God's to God" [ cf. Matt. 22:2r ], and according to the example of the apostles the reply should be made courageously: "We ought to obey God, rather than man" [Acts 5:29] . . . . To be unwilling to refer the right of ordering to God, the author, is nothing else than to wish the most beautiful splendor of political power destroyed, and its nerves cut. . . . In fact, sudden tumults and most daring rebellions, especially in Ger- many, have followed that so-called Reformation, whose supporters and leaders have utterly opposed sacred and civil power with new doctrines . . . . From that heresy a falsely called philosophy took its origin in an earlier time, and a right, which they call "new," and a popular power, and an ignorant license which many people consider only liberty. From these we have come to the ultimate plagues, namely, to communism, to socialism, to nihilism, most loathsome monsters and almost destroyers of man's civil society. Surely the Church of Christ cannot be mistrusted by the princes nor hated by the people. Indeed, she advises the princes to follow justice and in nothing to err from duty; and at the same time she strengthens and aids their authority in many ways. Whatever takes place in the field of civil affairs, she recognizes and declares to be in their power and su- preme control; in those matters whose judgment, although for different reasons, pertains to sacred and civil power, she wishes that there exist concord between both, by benefit of which lamentable contentions are avoided for both.
Secret Societies 1 [From the Encyclical, "Humanum genus," April 20, r884]
Let no one think that for any reason whatsoever he is permitted to join the Masonic sect, if his profession of Catholicism and his salvation is worth as much to him as it ought to be. Let no pretended probity deceive one; for it can seem to some that the Freemasons demand noth- ing which is openly contrary to the sanctity of religion and morals, but since the entire reasoning and aim of the sect itself rest in v1C10usness and shame, it is not proper to permit association with them, or to assist them in any way.
[From the Instruction of the Holy Office, May ro, r884] (3) Lest there be any place for error when decision will have to be made as to what the opinions of these pernicious sects are, which are under such prohibition, it is especially certain that Freemasonry and other sects of this kind which plot against the Church and lawful powers, 1 ASS 16 (1883/84) 430 and 17 (1884/85) 44; AL II 71 £.
whether they do this secretly or openly, whether or not they exact from their followers an oath to preserve secrecy, are condemned by automatic excommunication. ( 4) Besides these there are also other sects which are prohibited and 1861 must be avoided under pain of grave sin, among which are to be reck- oned especially all tho::e which bind their followers under oath to a secret to be divulged to no one, and exact absolute obedience to be offered to secret leaders. It is to be noted, furthermore, that there are some societies which, although it cannot be determined with certainty whether or not they belong to these which we have mentioned, are nevertheless doubtful and full of danger not only because of the doctrines which they profess, but also because of the philosophy of action which those follow under whose leadership they have developed and are governed.
Assistance of a Physician or of a Confessor at a Duel 1 [From the Response of the Holy Office to the Bishop of Poitiers, May 31, 1884]
To the question: I. Can a physician when invited by duelists assist at a duel with the 1862 intention of bringing an end to the fight more quickly, or simply to bind and cure wounds, without incurring the excommunication reserved simply to the Highest Pontiff? II. Can he at least, without being present at the duel, stay at a neigh- boring house or in a place nearby, ready to offer his service, if the duelists have need of it. III. What about a confessor under the same conditions? The answers are: To I, he cannot, and excommunication is incurred. To II and III, that, insofar as it takes place as described, he cannot, and likewise excommunication is incurred.
Cremation of Corpses 2 [From the Decree of the Holy Office, May 19 and Dec. 15, 1886]
To the question: I. Whether it is permitted to join societies whose purpose is to promote the practice of burning the corpses of men? II. Whether it is permitted to command that one's own or the corpses of others be burned? 1 ASS 17 (1884) 601. 2 ASS 19 (1886), 46 and 25 (1892/93) 63; cf. AE 3 (1895) 98 bf.
The answer on the 19th day of May, 1886 is: To I. In the negative, and if it is a matter concerned with societies affiliated with the Masonic sect, the penalties passed against this sect are incurred. To II. In the negative. 1 Then, on the 15th day of December, 1886: Insofar as it is a question of those whose bodies are subjected to cremation not by their own will but by that of another, the rites and prayers of the Church can be employed not only at home but also in the church, not, however, at the place of cremation, scandal being avoided. Indeed, scandal can also be avoided if it be known that crema- tion was not elected by the deceased's own will. But when it is a ques- tion of those who elect cremation by their own will, and have persevered in this will definitely and notoriously even until death, with due atten- tion to the decree of Wednesday, May 19, 1886 [given above], action must be taken in such cases according to the norms of the Roman Ritual, Tit. Quibus non licet dare ecclesiasticam sepulturam (To whom it is not permitted to give burial in the church). But in particular cases where doubt or difficulty arises, the ordinary will have to be consulted.
Civil Divorce 2 [From the Decree of the Holy Office, May 27, 1886]
The following questions were raised by some Bishops of France to the inquisition S.R. et U.: "In the letter S.R. et U. I. of June 25th, 1885, to all the ordinaries in the territory of France on the law of civil divorce it is decreed thus: "Considering very serious matters, in addition to times and places, it can be tolerated that those who hold magistracies, and lawyers who conduct matrimonial cases in France, without being bound to cede to the office," and it added conditions, of which the second is this: "Provided they are so prepared in mind not only regarding the dignity and nullity of marriage, but also regarding the separation of bodies, about which cases they are obliged to judge, as never to offer an opinion or to defend one to be offered, or to provoke or to incite to that opinion which is at odds with divine and ecclesiastical law." It is asked: I. Whether the interpretation is right which is widespread throughout France and even put in print, according to which the judge satisfies the 1 Leo XIII, confirming this decree to the Ordinaries, "ordered that they opportunely
have the faithful of Christ instructed on the detestable abuse of cremating human bodies, and that with all their might they deter the flock entrusted to them from this (prac- tice)." 2 ASS 22 (1889/90) 635 f.
above mentioned condition, who, although a certain marriage is valid in the sight of the Church, ignores that true and unbroken marriage, and applying civil law pronounces that there is ground for divorce, provided he intends in his mind to break only the civil effects and only the civil contract, and provided the terms of the opinion offered consider these alone? In other words, whether an opinion so offered can be said not to be at odds with the divine and ecclesiastical law? II. After the judge has pronounced that there is ground for divorce, whether the syndic ( in French: le maire), intent also upon only the civil effects and the civil contract, as is explained above, can pronounce a divorce, although the marriage is valid in the eyes of the Church. III. After the divorce has been pronounced, whether the same syndic can again join a spouse who strives to enter into other nuptials in a civil ceremony, although the previous marriage is valid in the eyes of the Church and the other party is living? The answer is: In the negative to the first, the second,1 and the third.
The Christian Constitution of States 2 [From the Encyclical "Immortale Dei," November 1, 1885]
And so God has partitioned the care of the human race between two 1866 powers, namely, ecclesiastical and civil, the one, to be sure, placed over divine, the other over human affairs. Each is highest in its own order; each has certain limits within which it is contained, which are defined by the nature of each and the immediate purpose; and therefore an orbit, as it were, is circumscribed, within which the action of each takes place by its own right. 3 • • • Whatever, then, in human things is in every way sacred, whatever pertains to the salvation of souls or the worship of God, whether it is such by its own nature or again is under- stood as such because of the purpose to which it is referred, this is entirely 1 But the response of the Holy Penitentiary, given on the 24th day of September,
1887, is worthy of note, according to which it is permitted also for France in a particu- lar case that, after the civil judges have pronounced that there is ground for divorce, the syndic, who would otherwise be ejected from office, pronounced the civil divorce, provided 1) that "he profess publicly the Catholic doctrine on matrimony and on matrimonial cases which pertain to ecclesiastical judges only, and provided, 2) in the opinion itself, and as a magistrate speaking in public he declare that he can consider only the civil effects and only the civil contract, that otherwise the bond of matrimony remains entirely firm in the sight of God and conscience" (Revue de sciences eccles., Ambien. 60, 476). 2 ASS 18 (1885), 166 ff.; AL II 152 ff. 3 Similarly, the same Pontiff in the Encyclical, "Sapientiae christianae," on the
chief duties of Christian citizens, Jannnry 10, 1890, says: "The Church and the state, each has its own power; neither obeys the other" [ASS 22 (1889/90), 397].
in the power and judgment of the Church; but other matters, which the civil and political order embraces, are rightly subject to civil authority, since Jesus Christ has ordered: "The things that are Caesar's, render to Caesar; the things that are God's to God" [cf. Matt. 22:21]. But occa- sions sometimes arise, when another method of concord is also efficacious for peace and liberty, namely, if rulers of public affairs and the Roman Pontiff agree on the same decision in some special matter. On these occa- sions the Church gives outstanding proof of her motherly devotion, when, as is her wont she shows all possible affability and indulgence. . . . To wish also that the Church be subject to the civil power in the exercise of her duties is surely a great injustice (to her), and great rash- ness. By this deed order is disturbed, because the things that are of nature are put over those that are above nature; the frequency of the blessings with which the Church would fill everyday life, if she were not hampered by anything, is destroyed or certainly greatly diminished; and besides a way is prepared for enmities and contentions; and, what great destruction they bring to both powers, the issue of events has demon- strated beyond measure. Such doctrines, which are not approved by hu- man reason and are of great importance for civil discipline, the Roman Pontiffs, Our predecessors, since they understood well what the Apostolic office demanded of them, did by no means allow to pass uncondemned. Thus, Gregory XVI by the encyclical letter beginning, "Mirari vos," on the fifteenth day of August, 1832 [see note 16!3 ff.], with great serious- ness of purpose struck at those teachings which even then were being preached, that in divine worship no preference should be shown; that individuals are free to form their judgments about religion as they prefer; that one's conscience alone is his guide; and furthermore that it is lawful for everyone to publish what he thinks, and likewise to stir up revolu- tion within the state. On questions of the separation of Church and state the same Pontiff writes thus: "We could not predict happier results both for religion and for the civil government from the wishes of those who desire that the Church be separated from the state, and that the mutual concord between the civil and ecclesiastical authorities be broken off. For, it is manifest that devotees of unhampered freedom fear that concord which has always been beneficial and salutary for both sacred and civil interests."-In a not dissimilar manner Pius IX, as opportunity presented itself, noted many of the false opinions which began to prevail, and afterwards ordered the same to be gathered together so that in, as it were, so great a sea of error, Catholics might have something to follow without mishap.1 Moreover, from these precepts of the Pontiffs the following must be 1 Herc are cited ad calcem from the syllabus propositions 19, 39, 55, 79 (sec n. 1719, 1739, 1755, 1779].
thoroughly understood; that the origin of public power should be sought from God Himself, not from the multitude; that free license for sedition is at odds with reason; that it is unlawful for private individuals, unlaw- ful for states to disregard the duties of religion or to be affected in the same way by the different kinds ( of religion); that the unrestricted power of thinking and publicly expressing one's opinions is not among the rights of citizens, and is by no means to be placed among matters worthy of favor and support. Similarly, it should be understood that the 1869 Church is a society no less than the state itself, perfect in its kind and in its right; and those who hold the highest power should not act so as to force the Church to serve and to be under them, or so as not to permit her to be free to transact her own affairs, or so as to take from her any of the other rights which have been conferred upon her by Jesus Christ. However, in matters of mixed jurisdiction, it is wholly in accord with 1870 nature, and likewise in accord with the plans of God, that there be no separation of one power from the other, but plainly that there be con- cord, and this in a manner befitting the closely allied purposes which have given rise to both societies. This, then, is what is taught by the Church on the establishment and 1871 government of states.-However, by these statements and decrees, if one desire to judge rightly, no one of the various forms of the state is con- demned in itself, inasmuch as they contain nothing which is offensive to Catholic doctrine, and they can, if they are wisely and justly applied, preserve the state in its best condition. Neither by any means is this con- 1872 demned in itself, that the people participate more or less in the state; this very thing at certain times and under certain laws can not only be of use to the citizens, but can even be of obligation. Furthermore, neither 1873 does there appear any just cause for anyone charging the Church with being lenient and more than rightly restricted by affability, or with being hostile to that liberty which is proper and lawful. Indeed, if the Church 1874 judges that certain forms of divine worship should not be on the same footing as the true religion, yet she does not therefore condemn gover- nors of states, who, to obtain some great blessing or to prevent an evil, patiently tolerate custom and usage so that individually they each have 1875 a place in the state. And this also the Church especially guards against, that anyone against his will be forced to embrace the Catholic faith, for, as St. Augustine wisely advises: "Man cannot believe except of his free will." 1 In a like manner the Church cannot approve that liberty which begets 1876 an aversion for the most sacred laws of God and casts aside the obedience due lawful authority. For this is more truly license than liberty. And
1 St. Augustine, In lo tr. 26 c. 2 [ML 35 (Aug. III b) 1607].
47° very rightly is it called "the liberty of ruin" 1 by Augustine, and "a cloak of malice" by the Apostle Peter [I Pet. 2: 16]; rather, since it is beyond reason, it is true slavery, for ''whosoever committeth sin, is the servant of sin" [John 8:34]. On the other hand, that liberty is genuine and to be sought after, which, from the point of view of the individual, does not permit man to be a slave of errors and passions, most abominable masters, if it guides its citizens in public office wisely, ministers gen- erously to the opportunity for increasing means of well-being, and pro- 1877 tects the state from foreign influence.-This liberty, honorable and worthy of man, the Church approves most of all, and never ceases to strive and struggle for its preservation sound and strong among the nations.-In fact, whatever is of the greatest value in the state for the common welfare; whatever has been usefully established to curb the license of rulers who do not consult the people's good; whatever prevents highest authority from improperly invading municipal and family affairs; whatever is of value for preserving the dignity, the person of man, and the quality of rights among individual citizens, of all such things the records of past ages testify that Catholic Church has always been either the discoverer, or the promoter, or the protector. Therefore, always consistent with herself, if on the one hand she rejects immoderate liberty, which for individuals and states falls into license or slavery, on the other hand she willingly and gladly embraces the better things which the day brings forth, if they truly contain prosperity for this life, which is, as it were, 1878 a kind of course to that other life which is to remain forever. Therefore, when people say that the Church is envious of the more recent political systems, and indiscriminately repudiates whatever the genius of these times has produced, it is an empty and groundless calumny. Indeed, she does repudiate wild opinions; she does disapprove nefarious zeal for seditions, and expressly that habit of mind in which the beginnings of a voluntary departure from God are seen; but since all that is true must come from God, she recognizes whatever has to do with the attaining of truth as a kind of trace of the divine intelligence. And, since there is nothing of truth in the natural order which abrogates faith in teachings divinely transmitted, but many things which confirm it; and since every discovery of truth can lend force to the knowledge and praise of God, accordingly whatever contributes to the extension of the boundaries of knowledge will always do so to the pleasure and joy of the Church; and just as is her custom in the case of other branches of knowledge, so will she also favor and promote those which are concerned with the investiga- tion of nature. In these studies the Church is not in opposition if the mind discovers
