Catholic Encyclopedia: Modernism
Modernism
I Origin of the Word
II Theory of Theological Modernism
III The essential error of Modernism
IV Catholic and Modernist Notions of Dogma Compared
V Various Degrees of Modernism and its Criterion
VI Proofs of the Foregoing Views
VII Modernist Aims Explained by its Essential Error
XVII Modernist Propositions Explained by its Essential Error
VIII The Modernist Movement
IX The Philosophical Origin and Consequences of Modernism
X The Origin
XI The Consequences
XII The Psychological Causes of Modernism
XIII Pontifical Documents Concerning Modernism
Reference Material
XIV Protestant Sources
XV Modernist Sources
XVI Catholic Sources
I Origin of the Word
Etymologically, modernism means an exaggerated love of what is modern, an
infatuation for modern ideas, "the abuse of what is modern", as the Abbe Gaudaud
explains (La Foi catholique, I, 1908, p. 248). The modern ideas of which we speak are
not as old as the period called "modern times". Though Protestantism has generated
them little by little, it did not understand from the beginning that such would be its
sequel. There even exists a conservative Protestant party which is one with the Church
in combating modernism. In general we may say that modernism aims at that radical
transformation of human thought in relation to God, man, the world, and life, here and
hereafter, which was prepared by Humanism and eighteenth-century philosophy, and
solemnly promulgated at the French Revolution. J. J. Rousseau, who treated an
atheistical philosopher of his time as a modernist, seems to have been the first to use
the word in this sense ("Correspondance a M. D.", 15 Jan. 1769). Littre (Dictionnaire),
who cites the passage; explains: "Modernist, one who esteems modern times above
antiquity". After that, the word seems to have been forgotten, till the time of the
Catholic publicist Perin (1815-1905), professor at the University of Louvain, 1844-1889.
This writer, while apologizing for the coinage, describes "the humanitarian tendencies
of contemporary society" as modernism. The term itself he defines as "the ambition to
eliminate God from all social life ". With this absolute modernism he associates a more
temperate form, which he declares to be nothing less than "liberalism of every degree
and shade" ("Le Modernisme dans l'Eglise d'apres les lettres inedites de Lamennais",
Paris, 1881).
During the early years of the present century, especially about 1905 and 1906, the
tendency to innovation which troubled the Italian dioceses, and especially the ranks of
the young clergy, was taxed with modernism. Thus at Christmas, 1905, the bishops of
the ecclesiastical provinces of Turm and Vercelli, in a circular letter of that date,
uttered grave warnings against what they called " Modernismo nel clero " (Modernism
among the clergy) . Several pastoral letters of the year 1906 made use of the same term;
among others we may mention the Lenten charge of Cardinal Nava, Archbishop of
Catania, to his clergy, a letter of Cardinal Bacilieri, Bishop of Verona, dated 22 July,
1906 and a letter of Mgr Rossi, Archbishop of Acerenza and Matera. "Modernismo e
Modernisti", a work by Abbate Cavallanti which was published towards the end of
1906, gives long extracts from these letters. The name "modernism" was not to the
liking of the reformers. The propriety of the new term was discussed even amongst
good Catholics. When the Decree "Lamentabili" appeared, Mgr Baudrillart expressed
his pleasure at not finding the word "modernism" mentioned in it (Revue pratique
d'apologetique, IV, p. 578). He considered the term "too vague". Besides it seemed to
insinuate "that the Church condemns everything modern". The Encyclical "Pascendi" (8
Sept., 1907) put an end to the discussion. It bore the official title, "De Modernistarum
doctrinis". The introduction declared that the name commonly given to the upholders
of the new errors was not inapt. Since then the modernists themselves have acquiesced
in the use of the name, though they have not admitted its propriety (Loisy, " Simples
reflexions sur le decret 'Lamentabili' et sur l'encyclique 'Pascendi' du 8 Sept., 1907", p.
14; "Il programma dei modernisti": note at the beginning).
II Theory of Theological Modernism
III The essential error of Modernism
A full definition of modernism would be rather difficult. First it stands for certain
tendencies, and secondly for a body of doctrine which, if it has not given birth to these
tendencies (practice often precedes theory), serves at any rate as their explanation and
support. Such tendencies manifest themselves in different domains. They are not
united in each individual, nor are they always and everywhere found together.
Modernist doctrine, too, may be more or less radical, and it is swallowed in doses that
vary with each one's likes and dislikes. In the Encyclical "Pascendi", Pius X says that
modernism embraces every heresy. M. Loisy makes practically the same statement
when he writes that "in reality all Catholic theology, even in its fundamental principles
the general philosophy of religion, Divine law, and the laws that govern our
knowledge of God, come up for judgment before this new court of assize" (Simples
reflexions, p. 24). Modernism is a composite system: its assertions and claims lack that
principle which unites the natural faculties in a living being. The Encyclical " Pascendi
" was the first Catholic synthesis of the subject. Out of scattered materials it built up
what looked like a logical system. Indeed friends and foes alike could not but admire
the patient skill that must have been needed to fashion something like a coordinated
whole. In their answer to the Encyclical, "Il programma dei Modernisti", the
Modernists tried to retouch this synthesis. Previous to all this, some of the Italian
bishops, in their pastoral letters, had attempted such a synthesis. We would
particularly mention that of Mgr Rossi, Bishop of Acerenza and Matera. In this respect,
too, Abbate Cavallanti's book, already referred to, deserves mention. Even earlier still,
German and French Protestants had done some synthetical work in the same direction.
Prominent among them are Kant, "Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der reinen
Vernunft" (1803); Schleiermacher, "Der christliche Glaube" (1821-1822); and A.
