the necessary prudence and caution; finally,
let them not think, indulging in a false "irenism," that
the dissident and the erring can happily be brought back to the
bosom of the Church, if the whole truth found in the Church is not
sincerely taught to all without corruption or diminution.
44.
Relying on this hope, which will be increased by your pastoral
care, as a pledge of celestial gifts and a sign of Our paternal
benevolence, We impart with all Our heart to each and all of you,
Venerable Brethren, and to your clergy and people the Apostolic
Benediction.
Given
at Rome, at St. Peter's, on August 12, 1950, the twelfth year of Our
Pontificate.
Endnotes:
1.
Conc. Vatic. D.B., 1876, Cont. De Fide cath., cap. 2, De
revelatione. | 2. C.I.C., can 1324; cfr. Conc. Vat., D.B., 1820,
Cont. De Fide cath., cap. 4, De Fide et ratione, post canones. |
3. Luke, X, 16 | 4. Pius IX, Inter gravissimas, 28 Oct., 1870,
Acta, vol. I, p. 260. | 5. Cfr. Conc. Vat., Const. De Fide cath.,
cap. 1, De Deo rerum omnium creatore. | 6. Cfr. Litt. Enc. Mystici
Corporis Christi, A.A.S., vol. XXXV, p. 193 sq. | 7. Cfr. Conc.
Vat., D.B., 1796. | 8. C. I. C. can. 1366, 2. | 9. A.A.S., vol.
XXXVIII, 1946, p. 387. | 10. Cfr. St. Thom., Summa Theol., II-II,
quaest. 1, art. 4 ad 3 et quaest. 45, art. 2, in c. | 11. Cfr.
Allocut Pont. to the members of the Academy of Science, November
30, 1941: A.A.S., vol. XXXIII, p. 506. | 12. Cfr. Rom., V, 12-19;
Conc. Trid., sess, V, can. 1-4. | 13. January 16, 1948: A.A.S.,
vol. XL, pp. 45-48.
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.
|