1 Ep. ro5 ad Do11atistas 2, 9 [ML 33, 399].
47 1 something new; she does not object to further investigations being made for the refinements and comforts of life; rather, as an enemy of indolence and sloth she wishes especially that the talents of man bear rich fruits by exercise and cultivation; she furnishes incentives to all kinds of arts and works; and by directing through her influence all zeal for such things towards virtue and salvation, she struggles to prevent man from being turned away from God and heavenly blessings by his intelligence and industry . . . . And so in such a difficult course of events, if Catholics give heed to 1880 us, as they ought, they will easily see what are the duties of each one in matters of opinion as well as of action. And, indeed, in forming opin- ion, it is necessary to comprehend and hold with a firm judgment what- ever the Roman Pontiffs have handed down, and shall hand down, and to profess each publicly as often as occasion demands. And specifically regarding the so-called liberties so sought after in recent times, it is neces- sary for everyone to stand by the judgment of the Apostolic See, and to have the same opinion as that held by it. One should not be deceived by the honorable appearance of these liberties; one should consider from what sources they are derived, and by what efforts they are everywhere sustained and promoted. It is well known from experience what results such liberties have achieved in the state; for everywhere they have borne fruits which good and wise man rightly deplore. If such a state really exists anywhere or is imagined in our thoughts, which shamelessly and tyrannically persecutes the name of Christian, and that modern kind of state be compared with it, of which we are speaking, the latter may well seem the more tolerable. Yet the principles upon which it relies are certainly of such a kind, as we have said before, that in themselves they should be approved by no one. However, action may be concerned with private and domestic affairs or 1881 public affairs.-Certainly in private matters the first duty is to conform life and conduct most diligently to the precepts of the Gospel, and not to refuse to do so when Christian virtue exacts something more than ordi- narily difficult to bear and endure. Furthermore, all should love the Church as their common mother; keep her laws obediently; promote her honor, and preserve her rights; and they should try to have her cherished and loved with equal devotion by those over whom they have any authority. It is also in the public interest to give attention wisely to the affairs of 1882 municipal administration, and in this to strive especially to effect that consideration be given publicly to the formation of youth in religion and in good conduct, in that manner which is right for Christians. On these things especially does the ~afety of the individual states depend. Likewise, it is, in general, beneficial and proper for Catholics to extend 1883
their attention further, beyond this, as it were, rather restricted field, and to take in the national government itself. We say "in general," because these precepts of Ours apply to all nations. But it can happen in some places that it is by no means expedient for weighty and just reasons to take part in national politics and to become active in political affairs. But, in general, as we have said, to be willing to take no part in public affairs would be as much at fault as to have no interest and to do nothing for the common good, and even more, because Catholics by the admoni- tion of the very doctrine which they profess are impelled to carry on their affairs with integrity and trust. On the other hand, if they remain indifferent, those whose opinions carry very little hope for the safety of the state will easily seize the reins of government. And this also would be fraught with injury to the Chr1stian religion, because those who were evilly disposed toward the Church would have the greatest power, and those well dis posed the least. Therefore, it is very clear that the reason for Catholics entering public affairs is just, for they do not enter them nor ought they to do so for this reason, so as to approve that which at the moment is not honorable in the methods of public affairs, but to transfer these methods insofar as it can be done, to the genuine and true public good, having in mind the purpose of introducing into all the veins of the state, as a most healthful sap and blood, the wisdom and virtue of the Christian reli- g10n .•.. Lest the union of souls be broken by rash charges, let all understand the following: That the integrity of the Catholic faith can by no means exist along with opinions which border on naturalism and rationalism, the sum total of which is to tear Christian institutions from their founda- tions and to establish man's leadership in society, relegating God to second place.-Likewise, that it is not lawful to follow one form of duty in private life, and another in public; for example, so that the authority of the Church is observed in private life, and cast aside in public. For this would be to combine the honorable and the shameful, and to place man in conflict with himself, when on the other hand he should always be in accord with himself, and never in anything or in any manner of life abandon Christian virtue. But if there is question merely of methods in politics, about the best kind of state, about ordering government in one way or another, surely, in these matters there can be an honorable difference of opinion. There- fore, a dissenting opinion in the matters which we have mentioned on the part of those men whose piety is otherwise known, and whose minds are ready to accept obediently the decrees of the Apostolic See, cannot in justice be considered a sin on their part; and a much greater injury takes place, if they are faced with the charge of having violated or
mistrusted the Catholic Faith, which we are sorry to say has taken place more than once. Let all who are accustomed to express their opinions in writing, and 1887 especially writers for newspapers, bear this precept in mind. In this struggle over most important matters, there can be no place for internal controversies or for party rivalries; and all should strive to preserve reli- gion and the state, which is the common purpose of all. If, therefore, there have been any dissensions before, they should be obliterated by a kind voluntary oblivion; if hitherto there have been rash and injurious actions, those who are in any way to blame for this should make amends with mutual charity, and a kind of special submission should be made on the part of all to the Apostolic See. In this way Catholics will obtain two very excellent results: one, that of 1888 establishing themselves as helpers of the Church in preserving and propa- gating Christian wisdom; the other, that of bestowing upon civil society the greatest blessing, the preservation of which is imperiled by evil doc- trines, and passions.
Craniotomy and Abortion 1 [From the Response of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Lyons, May 31st, 1899 (May 28th, 1884)]
To the question: Whether it can be safely taught in Catholic schools 1889 that the surgical operation which is called craniotomy is licit, when, of course, if it does not take place, the mother and child will perish; while on the other hand if it does take place, the mother is to be saved, while the child perishes?" The reply is: "It cannot be safely taught."
[From the reply of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Cambresis, August 19, 1889] The reply is similar with the following addition: " ... and every sur- 1890 gical operation that directly kills the fetus or the pregnant mother."
[From the reply of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Cambresis, July 24, 25, 1895] 2 When the doctor, Titius, was called to a pregnant woman who was 1890a seriously sick, he gradually realized that the cause of the deadly sickness was nothing else than pregnancy, that is, the presence of the fetus in the 1 ASS 17 (1884) 556 and 22 (1889/90) 749; cf. ASS 7 (1872) 285 ff., 460 ff., 516 ff., and AE 2 (1894) 84, 125, 179, 220, 321 ff. 2 ASS 28 (1895/96) 383 f.
womb. Therefore, to save the mother from certain and imminent death one way presented itself to him, that of procuring an abortion, or ejection of the fetus. In the customary manner he adopted this way, but the means and operations applied did not tend to the killing of the fetus in the mother's womb, but only to its being brought forth to light alive, if it could possibly be done, although it would die soon, inasmuch as it was not mature. Yet, despite what the Holy See wrote on August 19th, 1889, in answer to the Archbishop of Cambresis, that it could not be taught safely that any operation causing the death of the fetus directly, even if this were necessary to save the mother, was licit, the doubting Titius clung to the licitness of surgical operations by which he not rarely procured the abortion, and thus saved pregnant women who were seriously sick. Therefore, to put his conscience at rest Titius suppliantly asks: Whether he can safely repeat the above mentioned operations under the reoccurring circumstances. The reply ts: In the negative, according to other decrees, namely, of the 28th day of May, 1884, and of 19th day of August, 1889. But on the following Thursday, on the 25th day of July ... our most holy Lol'd approved a resolution of the Most Eminent Fathers, as re- ported to him.
[From the reply of the Holy Office to the Bishop of Sinaboa, May 4, 6, 1898] 1 1890b I. Will the acceleration of the birth be licit, when because of the woman's structure the delivery of the fetus would be impossible at its own natural time? II. And, if the structure of the woman is such that not even a pre- mature birth is considered possible, will it be permitted to cause an abortion, or to perform a Caesarean operation in its time? III. Is a laparotomy licit, when it is a matter of an extrauterine preg- nancy, or of ectopic conceptions? The reply is: To I. That the acceleration of the birth per se is not illicit, provided it is performed for good reasons at that time, and according to the method by which under ordinary conditions consideration is given to the lives of the mother and the fetus. To II. With respect to the first part, in the negative, according to the decree (issued) on Wednesday, the 24th of July, 1895, on the illicitness of abortion.-As to what pertains to the second part, nothing prevents
the woman, who is concerned, from submitting to a Caesarean operation in due time. To III. That when necessity presses, a laparotomy is licit for extracting ectopic conceptions from the womb of the mother, provided, insofar as it can be done, care is taken seriously and fittingly of the life of the fetus and that of the mother. On the following Friday, the sixth day of the same month and year, His Supreme Holiness approved the responses of the Most Eminent and Reverend Fathers.
[From the reply of the Holy Office to the Dean of the faculty of theology of the University of Marienburg, the 5th of March, 1902] 1 To the question: "Whether it is at any time permitted to extract from 1890c the womb of the mother ectopic fetuses still immature, when the sixth month after conception has not passed?" The reply is: "In the negative, according to the decree of Wednesday, the 4th of May, 1898, by the force of which care must be taken seriously and fit- tingly, insofar as it can be done, for the life of the fetus and that of the mother; moreover, with respect to time, according to the same decree, the orator is reminded that no acceleration of the birth is licit, unless it be performed at the time and according to the methods by which in the ordinary course of events the life of the mother and that of the fetus are considered."
Errors of Antonius de Rosmini-Serbati 2 [Condemned in a Decree of the Holy Office, 14th of Dec., 1887]
I. In the order of created things there is immediately manifested to 1891 the human intellect something of the divine in its very self, namely, such as pertains to divine nature. 2. When we speak of the divine in nature, we do not use that word 1892 divine to signify a nondivine effect of a divine cause; nor, is it our mind to speak of a certain thing as divine because it is such through participation. 3. In the nature of the universe then, that is in the intelligences that 1893 1 ASS 35 (1902/03) 162. 2 ASS 20 (1887), 398 ff.; cf. 21 (1888) 709 £.-Antonius, Count de Rosmini-Serbati, born on the 25th of March, 1797, in the town of Roveredo, founder of the clerical con- gregation, "Instituto della Carita," when some of his writings had been prohibited by the Holy See, praiseworthily submitted. On the first of July, 1855, he died most piously. The propositions here related were excerpted from his works after his death and were condemned by the Holy See.
are in it, there is something to which the term of divine not in a figurative but in a real sense is fitting.-The actuality is not distinct from the rest of divine actuality. 4. Indeterminate being, which without doubt is known to all intelli- gences, is that divine thing which is manifest to man in nature. 5. Being, which man observes, must be something of the necessary and eternal being, the creating cause, the determining and final cause of all contingent beings; and this is God. 6. In the being which prescinds from creatures and from God, which is indeterminate being, and in God, not indeterminate but absolute being, the essence is the same. 7. The indeterminate being of intuition, initial being, is something of the Word, which the mind of the Father distinguishes, not really, but according to reason from the Word. 8. Finite beings, of which the world is composed, result from two elements, that is, from the real finite terminus and from the initial being, which contributes the form of being to the same terminus. 9. Being, the object of intuition, is the initial act of all beings. Initial being is the beginning both of the knowable and the subsisting; it is likewise the beginning of God, according as He is conceived by us, and of creatures. 10. Virtual and limitless being is the first and most simple of all entities, so that any other entity is composite, and among its components is always and necessarily virtual being.-It is the essential part of abso- lutely all entities, according as they are divided by reason. 1 r. The quiddity ( that which a thing is) of a finite being does not consist of that which it has of the positive, but of its limits. The quiddity of an infinite being consists of its entity, and is positive; but the quiddity of a finite being consists of the limits of its entity, and is negative. 12. There is no finite reality, but God causes it to exist by adding limitation to infinite reality.-Initial being becomes the essence of every real being.-Being which actuates finite natures, and is joined with them, is cut off by God. 13. The difference between absolute being and relative being is not that which intervenes between substance and substance, but something much greater; for one is being absolutely, the other nonbeing abso- lutely, and this other is being relatively. But when relative being is posited, being absolutely is not multiplied; hence, absolute and relative (being) absolutely are not one substance, but one being; and in this sense no diversity is being, rather oneness is held as being. 14. By divine abstraction initial being is produced, the first element of finite beings; but by divine imagination the finite real (being) or all realities are produced, of which the world consists.
Leo Xlll, I878-I<)OJ 15. The third operation of absolute being creating the world is divine synthesis, that is the union of two elements, which are initial being, the common beginning of all finite beings, and finite reality, or rather different finite realities, the different ends of the same initial being. By this union finite beings are created. 16. Initial being through divine synthesis referred by intelligence, not 1906 as an intelligible but merely as essence, to the real finite ends, causes the finite beings to exist subjectively and really. 17. This alone God effects by creating, that He posits the entire act 1907 wholly as the being of creatures; this act then is properly not made but posited. 18. The love, by which God loves Himself even in creatures, and 1908 which is the reason why He determines Himself to create, constitutes a moral necessity, which in the most perfect being always induces the effect; for such necessity in many imperfect beings only leaves the whole freedom bilateral. 19. The Word is that unseen material, from which, as it is said in 1909 Wisdom II: r 8, all things of the universe were created. 20. It is not inconsistent that the human soul, in order that it may be 1910 multiplied by human generation, may thus be conceived, proceed from the imperfect, namely from the sensitive grade, to the perfect, namely to the intellectual grade. 21. When being is capable of being intued by the sensitive principle, 1911 by this influence alone, by this union with itself, only sensing this first, but now, at the same time understanding, it is brought to a more noble state, it changes its nature, and becomes understanding, subsisting, and immortal. 22. It is not impossible to think that it can become a divine power, 1912 so that the intellectual soul is separated from the animate body, a·nd it itself (being) still remains soulful; surely there would remain in it, as the basis of the purely soulful, the soulful principle, which before was in it as an appendage. 2 3. The soul of the deceased exists in a natural state, as if it did not 1913 exist; since it cannot exercise any reflection upon itself, or have any con- sciousness of itself, its condition can be said to be like the state of the perpetual shades and eternal sleep. 24. The substantial form of the body is rather the effect of the soul 1914 and the interior terminus of the operation itself; therefore, the substantial form of the body is not the soul itself.-The union of the soul and the body properly consists in immanent perception, by which the subject viewing the idea, affirms the sensible, after it has viewed its essence in this (idea). 25. When the mystery of the Most Blessed Trinity has been revealed, 1915
its existence can be demonstrated by merely speculative arguments, nega- tive indeed, and indirect; yet such that through them the truth is brought to philosophic studies, and the proposition becomes scientific like the rest; for if it were denied, the theosophic doctrine of pure reason would not only remain incomplete, but would also be annihilated, teeming with absurdities on every side. 26. If the three highest forms of being, namely, subjectivity, objec- tivity, sanctity; or, reality, ideality, and morality, are transferred to ab- solute being, they cannot be conceived otherwise than as subsisting and living persons.-The Word, insofar as it is the loved object, and insofar as it is the Word, that is the object subsisting in itself, known by itself, is the person of the Holy Spirit. 27. In the humanity of Christ the human will was so taken up by the Holy Spirit in order to cling to objective Being, that is to the Word, that it ( the will) gave over the rule of man wholly to Him, and as- sumed the Word personally, thus uniting with itself human nature. Hence, the human will ceased to be personal in man, and, although person is in other men, it remained nature in Christ. 28. In Christian doctrine, the Word, the sign and configuration of God, is impressed on the souls of those who receive the baptism of Christ with faith.-The Word, that is the sign, impressed on the soul in Christian doctrine, is real Being (infinite) manifest by itself, which we thereupon recognize to be the second person of the Most Blessed Trinity. 29. We think that the following conjecture is by no means at variance with Catholic doctrine, which alone is truth: In the Eucharistic sacra- ment the substance of bread and wine becomes the true flesh and true blood of Christ, when Christ makes it the terminus of His sentient principle, and vivifies it with His life; almost in that way by which bread and wine truly are transubstantiated into our flesh and blooci, be- cause they become the terminus of our sentient principle. 30. When transubstantiation has been accomplished, it can be under- stood that to the glorious body of Christ some part is added, incorporated in it, undivided, and equally glorious. 3I. In the sacrament of the Eucharist by the power of words the body and blood of Christ are present only in that measure which corresponds ( a quel tanto) to the substance of the bread and wine, which are tran- substantiated; the rest of the body of Christ is there through concomi- tance. 32. Since he who does not eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink of His blood, does not have life in him [ cf. John 6:54 ], and nevertheless those who die with the baptism of water, of blood, or of desire, cer- tainly attain eternal life, it must be said that these who have not eaten
of the body and blood of Christ, are administered this heavenly food in the future life, at the very moment of death.-Hence, also to the saints of the Old Testament Christ was able by descending into hell to com- municate Himself under the appearances of bread and wine, in order to make them ready for the vision of God. 33. Since the demons possessed the fruit, they thought that they would 1923 enter into man, if he should eat of it; for, when the food was turned into the animated body of man, they themselves were able freely to enter the animality, i.e., into the subjective life of this being, and so to dispose of it as they had proposed. 34. To preserve the Blessed Virgin Mary from the taint of origin, it 1924 was enough for the slightest seed in man to remain uncorrupted, neg- lected perchance by the demon himself, from which uncorrupted seed transfused from generation to generation the Virgin Mary might arise in her time. 35. The more the order of justification in man is considered, the more 1925 appropriate appears the Scriptural way of saying that God covers and does not reckon certain sins.-According to the Psalmist [ cf. Ps. 3 r: r] there is a difference between iniquities which are forgiven, and sins which are covered; the former, as it seems, are actual and willing faults; but the latter are willing sins on the part of those who pertain to the people of God, to whom on this account they bring no harm. 36. The supernatural order is established by the manifestation of being 1926 in the fullness of its real form; the effect of this communication or mani- festation is a deiform sense, which begun in this life establishes the light of faith and of grace; completed in the other life establishes the iight of glory. 37. The first light rendering the soul intelligent is ideal being; the 1927 other first light is also being, not merely ideal, but subsisting and living; that concealing its personality shows only its objectivity; but he who sees the other ( which is the Word), even through a reflection or in enigma, sees God. 38. God is the object of the beatific vision, insofar as He is the author 1928 of works outwardly. 39. The traces of wisdom and goodness which shine out in creatures 1929 are necessary for possessors ( of God); for they are collected in the eternal exemplar as that part of Him which can be seen by them (creatures), and they furnish material for the praises which the Blessed sing forever to God. 40. Since God cannot, not even by the light of glory, communicate 1930 Himself wholly to finite beings, He was not able to reveal and com- municate His essence to possessors ( of God), except in that way which
Leo XIII, 1878-I<)OJ is accommodated to finite intelligences; that is, God manifests Himself to them, insofar as He has relations with them, as their creator, provider, redeemer, sanctifier. 1930a The judgment: The Holy Office "has decided that these propositions, in the author's own sense, are to be disproved and proscribed, according as it does disprove, condemn, and proscribe by this general decree. . . . His Holiness has approved, confirmed, and ordered that the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers be observed by all."