Sabatier, "Esquisse d'une philosophie de la religion d'apre la psychologie et l'histoire"
(1897).
The general idea of modernism may be best expressed in the words of Abbate
Cavallanti, though even here there is a little vagueness: " Modernism is modern in a
false sense of the word; it is a morbid state of conscience among Catholics, and
especially young Catholics, that professes manifold ideals, opinions, and tendencies.
From time to time these tendencies work out into systems, that are to renew the basis
and superstructure of society, politics, philosophy, theology, of the Church herself and
of the Christian religion". A remodelling, a renewal according to the ideas of the
twentieth century -- such is the longing that possesses the modernists. "The avowed
modernists", says M. Loisy, "form a fairly definite group of thinking men united in the
common desire to adapt Catholicism to the intellectual, moral and social needs of
today" (op. cit., p. 13). "Our religious attitude", as "Il programma dei modernisti" states
(p. 5, note l), "is ruled by the single wish to be one with Christians and Catholics who
live in harmony with the spirit of the age". The spirit of this plan of reform may be
summarized under the following heads:
A spirit of complete emancipation, tending to weaken ecclesiastical authority; the
emancipation of science, which must traverse every field of investigation without fear
of conflict with the Church; the emancipation of the State, which should never be
hampered by religious authority; the emancipation of the private conscience whose
inspirations must not be overridden by papal definitions or anathemas; the
emancipation of the universal conscience, with which the Church should be ever in
agreement; A spirit of movement and change, with an inclination to a sweeping form
of evolution such as abhors anything fixed and stationary; A spirit of reconciliation
among all men through the feelings of the heart. Many and varied also are the
modernist dreams of an understanding between the different Christian religions, nay,
even between religion and a species of atheism, and all on a basis of agreement that
must be superior to mere doctrinal differences.
Such are the fundamental tendencies. As such, they seek to explain, justify, and
strengthen themselves in an error, to which therefore one might give the name of
"essential" modernism. What is this error? It is nothing less than the perversion of
dogma. Manifold are the degrees and shades of modernist doctrine on the question of
our relations with God. But no real modernist keeps the Catholic notions of dogma
intact. Are you doubtful as to whether a writer or a book is modernist in the formal
sense of the word? Verify every statement about dogma; examine his treatment of its
origin, its nature, its sense, its authority. You will know whether you are dealing with
a veritable modernist or not, according to the way in which the Catholic conception of
dogma is travestied or respected. Dogma and supernatural knowledge are correlative
terms; one implies the other as the action implies its object. In this way then we may
define modernism as "the critique of our supernatural knowledge according to the
false postulates of contemporary philosophy".
It will be advisable for us to quote a full critique of such supernatural knowledge as
an example of the mode of procedure. (In the meantime however we must not forget
that there are partial and less advanced modernists who do not go so far). For them
external intuition furnishes man with but phenomenal contingent, sensible knowledge.
He sees, he feels, he hears, he tastes, he touches this something, this phenomenon that
comes and goes without telling him aught of the existence of a suprasensible, absolute
and unchanging reality outside all environing space and time. But deep within himself
man feels the need of a higher hope. He aspires to perfection in a being on whom he
feels his destiny depends. And so he has an instinctive, an affective yearning for God.
This necessary impulse is at first obscure and hidden in the subconsciousness. Once
consciously understood, it reveals to the soul the intimate presence of God. This
manifestation, in which God and man collaborate, is nothing else than revelation.
Under the influence of its yearning, that is of its religious feelings, the soul tries to
reach God, to adopt towards Him an attitude that will satisfy its yearning. It gropes, it
searches. These gropings form the soul's religious experience. They are more easy,
successful and far-reaching, or less so, according as it is now one, now another
individual soul that sets out in quest of God. Anon there are privileged ones who reach
extraordinary results. They communicate their discoveries to their fellow men, and
forthwith become founders of a new religion, which is more or less true in the
proportion in which it gives peace to the religious feelings.
The attitude Christ adopted, reaching up to God as to a father and then returning to
men as to brothers -- such is the meaning of the precept, "Love God and thy
neighbour" -- brings full rest to the soul. It makes the religion of Christ the religion
<par excellence>, the true and definitive religion. The act by which the soul adopts this
attitude and abandons itself to God as a father and then to men as to brothers,
constitutes the Christian Faith. Plainly such an act is an act of the will rather than of the
intellect. But religious sentiment tries to express itself in intellectual concepts, which in
their turn serve to preserve this sentiment. Hence the origin of those formulae
concerning God and Divine things, of those theoretical propositions that are the
outcome of the successive religious experiences of souls gifted with the same faith.
These formulae become dogmas, when religious authority approves of them for the life
of the community. For community life is a spontaneous growth among persons of the
same faith, and with it comes authority. Dogmas promulgated in this way teach us
nothing of the unknowable, but only symbolize it. They contain no truth. Their
usefulness in preserving the faith is their only <raison d'etre>. They survive as long as
they exert their influence. Being the work of man in time, and adapted to his varying
needs, they are at best but contingent and transient. Religious authority too, naturally
conservative, may lag behind the times. It may mistake the best methods of meeting
needs of the community, and try to keep up worn-out formulae. Through respect for
the community, the individual Christian who sees the mistake continues in an attitude
of outward submission. But he does not feel himself inwardly bound by the decisions
of higher powers; rather he makes praiseworthy efforts to bring his Church into
harmony with the times. He may confine himself, too, if he cares, to the older and
simpler religious forms; he may live his life in conformity with the dogmas accepted
from the beginning. Such is Tyrrell's advice in his letter to Fogazzaro, and such was
his own private practice.
