MODERNISM
420
MODERNISM
us? If so, one must not then oppose the position of
modernism to the CathoUc position and reject exterior
revelation. But if God deilarcs Himself as nut <lis-
tinct from us, the position of modeniisin hi'eoines
openly iiantheistie. Sueh is the dileinnui projiosed
in the Kneyclieal. Modernism is pantlieistic also
by its doctrine of science and faith. Faith ha\dng
for object the I'liknowable cannot make up for the
want of proportion that modernists i)Ut between the
intellect and its object. Hence, for the believer as
well as for the jihilosopher, this object remains un-
known. Why should not this "Unknowable" be the
very soul of the world? It is pantheistic also in its
way of reasoning. Independent of and superior to
religious forinuUe, the religious sentiment on the one
hand originates them and gives them their entire
value, and, on the other hand, it cannot neglect them,
it must express itself in them and by them; they are
its re;dity. But we have here the ontology of jianthe-
ism. which teaches that the principle does not exist
outside of the exi)ression that it gives itself. In the
pantheist philosophy, Being or the Idea, God, is before
the world and superior to it, He creates it, and yet He
has no reality outside the world; the world is the reali-
zation of God.
The Psycholoo.ic.\l Causes of Modernism. — Curiosity and pride are, according to the Encyclical "Pascendi", two remote causes. Nothing is truer; but, apart from offering an explanation common to all heretical obstinacy, we ask ourselves here why this pride has taken the shape of modernism. We pro- ceed to consider this question. In modernism we find, first of all, the echo of many tendencies of the mental- ity of the present generation. Inclined to doubt, and distrustful of what is affirmed, men's minds tend of their own accord to minimize the value of dogmatic definitions. Men are struck by the diversity of the religions which exist on the face of the earth. The Catholic religion is no longer, in their eyes, as it was in the eyes of our ancestors, the morally universal religion of cultured humanity. They have been shown the in- fluence of race on the diffusion of the Gospel. They have been shown the good sides of other cults and be- liefs. Our contemporaries find it hard to believe that the greater part of humanity is phmged in error, es- pecially if they are ignorant that the Catholic religion teaches that the means of salvation are at the dis- posal of those who err in good faith. Hence they are inclined to overlook doctrinal divergencies in order to insist on a certain fundamental conformity of tenden- cies and of aspirations.
Then again they are moved by sentiments of liberalism and moderation, which reduce the impor- tance of formal religion, as they see in the various cults only private opinions which change with time and place, and which merit an equal respect from all. In the West, where people are of a more practical turn, a non-intellectual interest explains the success of here- sies which win a certain popularity. Consider the countries in which modernism is chiefly promulgated: France and Italy. In these two countries, and especially in Italy, ecclesiastical authority has imposed social and political directions which call for the sacri- fice of humanitarian and patriotic ideas or dreams. That there are important reasons for such commands does not prevent discontent. The majority of men have not enough virtue or nobility to sacrifice for long, to higher duties, a cau.se which touches their interestor which engages their .sympathy. Hence it is that some Catholics, who are not quite steady in their faith and religion, attempt to revolt, and count themselves fortu- nate in having some doctrinal pretexts to cover their secession.
The fotmder of the periodical " La Foi Catholique", a review started for the purpose of combating modern- ism, aflds this explanation :" The in.sufficient cultivation of Catholic philosophy and science is the second deep
explanation of the origin of modernist errors. Both
hav(> loo long confined themselves to an.^wers which,
though fuiKlaMicnlally correct, are hut little suited to
the niriUality of our adversaries, and an- fornuilated
in a language which they do not understand and which
is no longer to the point. Instead of utilizing what is
quite legitimate in their posilivi' and crilical tenden-
cies, they have only considered them ;;s so many ab-
normal leanings that must be ojjposed . . ." (Gau-
deau, "La Foi Catholique", I, pp. 62-65). Another
point is that the intrinsic nature of the movement of
contemporary jihilosophy has been too much despised
or ignored in Catliolii' schools. They have not given
it that jiartial recognition which is quite con.sonant
with the best scholastic tradition: "In this way, we
have failed to .secure a real point of contact between
Catholic and modern thought" (Gaudeau, ibid.). For
lack of professors who knew how to mark out the act-
ual path of religious science, many cultured minds,
es])ecially among the young clergy, found themselves
defenceless against an error which seduced them by its
speciousness and by any element of truth contained
in its reproaches against the Catholic schools. It is
scholasticism ill-tmderstood and calumniated that has
incurred this disdain. And for the pope, this is one
of the immediate causes of modernism. "Modern-
ism", he says, "is nothing but the union of the faith
with false philosophy". Cardinal Mercier, on the
occasion of his first solemn visit to the Catholic Uni-
versity of Louvain (S December, 1907), addressed the
following compliment to the professors of theology:
"Because, with more good sense than others, you
have vigorously kept to objective studies and the
calm examination of facts, you have both preserved
our Alma Mater from the strayings of modernism and
have secured for her the advantages of modern scien-
tific methods." ("Annuaire de l'Universit(5 Catholi-
que de Louvain", 1908, p. XXV, XXVI.) Saint
Augu.stine (De Genesi contra Manicheos, I, Bk. I, i)
in a text that has passed into the Corpus Juris Ca-
nonici (c. 40, c. xxiv, q. 3) had already spoken as fol-
lows: "Divine Providence suffers many heretics of one
kind or another, so that their challenges and their
questions on doctrines that we are ignorant of, may
force us to arise from our indolence and stir us with the
desire to know Holy Scripture. " From another point
of view, modernism marks a religious reaction against
materialism and positivism, both of which fail to satisfy
the soul's longing. This reaction however, for reasons
that have just been given, strays from the right path.
Pontifical Documents concerning Modernism.
— The semi-rationalism of several modernists, such as
Loisy for instance, had already been condemned in the
Syllabus; several canons of the Vatican Council on the
possibility of knowing God through his creatures, on
the distinction between faith and science, on the sub-
ordination of human science to Divine revelation, on
the unchangeableness of dogma, deal in a similar
strain with the tenets of modernism. The following
are the principal decrees or documents expressly di-
rected against modernism. (1) The pope's address
on 17 April, 1907, to the newly-created cardinals. It
is a resume which anticipates the Encyclical "Pas-
cendi". (2) A letter from the Congregation of the
Index of 29 April, 1907, to the Cardinal Archbishop of
Milan with regard to the review "II Rinnovamento".
In it we find more concrete notions of the tendencies
which the popes condemn. The letter even goes so
far as to mention the names of Fogazzaro, Father Tyr-
rell, von Hligel, and the Abbate Murri. (3) Letters
from Pius X, 6 May, 1907, to the archbishops and
bishops and to the patrons of the Catholic Institute of
Paris. It shows forth clearly the great and twofold
care of Pius X for the restoration of sacred studies
and Scholastic philosophy, and for the safeguarding
of the clergy. (4) The decree "Lamentabili" of the
Holy Office, 3-4 July, 1907, condemning 65 distinct