Bounds of Liberty, and Human Action 1 [From the Encyclical, "Libertas, praestantissimum," 20th of June, 1888]
[Finally] many do not approve the separation of Church and state but yet think that the Church ought to yield to the times, and adapt and accommodate herself to what the prudence of the day in administer- ing governments demands. The opinion of these is good, if this is under- stood of some equitable plan which can be consistent with truth and justice, namely, such that the Church, exploring the hope of some great good, would show herself indulgent and bestow upon the times that which she can, while preserving the sanctity of her office.-But this is not so in matters and doctrines which a change of morals and a fallacious judgment have unlawfully introduced . . . And so from what has been said it follows that it is by no means law- ful to demand, to defend, and to grant indiscriminate freedom of thought, writing, teaching, and likewise of belief, as if so many rights which nature has given to man. For if nature had truly given these, it would be right to reject God's power, and human liberty could be re- strained by no law.-Similarly it follows that these kinds of freedom can indeed be tolerated, if there are just reasons, yet with definite mod- eration, lest they degenerate into caprice and indulgence. Whenever domination presses or impends such as to hold the state in subjection by an unjust force, or to force the Church to lack due free- dom, it is right to seek some tempering of the government in which it is permitted to act with freedom; for in this case that immoderate and vicious freedom is not demanded, but some relief is sought for the good of all, and this only is a concern, that, where license for evil deeds is granted, there opportunity for doing right be not impeded. And furthermore it is not of itself contrary to one's duty to prefer a form of government regulated by the popular class, provided Catholic doctrine as to the origin and administration of public power be main- tained. Of the various kinds of government, the Church indeed rejects 1 ASS 20 (1887), 612 f.; AL III u8 ff.
none, provided they are suited of themselves to care for the welfare of citizens; but she wishes, what nature clearly demands likewise, that each be constituted without injury to anyone, and especially with the preserva- tion of the rights of the Church. To engage in the affairs of public administration is honorable, unless 1935 somewhere because of a special condition of circumstances and the times it be deemed best otherwise; the Church by all means approves of every one contributing his services to the common interest, and, insofar as everyone can, guarding, preserving, and advancing the state. Nor does the Church condemn this: to seek to free one's people from 1936 serving a foreign or despotic power, provided it can be done while preserving justice. Finally she does not censure those who wish to have their government live according to its own laws; and their fellow citizens enjoy all possible means for increasing prosperity. The Church has always been a supporter of civic liberties without intemperance, and to this the Italian states especially attest; witness the prosperity, wealth, and glory of their name obtained by municipal law, at a time when the salutary power of the Church had spread to all parts of the state without any opposition.
Love for Church and Fatherland 1 [From the Encyclical, "Sapientiae christianae," January 10, 1890)
It cannot be doubted that in daily life the duties of Catholics are more 1936a numerous and more serious than those of such as are either little aware of the Catholic faith or entirely inexperienced in it. . . . The man who has embraced the Christian faith as he ought, by that very fact is subject to the Church as if born of her, and becomes a participant in her world- wide and most holy society, which it is the proper duty of the Roman Pontiff to rule with supreme power, under the invisible head, Jesus Christ.-Now indeed, if we are bidden by the law of nature especially to love and protect the land in which we were brought forth and raised into this light, so that the good citizen does not hesitate even to encounter death for the fatherland, it is a far greater duty for Christians ever to be affected in similar wise toward the Church. For the Church is the holy land of the living God, born of God himself, and established by the same Author, who indeed is on a pilgrimage in the land; calling men, and training and leading them to eternal happiness in heaven. Therefore, the fatherland must be loved, from which we receive the enjoyment of mortal life; but we must love the Church more to whom we owe the love of the soul which will last forever, because it is right to hold the 1 ASS 22 (1889/90) 385 ff.; AL X (At Rome, 1891), 13 ff.
blessings of the spmt above the blessings of the body, and the duties toward God are much more sacred than those toward man. 1936b But, if we wish to judge rightly, the supernatural love of the Church and the natural love of the fatherland are twin loves coming from the same eternal principle, since God himself is the author and the cause of both; therefore, it follows that one duty cannot be in conflict with the other. . . . Nevertheless, the order of these duties, either because of the troubles of the times or the more perverse will of men, is sometimes destroyed. Instances, to be sure, occur when the state seems to demand one thing from men as citizens, and religion another from men as Christians; and this, clearly, for no other reason than that the rulers of the state either hold the sacred power of the Church as of no account, or wish it to be subject to them . . . . If the laws of the state are openly at variance with divine right, if they impose any injury upon the Church, or oppose those duties which are of religion, or violate the authority of Jesus Christ in the Supreme Pontiff, then indeed to resist is a duty, to obey a crime; and this is bound with injury to the state itself, since whatever is an offense in religion is a sin against the state.
The Apostolate of the Laity 1 [From the same Encyclical]
1936c And there is no reason for anyone to object that Jesus Christ, the guardian and champion of the Church, by no means needs the help of men. For, not because of any lack of strength, but because of the magni- tude of His goodness does He wish that some effort be contributed by us toward obtaining and acquiring the fruits of the salvation which He Himself has procured. The most important features of this duty are: to profess Catholic doctrine openly and firmly, and to propagate it as much as each one can . . . . Surely the duty of preaching, that is of teaching, belongs by divine right to the masters whom "the Holy Ghost hath placed as bishops to rule the Church of God" [cf. Acts 20:28], and especially to the Roman Pontiff, vicar of Jesus Christ, placed with supreme power over the whole Church, the master of all that is to be believed and to be practiced. Nevertheless, let no one think that private persons are pro- hibited from taking any active part in teaching, especially those to whom God has granted the ability of mind with a zeal for meritorious service. These, as often as circumstances demand, can well take upon themselves the role not indeed of teacher, but they can impart to others what they themselves have received, resounding like an echo with the voice of their masters. Indeed, this work of the private person has seemed to the 1 ASS 22 (1889/90), 391 f.; AL X (At Rome, 1891) 20 ff.
Fathers of the Vatican Council to be so opportune and fruitful that they have decided furthermore to invite it: "Let all the faithful of Christ contribute their efforts" [Seen. 1819].-Moreover, let everyone remem- ber that he can and ought to sow the Catholic faith by the authority of his example, and to preach it by continual profession.-In the duties, then, that bind us to God and to the Church, this especially should be num- bered, that the industry of everyone should be exercised, insofar as possible, in propagating Christian truth and in repelling errors.
The Material of the Eucharist (Wine) 1 [From the Response of the Holy Office, May 8th, 1887; and July 30, 1890 j
Two remedies are proposed by the Bishop of Carcassum to guard 1937 against the danger of the spoiling of wine: 1. Let a small quantity of eau de vie be added to the natural wine. 2. Let the wine be boiled to the extent of sixty-five degrees. To the quest10n whether these remedies are lawful in the case of wine for the sacrifice of the Mass, and which is to be preferred, The answer 1s: The wine is to be preferred as is set forth in the second place. The Bishop of Marseilles explains and asks: In many parts of France, especially in those located toward the south, the white wine which does service at the bloodless sacrifice of the Mass is so weak and impotent that it cannot be kept for long, unless a quantity of the spirit of wine ( spirits of alcohol) is mixed with the same. 1. Is a mixture of this kind lawful? 2. And if so, what quantity of such extraneous matter may be added to the wine? 3. In case of an affirmative answer, is it required to extract the spirit of wine from pure wine or from the fruit of the vine? The answer is: Provided that the spirit (alcohol) has been extracted from the fruit of the vine, and the quantity of alcohol added to that which the wine in question naturally contains does not exceed a proportion of twelve per- cent, and the mixture is made when the wine is very new, there 1s no objection to this wine being used in the sacrifice of the Mass. 2
1 ASS 23 (1890/91) 699 f. 2 A similar response was given for Brazil, August 5, 1896. (ASS 29 [1896/97], 317; AE 4 [1896], 385 a), and in a reply to the Bishop of Tarragona the quantity of alcohol was extended even to 17 or 18 percent, when the wine already naturally has 12 percent or more (ASS ibid., 318; AE ibid., 484 a).
Leo XIII, 1878-I<JOJ
The Right of Private Property, Just Reward for Labor, and the Right of Entering Private Unions 1 [From the Encyclical, "Rerum novarum," May 15, 1891]
1938a The right to possess private property as one's own is granted man by nature . . . . Nor is there any reason why the providence of the state should be introduced; for man is older than the state, and therefore he should have had by nature, before any state had come into existence, the right to care for life and body. . . . For those things which are required to preserve life, and especially to make life complete, the earth, to be sure, pours forth in great abundance; but it could not pour it from itself with- out its cultivation and care by man. Now, when a man applies the activity of his mind and the strength of his body to procuring the goods of nature, by this very act he attaches to himself that part of corporeal nature which he has cultivated, on which he leaves impressed a kind of form as it were, of his personality; so that it should by all means be right for him to possess this part as his own; and by no means should anyone be permitted to violate this right of his.-So obvious is the force of these arguments that it seems amazing that certain ones who would restore obsolete opinions should disagree with them; these, to be sure, concede to the private person the use of the soil and the various fruits of estates, but they deny openly that it is right that either the soil on which he has built, or the estate which he has cultivated be owned by him . . . . Indeed, rights of this kind which belong to men individually are understood to be much stronger, if they are looked upon as appropriate to and connected with his duties in domestic and social life. . . . This right of property, then, which we have demonstrated to have been as- signed to an individual person by nature, through which he is the head of the family, ought to be transferred to man; rather, that right is so much the stronger, as the human person embraces more responsibilities in domestic and social society. The most holy law of nature is that the father of a family provide with training and livelihood all whom he has begotten; and, likewise, it is deduced from nature herself that he seek to acquire and prepare for his children, who bear and continue in a way the father's personality, that by which they can honorably protect them- selves from a wretched fate in this uncertain course of life. But this he cannot effect in any way other than by the possession of lucrative prop- erty to transmit by inheritance to his children. . . . To wish, therefore, that the civil government at its own option penetrate even to the intimate affairs of the home is a great and pernicious error..•. The power of the father is such that it can neither be destroyed nor absorbed by the 1 ASS 23 (1890/91), 641 ff.; AL XI (At Rome, 1891), 100 ff.
Leo XIII, 1878-I<)OJ state..•• Therefore, when the alleviation of the masses is sought, let this be enduring, that it must be held as fundamental that private property is to be inviolable. The just possession of money is distinguished from the just use of 1938b money. To possess goods privately, as we have seen above, is a natural right of man; and to exercise this right, especially in the society of life, is not only lawful but clearly necessary. . . . But, if indeed this is asked, of what nature must the use of goods be, the Church answers without hesitation: As far as this is concerned, man ought not to hold his ex- terior possessions as his own, but as common, so that one may easily share them in the need of others. Therefore, the Apostle says: "Charge the rich of this world ..• to give easily, to communicate" [I Tim. 6:17 f.]. 1 No one, certainly, is ordered to give assistance to others from that which pertains to his own use and that of the members of his family; nor also to give over to others what he himself needs to preserve what befits his person, and what is proper.•.. But when sufficient care has been given to necessity and decorum, it is a duty to assist the indigent from what remains: "That which remaineth, give alms," [Luke 11 :41]. These are not duties of justice, except in extreme cases, but of Christian charity, which of course it is not right to seek by legal action. But the law and judgment of Christ are above the laws and judgments of men, and He in many ways urges the practice of almsgiving . . . and He will judge a kindness conferred upon or denied to the poor as conferred upon or denied to Himself [ cf. Matt. 25: 34 f.]. Labor by nature has, as it were, placed two marks upon man, namely, 1938c that it is personal, because the driving force inheres in the person and is entirely his own by whom it is exercised, and comes into being for his advantage; then, that it is necessary, for this reason, because the fruit of labor is needed by man to guard life; moreover, the nature of things bids (us) to guard life, and especially must we obey nature. Now, if labor is considered only from this viewpoint, that it is personal, there is no doubt but that it is sound for the worker to prescribe a smaller rate of pay; for just as he offers his services of his free will, so, too, of his free will he can be content with a slight pay for his services, or even no pay at all. But the case is to be judged much differently, if with the reason of personality is joined the reason of necessity, separable from the former, to be sure, in theory, not in fact. Actually to continue in life is the common duty of every individual, for whom to lack this persistence is a crime. Therefore, the right to discover that by which life is sustained is born of necessity, and the means to obtain this is supplied to all the poor only by the pay for his labor which is in demand. So, granted that the workman and employer freely agree on the contract, as well as specifically on the 1 St. Thomas, Summa theol. Ila Hae, q. 66, a. 2.
rate of pay, yet there is always underlying this something from natural justice, and this greater and more ancient than the will of those who make the contract, namely, that the pay must by no means be inadequate to support the worker, who indeed is frugal and of good character. But if the worker, forced by necessity, or moved by fear of a worse evil, accepts the harder condition, which, even if he does not wish it, must be accepted because it is imposed by the employer or the contractor, this certainly is to submit to force, against which justice cries out. . . . If the worker obtains sufficient pay, so as by it to be able to sustain himself, wife, and children comfortably, he will without difficulty apply himself to thrift, if he is wise, and he will bring it about, as nature herself seems to urge, that, after expenses are deducted, some be left over whereby he may attain a moderate estate. For we have seen that the case which is being discussed cannot be solved by effective reasoning except by this as- sumption and principle: that the right to private property must be held sacred. . . Nevertheless, these benefits cannot be attained except by the enormity of contributions and taxes. For, since the right to possess private property is granted not by the laws of man but by nature, the authority of the state cannot abolish it, but only temper its practice, and order it to the common good. Therefore, it would act unjustly and inhumanely, if it should detract from private property more than is just, under the name of taxes. . • • 1938d It is comforting to observe that societies of this kind are being formed generally, either composed entirely of workers, or from both classes; moreover, it is to be desired that they grow in number and in effective influence. . . . For, it is permitted man by the right of nature to enter private societies; moreover, the state is established for the protection of natural right, not for its destruction; and so, if it forbids the formation of associations of citizens, it clearly acts at odds with itself, since it itself, as well as private associations, come into existence from a single prin- ciple, that men are by nature social.-Occasions sometimes arise when it is just for laws to forbid such societies, namely, if they deliberately aim at something which is clearly at variance with probity, justice, and the welfare of the state. 1
1 Cf. the letter of the S.C. Council to the Bishop of Lille, on a certain conflict be- tween workers and contractors which arose in the region on June 5th, 1929 (ASS :n [1929] 494 ff.).
The Duel 1 From the Letter, "Pastoralis Officii," to the Bishops of Germany and Austria, Sept. 12, 1891]
The two divine laws, that which is promulgated by the light of natural 1939 reason, and that by letters written under divine inspiration, strict! y forbid the killing or wounding of anyone outside a public cause, unless forced by necessity to defend his own safety. But those who provoke to a private struggle, or accept a challenge do this; they lend their minds and their strength to this, although bound by no necessity, to take the life, or at least to inflict a wound on an adversary. Furthermore, the two divine laws forbid anyone rashly casting aside his own life, subjecting it to grave and manifest danger, when no reason of duty, or of magnanimous charity urges it; but this blind rashness, contemner of life, is clearly in the nature of a duel. Therefore, it can be obscure and doubtful to no one that upon those who engage in individual combat privately, fall both crimes, that of another's destruction, and of voluntarily endangering his own life. Finally, there is scarcely any affliction which is more at variance with the good order of civil life, than the license permitted a citizen to be his own individual defender of the law by private force, and the avenger of honor which he thinks has been violated. Nor do those who accept combat when it is offered have fear as a 1940 just excuse, because they dread to be held cowards in public if they decline battle. For, if the duties of men were to be measured by the false opinions of the public, there would be no natural and true distinction according to an eternal norm of right and justice between honest actions and shameful deeds. Even the pagan philosophers knew and taught that the false judgments of the public are to be spurned by a strong and stable man. Rather is the fear just and sacred, which turns a man away from unjust slaughter, and makes him sollicitous of his own safety and that of his brothers. Surely, he who spurns the valid judgments of the public, wh0 prefers to undergo the scourges of contumely than to abandon duty in any matter, this man, surely, is of a far greater and higher mind than he who when annoyed by an injury rushes to arms. Yes, indeed, if there is a desire for right judgment, he is the one in whom stout fortitude shines, that fortitude, I say, which is truly called a virtue and whose companion is glory, not counterfeited and not false. For virtue consists in a good in accord with reason, and all glory is foolish except that which depends on the judgment of God who approves. 1 AL (ed. Rom.) xi 283 If.; ASS 24 (1891/92) 204 b.