IV Catholic and Modernist Notions of Dogma Compared
The tradition of the Catholic Church, on the other hand, considers dogmas as in part
supernatural and mysterious, proposed to our faith by a Divinely instituted authority
on the ground that they are part of the general revelation which the Apostles preached
in the name of Jesus Christ. This faith is an act of the intellect made under the sway of
the will. By it we hold firmly what God has revealed and what the Church proposes to
us to believe. For believing is holding something firmly on the authority of God's
word, when such authority may be recognized by signs that are sufficient, at least with
the help of grace, to create certitude.
Comparing these notions, the Catholic and the modernist, we shall see that modernism
alters the source, the manner of promulgation, the object, the stability, and the truth of
dogma. For the modernist, the only and the necessary source is the private
consciousness. And logically so, since he rejects miracles and prophecy as signs of
God's word (Il programma, p. 96). For the Catholic, dogma is a free communication of
God to the believer made through the preaching of the Word. Of course the truth from
without, which is above and beyond any natural want, is preceded by a certain interior
finality or perfectibility which enables the believer to assimilate and live the truth
revealed. It enters a soul well-disposed to receive it, as a principle of happiness which,
though an unmerited gift to which we have no right, is still such as the soul can enjoy
with unmeasured gratitude. In the modernist conception, the Church can no longer
define dogma in God's name and with His infallible help; the ecclesiastical authority is
now but a secondary interpreter, subject to the collective consciousness which she has
to express. To this collective consciousness the individual need conform only
externally; as for the rest he may embark on any private religious adventures he cares
for. The modernist proportions dogma to his intellect or rather to his heart. Mysteries
like the Trinity or the Incarnation are either unthinkable (a modernist Kantian
tendency), or are within the reach of the unaided reason (a modernist Hegelian
tendency). "The truth of religion is in him (man) implicitly, as surely as the truth of the
whole physical universe, is involved in every part of it. Could he read the needs of his
own spirit and conscience, he would need no teacher" (Tyrrell, "Scylla and Charybdis",
p. 277).
Assuredly Catholic truth is not a lifeless thing. Rather is it a living tree that breaks
forth into green leaves, flowers, and fruits. There is a development, or gradual
unfolding, and a clearer statement of its dogmas. Besides the primary truths, such as
the Divinity of Christ and His mission as Messias, there are others which, one by one,
become better understood and defined, eg. the dogma of the Immaculate Conception
and that of the Infallibility of the Pope. Such unfolding takes place not only in the
study of the tradition of the dogma but also in showing its origin in Jesus Christ and
the Apostles, in the understanding of the terms expressing it and in the historical or
rational proofs adduced in support of it. Thus the historical proof of the dogma of the
Immaculate Conception has certainly been strengthened since the definition in 1854.
The rational conception of the dogma of Divine Providence is a continual object of
study the dogma of the Sacrifice of the Mass allows the reason to inquire into the idea
of sacrifice. It has always been believed that there is no salvation outside the Church,
but as this belief has gradually come to be better understood, many are now
considered within the soul of the Church who would have been placed without, in a
day when the distinction between the soul and the body of the Church had not
generally obtained. In another sense, too dogma is instinct with life. For its truth is not
sterile, but always serves to nourish devotion. But while holding with life, progress
and development, the Church rejects transitory dogmas that in the modernist theory
would be forgotten unless replaced by contrary formulae. She cannot admit that
"thought, hierarchy, cult, in a word, everything has changed in the history of
Christianity", nor can she be content with "the identity of religious spirit" which is the
only permanency that modernism admits (Il programma dei Modernisti).
Truth consists in the conformity of the idea with its object. Now, in the Catholic
concept, a dogmatic formula supplies us with at least an analogical knowledge of a
given object. For the modernist, the essential nature of dogma consists in its
correspondence with and its capacity to satisfy a certain momentary need of the
religious feeling. It is an arbitrary symbol that tells nothing of the object it represents.
At most, as M. Leroy, one of the least radical of modernists, suggests, it is a positive
prescription of a practical order (Leroy, "Dogme et critique", p. 25). Thus the dogma of
the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist means: " Act as if Christ had the local presence,
the idea of which is so familiar to you". But, to avoid exaggeration, we add this other
statement of the same writer (loc. cit.), "This however does not mean that dogma bears
no relation to thought; for (1) there are duties concerning the action of thinking; (2)
dogma itself implicitly affirms that reality contains in one form or another the
justification of such prescriptions as are either reasonable or salutary".
V Various Degrees of Modernism and its Criterion
Modernist attacks on dogma, as we have already remarked, vary according to the
degree in which its doctrines are embraced. Thus, in virtue of the leading idea of their
systems, Father Tyrrell was an agnostic modernist, and Campbell (a Congregationalist
minister) is a symbolic modernist. Again the tendency to innovation is at times not at
all general, but limited to some particular domain. Along with modernism in the strict
sense, which is directly theological, we find other kinds of modernism in philosophy,
politics, and social science. In such cases a wider meaning must be given to the term.
Here, however, it is needful to speak a word of warning against unreasonable attacks.
Not every novelty is to be condemned, nor is every project of reform to be dubbed
modernist because it is untimely or exaggerated. In the same way, the attempt fully to
understand modern philosophic thought so as to grasp what is true in such systems,
and to discover the points of contact with the old philosophy, is very far from being
modernism. On the contrary, that is the very best way to refute modernism. Every
error contains an element of truth. Isolate that element and accept it. The structure
which it helps to support, having lost its foundation, will soon crumble. The name
modernist then will be appropriate only when there is question of opposition to the
certain teaching of ecclesiastical authority through a spirit of innovation. The words of
Cardinal Ferrari. Archbishop of Milan, as cited in "La Revue Pratique d'Apologetique"
(VI, 1908, p. 134), will help to show the point of our last remark. "We are deeply
pained", he says, "to find that certain persons, in public controversy against
modernism, in brochures, newspapers and other periodicals, go to the length of
detecting the evil everywhere, or at any rate of imputing it to those who are very far
from being infected with it". In the same year, Cardinal Maffei had to condemn "La
Penta azurea", an anti-modernist organ, on account of its exaggeration in this respect.
