 |
| Pope Pius XII (1939-1958) |
CONCERNING SOME FALSE OPINIONS
THREATENING TO UNDERMINE
THE FOUNDATIONS
OF CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
THREATENING TO UNDERMINE
THE FOUNDATIONS
OF CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
Venerable Brethren,
Greetings and Apostolic Benediction
Greetings and Apostolic Benediction
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.
>> Explains that men
can arrive by natural law at a knowledge of God, but the senses and
flawed/sinful human will can mislead which is why the Church is necessary as
the holder of the Eternal Law, the deposit of faith.
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 mean readily with a firm
certainty and with freedom from all error.[1] >> Clear elaboration that some truths, those
of divine revelation (scripture/Tradition) cannot be known by natural law/human
reason.
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. >> Man can arrive at a knowledge of truth in
natural law, but he can also choose to freely reject this truth “whether from
prejudice/passion/bad faith”
Evolution
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 (Then Cardinal Ratzinger – Faith & the Future [1971]), 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.
Existentialism
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. >> Pope John Paul II was
pro-existentialism; he and Pope Benedict also praised Hans Urs von Balthasar who
was openly pro-existentialism, an advocate of broadline false ecumenism, and a
supporter of Adrienne VonSpeyr, advocate of a false mysticism, among other
things)
Historicism
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.
Spiritual but not
religious
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 (Leo
XIII described it this way too, those who promote tolerance and respect for all
religions, as masonic). 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. (ecumenism) 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 (the post-conciliar attitude is of a restoration
of the Holy Spirit following VII, as if He were previously absent for some
period), 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.
>> Liturgical
reforms. Luther has been praised by conciliar advocates including our recent
Holy Fathers and especially by other key figures of the council. Interfaith synods, joint
declarations, etc.
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 Ecumenical
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, (just as Christ and Sts. Peter & Paul, he points out that all
faithful are to flee errors of heresy, not that they are to simply trust
whatever their superiors tell them; this is where Divine Eminence supersedes
that of even the highest authority on earth) 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. (Pius XII condemns the idea that what is written in papal
encyclicals holds very little weight as some conciliar advocates would argue). 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 form 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.
>> Like Freemasonry,
interfaith prayer/worship, false ecumenism, etc. This again reiterates that the
encyclicals ARE of great weight and virtue.
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."
Historical/Human/Scientific
Scriptural Exegesis
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
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 sealed
book, 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 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, (Most notably Karl Rahner) 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, (this is huge; this is why Vatican II cannot contradict Vatican I or
other councils…because some things are not subject to being changed. Yet even Cardinal
Ratzinger called Gaudium et Spes a countersyllabus to Pius IX’s Syllabus of
Errors…) 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 of 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] >> Why do some people believe that Pope John Paul II restored
Thomistic thought? It was praised by all of the popes in the 100 years before
him and throughout the ages and in fact saw a sharp decline in many seminaries
following Vatican II…
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
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.
(a few different conciliar
theologians alluded to this if not said it explicitly) Now it is in 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. >>
Pius XII calls us to be cautious, testing everything and retaining what is
good.
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 reverend 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. >> Solidarity by way of concession or partial repentance is
not solidarity at all.
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, 12 August 1950, the twelfth year of Our Pontificate.
PIUS XII
(of great note is that this
encyclical was issued by his Holiness Pope Pius XII in response to Henri de
Lubac and other theologians who
affiliated themselves with what was called Nouvelle
Théologie [New Theoloy]; de Lubac would go on to be one of the key figures
in the Second Vatican Council)
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.