The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mediatrix of Graces 1 [The Encyclical, "Octobri mense," on the Rosary, Sept. 22, 1891]
1940a The eternal Son of God, when He wished to assume the nature of man for the redemption and glory of man, and for this reason was about to enter upon a kind of mystic marriage with the entire human race, did not do this before He received the wholly free consent of His designated mother, who, in a way, played the part of the human race itself, accord- ing to that famous and truthful opinion of Aquinas: "Through the Annunciation the Virgin's consent was looked for in place of all human nature." 2 Therefore, no less truly and properly may it be affirmed that nothing at all of the very great treasure of every grace, which the Lord confers, since "grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" [John 1:17], nothing is imparted to us except through Mary, God so willing; so, just as no one can approach the highest Father except through the Son, so no one can approach Christ except through His Mother.
[From the Encyclical, "Fidentem," on the Rosary, Sept. 20, 1896] 8 For, surely, no one person can be conceived who has ever made, or at any time will make an equal contribution as Mary to the reconciliation of men with God. Surely, she it was who brought the Savior to man as he was rushing into eternal destruction, at that very time when, with wonderful assent, she received "in place of all human nature" • the message of the peace making sacrament brought to earth by the Angel; she it is "of whom was born Jesus" [Matt. 1:16], namely, His true Mother, and for this reason she is worthy and quite acceptable as the mediatrix to the Mediator.
The Study of Holy Scripture 5 [From the Encyclical, "Providentissimus Deus," Nov., 1893]
Since there is need of a definite method of carrying on interpretation profitably, let the prudent teacher avoid either of two mistakes, that of those who give a cursory glance to each book, and that of those who delay too long over a certain part of one. . . . [The teacher] in this [work] will take as his text the Vulgate version, which the Council of Trent decreed [ see n. 785] should be considered as authentic in public 1 ASS 24 (1891), 196 £.; AL V ro. 2 Summa theol., Illa, q. 30, a. I. 1 ASS 29 (1896), 206; AL VI 214. • S. Thomas Aq., Summa theol., Illa, q. 30, a. r. 1 ASS 26 (1893/94), 278 ff.; AE 2 (1894), 3 ff.; AL V 210 ff.; EB 90 ff.
lectures, disputations, sermons, and expositions, and which the daily custom of the Church commends. Yet account will have to be taken of the remaining versions which Christian antiquity has commended and used, especially of the very ancient manuscripts. For although, as far as the heart of the matter is concerned, the meaning of the Hebrew and the Greek is well elucidated in the expressions of the Vulgate, yet if anything is set forth therein with ambiguity, or if without accuracy "an examina- tion of the preceding language" will be profitable, as Augustine advises. 1 •.. The Synod of the Vatican adopted the teaching of the Fathers, 1942 when, as it renewed the decree of Trent on the interpretation of the divine Word, it declared this to be its mind, that in matters of faith and morals, which pertain to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of Holy Scripture which Mother Church has held and holds, whose prerogative it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of Scripture; and, therefore, it is permitted to no one to interpret the Holy Scripture against this sense, or even against the unanimous agreement of the Fathers [seen. 786, 1788]. By this very wise law the Church by no means retards or blocks the investigations of Biblical science, but rather keeps it free of error, and aids it very much in true progress. For, to every private teacher a large field is open in which along safe paths, by his industry in interpretation, he may labor efficaciously and profitably for the Church. Indeed, in those passages of divine Scripture which still lack certain and definite exposition, it can be so effected by the kindly counsel of a provident God, that by a prepared study the judgment of the Church may be expedited; but in passages which have been explained the private teacher can be of equal help, if he sets these forth very clearly among the masses of the people, and more skillfully among the learned, or defends them more eminently against adversaries. . . . In the other passages the analogy of faith must be followed, and 1943 Catholic doctrine, as received on the authority of the Church, must be employed as the highest norm . . . . Wherefore, it is clear that that interpretation must be rejected as senseless and false, which either makes inspired authors in some manner quarrel among themselves, or opposes the teaching of the Church...• Now, the authority of the Fathers, by whom after the apostles, the 1944 growing Church was disseminated, watered, built, protected, and nur- tured, 2 is the highest authority, as often as they all in one and the same way interpret a Biblical text, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith and morals. The authority of the other Catholic interpreters is, indeed, less; yet, 1945 1 St. Augustine, De doctrina christ. 1. 3, c. 3 and 4 [ML 34, 68]. 2 St. Augustine, Contra Julian. Pelag. 1. 2, c. 10, n. 37 [ML 44, 700].
since Biblical studies have had a certain continuous progress in the Church, their own honor must likewise be allotted to their commen- taries, and much can be sought opportunely from these to refute contrary opinion and to solve the more difficult problems. But, it is entirely un- fitting that anyone should ignore and look down upon the works which our own have left in abundance, and prefer the books of the heterodox; and to the immediate danger to sound doctrine and not rarely to the damage of faith seek from these, explanations of passages to which Catholics have long and very successfully directed their geniuses and labors. . . . The first [ aid to interpretation] is in the study of the ancient Oriental languages, and in the science which is called criticism. 1 There- fore, it is necessary for teachers of Sacred Scripture and proper for theologians to have learned those languages in which the canonical books were originally written by the sacred writers . . . . These, moreover, for the same reason should be more learned and skilled in the field of the true science of criticism; for to the detriment of religion there has falsely been introduced an artifice, dignified by the name of higher criticism, by which from internal evidence alone, as they say, the origin, integrity, and authority of any book emerge as settled. On the other hand it is very clear that in historical questions, such as the origin and preservation of books, the evidences of history are of more value than the rest, and should be gathered and investigated very carefully; moreover, that the methods 1 Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter, "Vigilantiae," Oct. 30, 1902; "de studiis s. Scripturae provehendis," among other things wrote the following:·"Our own [faithful], with Our strong approval, cultivate the field of scientific criticism, for it is very useful in thoroughly perceiving the mind of the sacred writers. They also sharpen this same skill by applying to a passage the resources of the heterodox with no opposition on Our part. But, let them look out lest from this practice they imbibe intemperance of judgment; for the artifice of so-called higher criticism often deteriorates into this, whose dangerous temerity We ourselves have denounced more than once" (ASS 35 [1902/03] 236). Pius X in a letter given Jan. II, 1906, to the Bishop of La Rochelle, Le Camus, spoke as follows: "This especially must be granted you in the way of praise, that you hold to that way of explaining the Sacred Scripture, which under the leadership of the Church must be completely held for allegiance to truth and for the glory of Catholic doctrine. For, as in fact the temerity is to be condemned of those who attribute more to novelty than to the magisterium of the Church, and do not hesitate to employ an immoderately free kind of criticism, so is the method of those not to be approved who dare to depart in nothing from the customary exegesis of Scripture, even when with the preservation of faith a good growth of studies demands this. You proceed in the right way between these [extremes], and by your example you show that nothing is to be feared by the Sacred Books from the true progress of the science of criticism, but rather that favorable light can be sought from this; so, surely, if a prudent and honest judgment should be applied to it [L'Unita cattolica, Firenza, February 4, 1906; AE 14 (1906), 99. Versio Lat. ex: Civilta catt., a. 57 (1906) II 484 £.].
49 1 of internal criticism are not of such value that they can be applied to a case except for a kind of confirmation . . . . This same method of higher criticism, which is extolled, will finally result in everyone following his own enthusiasm and prejudiced opinion when interpreting. Knowledge of the natural sciences will be of great help to the teacher 1947 of Sacred Scripture, by which he can more easily discover and refute fallacious arguments of this kind drawn up against the Sacred Books.- Indeed there should be no real disagreement between the theologian and the physicist, provided that each confines himself within his own territory, watching out for this, according to St. Augustine's 1 warning, "not to make rash assertions, and to declare the unknown as known." But, if they should disagree, a summary rule as to how a theologian should conduct himself is offered by the same author. 2 "Whatever," he says, "they can demonstrate by genuine proofs regarding the nature of things, let us show that it is not contrary to our Scriptures; but whatever they set forth in their volumes contrary to our Scriptures, that is to Catholic faith, let us show by some means, or let us believe without any hesitation to be most false." As to the equity of this rule let us consider, first, that the sacred writers or more truly "the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men these things (namely, the innermost constitution of the visible universe) as being of no profit to salvat10n"; 3 that, therefore, they do not carry an explanation of nature scientifically, but rather sometimes describe and treat the facts themselves, either in a figurative manner, or in the common language of their times, as today in many matters of daily life is true among most learned men themselves. Moreover, when these things which fall under the senses, are set forth first and properly, the sacred writer (and the Angelic Doctor also advised it) "describes what is obvious to the senses," 4 or what God Himself, when addressing men, signified in a human way, according to their capacity. Because the defense of Holy Scripture must be carried on vigorously, 1948 all the opinions which the individual Fathers or the recent interpreters have set forth in explaining it need not be maintained equally. For they, in interpreting passages where physical matters are concerned have made judgments according to the opinions of the age, and thus not always according to truth, so that they have made statements which today are not approved. Therefore, we must carefully discern what they hand down which really pertains to faith or is intimately connected with it, and what they hand down with unanimous consent; for "in those matters which 1 Cf. St. Augustine, De Gen. ad litt. imperf., lib. c. 9, n. 30 [ML 34, 233]. 2 I<lem, De Gen. ad litt. I. 1, c. 21, n. 41 [ML 34,462]. 8 I<lem, ibid. r. 2, c. 9, n. 20 [ML 34, 270]. 4 St. Thomas, Summa Theo!. la I!ae, q. So, a. 1, a<l 3.
are not under the obligation of faith, the saints were free to have different opinions, just as we are," 1 according to the opinion of St. Thomas. In another passage he most prudently holds: "It seems to me to be safer that such opinions as the philosophers have expressed in common and are not repugnant to our faith should not be asserted as dogmas of the faith, even if they are introduced some times under the names of philosophers, nor should they thus be denied as contrary to faith, lest an opportunity be afforded to the philosophers of this world to belittle the teachings of the faith." 2 Of course, although the interpreter should show that what scientists have affirmed by certain arguments to be now certain in no way opposes 3 the Scriptures rightly explained, let it not escape his notice that it some- times has happened that what they have given out as certain has later been brought into uncertainty and repudiated. But, if writers on physics transgressing the boundaries of their science, invade the province of the philosophers with perverse opinions, let the theological interpreter hand these opinions over to the philosophers for refutation. Then these very principles will with profit be transferred to related sciences, especially to history. For, it must regretfully be stated that there are many who examine and publish the monuments of antiquity, the customs and institutions of peoples, and evidences of similar things, but more often with this purpose, that they may detect lapses of error in the sacred books, as the result of which their authority may even be shaken and totter. And some do this with a very hostile mind, and with no truly just judgment; for they have such confidence in the pagan works and the documents of the ancient past as to believe not even a suspicion of error is present in them; but to the books of Holy Scripture, for only a presumed appearance of error, without proper discussion, they deny even a little faith. It can happen, indeed, that transcribers in copying manuscripts do so incorrectly. This is to be considered carefully and is not to be admitted readily, except in those passages where it has been properly demonstrated; it can also happen that the true sense of some passage remains ambiguous; the best rules of interpretation will contribute much toward the solution of this problem; but it would be entirely wrong either to confine in- spiration only to some parts of Sacred Scripture, or to concede that the sacred author himself has erred. For the method of those is not to be tolerated, who extricated themselves from these difficulties by readily granting that divine inspiration pertains to matters of faith and morals, and nothing more. 1 In Sent. 2, dist. 2, q. r, a. 3. 2 Opusc. 10; reply on 42 articles (preface). 1 E. B., om esse.
The books, all and entire, which the Church accepts as sacred and 1951 canonical, with all their parts, have been written at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; so far is it from the possibility of any error being present to divine inspiration, that it itself of itself not only excludes all error, but excludes it and rejects it as necessarily as it is necessary that God, the highest Truth, be the author of no error whatsoever. This is the ancient and uniform faith of the Church, defined also by 1952 solemn opinion at the Councils of Florence [see n. 706] and of Trent [ see n. 783 ff.], finally confirmed and more expressly declared at the Vatican Council, by which it was absolutely declared: "The books of the Old and New Testament . . . have God as their author" [ see n. 1787 ]. Therefore, it matters not at all that the Holy Spirit took men as instru- ments for the writing, as if anything false might have slipped, not indeed from the first Author, but from the inspired writers. For, by supernatural power He so roused and moved them to write, He stood so near them, that they rightly grasped in mind all those things, and those only, which He Himself ordered, and willed faithfully to write them down, and expressed them properly with infallible truth; other- wise, He Himself would not be the author of all Sacred Scripture. . . . And so utterly convinced were all the Fathers and Doctors that the holy works, which were published by the hagiographers, are free of every error, that they were very eager, no less skillfully than reverently, to arrange and reconcile those not infrequent passages which seemed to offer something contrary and at variance ( they are almost the very passages which. are now thrown up to us under the name of the new science); and they professed unanimously that these books, both in whole and in part, were equally of divine inspiration, and that God Himself, speaking through the sacred authors, could have set down nothing at all at variance with the truth. Let what the same Augustine wrote to Jerome sum this up: " . . . If I shall meet anything in these works which seems contrary to truth, I shall not hesitate to believe anything other than that the text is false, or that the translator did not understand what was said, or that I did not in the least understand." 1 •.. For many objections from every kind of teaching have for long 1953 been persistently hurled against Scripture, which now, quite dead, hav.! fallen into disuse; likewise, at times not a few interpretations have been placed on certain passages of Scripture ( not properly pertinent to the rule of faith and morals) in which a more careful investigation has seen the meaning more accurately. For, surely, time destroys the falsities of opinions, but "truth remaineth and groweth stronger forever and ever." 2 1 St. August., Ep. 82, 1, n. 3 [ML 33 (Aug. II), 277] and oftener elsewhere. 2 3 Esd. 4, 38.