On the other hand, it is regrettable that certain avowed leaders of modernism, carried
away perhaps by the desire to remain within the Church at all costs -- another
characteristic of modernism -- have taken refuge in equivocation, reticence, or
quibbles. Such a line of action merits no sympathy; while it explains, if it does not
altogether justify, the distrust of sincere Catholics.
VI Proofs of the Foregoing Views
But does the principle and the quasi-essential error of modernism lie in its corruption
of dogma? Let us consult the Encyclical "Pascendi". The official Latin text calls the
modernist dogmatic system a leading chapter in their doctrine. The French translation,
which is also authentic, speaks thus: "Dogma, its origin and nature, such is the ground
principle of modernism." The fundamental principle of modernism is, according to M.
Loisy, "the possibility, the necessity and the legitimacy of evolution in understanding
the dogmas of the Church, including that of papal infallibility and authority, as well as
in the manner of exercising this authority" (op. cit., p. 124). The character and leaning
of our epoch confirm our diagnosis. It likes to substitute leading and fundamental
questions in the place of side issues. The problem of natural knowledge is the burning
question in present-day metaphysics. It is not surprising therefore that the question of
supernatural knowledge is the main subject of discussion in religious polemics.
Finally, Pius X has said that modernism embraces all the heresies. (The same opinion is
expressed in another way in the encyclical "Editae" of 16 May, 1910.) And what error,
we ask, more fully justifies the pope's statement than that which alters dogma in its
root and essence? It is furthermore clear -- to use a direct argument -- that modernism
fails in its attempt at religious reform, if it makes no change in the Catholic notion of
dogma. Moreover, does not its own conception of dogma explain both a large number
of its propositions and its leanings towards independence, evolution, and conciliation?
VII Modernist Aims Explained by its Essential Error
The definition of an unchangeable dogma imposes itself on every Catholic, learned or
otherwise, and it necessarily supposes a Church legislating for all the faithful, passing
judgment on State action -- from its own point of view of course -- and that even seeks
alliance with the civil power to carry on the work of the Apostolate. On the other hand,
once dogma is held to be a mere symbol of the unknowable, a science which merely
deals with the facts of nature or history could neither oppose it nor even enter into
controversy with it. If it is true only in so far as it excites and nourishes religious
sentiment, the private individual is at full liberty to throw it aside when its influence
on him has ceased; nay, even the Church herself, whose existence depends on a dogma
not different from the others in nature and origin, has no right to legislate for a self-
sufficing State. And thus independence is fully realized. There is no need to prove that
the modernist spirit of movement and evolution is in perfect harmony with its concept
of ever-changing dogma and is unintelligible without it; the matter is self-evident.
Finally, as regards the conciliation of the different religions, we must necessarily
distinguish between what is essential to faith regarded as a sentiment, and beliefs
which are accessory, mutable, and practically negligible. If therefore you go as far as
making the Divinity a belief, that is to say, a symbolical expression of faith, then
docility in following generous impulses may be religious, and the atheist's religion
would not seem to differ essentially from yours.
XVII Modernist Propositions Explained by its Essential Error
We make a selection of the following propositions from the Encyclical for discussion:
the Christ of faith is not the Christ of history. Faith portrays Christ according to the
religious needs of the faithful; history represents Him as He really was, that is, in so far
as His appearance on earth was a concrete phenomenon. In this way it is easy to
understand how a believer may, without contradiction, attribute certain things to
Christ, and at the same time deny them in the quality of historian. In the "Hibbert
Journal" for Jan., 1909, the Rev. Mr. Robert wished to call the Christ of history "Jesus"
and reserve "Christ" for the same person as idealized by faith; Christ's work in
founding the Church and instituting the sacraments was mediate, not immediate. The
main point is to find supports for the faith. Now, as religious experience succeeds so
well in creating useful dogmas, why may it not do likewise in the matter of institutions
suited to the age? The sacraments act as eloquent formulae which touch the soul and
carry it away. Precisely; for if dogmas exist only in so far as they preserve religious
sentiment, what other service can one expect of the sacraments? The Sacred Books are
in every religion a collection of religious experiences of an extraordinary nature. For if
there is no external revelation, the only substitute possible is the subjective religious
experience of men of particular gifts, experiences such as are worthy of being
preserved for the community.
VIII The Modernist Movement
The late M. Perin dated the modernist movement from the French Revolution. And
rightly so, for it was then that many of those modern liberties which the Church has
reproved as unrestrained and ungoverned, first found sanction. Several of the
propositions collected in the Syllabus of Pius IX, although enunciated from a rationalist
point of view, have been appropriated by modernism. Such, for example are, the
fourth proposition which derives all religious truth from the natural force of reason;
the fifth, which affirms that revelation, if it joins in the onward march of reason, is
capable of unlimited progress; the seventh, which treats the prophecies and miracles of
Holy Scripture as poetical imaginings; propositions sixteen to eighteen on the equal
value of all religions from the point of view of salvation; proposition fifty-five on the
separation of Church and State; propositions seventy-five and seventy-six, which
oppose the temporal power of the pope. The modernist tendency is still more apparent
in the last proposition, which was condemned on 18 March, 1861: "The Roman Pontiff
can and ought to conform with contemporary progress, liberalism, and civilization."