The Unity of the Church 1 [From the Encyclical, "Satis cognitum," June 29, 1896]
Surely, it is so well established among all according to clear and manifold testimony that the true Church of Jesus Christ is one, that no Christian dare contradict it. But in judging and establishing the nature of this unity various errors have led off the true way. Indeed, not only the rise of the Church, but its entire establishment pertain to that class of things effected by free choice. Therefore, the entire judgment must be called back to that which was actually done, and we must not of course examine how the Church can be one, but how He who founded it wished it to be one. Now, if we look at what was done, Jesus Christ did not arrange and organize such a Church as would embrace several communities similar in kind, but distinct, and not bound together by those bonds that make the Church indivisible and unique after that manner clearly in which we profess in the symbol of faith,"[ believe in one Church." . . . Now, Jesus Christ when He was speaking of such a mystical edifice, spoke only of one Church which He called His own: "I will build my Church" [Matt. 16:18]. Whatever other church is under consideration than this one, since it was not founded by Jesus Christ, cannot be the true Church of Christ. . . . And so the Church is bound to spread among all men the salvation accomplished by Jesus Christ, and all the blessings that proceed therefrom, and to propagate them through the ages. Therefore, according to the will of its Author the Church must be alone in all lands in the perpetuity of time. . . . The Church of Christ, therefore, is one and perpetual; whoever go apart (from it) wander away from the will and prescription of Christ the Lord and, leaving the way of salvation, digress to destruction. But He who founded the only Church, likewise founded it as one; namely, in such a way that whoever are to be in it, would be held bound together by the closest bonds, so much so that they form one people, one kingdom, one body: "One body and one spirit, as you are called in one hope of your calling" [Eph. 4:4] . . . . Agreement and union cf minds are the necessary foundation of so great and so absolute a concord among men, from which a concurrence of wills and a similarity of action naturally arise . . . . Therefore, to unite the minds of men, and to effect and preserve the union of their minds, granted the existence of Holy Writ, there was great need of a certain other principle . . . . Therefore, Jesus Christ instituted in the Church a living, authentic, and likewise permanent magisterium, which He strengthened by His 1 ASS 28 (1895/96), 711 ff.; AE 4 (1896), 247 a ff.; AL VI 160 ff.
own power, taught by the Spirit of Truth, and confirmed by miracles. The precepts of its doctrines He willed and most seriously commanded to be accepted equally with His own . . . . This, then, is without any doubt the office of the Church, to watch over Christian doctrine and to propagate it soundly and without corruption . . . . But, just as heavenly doctrine was never left to the judgment and mind 1958 of individuals, but in the beginning was handed down by Jesus, then committed separately to that magzsterium which has been mentioned, so, also, was the faculty of performing and administering the divine mys- teries, together with the power of ruling and governing divinely, granted not to individuals [generally] of the Christian people but to certain of the elect. . . . Therefore, Jesus Christ called upon all mortals, as many as were, and 1959 as many as were to be, to follow Him as their leader, and likewise their Savior, not only separately one by one, but also associated and united alike in fact and in mind; one in faith, end, and the means proper to that end, and subject to one and the same power. . . . Therefore, the Church is a society divine in origin, supernatural in its end, and in the means which bring us closest to that end; but inasmuch as it unites with men, it is a human community. When the divine Founder decreed that the Church be one in faith, and 1960 in government, and in communion, He chose Peter and his successors in whom should be the principle and as it were the center of unity . . . . But, order of bishops, as Christ commanded, is to be regarded as joined with Peter, if it be subject to Peter and obey him; otherwise it necessarily descends into a confused and disorderly crowd. For the proper preserva- tion of faith and the unity of mutual participation, it is not enough to hold higher offices for the sake of honor, nor to have general supervision, but there is absolute need of true authority and a supreme authority which the entire community should obey . . . . Hence those special expressions of the ancients regarding St. Peter, which brilliantly proclaim him as placed in the highest degree of dignity and authority. They everywhere called him prince of the assembly of disciples, prince of the holy apostles, leader of that choir, mouthpiece of all the apostles, head of that family, superintendent of the whole world, first among the apostles, pillar of the Church . . . . But it is far from the truth and openly opposed to the divine constitu- 1961 tion, to hold that it is right for individual bishops to be subordinate to the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiffs, but not for all taken together . . . . Now this power, about which we speak, over the college of bishops, which Holy Writ clearly discloses, the Church has at no time ceased to acknowl- edge and attest•... For these reasons in the decree of the Vatican Council [see n. 1826 ff.], regarding the power and authority of the
primacy of the Roman Pontiff, no new opinion is introduced, but the old and uniform faith of all ages is asserted. Nor, indeed, does the fact that the same (bishops) are subordinate to a twofold power cause any con- fusion in administration. In the first place, we are prohibited from suspecting any such thing by God's wisdom, by whose counsel that very form of government was established. Secondly, we should note that the order of things and their mutual relations are confused, if there are two magistrates of the same rank among the people, neither of them respon- sible to the other. But the power of the Roman Pontiff is supreme, universal, and definitely peculiar to itself; but that of the bishops is circumscribed by definite limits, and definitely peculiar to them- selves . . . . But Roman Pontiffs, mindful of their office, wish most of all that whatever is divinely instituted in the Church be preserved; therefore, as they watch with all proper care and vigilance their own power, so they have always seen to it that their authority be preserved for the bishops. Rather, whatever honor is paid the bishops, whatever obedience, all this they attribute as paid themselves.
Anglican Orders 1 [From the Letter, "Apostolicae curae," Sept. 13, 1896]
In the rite of conferring and administering any sacrament one rightly distinguishes between the ceremonial part and the essential part, which is customarily called the matter and form. And all know that ~he sacra- ments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, ought both to signify the grace which they effect, and effect the grace which they signify [ see n. 695, 849]. Although this signification should be found in the whole essential rite, namely, in matter and form, yet it pertains especially to form, since the matter is the part not determined by itself, but determined by form. And this appears more clearly in the sacrament of orders, for the conferring of which the matter, insofar as it presents itself for consideration in this case, is the imposition of hands. This, of course, by itself signifies nothing, and is employed for certain 1964 orders, and for confirmation. Now, the words which until recent times were everywhere held by the Anglicans as the proper form of priestly ordination, namely, "Receive the Holy Spirit," certainly do not in the least signify definitely the order of priesthood, or its grace and power, which is especially the power "of consecrating and of offering the true body and blood of the Lord," in that sacrifice which is no "nude com- memoration of the sacrifice offered on the Cross" [ see n. 950]. Such a 1 ASS 29 (1896/97), 198 ff.; AE 4 (1898), 380 a ff.; AL VI 204 ff.
form was indeed afterwards lengthened by these words, "for the office and work of a priest"; but this rather convinces one that the Anglicans themselves saw that this first form was defective, and not appropriate to the matter. But the same addition, if perchance indeed it could have placed legitimate significance on the form, was introdu~ed too late, since a century had elapsed after the adoption of the Edwardine Ordinal; since, moreover, with the extinction of the hierarchy, there was now no power for ordaining. The same is true in regard to episcopal consecration. For to the 1965 formula "Receive the Holy Ghost" were not only added later the words "for the office and work of a bishop," but also, as regards these very words, as we shall soon see, a different sense is to be understood than in the Catholic rite. Nor is it any advantage in the matter to bring up the prayer of the preface, "Almighty God," since this likewise has been stripped of the words which bespeak the summum sacerdotium. It is, of course, not relevant to examine here whether the episcopate is a comple- ment of the priesthood, or an order distinct from it; or whether when conferred, as they say, per saltum, that is, on a man who is not a priest, it has its effect or not. But the episcopate without doubt, from institution of Christ, most truly pertains to the sacrament of orders, and is a priest- hood of a pre-eminent grade, that which in the words of the Fathers and in the custom of our ritual is, of course, called "summum sacerdotium," "sacri ministerii summa." Therefore, it happens that since the sacrament of orders and the true sacerdotium of Christ have been utterly thrust out of the Anglican rite, and so in the consecration of a bishop of this same rite the sacerdotium is by no means conferred; likewise, by no means can the episcopacy be truly and validly conferred; and this is all the more true because among the first duties of the episcopacy is this, namely, of ordaining ministers for the Holy Eucharist and the sacrifice. . . . So with this inherent defect of form is joined the defect of intention, 1966 which it must have with equal necessity that it be a sacrament. . . . And so, assenting entirely to the decrees of all the departed Pontiffs in this case, and confirming them most fully and, as it were, renewing them by Our authority, of Our own inspiration and certain knowledge We pronounce and declare that ordinations enacted according to the Anglican rite have hitherto been and are invalid and entirely void ...•
The Faith and Intention Required for Baptism 1 [Response of the Holy Office, March 30th, 1898]
Whether a missionary can confer baptism on an adult Mohammedan 1966a at the point of death, who in his errors is supposed to be in good faith: 1 ASS 30 (1897/98), 700; Collect. S.c. de Prop. Fide II, n. 1993, 3.
Leo XIII, 1878-I<)OJ r. If he still has his full faculties, only by exhorting him to sorrow and confidence, not by speaking about our mysteries, for fear that he will not believe them. 2. Whatever of his faculties he has, by saying nothing to him, since on the one hand, he is not supposed to be wanting in contrition, and on the other, it is supposed to be imprudent to speak with him about our mysteries. 3. If now he has lost his faculties, by saying nothing further to him. Reply to I and 2: in the negative, i.e., it is not permitted to administer baptism absolutely or conditionally to such Mohammedans; and these decrees of the Holy Office were given to the Bishop of Quebec on the 25th of January, and the roth of May, 1703 [seen. 1349 a f.]. To 3: regarding Mohammedans who are dying and already deprived of their senses, we must rely as in the decree of the Holy Office, Sept. 18, 1850, to the Bishop of Pertois, that is: "If they have formerly given indications that they wish to be baptized, or in their present state either by a nod or any other manner have shown the same disposition, they can be baptized conditionally; but where the missionary after examining all collateral circumstances so judges it wise," ••• His Holiness has approved.
Americanism 1 [From the Letter, "Testem benevolentiae," to Cardinal Gibbons, January 22, 1899]
The basis of the new opinions which we have mentioned is established as essentially this: In order that those who dissent may more easily be brought over to Catholic wisdom, the Church should come closer to the civilization of this advanced age, and relaxing its old severity show indulgence to those opinions and theories of the people which have recently been introduced. Moreover, many think that this should be understood not only with regard to the standard of living, but even with regard to the doctrines in which the deposit of faith is contained. For, they contend that it is opportune to win over those who are in disagree- ment, if certain topics of doctrine are passed over as of lesser importance, or are so softened that they do not retain the same sense as the Church has always held.-Now there is no need of a long discussion to show with what a reprehensible purpose this has been thought out, if only the character and origin of the teaching which the Church hands down are considered. On this subject the Vatican Synod says: "For there is to be no receding. . . ." [ see n. 1800].
Now the history of all past ages is witness that this Apostolic See, to 1968 which not only the office of teaching, but also the supreme government of the whole Church were assigned, has indeed continually adhered "to the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same mind" [Cone. Vatic., see n. 1800]; that it has always been accustomed to modify the rule of life so as never to overlook the manners and customs of the various peoples which it embraces, while keeping the divine law unimpaired. If the safety of souls demands this, who will doubt that it will do so now?- This, however, is not to be determined by the decision of private individ- uals who are quite deceived by the appearance of right; but it should be 1969 the judgment of the Church . . . . But in the case about which we are speaking, Our Beloved Son, more danger is involved, and that advice is more inimical to Catholic doctrine and discipline, according to which the followers of new ideas think that a certain liberty should be introduced into the Church so that, in a way checking the force of its power and vigilance, the faithful may indulge somewhat more freely each one his own mind and actual capacity. The entire external teaching office is rejected by those who wish to 1970 strive for the acquisition of Christian perfection, as superfluous, nay even as useless; they say that the Holy Spirit now pours forth into the souls of the faithful more and richer gifts than in times past, and, with no intermediary, by a kind of hidden instinct teaches and moves them . . . . Yet, to one who examines the matter very thoroughly, when any ex- 1971 ternal guide is removed, it is not apparent in the thinking of the in- novators to what end that more abundant influx of the Holy Spirit should tend, which they extol so much.-Surely, it is especially in the cultivation of virtues that there is absolute need of the assistance of the Holy Spirit; but those who are eager to pursue new things extol the natural virtues beyond measure, as if they correspond better with the way of life and needs of the present day, and as if it were advantageous to be endowed with these, since they make a man better prepared and more strenuous for action.-It is indeed difficult to believe that those who are imbued with Christian knowledge can hold the natural above the supernatural virtues, and attribute to them greater efficacy and fruitfulness . . . . With this opinion about the natural virtues another is closely con- 1972 nected, according to which all Christian virtues are divided into two kinds, as it were, passive as they say, and active; and they add that the former were better suited for times past, that the latter are more in keeping with the present. . . . Moreover, he who would wish that the Christian virtues be accommodated some to one time and some to an- other, has not retained the words of the Apostle: "Whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be made conformable to the image of His Son" [Rom. 8: 29]. The master and exemplar of all sanctity is Christ, to whose
rule all, as many as wish to be admitted to the seats of the blessed, must conform. Surely, Christ by no means changes as the ages go on, but is "yesterday, and today; and the same forever" [Heb. 13:8]. Therefore, to the men of all ages does the following apply: "Learn of me, because I am meek, and humble of heart" [ Matt. 11 :29]; and at all times Christ shows himself to us "becoming obedient unto death" [Phil. 2:8]; and in every age the judgment of the Apostle holds: "And they that are Christ's have crucified their flesh with the vices and concupiscences" [Gal. 5:24]. From this contempt, as it were, of the evangelical virtues, which are wrongly called passive, it easily followed that their minds were gradually imbued with a contempt even for the religious life. And that this is common among the advocates of the new opinions we conclude from certain opinions of theirs about the vows which religious orders pro- nounce. For, they say that these vows are at very great variance with the spirit of our age, and that they are suited to weak rather than to strong minds; and that they are quite without value for Christian perfection and the good of human society, but rather obstruct and interfere with both.-But it is clearly evident how false these statements are from the practice and teaching of the Church, by which the religious way of life has always been especially approved . . . . Moreover, as for what they add, that the religious way of life is of no or of little help to the Church, besides being odious to religious orders, will surely be believed by no one who has studied the annals of the Church. . . . Finally, not to delay too long, the way and the plan which Catholics have thus far employed to bring back those who disagree with them are proclaimed to be abandoned and to be replaced by another for the future. -But if of the different ways of preaching the word of God that seems to be preferred sometimes by which those who dissent from us are addressed not in temples, but in any private and honorable place, not in disputation but in a friendly conference, the matter lacks any cause for adverse criticism, provided, however, that those are assigned to this duty by the authority of the bishops, who have beforehand given proof to the bishops of their knowledge and integrity. . . . Therefore, from what We have said thus far it is clear, Our Beloved Son, that those opinions cannot be approved by us, the sum total ot which some indicate by the name of Americanism. . . . For it raises a sus- picion that there are those among you who envision and desire a Church in America other than that which is in all the rest of the world. One in unity of doctrine as in unity of government and this Catholic, such is the Church; and since God has established that its center and foundation be in the Chair of Peter, it is rightly called Roman; for
"where Peter is, there is the Church." 1 Therefore, whoever wishes to be called by the name of Catholic, ought truly to heed the words of Jerome to Pope Damasus: "I who follow no one as first except Christ, associate myself in communion with your Beatitude, that is, with the Chair of Peter; upon that Rock, I know the Church is built [Matt. 16:18]; whoever gathereth not with thee scattereth" 2 [Matt. 12:30 ].
The Matter of Baptism 3 [From a Decree of the Holy Office, August 21, 1901]
The Archbishop of Utrecht 4 relates: "Many medical doctors in hospitals and elsewhere in cases of necessity 1977 are accustomed to baptize infants in their mother's wombs with water mixed with hydrargyrus bichloratus corrosivus (in French: chloride de mercure ). This water is compounded approximately of a solution of one part of this chloretus hydrargicus in a thousand parts of water, and with this solution of water the potion is poisonous. Now the reason why they use this mixture is that the womb of the mother may not be infected with disease." Therefore the questions: I. Is a baptism administered with such water certainly or dubiously valid? II. Is it permitted to avoid all danger of disease to administer the sacrament of baptism with such water? III. Is it permitted also to use this water when pure water can be applied without any danger of disease? The answers are ( with the approbation of Leo XIII): To I. This will be answered in II. To II. It is permitted when real danger of disease is present. To III. No.
The Use of the Most Blessed Eucharist 5 [From the Encyclical, "Mirae caritatis," May 28, 1902]
Away then with that widespread and most pernicious error on the 1978 part of those who express the opinion that the reception of the Eucharist is for the most part assigned to those who, free of cares and narrow in 1 St. Ambrose, In Ps. 40, n. 30 [ ML 14, 1082 A]. 2 St. Jerome, Ep.15, ad Damasum [ ML 22, 355 f.]. 3 ASS 34 (1901/02), 319 f.; AE 10 (1902), 9.
4 In Holland. 5 ASS 34 (1901/02), 644 f.; AE 10 (1902), 191 a.
mind, decide to rest at ease in some kind of a more religious life. For this sacrament ( and there is none certainly more excellent or more conducive to salvation than this) pertains to absolutely all, of whatever office or pre-eminence they are, as many as wish ( and no one ought not to wish this) to foster within themselves that life of divine grace, whose final end is the attainment of the blessed life with God.
The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mediatrix of Graces 1 [From the Encyclical, "Ad diem," February 2, 1904]
1978a As the result of this participation between Mary and Christ in the sorrows and the will, she deserved most worthily to be made the restorer of the lost world," 2 and so the dispenser of all the gifts which Jesus pro- cured for us by His death and blood . . . . Since she excels all in sanctity, and by her union with Christ and by her adoption by Christ for the work of man's salvation, she merited for us de congruo, as they say, what Christ merited de cond1gno, and is the first minister of the graces to be bestowed.
"Implicit Citations" in Holy Scripture 3 [From the Response of the Biblical Commission, February 13, 1905]
The question: Whether to solve difficulties that occur in some texts of Holy Scripture, which seem to present historical facts, it is permitted the Catholic exegete to state that it is a matter in these texts of the tacit or implicit citation of a document written by an author who was not inspired, all the asser- 1 ASS 36 ( 1903/04), 453 £. 2 The monk, Eadmar, The Excellence of the Virgin Mary, c. 9 [ML 159,573]. Cf. what Benedict XV, Litt. Apost., "Inter sodalicia," March 22, 1918 (AAS 10 [1918] 182) holds: "So did she suffer with her suffering and dying son, and almost die; so did she abdicate her maternal rights over her Son for the salvation of men, and to placate God"s justice, insofar as was fitting for her, so did she sacrifice her Son, that it can properly be said that she with Christ redeemed the human race"; and also, what Pius XI has, Litt. Apost., "Explorata res," February 2, 1923 (AAS 15 [1923] 104): "The Virgin participated with Jesus Christ in the very painful act of redemption." In the decree of the S.C. of the Holy Office (section on Indulgences), "Sunt quos amor," June 26, 1913 ( AAS 5 [ 1913] 3 64), he praises the custom of adding to the name of Jesus the name of "His Mother, our coredemptor, the blessed Mary"; cf. also the prayer enriched by the Holy Office with an indulgence, in which the Blessed Virgin Mary is called "core- demptress of the human race" (Jan. 22, 1914; AAS 6 [1914] 108). 3 ASS ,7 (1904/05), 666; AE 13 (1905) 172 b; EB n. 153.
tions of which the inspired author does not at all intend to approve or to make his own, and which therefore cannot be held to be immune from errors? The answer ( with the approbation of Pius X): In the negative, except in the case where, preserving the sense and judgment of the Church, it is proved by strong arguments: r) that the sacred writer really is citing the words or documents of another, and 2) that he does not approve the same nor make them his own, so that it is rightly decided that he is not speaking in his own name.
The Historical Nature of Sacred Scripture 1 [From the reply of the Biblical Commission, June 23, 1905]
The question: Whether the opinion can be admitted as a principle of sound exegesis, 1980 which holds that the books of Sacred Scripture which are held to be historical, either in whole or in part sometimes do not narrate history properly so called and truly objective, but present an appearance of his- tory only, to signify something different from the properly literal and historical significance of the words? The answer ( with the approbation of Pius X): In the negative, except in the case, however, not readily or rashly to be admitted, where without opposing the sense of the Church and pre- serving its judgment, it is proved with strong arguments that the sacred writer did not wish to put down true history, and history properly so- called, but to set forth, under the appearance and form of history a parable, an allegory, or some meaning removed from the properly literal or historical significance of the words.
The Daily Partaking of the Most Holy Eucharist 2 [From the Decree of the Congregation of the Holy Council, approved by Pius X, December 20th, 1905]
The desire (indeed) of Jesus Christ and of the Church, that all the 1981 faithful of Christ approach the sacred banquet daily, is especially im- portant in this, that the faithful of Christ being joined with God through the sacrament may receive strength from it to restrain wantonness, to wash away the little faults that occur daily, and to guard against more grievous sins to which human frailty is subject; but not principally that consideration be given to the honor and veneration of God, nor that this 1 ASS 38 (1905/06), 24 f.; AE 13 (1905), 353 b; EB n. 154. 2 ASS 38 (1905/06), 401 ff.; AE 14 (1906), 61 b £.
be for those who partake of it a reward or recompense for their virtues. Therefore, the Sacred Council of Trent calls the Eucharist, "an antidote, by which we are freed from daily faults and are preserved from mortal sins" [ see n. 875]. Because of the plague of Jansenism, which raged on all sides, disputes began to arise regarding the dispositions with which frequent and daily communion should be approached, and some more than others demanded greater and more difficult dispositions as necessary. Such discussions brought it about that very few were held worthy to partake daily of the most blessed Eucharist, and to draw the fuller effects from so saving a sacrament, the rest being content to be renewed either once a year or every month, or at most once a week. Such a point of severity was reached that entire groups were excluded from frequenting the heavenly table, for example, merchants, or those who had been joined in matrimony. In these matters the Holy See was not remiss in its proper duty [ see n. 1147 ff. and 1313] . . . . Nevertheless, the poison of Jansenism, which had infected even the souls of the good, under the appearance of honor and veneration due to the Eucharist, has by no means entirely disappeared. The question about the dispositions for frequenting communion rightly and lawfully has survived the declarations of the Holy See, as a result of which it has happened that some theologians even of good name rarely, and after laying down many conditions, have decided that daily communion can be permitted the faithful. . . . But His Holiness, since it is especially dear to him that the Christian people be invited to the sacred banquet very frequently and even daily, and so gain possession of its most ample fruits, has com- mitted the aforesaid question to this sacred Order to be examined and defined.
[Hence the Congregation of the Holy Council on the 16th day of December, 1905] made the following decisions and declarations: 1. Let frequent and daily communion .•. be available to all Chris- tians of every order or condition, so that no one, who is in the state of grace and approaches the sacred table with a right and pious mind, may be prevented from this. 2. Moreover, right mind is in this, that he who approaches the sacred table, indulges not through habit, or vanity, or human reasonings, but wishes to satisfy the pleasure of God, to be joined with Him more closely in charity and to oppose his infirmities and defects with that divine remedy. 3. Although it is especially expedient that those who practice frequent and daily communion be free from venial sins, at least those completely deliberate, and of their effect, it is enough, nevertheless, that they be free
from mortal sins, with the resolution that they will never sin in the future . . . . 4..• Care must be taken that careful preparation for Holy Com- 1988 munion precede, and that actions befitting the graces follow thereafter according to the strength, condition, and duties of each one. 5. . . Let the counsel of the confessor intercede. Yet let confessors 1989 beware lest they turn anyone away from frequent or daily communion, who is found in the state of grace and approaches (it) with a right mind . . . . 9•.. Finally, after the promulgation of this decree, let all ecclesi- 1990 astical writers abstain from any contentious disputation about dispositions for frequent and daily communion.
The Tridentine Law of Clandestinity 1 [From the Decree of Pius X, "Provida sapientique," Jan. 18, 1906]
I. In the entire German Empire today let the chapter, Tametsi, of 1991 the Council of Trent [ see n. 990 ff.], although in many places it has not yet been definitely promulgated and introduced by manifest publication or by lawful observance,· nevertheless henceforth from the feast day of Easter (i.e., from the 15th day of April) of this year 1906, bind all Catho- lics, even those up to now immune from observing the Tridentine form, so that they cannot celebrate a valid marriage between one another except in the presence of the parish priest and two or three witnesses [ cf. n. 2066 ff.]. II. Mixed marriages, which are contracted by Catholics with heretics 1992 or schismatics, are and remain fi.rmly prohibited, unless, when a just and weighty canonical reason is added, and lawful cautions have been given on both sides, honestly and formally, a dispensation has been duly ob- tained from the impediment of the mixed religion by the Catholic party. These marriages, to be sure, although a dispensation has been procured, are by all means to be celebrated in the sight of the Church, in the presence of a priest and two or three witnesses, so much so that they sin gravely who contract them in the presence of a non-Catholic minister, or in the presence of only a civil magistrate, or in any clandestine manner. Moreover, if any Catholics in celebrating these marriages seek and accept the service of a non-Catholic minister, they commit another sin and are subject to canonical censures. Nevertheless, mixed marriages in certain provinces and localities of the 1993 German Empire, even in those which according to the decisions of the Roman Congregations have thus far been subject to the definitely in-
ASS 39 (1906/07), Sr ff.; AE 14 (1906), 149 bf.
validating force of the chapter Tametsi, already contracted without pre- serving the Tridentine form or ( and, may God forbid this) to be con- tracted in the future, provided no other canonical impediment stands in the way, and no decision of nullity because of the impediment of clan- destinity has been lawfully passed before the feast day of Easter of this year, and the mutual consent of the spouses has persevered up to the said day, these mixed marriages we wish to be upheld as entirely valid, and We declare, define, and decree this expressly. III. Moreover, that a safe norm may be at hand for ecclesiastical judges, We declare, decide, and decree this same (pronouncement), and under the same conditions and restrictions, with regard to non-Catholic mar- riages, whether of heretics or of schismatics, thus far contracted between themselves in the same regions without preserving the Tridentine for- mula, or hereafter to be contracted; so that, if one or both of the non- Catholic spouses should be converted to the Catholic faith, or controversy should occur in an ecclesiastical court regarding the validity of the mar- riage of two non-Catholics, which is bound up with the question of the validity of the marriage contracted or to be contracted by some Catholic, these same marriages, all other things being equal, are similarly to be held as entirely valid.
The Separation of Church and State 1 [From the Encyclical, "Vehementer nos," to the clergy and people of France, February II, 1906]
We, in accord with the supreme authority which We hold from God, disprove and condemn the established law which separates the French state from the Church, for those reasons which We have set forth: be- cause it inflicts the greatest injury upon God whom it solemnly rejects, declaring in the beginning that the state is devoid of any religious wor- ship; because it violates the natural law, international law, and public trust in treaties; because it is contrary to the divine constitution of the Church and to her essential rights and liberty; because it overturns justice, by suppressing the right of ownership lawfully acquired by mani- fold titles and by the Concordat itself; because it gravely offends the dignity of the Apostolic See and Our own person, the ranks of bishops, the clergy, and the Catholics of France. Consequently, We protest most vehemently against the proposal of the law, its passage, and promulga- tion; and We attest that there is nothing at all of importance in it to
1 ASS 39 (1906/07), 12 f.; AE 14 (1906), 56 a.
weaken the laws of the Church, which cannot be changed by the force and rashness of men. 1
The Shortest Form of Extreme Unction 2 [From the Decree of the Holy Office, April 25, 1906]
It has been decreed that in the case of true necessity this form suffices: 1996 "By this holy unction may the Lord forgive you whatever you have sinned. Amen."
The Mosaic Authenticity of the Pentateuch 3 [From the Response of the Commission on Biblical Studies, June 27, 1906]
Question I. Whether the arguments accumulated by critics to impugn 1997 the Mosaic authenticity of the Sacred Books, which are designated by the name of Pentateuch, are of such weight that, in spite of the very many indications of both Testaments taken together, the continuous conviction of the Jewish people, also the unbroken tradition of the Church in addi- tion to the internal evidences drawn from the text itself, they justify affirming that these books were not written by Moses, but were com- posed for the most part from sources later than the time of Moses? Reply: No. Question II. Whether the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch neces- 1998 sarily demands such a redaction of the whole work that it must be neld absolutely that Moses wrote all and each book with his own hand, or dictated them to copyists; or, whether also the hypothesis can be per- mitted of those who think that the work was conceived by him under the influence of divine inspiration, and was committed to another or several to be put into writing, but in such manner that they rendered his thought faithfully, wrote nothing contrary to his wish, omitted noth- ing; and, finally, when the work was composed in this way, approved by Moses as its chief and inspired author, it was published under his name. Reply: No, for the first part; yes, for the second. Question III. Whether without prejudice to the Mosaic authenticity of 1999 the Pentateuch it can be granted that Moses for the composition of the work made use of sources, namely written documents or oral tradition, 1 Pius X took up the condemnation of this unjust law with very similar words in the allocution," Gravissimum apostolici muneris," February 21, 1906 (ASS 39 [1906/ 07], 30 ff.). 2 ASS 39 (1906/07), 273; AE 14 (1900), 278 a. 3 ASS 39 (1906/07), 377 £.; AE 14 (1906), 305; EB n. 174 ff.
from which, according to the peculiar goal set before him, and under the influence of divine inspiration, he made some borrowings, and these, arranged word for word according to sense or amplified, he inserted into the work itself? Reply: Yes. Question IV. Whether, safeguarding substantially the Mosaic authen- ticity and the integrity of the Pentateuch, it can be admitted that in such a long course of ages it underwent some modifications, for example: additions made after the death of Moses, or by an inspired author, or glosses and explanations inserted in the texts, certain words and forms of the antiquated language translated into more modern language; finally false readings to be ascribed to the errors of copyists, which should be examined and passed upon according to the norms of textual criticism. Reply: Yes, the judgment of the Church being maintained.
The Errors of Modernists, on the Church, Revelation, Christ, the Sacraments 1 [f'rom the Decree of the Holy Office, "Lamentabili," July 3, 1907]
r. The ecclesiastical law which prescribes that books dealing with the Divine Scriptures be submitted to a previous censorship does not extend to critical scholars, or to scholars of the scientific exegesis of the Old and New Testaments. 2. The Church's interpretation of the Sacred Books is not indeed to be spurned, but it is subject to the more accurate judgment and the cor- rection of exegetes. 3. From the ecclesiastical judgments and censures passed against free and more learned exegesis, it can be gathered that the faith proposed by the Church contradicts history, and that Catholic teachings cannot in fact be reconciled with the truer origins of the Christian religion. 4. The magisterium of the Church, even by dogmatic definitions, can- not determine the genuine sense of the Sacred Scriptures. 5. Since in the deposit of faith only revealed truths are contained, in no respect does it pertain to the Church to pass judgment on the asser- tions of human disciplines. 6. In defining truths the learning Church and the teaching Church so collaborate that there is nothing left for the teaching Church but to sanction the common opinions of the learning Church. 7. When the Church proscribes errors, she cannot exact any internal assent of the faithful, by which the judgments published by her are em- braced.
1 ASS 40 (1907), 470 ff.; AE 15 (1907), 276 bf.; EB n. 183 ff.-Cf. Heiner, Der neue Syllabus Pius' X (Mainz, 1907).
8. They are to be considered free of all blame who consider of no 2008 account the reprobations published by the Sacred Congregation of the Index, or by other Sacred Roman Congregations. 9. They display excessive simplicity or ignorance, who believe that 2009 God is truly the author of the Sacred Scripture. ro. The inspiration of the books of the Old Testament consists in this; 2010 that the Israelite writers have handed down religious doctrines under a peculiar aspect which is little known, or not known at all to the Gentiles. rr. Divine inspiration does not so extend to all Sacred Scripture that 2011 it fortifies each and every part of it against all error. 12. The exegete, if he wishes to apply himself advantageously to Bib- 2012 lical studies, should divest himself especially of any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Sacred Scripture, and should interpret it just as he would other merely human documents. 13. The Evangelists themselves and the Christians of the second and 20B third generation have artificially distributed the parables of the Gospels, and thus have given a reason for the small fruit of the preaching of Christ among the Jews. 14. In many narratives the Evangelists related not so much what is 2014 true, as what they thought to be more profitable for the reader, although false. 15. The Gospels up to the time of the defining and establishment of 2015 the canon have been augmented continually by additions and corrections; hence, there has remained in them only a slight and uncertain trace of the doctrine of Christ. 16. The narrations of John are not properly history, but the mystical 2016 contemplation of the Gospel; the discourses contained in his Gospel are theological meditations on the mystery of salvation, devoid of historical truth. 17. The Fourth Gospel exaggerated miracles, not only that the extraor- 2017 dinary might stand out more, but also that they might become more suitable for signifying the work and glory of the Word Incarnate. 18. John, indeed, claims for himself the character of a witness concern- 2018 ing Christ; but in reality he is nothing but a distinguished witness of the Christian life, or of the life of the Christian Church at the end of the first century. 19. Heterodox exegetes have more faithfully expressed the true sense 2019 of Scripture than Catholic exegetes. 20. Revelation could have been nothing other than the consciousness 2020 acquired by man of his relation to God. 21. Revelation, constituting the object of Catholic faith, was not com- 2021 pleted with the apostles. 22. The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths 2022
fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself. 23. Opposition can and actually does exist between facts which are narrated in Sacred Scripture, and the dogmas of the Church based on these, so that a critic can reject as false, facts which the Church believes to be most certain. 24. An exegete is not to be reproved who constructs premises from which it follows that dogmas are historically false or dubious, provided he does not directly deny the dogmas themselves. 25. The assent of faith ultimately depends on an accumulation of prob- abilities. 26. The dogmas of faith are to be held only according to a practical sense, that is, as preceptive norms for action, but not as norms for be- lieving. 27. The divinity of Jesus Christ is not proved from the Gospels; but is a dogma which the Christian conscience has deduced from the notion of the Messias. 28. When Jesus was exercising His ministry, He did not speak with this purpose, to teach that He was the Messias, nor did His miracles have as their purpose to demonstrate this. 29. It may be conceded that the Christ whom history presents, is far inferior to the Christ who is the object of faith. 30. In all the evangelical texts the name, Son of God, is equivalent to the name of Messias; but it does not at all signify that Christ is the true and natural Son of God. 31. The doctrine about Christ, which Paul, John, and the Councils of Nicea, Ephesus, and Chalcedon hand down, is not that which Jesus taught, but which the Christian conscience conceived about Jesus. 32. The natural sense of the evangelical texts cannot be reconciled with that which our theologians teach about the consciousness and the infallible knowledge of Jesus Christ. 33. It is evident to everyone, who is not influenced by preconceived opinions, that either Jesus professed an error concerning the immediate coming of the Messias, or the greater part of the doctrine contained in the Synoptic Gospels is void of authenticity. 34. The critic cannot ascribe to Christ knowledge circumscribed by no limit, except on the supposition which can by no means be conceived historically, and which is repugnant to the moral sense, namely, that Christ as man had the knowledge of God, and nevertheless was un- willing to share the knowledge of so many things with His disciples and posterity. 35. Christ did not always have the consciousness of His Messianic dignity.