Taking only the great lines of the modernist movement within the Church itself. we
may say that under Pius IX its tendency was politico-liberal, under Leo XIII and Pius X
social; with the latter pontiff still reigning, its tendency has become avowedly
theological.
It is in France and Italy above all that modernism properly so-called, that is, the form
which attacks the very concept of religion and dogma, has spread its ravages among
Catholics. Indeed, some time after the publication of the Encyclical of 8th September,
1907 the German, English, and Belgian bishops congratulated themselves that their
respective countries had been spared the epidemic in its more contagious form. Of
course, individual upholders of the new error are to be found everywhere, and even
England as well as Germany has produced modernists of note. In Italy, on the
contrary, even before the Encyclical appeared, the bishops have raised the cry of alarm
in their pastoral letters of 1906 and 1907. Newspapers and reviews, openly modernist
in their opinions, bear witness to the gravity of the danger which the Sovereign Pontiff
sought to avert. After Italy it is France that has furnished the largest number of
adherents to this religious reform or ultra-progressive party. In spite of the notoriety of
certain individuals, comparatively few laymen have joined the movement; so far it has
found adherents chiefly among the ranks of the younger clergy. France possesses a
modernist publishing house (La librairie Nourry). A modernist review founded by the
late Father Tyrrell, "Nova et Vetera", is published at Rome. "La Revue Moderniste
Internationale" was started this year (1910) at Geneva. This monthly periodical calls
itself "the organ of the international modernist society"= It is open to every shade of
modernist opinions, and claims to have co-workers and correspondents in France,
Italy, Germany, England, Austria, Hungary, Spain, Belgium, Russia, Rumania and
America. The Encyclical "Pascendi" notes and deplores the ardour of the modernist
propaganda. A strong current of modernism is running through the Russian
Schismatic Church. The Anglican Church has not escaped. And indeed liberal
Protestantism is nothing but a radical form of modernism that is winning the greater
number of the theologians of the Reformed Church. Others who oppose the innovation
find refuge in the authority of the Catholic Church.
IX The Philosophical Origin and Consequences of Modernism
X 1. The Origin
Philosophy renders great service to the cause of truth; but error calls for its assistance
too. Many consider the philosophic groundwork of modernism to be Kantian. This is
true, if by Kantian philosophy is meant every system that has a root connexion with
the philosophy of the Koenigsberg sage. In other words, the basis of modernist
philosophy is Kantian if, because Kant is its father and most illustrious moderate
representative, all agnosticism be called Kantism (by agnosticism is meant the
philosophy which denies that reason, used at any rate in a speculative and theoretical
way, can gain true knowledge of suprasensible things). It is not our business here to
oppose the application of the name Kantian to modernist philosophy. Indeed if we
compare the two systems, we shall find that they have two elements in common, the
negative part of the "Critique of Pure Reason" (which reduces pure or speculative
knowledge to phenomenal or experiential intuition), and a certain argumentative
method in distinguishing dogma from the real basis of religion. On the positive side,
however, modernism differs from Kantism in some essential points. For Kant, faith is a
really rational adhesion of the mind to the postulates of practical reason. The will is
free to accept or reject the moral law; and it is on account of this option that he calls its
acceptance "belief". Once it is accepted, the reason cannot but admit the existence of
God, liberty, and immortality. Modernist faith, on the other hand, is a matter of
sentiment, a flinging of oneself towards the Unknowable, and cannot be scientifically
justified by reason. In Kant's system, dogmas and the whole positive framework of
religion are necessary only for the childhood of humanity or for the common people.
They are symbols that bear a certain analogy to images and comparisons. They serve to
inculcate those moral precepts that for Kant constitute religion. Modernist symbols,
though changeable and fleeting, correspond to a law of human nature. Generally
speaking, they help to excite and nourish the effective religious sentiment which Kant
(who knew it from his reading of the pietists) calls <schwarmerei>. Kant, as a
rationalist, rejects supernatural religion and prayer. The modernists consider natural
religion a useless abstraction; for them it is prayer rather that constitutes the very
essence of religion. It would be more correct to say that modernism is an offshoot of
Schleiermacher (1768-1834), who though he owed something to Kant's philosophy,
nevertheless built up his own theological system. Ritschl called him the " legislator of
theology" (Rechtf. und Vers., III, p. 486). Schleiermacher conceives the modernist plan
of reforming religion with the view of conciliating it with science. Thus would he
establish an <entente cordiale> among the various cults, and even between religion
and a kind of religious sentimentality which, without recognizing God, yet tends
towards the Good and the Infinite. Like the modernists, he has dreams of new
religious apologetics; he wants to be a Christian; he declares himself independent of all
philosophy; he rejects natural religion as a pure abstraction, and derives dogma from
religious experience. His principal writings on this subject are "Ueber die Religion"
(1799: note the difference between the first and the later editions) and "Der Christliche
Glaube" (1821-22). Ritschl, one of Kant's disciples, recognizes the New Testament as
the historical basis of religion. He sees in Christ the consciousness of an intimate union
with God, and considers the institution of the Christian religion, which for him is
inconceivable without faith in Christ, as a special act of God's providence. Thus has he
prepared the way for a form of modernism more temperate than that of
Schleiermacher. Though he predicted a continual development of religion,
Schleiermacher admitted a certain fixity of dogma. For this reason it seems to us that
modernists owe their radical evolutionary theory to Herbert Spencer (1820-1903). It
was through the writings of A. Sabatier (18391901), a French Protestant of the Broad
Church type) that the religious theories we have spoken of, spread among the Latin
races, in France and in Italy. It is in these countries, too, that modernism has done
greatest harm among the Catholics. Sabatier is a radical modernist. He has especially
drawn upon Schleiermacher for the composition of his two works on religious
synthesis ("Esquisse d'une philosophie de la religion e la psychologie et l'histoire",
Paris, 1897; "Les religions d'autorite et la religion de l'esprit", Paris, 1902).