36. The resurrection of the Savior is not properly a fact of the his- 2036 torical order, but a fact of the purely supernatural order, neither demon- strated nor demonstrable, and which the Christian conscience gradually derived from other sources. 37. Faith in the resurrection of Christ was from the beginning not so 2037 much of the fact of the resurrection itself, as of the immortal life of Christ with God. 38. The doctrine of the expiatory death of Christ is not evangelical but 2038 only Pauline. 39. The opinions about the origin of the sacraments with which the 2039 Fathers of Trent were imbued, and which certainly had an influence on their dogmatic canons, are far different from those which now rightly obtain among historical investigators of Christianity. 40. The sacraments had their origin in this, that the apostles and their 2040 successors, swayed and moved by circumstances and events, interpreted some idea and intention of Christ. 4r. The sacraments have this one end, to call to man's mind the ever 2041 beneficent presence of the Creator. 42. The Christian community has introduced the necessity of baptism, 2042 adopting it as a necessary rite, and adding to it the obligation of pro- fessing Christianity. 43. The practice of conferring baptism on infants was a disciplinary 2043 evolution, which was one reason for resolving the sacrament into two, baptism and penance. 44. There is no proof that the rite of the sacrament of confirmation 2044 was practiced by the apostles; but the formal distinction between the two sacraments, namely, baptism and confirmation, by no means goes back to the history of primitive Christianity. 45. Not all that Paul says about the institution of the Eucharist [I Cor. 2045
46. There was no conception in the primitive Church of the Christian 2046 sinner reconciled by the authority of the Church, but the Church only very gradually became accustomed to such a conception. Indeed, even after penance was recognized as an institution of the Church, it was not called by the name, sacrament, for the reason that it would have been held as a shameful sacrament. 47. The words of the Lord: "Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whose sins 2047 ye shall forgive they are forgiven them, and whose sins ye shall retain they are retained" [John 20:22, 23], do not refer at all to the sacrament of penance, whatever the Fathers of Trent were pleased to say. 48. James in his Epistle [Jas. 5:14 f.] does not intend to promulgate 2048 some sacrament of Christ, but to commend a certain pious custom, and if in this custom by chance he perceives some means of grace, he does
not accept this with that strictness with which the theologians have accepted it, who have established the notion and the number of the sacraments. 49. As the Christian Supper gradually assumed the nature of a litur- gical action, those who were accustomed to preside at the Supper ac- quired the sacerdotal character. 50. The elders who fulfilled the function of watching over gatherings of Christians were instituted by the apostles as presbyters or bishops to provide for the necessary arrangement of the increasing communities, not properly for perpetuating the apostolic mission and power. 51. Matrimony could not have emerged as a sacrament of the New Law in the Church, since in order that matrimony might be held to be a sacrament, it was necessary that a full theological development of the doctrine on grace and the sacraments take place first. 52. It was foreign to the mind of Christ to establish a Church as a society upon earth to endure for a long course of centuries; rather, in the mind of Christ the Kingdom of Heaven together with the end of the world was to come presently. 53. The organic constitution of the Church is not immutable; but Christian society, just as human society, is subject to perpetual evolution. 54. The dogmas, the sacraments, the hierarchy, as far as pertains both to the notion and to the reality, are nothing but interpretations and the evolution of the Christian intelligence, which have increased and perfected the little germ latent in the Gospel. 55. Simon Peter never even suspected that the primacy of the Church was entrusted to him by Christ. 56. The Roman Church became the head of all the churches not by the ordinances of divine Providence, but purely by political factors. 57. The Church shows herself to be hostile to the advances of the natural and theological sciences. 58. Truth is no more immutable than man himself, inasmuch as it is evolved with him, in him, and through him. 59. Christ did not teach a defined body of doctrine applicable to all times and to all men, but rather began a religious movement adapted, or to be adapted to different times and places. 60. Christian doctrine in its beginnings was Judaic, but through suc- cessive evolutions it became first Pauline, then Johannine, and finally Hellenic and universal. 6r. It can be said without paradox that no chapter of Scripture, from the first of Genesis to the last of the Apocalypse, contains doctrine en- tirely identical with that which the Church hands down on the same subject, and so no chapter of Scripture has the same sense for the critic as for the theologian.
62. The principal articles of the Apostles' Creed did not have the 206:Z same meaning for the Christians of the earliest times as they have for the Christians of our time. 63. The Church shows herself unequal to the task of preserving the 2063 ethics of the Gospel, because she clings obstinately to immutable doctrines which cannot be reconciled with present day advances. 64. The progress of the sciences demands that the concepts of Christian 2064 doctrine about God, creation, revelation, the Person of the Incarnate Word, the redemption, be recast. 65. Present day Catholicism cannot be reconciled with true science, 2065 unless it be transformed into a kind of nondogmatic Christianity, that is, into a broad and liberal Protestantism. Censure of the Holy Pontiff: "His Holiness has approved and con- 2065a firmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers, and has ordered that all and every proposition enumerated above be held as condemned and proscribed" [See also n. 2114].
Betrothal and Marriage 1 [From the Decree Ne temere of the Holy Council, August 2, 1907]
Betrothal.-I. Those betrothals alone are held valid and carry canonical 2066 effects, which have been contracted in writing signed by the parties, and either by the pastor or ordinary of the place, or at least by two witnesses. Marriage. III. The above marriages are valid, which are contracted in 2067 the presence of the pastor or ordinary of the place, or a priest delegated by either of the two, and at least two witnesses ..•. VII. If the danger of death is imminent, when the pastor or ordinary 2068 of the pbce, or a priest delegated by either of the two cannot be had, out of consideration for the conscience ( of the betrothed) and ( if occasion warrants) for legitimizing offspring, marriage can be validly and licitly contracted in the presence of any priest and two witnesses. VIII. If it happens that in some region the pastor or ordinary of the 2069 place or priest delegated by them, in the presence of whom marriage can be celebrated, cannot be had, and this condition of things has lasted now for a month, the marriage can be validly and licitly entered upon after a formal consent has been given by the betrothed in the presence of two witnesses. XI. Sec. r. All who have been baptized in the Catholic Church and 2070i have been converted to her from heresy or schism, even if one or the other has afterwards apostasized, as often as they enter upon mutual betrothal or marriage, are bound by the laws above established.
Sec. 2. They also hold for the same Catholics mentioned above, if they contract betrothal or marriage with non-Catholics, whether baptized or not baptized, even after having obtained dispensation from the im- pediment of mixed marriage, or of differeoce of worship, unless it has otherwise been established by the Holy See for some particular place or reg10n. Sec. 3. Non-Catholics, whether baptized or not baptized, if they make contracts between themselves, are nowhere bound to keep the Catholic form of betrothal or of marriage. Let the present decree lawfully published and promulgated be kept by its transmission to the ordinaries of places; and let what has been disposed in it begin to have the force of law everywhere, from the solemn day of the Pasch of the Resurrection D.N.I.C. [April 19] of next year, 1908.
The False Doctrines of the Modernists 1 [From the Encyclical, "Pascendi dominici gregis," Sept. 8, 1907]
Since it is a very clever artifice on the part of the modernists ( for they are rightly so-called in general) not to set forth their doctrines arranged in orderly fashion and collected together, but as if scattered, and separated from one another, so that they seem very vague and, as it were, rambling, although on the contrary they are strong and constant, it is well, Vener- able Brothers, first to present these same doctrines here in one view, and to show the nexus by which they coalesce with one another, that we may then examine the causes of the errors and may prescribe the remedies to remove the calamity . . . . But, that we may proceed in orderly fashion in a rather abstruse subject, this must be noted first of all, that every modernist plays several roles, and, as it were, mingles in himself, (I) the philosopher of course, (II) the believer, (III) the theologian, (IV) the historian, (V) the critic, (VI) the apologist, (VII) the reformer. All these roles he must distinguish one by one, who wishes to understand their sy~tem rightly, and to discern the antecedents and the consequences of their doctrines. [I] Now, to begin with the philosopher, the modernists place the foundation of their religious philosophy in that doctrine which is com- monly called agnosticism. Perforce, then, human reason is entirely re- stricted to phenomena, namely, things that appear, and that appearance by which they appear; it has neither the right nor the power to transgress the limits of the same. Therefore, it cannot raise itself to God nor recog- nize His existence, even through things that are seen. Hence, it is inferred that God can by no means be directly an object of science; yet,
1 ASS 40 (1907), 593 ff.; AE 15 (1907), 361 ff.; EB n. 250 ff. [inde an. 2073].
as far as pertains to history, that He is not to be considered an historical subject.-Moreover, granting all this, everyone will easily see what be- comes of Natural Theology, of the motives of credibility, of external revelation. These, of course, the modernists completely spurn, and rele- gate to intellectualism, an absurd system, they say, and long since dead. Nor does the fact that the Church has very openly condemned such portentous errors restrain them, for the Vatican Synod so decreed: "If anyone, etc.," [ see n. r 806 f., r 812]. But in what way do the Modernists pass from agnosticism, which 2073 consists only in nescience, to scientific and historic atheism, which on the other hand is entirely posited in denial; so, by what law of reasoning is the step taken from that state of ignorance as to whether or not God intervened in the history of the human race, to the explanation of the same history, leaving God out altogether, as if He had not really inter- vened, he who can well knows. Yet, this is fixed and established in their minds, that science as well as history should be atheistic, in whose limits there can be place only for phenomena, God and whatever is divine being utterly thrust aside.-As a result of this most absurd teaching we shall soon see clearly what is to be held regarding the most sacred person of Christ, the mysteries of His life and death, and likewise about His resurrection and ascension into heaven. Yet this agnosticism is to be considered only as the negative part of 2074 the system of the modernists; the positive consists, as they say, in vital immanence. Naturally, they thus proceed from one to the other of these parts.-Religion, whether this be natural or supernatural, must, just as any fact, admit of some explanation. But the explanation, with natural theology destroyed and the approach to revelation barred by the rejection of the arguments of credibility, with even any external revelation utterly removed, is sought in vain outside man. It is, then, to be sought within man himself; and, since religion is a form of life, it is to be found entirely within the life of man. From this is asserted the principle of religious immanence. Moreover, of every vital phenomenon, to which it has just been said religion belongs, the first actuation, as it were, is to be sought in a certain need or impulsion; but, if we speak more specifically of life, the beginnings are to be posited in a kind of motion of the heart, which is called a sense. Therefore, since God is the object of religion, it must be concluded absolutely that faith, which is the beginning and the founda- tion of any religion, must be located in some innermost sense, which has its beginning in a need for the divine. Moreover, this need for the divine, since it is felt only in certain special surroundings, cannot of itself pertain to the realm of consciousness, but it remains hidden at first beneath consciousness, or, as they say with a word borrowed from modern philosophy, in the subconsciousness, where, too, its root remains hidden
and undetected.-Someone perhaps will ask in what way does this need of the divine, which man himself perceive~ within himself, finally evolve into religion? To this the modernists reply: "Science and history are included within a twofold boundary: one external, that is the visible world; the other internal, which is consciousness. When they have reached one or the other, they are unable to proceed further, for beyond these boundaries is the unknowable. In the presence of this unknowable, whether this be outside man and beyond the perceptible world of nature, or lies concealed within the subconsciousness, the need of the divine in a soul prone to religion, according to the tenets of fideism, with no judg- ment of the mind anticipating, excites a certain peculiar sense; but this sense has the divine reality itself, not only as its object but also as its intrinsic cause implicated within itself, and somehow unites man with God." This sense, moreover, is what the modernists call by the name of faith, and is for them the beginning of religion. But this is not the end of their philosophizing, or more correctly of their raving. For in such a sense the modernists find not only faith, but together with faith and in faith itself, as they understand it, they affirm that there is place for revelation. For will anyone ask whether anything more is needed for revelation? Shall we not call that religious sense that appears in the conscience "revelation," or at least the beginning of reve- lation; why not God himself, although rather confusedly, manifesting Himself to souls in the same religious sense? But they add: Since God is alike both object and cause of faith, that revelation is equally of God and from God, that is, it has God as the Revealer as well as the Revealed. From this, moreover, Venerable Brothers, comes that absurd affirmation of the modernists, according to which any religion according to its various aspects is to be called natural and also supernatural. From this, consciousness and revelation have interchangeable meanings. From this is the law according to which religious consciousness is handed down as a universal rule, to be equated completely with revelation, to which all must submit, even the supreme power in the Church, whether this teaches or legislates on sacred matters or discipline. Yet in all this process, from which according to the modernists, faith and revelation come forth, one thing is especially to be noted, indeed of no small moment because of the historico-critical sequences which they pry from it. For the unknowable, of which they speak, does not present itself to faith as something simple or alone, but on the contrary adhering closely to some phenomenon, which, although it pertains to the fields of science and history, yet in some way passes beyond them, whether this phenomenon be a fact of nature containing some secret within itself, or be any man whose character, actions, and words do not seem possible of being reconciled with the ordinary laws of history. Then faith, attracted
by the unknowable which is united with the phenomenon, embraces the whole phenomenon itself and in a manner permeates it with its own life. Now from this two things follow: first, a kind of transfiguration of the phenomenon by elation, that is, above its true conditions, by which its matter becomes more suitable to clothe itself with the form of the divine, which faith is to introduce; second, some sort of disfiguration, (we may call it such) of the same phenomenon, arising from the fact that faith attributes to it, when divested of all adjuncts of place and time, what in fact it does not possess; and this takes place especially when phenomena of times past are concerned, and the more fully as they are the older. From this twofold source the modernists again derive two canons, which, when added to another already borrowed from agnosticism, constitute the foundations of historical criticism. The subject will be illustrated by an example, and let us take that example from the person of Christ. In the person of Christ, they say, science and history encounter nothing except the human, Therefore, by virtue of the first canon deduced from agnosticism whatever is redolent of the divine must be deleted from His history. Furthermore, by virtue of the second canon the historical person of Christ was transfigured by faith; therefore, whatever raises it above historical conditions must be removed from it. Finally, by virtue of the third canon the same person of Christ is disfigured by faith; therefore, words and deeds must be removed from it, whatever, in a word, does not in the least correspond with His character, state, and education, and with the place and time in which He lived. A wonderful method of reasoning indeed! But this is the criticism of the modernists. Therefore, the religious sense, which through vital immanence comes 2077 forth from the hiding places of the subconsciousness, is the germ of all religion, and the explanation likewise of everything which has been or is to be in any religion. Such a sense, crude in the beginning and almost unformed, gradually and under the influence of that mysterious principle, whence it had its origin, matured with the progress of human life, of which, as we have said, it is a kind of form. So, we have the origin of any religion, even if supernatural; they are, of course, mere developments of the religious sense. And let no one think that the Catholic religion is excepted; rather, it is entirely like the rest; for it was born in the con- sciousness of Christ, a man of the choicest nature, whose like no one has ever been or will be, by the process of vital immanence . . . . [ adduced by can. 3 of the Vatican Council on revelation; see n. 1808]. Yet up to this point, Venerable Brethren, we have discovered no place 2078 given to the intellect. But it, too, according to the doctrine of the modern- ists, has its part in the act of faith. It is well to notice next in what way. In that sense, they say, which we have mentioned rather often, since it is sense, not knowledge, God presents himself to man, but so confusedly
and disorderly that He is distinguished with difficulty, or not at all, by the subject believer. It is necessary, therefore, that this sense be illumi- nated by some light, so that God may completely stand out and be sepa- rated from it. Now, this pertains to the intellect, whose function it is to ponder and to institute analysis, by which man first brings to light the vital phenomena arising within him, and then makes them known by words. Hence the common expression of the modernists, that the religious man must think his faith.-The mind then, encountering this sense, reflects upon it and works on it, as a painter who brightens up the faded outline of a picture to bring it out more clearly, for essentially thus does one of the teachers of the modernists explain the matter. Moreover, in such a work the mind operates in a twofold way: first, by a natural and spontaneous act it presents the matter in a simple and popular judgment; but then after reflection and deeper consideration, or, as they say, by elaborating the thought, it speaks forth its thoughts in secondary judg- ments, derived, to be sure, from the simple first, but more precise and distinct. These secondary judgments, if they are finally sanctioned by the supreme magisterium of the Church, will constitute dogma. Thus, then, in the doctrine of the modernists we have come to an out- standing chapter, namely, the origin of dogma and the inner nature of dogma. For they place the origin of dogma in those primitive simple formulae, which in a certain respect are necessary for faith; for revelation, to actually be such, requires a clear knowledge of God in consciousness. Yet the dogma itself, they seem to affirm, is proper! y contained in the secondary formulae.-Furthermore, to ascertain its nature we must in- quire above all what revelation intervenes between the religious formulae and the religious sense of the soul. But this he will easily understand, who holds that such formulae have no other purpose than to supply the means by which he ( the believer) may give himself an account of his faith. Therefore, they are midway between the believer and his faith; but as far as faith is concerned, they are inadequate signs of its object, usually called symbolae; in their relationship to the believer, they are mere instruments. -So by no means can it be maintained that they absolutely contain the truth; for, insofar as they are symbols, they are images of the truth, and so are to be accommodated to the religious sense, according as this refers to man; and as instruments they are the vehicles of truth, and so they are in turn to be adapted to man, insofar as there is reference to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, inasmuch as it is conta:ned in the absolute, has infinite aspects of which now one, now another can appear. Likewise, the man who believes can make use of varying con- ditions. Accordingly, also, the formulae which we call dogma should be subject to the same vicissitudes, and so be liable to change. Thus, then,
the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma.-Surely an infinite piling up of sophisms, which ruin and destroy all religion. Yet that dogma not on! y can but ought to be evolved and changed, even 2080 the modernists themselves in fragmentary fashion affirm, and this clearly follows from their principles. For among the chief points of doctrine they hold this, which they deduce from the principle of vital immanence, that religious formulae, to be really religious and not only intellectual specula- tions, should be alive, and should live the life of the religious sense. This is not to be understood thus, as if these formulae, especially if merely imaginative, were invented for the religious sense; for their origin is of no concern, nor is their number or quality, but as follows: that the re- ligious sense, applying some modification, if necessary, should join them to itself vitally. Of course, in other words, it is necessary that the primitive formula be accepted by the heart and sanctioned by it; likewise that the labor by which the secondary formulae are brought forth be under the guidance of the heart. Hence it happens that these formulae, to be vital, should be and should remain adapted alike to the faith and to the be- liever. Therefore, if for any cause such an adaptation should cease, they lose the original notions and need to be changed.-Furthermore, since this power and the fortune of the dogmatic formulae are so unstable, it is no wonder that they are such an object of ridicule and contempt to modernists, who say nothing to the contrary and extol nothing but the religious sense and religious life. And so they most boldly attack the Church as moving on a path of error, because she does not in the least distinguish the religious and moral force from the superficial significance of the formulae, and by clinging with vain labor and most tenaciously to formulae devoid of meaning, permits religion itself to collapse.- Surely, "blind and leaders of the blind" [Matt. 15:14] are they who, puffed up by the proud name of science, reach such a point in their raving that they pervert the eternal concept of truth, and the true sense of religion by introducing a new system, "in which from an exaggerated and unbridled desire for novelty, truth is not sought where it certainly exists, and neglecting the holy and apostolic traditions, other doctrines empty, futile, uncertain, and unapproved by the Church are adopted, on which men in their extreme vanity think that truth itself is based and maintained." 1 So much, Venerable Brothers, for the modernist as a philosopher. [II] Now if, on advancing to the believer, one wishes to know how 2081 he is distinguished from the philosopher among the modernists, this must be observed that, although the philosopher admits the reality of the divine as the object of faith, yet this reality is not found by him any- 1 The Encyclical of Gregory XVI, "Singulari Nos," June 25, 1834 [n. 1617].