The fundamental error of the modernist philosophy is its misunderstanding of the
scholastic formula which takes account of the two aspects of human knowledge.
Doubtless, the human mind is a vital faculty endowed with an activity of its own, and
tending towards its own object. However, as it is not in continual activity, it is not self-
sufficient; it has not in itself the full principle of its operations, but is forced to utilize
sensible experience in order to arrive at knowledge. This incompleteness and falling
short of perfect autonomy is due to man's very nature. As a consequence, in all human
knowledge and activity, account must be taken both of the intrinsic and of the extrinsic
side. Urged on by the finality that inspires him man tends towards those objects which
suit him, while at the same time objects offer themselves to him. In the supernatural
life, man acquires new principles of action and, as it were, a new nature. He is now
capable of acts of which God is the formal object. These acts, however, most be
proposed to man, whether God deigns to do so by direct revelation to man's soul, or
whether, in conformity with man's social nature, God makes use of intermediaries who
communicate exteriorly with man. Hence the necessity of preaching, of motives of
credibility, and of external teaching authority. Catholic philosophy does not deny the
soul's spontaneous life, the sublimity of its suprasensible and supernatural operations,
and the inadequacy of words to translate its yearnings. Scholastic doctors give
expression to mystical transports far superior to those of the modernists. But in their
philosophy they never forget the lowliness of human nature, which is not purely
spiritual. The modernist remembers only the internal element of our higher activity.
This absolute and exclusive intrinsecism constitutes what the Encyclical calls "vital
immanence". When deprived of the external support which is indispensable to them,
the acts of the higher intellectual faculties can only consist in vague sentiments which
are as indetermined as are those faculties themselves. Hence it is that modernist
doctrines, necessarily expressed in terms of this sentiment, are so intangible.
Furthermore, by admitting the necessity of symbols, modernism makes to extrinsecism
a concession which is its own refutation.
XI 2. The Consequences
The fact that this radically intrinsic conception of the spiritual or religious activity of
man (this perfect autonomy of the reason <vis-a-vis> of what is exterior) is the
fundamental philosophical conception of the modernists, as the alteration of dogma is
the essential characteristic of their heresy, can be shown without difficulty by
deducting from it their entire system of philosophy. First of all, of their agnosticism:
the vague nature which they attribute to our faculties does not permit them, without
scientific observation, to arrive at any definite intellectual result. Next, of their
evolutionism: there is no determined object to assure to dogmatic formulae a
permanent and essential meaning compatible with the life of faith and progress. Now,
from the moment that these formulae simply serve to nourish the vague sentiment
which for modernism is the only common and stable foundation of religion, they must
change indefinitely with the subjective needs of the believer. It is a right and even a
duty for the latter freely to interpret, as he sees fit, religious facts and doctrines. We
meet here with the <a priorisms> to which the Encyclical "Pascendi" drew attention.
We wish to insist a little on the grave consequence that this Encyclical puts especially
before our eyes. In many ways, modernism seems to be on the swift incline which
leads to pantheism. It seems to be there on account of its symbolism. After all, is not
the affirmation of a personal God one of these dogmatic formulae which serve only as
symbolic expressions of the religious sentiment? Does not the Divine Personality then
become something uncertain? Hence radical modernism preaches union and
friendship, even with mystical atheism. Modernism is inclined to pantheism also by its
doctrine of Divine Immanence that is, of the intimate presence of God within us. Does
this God declare Himself as distinct from us? If so, one must not then oppose the
position of modernism to the Catholic position and reject exterior revelation. But if
God declares Himself as not distinct from us, the position of modernism becomes
openly pantheistic. Such is the dilemma proposed in the Encyclical. Modernism is
pantheistic also by its doctrine of science and faith. Faith having for object the
Unknowable cannot make up for the want of proportion that modernists put between
the intellect and its object. Hence, for the believer as well as for the philosopher, this
object remains unknown. 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 formulae, 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 reality. But we have here the ontology of
pantheism, which teaches that the principle does not exist outside of the expression
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 realization of God.
XII The Psychological 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
proceed to consider this question. In modernism we find, first of all, the echo of many
tendencies of the mentality 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 influence of race on the diffusion of the Gospel. They have been shown
the good sides of other cults and beliefs. Our contemporaries find it hard to believe
that the greater part of humanity is plunged in error, especially if they are ignorant
that the Catholic religion teaches that the means of salvation are at the disposal 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 tendencies and of aspirations.
Then again they are moved by sentiments of liberalism and moderation, which reduce
the importance 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 heresies 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 sacrifice 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 cause
which touches their interest or 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 fortunate in having some doctrinal pretexts to cover their secession.
The founder of the periodical "La Foi Catholique", a review started for the purpose of
combating modernism, adds this explanation: " The insufficient cultivation of Catholic
philosophy and science is the second deep explanation of the origin of modernist
errors. Both have too long confined themselves to answers which, though
fundamentally correct, are but little suited to the mentality of our adversaries, and are
formulated 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 positive and critical
tendencies, they have only considered them as so many abnormal leanings that must
be opposed . . ." (Gaudeau, "La Foi Catholique", I, pp. 62-65). Another point is that the
intrinsic nature of the movement of contemporary philosophy has been too much
despised or ignored in Catholic schools. They have not given it that partial recognition
which is quite consonant 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 actual path of religious
science, many cultured minds, especially among the young clergy, found themselves
defenseless 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-understood and calumniated that has incurred this disdain. And for
the pope, this is one of the immediate causes of modernism. "Modernism", 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 University of Louvain (8 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 scientific
methods." ("Annuaire de l'Universite; Catholique de Louvain", 1908, p. XXV, XXVI.)
Saint Augustine (De Genesi contra Manicheos, I, Bk. I, i) in a text that has passed into
the Corpus Juris Canonici (c. 40, c. xxiv, q. 3) had already spoken as follows: "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.
XIII 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 subordination 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 directed against
modernism.
The pope's address on 17 April, 1907, to the newly-created cardinals. It is a resume
which anticipates the Encyclical "Pascendi".
A letter from the Congregation of the Index of 29 April, 1907, to the Cardinal
Archbishop of Milan with regard to the review "Il 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 Tyrrell, von Hugel and the Abbate
Murri.
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.
The decree "Lamentabili" of the Holy Office, 3-4 July, 1907, condemning 65 distinct
propositions.
The injunction of the Holy Office, "Recentissimo", of 28 August, 1907, which with a
view to remedying the evil, enjoins certain prescriptions upon bishops and superiors of
religious orders.
The Encyclical "Pascendi", of 8 September, 1907, of which we shall speak later on.
Three letters of the Cardinal Secretary of State, of 2 and 10 October, and of 5
November, 1907, on the attendance of the clergy at secular universities, urging the
execution of a general regulation of 1896 on this subject. The Encyclical had extended
this regulation to the whole Church.
The condemnation by the Cardinal-Vicar of Rome of the pamphlet " Il programma dei
modernisti", and a decree of 29 October, 1907, declaring the excommunication of its
authors, with special reservations.
The decree Motu Proprio of 18 November, 1907, on the value of the decisions of the
Biblical Commission, on the decree "Lamentabili", and on the Encyclical "Pascendi" .
These two documents are again confirmed and upheld by ecclesiastical penalties.
The address at the (Consistory of 16 December, 1907.
The decree of the Holy Office of 13 February, 1908, in condemnation of the two
newspapers, "La Justice sociale" and "La Vie Catholique ". Since then several
condemnations of the books have appeared.
The Encyclical "Editae" of 26 May, 1910, renewed the previous condemnations.
Still stronger is the tone of the Motu Proprio " Sacrorum Antistitum", of 1 September,
1910, declared:
by a decree of the Consistorial Congregations of 25 September, 1910. This Motu
Proprio inveighs against modernist obstinacy and specious cunning. After having
quoted the practical measures prescribed in the Encyclical "Pascendi", the pope urges
their execution, and, at the same time, makes new directions concerning the formation
of the clergy in the seminaries and religious houses. Candidates for higher orders,
newly appointed confessors, preachers, parish priests, canons, the beneficed clergy, the
bishop's staff, Lenten preachers, the officials of the Roman congregations, or tribunals,
superiors and professors in religious congregations, all are obliged to swear according
to a formula which reprobates the principal modernist tenets.
The pope's letter to Prof. Decurtins on literary modernism. (All these documents are
contained in Vermeersch, op. cit. infra.)
These acts are for the most part of a disciplinary character (the Motu Proprio of
September, 1910, is clearly of the same nature); the decree "Lamentabili" is entirely
doctrinal; the Encyclical "Pascendi" and the Motu Proprio of 18 March, 1907, are both
doctrinal and disciplinary in character. Writers do not agree as to the authority of the
two principal documents; the decree " Lamentabili " and the Encyclical "Pascendi". In
the present writer's opinion, since the new confirmation accorded to these decrees by
the Motu Proprio, they contain in their doctrinal conclusions the infallible teaching of
the Vicar of Jesus Christ. (For a more moderate opinion cf. Choupin in "Etudes", Paris,
CXIV, p. 119-120.) The decree "Lamentabili" has been called the new Syllabus, because
it contains the proscription by the Holy Office of 65 propositions, which may be
grouped under the following heads: Prop. 1-8, errors concerning the teaching of the
Church; Prop. 9-19, errors concerning the inspiration, truth, and study of Holy Writ,
especially the Gospels; Prop. 20-36, errors concerning revelation and dogma; Prop.
2728, Christological errors; Prop. 39-51, errors relative to the sacraments; Prop. 52-57,
errors concerning the institution and organization of the Church; Prop= 58-65, errors
on doctrinal evolution. The Encyclical "Pascendi" in the introduction laid bare the
gravity of the danger, pointed out the necessity of firm and decisive action, and
approved of the title "Modernism" for the new errors. It gives us first a very
methodical exposition of modernism; next follows its general condemnation with a
word as to corollaries that may be drawn from the heresy. The pope then goes on to
examine the causes and the effects of modernism, and finally seeks the necessary
remedies. Their application he endeavors to put into practice by a series of energetic
measures. An urgent appeal to the bishops fittingly closes this striking document.
XIV Protestant Sources
KANT, <Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der reinen Vernunft> (2nd ed., 1794)
FICHTE, <Versuch einer Kritik aller Offenbarung> (1792)
SCHLEIRMACHER, <Ueber die Religion, Reden an die Gebildeten unter ihren
Veraechtern> (4th ed., 1831)
IDEM, <Der christliche Glaube nach den Grundsaetzen der evangelischen Kirche, im
Zusammenhang dargestellt> (1811-22; 6th ed., 1884)
SCHELLING, <Vorlesungen ueber die Methode des akademischen Studiums> (3rd
ed., 1830);
HEGEL, <Vorlesungen ueber die Philosophie der Religion> (1832), in vols. XI and XII
of his complete works;
RITSCHL, ALBRECHT, <Die christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und
Versoehnung> (3 vol., 1870-84);
IDEM, <Theologie und Metaphysik> (1881);
HERMAN, <Die Gewissheit des Glaubens und die Freihet der Theologie> (2nd ed.,
1889);
LIPSIUS, <Dogmatische Beitraege> (1878);
IDEM, <Philosophie und Religion> (1885)
LANGE, <Geschichte des Materialismus> (4th part, 3rd ed., 1876)
SCHWARZ, <Zur Geschichte der neusten Theologie> (3rd ed., 1864);
EUCKEN, from his numerous works on the subject we may mention <Der
Wahrheitsgehalt der Religion> (1901); PFLEIDERER, <Die Religion, ihr Wesen und
ihre Geschichte> (2nd vol., 1869);
IDEM <Grundriss der christlichen Glaubens- und Sittenlehere> (1880);
IDEM, <Entwickelung der protestantischen Theologie seit Kant >(1892);
SABATIER, <Esquisse d'une philosophie de la religion apre la philosophie et
l'histoire> (1897);
IDEM, <Les religions d'autorite et la religion de l'espiri>t [posthumous] (1902);
HAMILTON, <Discussion on Philosophy and Literatur>e (3rd ed., 1866);
CAMPBELL, <The New Theology> (London, 1907);
HARNACK, <Das Wesen des Christentums> (enlarged ed., Jena, 1908);
GORE (anti-modernist), <The New Theology and the Old Religion> (London 1907);
HAKLUYT (anti-modernist), <Liberal Theology and the Ground of Faith> (London,
1908); Father Tyrell's <Modernism : an expository criticism of "Through Scylla and
Charybdis in an open letter to Mr. Athelstan Riley (London, 1909)
<a name ="XV Modernist Sources MURRI, <Psicologia della religione, note ed
appunti>, published under the pseudonym of SOSTENE GELLI (Rome, 1905);
IDEM, <Democrazia e christianesimo>;
IDEM, <I principi comuni> in <Programma della societa regionale di cultura>
(Rome,1906);
IDEM, <La Vita religiosa nel cristianesimo: Discorsi> (Rome, 1907)
IDEM, <La filosofia nuova e l'enciclica contro il modernismo> (Rome, 1908)
FOGAZZARO, <Il Santo> (Milan, 1905);
<Il Programma dei Modernisti. Riposta all' Enciclica di Pio X, "Pascendi Dominici
gregis (Rome, 1908);
VOGRINEC, <Nostra maxima culpa! Die bedraengte Lage der katholischen Kirche,
deren Ursachen und Vorschlaege zur Besserung> (Vienna and Leipzig, 1904);
LOISY, <l'Evangile et l'Eglise> (Paris, 1902);
IDEM, <Autour d'un petit livre> (Paris, 1903);
IDEM, <Simples reflexions sur le decret du Saint-Office "Lamentabili sane exitu", et sur
l'Encyclique "Pascendi Dominici gregis (Ceffonds, 1908);
LEROY, <Dogme et critique> (Paris) [In referring to this book, which has been
condemned, we do not wish to make any reflexion on the Catholicity of the author];
TYRRELL, <Lex orandi> (London, New York, Bombay, 1906);
IDEM, <A confidential letter to a friend who is a professor of anthropology>, It. tr.
(inaccurate) in <Il Corriere della Sera> (1 January, 1906); <Letters to His Holines Pope
Pius X by a Modernist> (Chicago, 1910)
<a name="XVI Catholic Sources PORTALIE, <Dogme et Histoire> in <Bulletin de
litterature ecclesiastique> (Feb. to March, 1904);
CAVALLANTI, <Modernismo e Modernisti> (Brescia, 1907);
MERCIER, <Le modernisme, sa position vis-a-vis de la science, sa condamnation par le
Pape Pie X> (Brussels, 1908);
DE TONQUEDEC, <La notion de verite dans la philosophie nouvelle> (Paris, 1908);
LEPIN, <Christologie : Commentaire des propositions 27-38 du decret du S. Office
"Lamentabili (Paris, 1908);
LEBRETON, <L'encyclique et la theologie modernista> (Paris, 1908);
GAUDAUD, <Les erreurs du Modernisme> in <La foi catholique> (1908, 1909);
PESCH, <Theologische Zeitfragen, Glaube, Dogmen und geschichtlichen Tatsachen.
Eine Untersuching ueber den Modernismus>, 4th series (Freibug im Breisgau, 1908);
HEINER, <Der neue Syllabus Pius X >(Mainz, 1908);
MICHELITSCH, <Der neue Syllabus> (Gras and Vienna, 1908);
KNEIB, <Wesen und Bedeutung der Encyclika gegen den Modernismus> (Mainz,
1908);
GODRYEZ, <The doctrine of Modernism and its refutation> (Philadelphia, 1908);
RICKABY, T <he Modernist>, (London, 1908);
MAUMUS, <Les modernistes> (Paris, 1909);
VERMEERSCH, <De modernismo tractatus et notae canonicae cum Actis S. Sedis a 17
April, 1907 ad 25 Sept., 1910> (Bruges, 1901)
A. VERMEERSCH
Transcribed by Gerard Haffner
Taken from the New Advent Web Page (www.knight.org/advent).
This article is part of the Catholic Encyclopedia Project, an effort aimed at placing the
entire Catholic Encyclopedia on the World Wide Web. The coordinator is Kevin Knight,
editor of the New Advent Catholic Website. If you would like to contribute to this
worthwhile project, you can contact him by e-mail at (
[email protected]). For
more information please download the file cathen.txt/.zip.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Provided courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
PO Box 3610
Manassas, VA 22110
Voice: 703-791-2576
Fax: 703-791-4250
Data: 703-791-4336
FTP: EWTN.COM
Telnet: EWTN.COM
Email address:
[email protected]
EWTN provides a Catholic online
information and service system.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