where except in the heart of the believer, since it is the object of sense and of affirmation, and so does not exceed the confines of phenomena; furthermore, whether that reality exists in itself outside that sense and affirmation, the philosopher passes over and neglects. On the other hand for the modernist believer it is established and certain that the reality of the divine definitely exists in itself, and certainly does not depend on the believer. But if you ask on what then the assertion of the believer rests, they will reply: In the personal experience of every man.-In this affirmation, while they break with the rationalists, to be sure, yet they fall in with the opinion of Protestants and pseudomystics [cf. n. 1273]. For they explain the subject as follows: that in the religious sense a kind of intuition of the heart is to be recognized, by which man directly at- tains the reality of God, and draws from it such conviction of the exist- ence of God and of the action of God both within and without man, that it surpasses by far all conviction that can be sought from science. They establish, then, a true experience and one superior to any rational experience. If anyone, such as the rationalists, deny this, they say that this arises from the fact that he is unwilling to establish himself in the moral state which is required to produce the experience. Furthermore, this experience, when anyone has attained it, properly and truly makes a believer.-How far we are here .from Catholic teachings. We have already seen [ cf. n. 2072] such fabrications condemned by the Vatican Council. When these errors have once been admitted, together with others already mentioned, we shall express below how open the way is to athe- ism. It will be well to note at once that from this doctrine of experience joined with another of symbolism, any religion, not even excepting paganism, must be held as true. For why should not experiences of this kind not occur in any religion? In fact, more than one asserts that they have occurred. By what right will modernists deny the truth of an experience which an Islamite affirms, and claim true experiences for Catholics alone? In fact, modernists do not deny this; on the contrary some rather obscurely, others very openly contend that all religions are true. But it is manifest that they cannot think otherwise. For on what basis, then, should falsity have been attributed to any religion according to their precepts? Sure! y it would be either because of the falsity of the religious sense or because a false formula was set forth by the intellect. Now the religious sense is always one and the same, although sometimes it is more imperfect; but that the intellectual formula be true, it is enough that it respond to the religious sense and to the human believer, what- ever may be the character of the perspicacity of the latter. In the conflict of different religions the modernists might be able to contend for one thing at most, that the Catholic religion, inasmuch as it is the more vivid, has more truth; and likewise that it is more worthy of the name
of Christian, inasmuch as it corresponds more fully with the origins of Christianity. There is something else besides in this part of their doctrine, which 2083 is absolutely inimical to Catholic truth. For the precept regarding ex- perience is applied also to tradition, which the Church has hitherto as- serted, and utterly destroys it. For the modernists understand tradition thus: that it is a kind of communication with others of an original expe- rience, through preaching by means of the intellectual formula. To this formula, therefore, besides, as they say, representative force, they ascribe a kind of suggestive power, not only to excite in him who believes the religious sense, which perchance is becoming sluggish, and to restore the experience once acquired, but also to give birth in them who do not yet believe, to a religious sense for the first time, and to produce the experi- ence. Thus, moreover, religious experience is spread widely among the people; and not only among those who are now in existence, but also among posterity, both by books and by oral transmission from one to another.-But this communication of experience sometimes takes root and flourishes; sometimes it grows old suddenly, and dies. Moreover, to flourish is to the modernists an argument for truth; for they hold truth and life to be the same. Therefore, we may infer again: that all religions, as many as exist, are true; for otherwise they would not be alive. Now with our discussion brought to this point, Venerable Brethren, 2084 we have enough and more to consider accurately what relationship the modernists establish between faith and science; furthermore, history, also, is classed by them under this name of science.-And in the first place, indeed, it is to be held that the object-matter of the one is en- tirely extraneous to the object-matter of the other and separated from it. For faith looks only to that which science professes to be unknowable to itself. Hence to each is a different duty: science is concerned with phe- nomena where there is no place for faith; faith, on the other hand, is concerned with the divine, of which science is totally ignorant. Thus, finally, it is settled that there can never be dissension between faith and science; for if each holds its own place, they will never be able to meet each other, and so contradict each other. If any persons by chance ob- ject to this, on the ground that certain things occur in visible nature which pertain also to faith, as, for example, the human life of Christ, the modernists will deny it. For, although these things are classified with phenomena, yet, insofar as they are imbued with the life of faith, and in the manner already mentioned have been transfigured and dis- figured by faith [ cf. n. 2076], they have been snatched away from the sensible world and transferred into material for the divine. Therefore, to him who asks further whether Christ performed true miracles and
really divined the future; whether He truly rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, agnostic science will give a denial, faith an affirma- tion; yet as a result of this there will be no conflict between the two. For one, addressing philosophers as a philosopher, namely, contemplating Christ only according to historical reality, will deny; the other, speaking as a believer with believers, viewing the life of Christ as it is lived again by the faith and in the faith, will affirm. A great mistake, however, is made as a result of this by anyone who thinks that he can believe that faith and science are subject to each other in no way at all. For, as regards science he does indeed think rightly and truly; but it is otherwise with faith, which must be said to be subject to science not only on one, but on three grounds. For, first, we must observe that in any religious fact, after the divine reality has been taken away, and whatever experience he who believes has of it, all other things, especially religious formulae, do not pass beyond the confines of phe- nomena, and so fall under science. By all means let it be permitted the believer, if he wills, to go out of the world, yet as long as he remains in it, whether he likes it or not, he will never escape the laws, the observations, the judgments of science and history.-Furthermore, al- though it is said that God is the object of faith alone, this is to be granted with regard to the divine reality, but not with regard to the idea of God. For this is subject to science, which, while it philosophizes in the logical order, as they say, attains also what is absolute and ideal. Therefore, philosophy or science has the right to learn about the idea of God, and to direct it in its evolution, and, if anything extraneous enters it, to cor- rect it. Hence the axiom of the modernists: Religious evolution should be reconciled with the moral and the intellectual, that is, as one teaches whom they follow as a master, it should be subject to them.-Finally it happens that God does not suffer duality within Himself, and so the believer is urged on by an innermost force so to harmonize faith with science that it never disagrees with the general idea which science sets forth about the entire universe. Thus, then, is it effected that science is entirely freed from faith, that faith on the other hand, however much it is proclaimed to be extraneous to science, is subject to it.-All this, Venerable Brethren, is contrary to what Pius IX, Our predecessor, handed down teaching: "It is the duty of philosophy, in those matters which pertain to religion, not to dominate but to serve, not to prescribe what is to be believed, but to embrace what is to be believed with reasonable obedience, and not to examine the depths of the mysteries of God, but to revere them piously and humbly. 1 The modernists completely invert the matter; so what Our predecessor, Gregory IX, similarly wrote about certain theologians of his age can be applied to these: "Some among 1 Brief to the Archbishop of Cologne, June 15, 1857 [seen. 1655].
52 3 you, distended like bladders by the spirit of vanity, strive by novelty to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers; twisting the meaning of the sacred text . . . to the philosophical teaching of the rationalists, to make a show of science, not for any benefit to their hearers . . . . These men, lead astray by various strange doctrines, reduce the head to the tail, and force the queen to serve the handmaid." 1 This, surely, will be quite clear to one who observes how the modernists 2086 act quite in conformity with what they teach. For much seems to have been written and spoken by them in contrary fashion so that one might easily think them doubtful and uncertain. But this takes place deliberately and advisedly, namely, in accord with the opinion which they hold on the mutual exclusion of faith and science. Thus in their books we find certain things which a Catholic entirely approves, yet on turning the page certain things which one could think were dictated by a rationalist. So, when writing history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when preaching in the churches they profess it most strongly. Like- wise, when discussing history they have no place for the Councils and the Fathers, but when teaching catechism, they refer to the former and the latter with respect. Thus, too, they separate theological and pastoral exegesis from the scientific and the historical. Similarly, on the principle that science in no wise depends on faith, when they are treating of philosophy, history, and criticism, with no special horror about following in the tracks of Luther [cf. n. 769], they display in every way a contempt for Catholic precepts, the Holy Fathers, the Ecumenical Synods, and the ecclesiastical magisterium; and if they are criticized for this, they com- plain that they are being deprived of their freedom. Finally, professing that faith must be made subject to science, they rebuke the Church gen- erally and openly, because she refuses most resolutely to subject and accommodate her teachings to the opinions of philosophy; but they, re- pudiating the old theology for this purpose, endeavor to bring m the new, which follows the ravings of the philosophers. [III] Here now, Venerable Brethren, we approach the study of the 2087 modernists in the theological arena, a rough task indeed, but to be dis- posed of brieRy. It is a question, indeed, of conciliating faith with science, and this in no other way than by subjecting one to the other. In this field the modernist theologian makes use of the same principles that we saw employed by the philosopher, and he adapts them to the believer; we mean the principles of immanence and symbolism. Thus, moreover, he accomplishes the task most easily. It is held as certain by the philos- opher that the principle of faith is immanent; it is added by the believer that this principle is God; and he himself ( the theologian) concludes: God, then, is immanent in man. From this comes theological immanence. 1 Letter to the theological masters of Paris, July 7, 1223 (cf. n. 442 £.].
Again, to the philosopher it is certain that the representations of the object of faith are only symbolical; to the believer, likewise, it is certain that the object of faith is God in Himself; so the theologian gathers that the representations of the divme reality are symbolical. From this comes theological symbolism.-Surely the greatest errors, and how pernicious each is will be clear from an examination of the consequences.-For to speak at once about symbolism, since such symbols are symbols with regard to their object, but with regard to the believer are instruments, the believer must first of all be on his guard, they say, lest he cling too much to the formula, as formula, but he must make use of it only that he may fasten upon the absolute truth, which the formula at the same time uncovers and covers, and struggles to express without ever attaining it. Besides, they add, such formulae are to be applied by the believer in- sofar as they help him; for they are given as a help, not as a hindrance, with full esteem indeed, which out of social respect is due the formulae which the public magisterium has judged suitable for expressing the common consciousness, as long, of course, as the same magisterium shall not declare otherwise. But regarding immanence what the modernist~ mean really, is difficult to show, for they do not all have the same opinion. There are some who hold on this subject, that God working in man is more intimately present in him than man is even in himself; which, if rightly understood, bears no reproach. Others on this matter lay down that the action of God is one with the action of nature, as the action of the first cause is one with that of the second cause, which really destroys the supernatural order. Finally, others so explain it in a way that causes a suspicion of a pantheistic meaning; yet this fittingly coincides with the rest of their doctrines. Now to this axiom of immanence is added another which we can call divine permanence; these two differ from each other in about the same way as private experience does from experience transmitted by tradition. An example will illustrate the point, and let us take it from the Church and the sacraments. The Church, they say, and the sacraments are by no means to be believed as having been instituted by Christ Himself. Agnosticism stipulates this, which recognizes nothing but the human in Christ, whose religious conscience, like that of the rest of men, was formed gradually; the law of immanence stipulates this, which rejects external applications, to use their terms; likewise the law of evolution stipulates this, which demands time and a certain series of circumstances joined with it, that the germs may be evolved; finally, history stipulates this, which shows that such in fact has been the course of the thing. Yet it is to be held that the Church and the sacraments have been mediately established by the Christ. But how? All Christian consciences, they affirm, were in a way virtually included in the conscience of Christ,
as the plant in the seed. Moreover, since the germs live the life of the seed, all Christians are to be said to live the life of Christ. But the life of Christ according to faith is divine; thus, also, is the life of Christians. If, then, this life in the course of the ages gave origin to the Church and the sacraments, quite rightly will such an origin be said to be from Christ, and be divine. Thus they effect completely that the Sacred Scrip- tures also are divine, and that dogmas are divine.-With this, then, the theology of the modernists is essentially completed. Surely a brief pro- vision, but very abundant for him who professes that science must al- ways be obeyed, whatever it orders. Everyone will easily see for himself the application of these principles to the other matters which we shall mention. Up to this point we have touched upon the origin of faith and its 2089 nature. But since faith has many outgrowths, chiefly the Church, dogma, worship, and devotions, the Books which we call "sacred," we should inquire what the modernists teach about these also. To take dogma as a beginning, it has already been shown above what its origin and nature are [ n. 2079 f.]. It arises from a kind of impulse or necessity, by virtue of which he who believes elaborates his own thoughts so that his own con- science and that of others may be the more clarified. This labor consists entirely in investigating and in refining the primitive formula of the mind, not indeed in itself, according to the logical explanation, but ac- cording to circumstances, or vitally, as they say, in a manner less easily understood. Hence it happens that around that formula certain secondary formulae, as We have already indicated, gradually come into being ( cf. n. 2078]; these afterwards brought together into one body, or into one edifice of faith, as responding to the common consciousness, are called dogma. From this the dissertations of the theologians are to be well distinguished, which, although they do not live the life of dogma, are not at all useless, not only for harmonizing religion with science and for removing disagreements between them, but also for illumining and pro- tecting religion from without, even perchance as a means for preparing material for some new future dogma.-It would by no means have been necessary to discuss worship at length, did not the sacraments also come under this term, on which the errors of the modernists are most serious. They say that worship arises from a twofold impulse or necessity; for, as we have seen, all things in their system are said to come into existence by innermost impulses or necessities. The first need is to attribute some- thing sensible to religion; the second is to express it, which surely cannot be done without a sensible form, or consecrating acts which we call sacraments. But for the modernists sacraments are mere symbols or signs, although not lacking efficacy. To point out this efficacy, they make use of the example of certain words which are popularly said to have caught
on, since they have conceived the power of propagating certain ideas which are vigorous and especially shake the mind. Just as these words are ordered in relation to ideas, so are the sacraments to the religious sense, nothing more. Surely they would speak more clearly if they affirm that the sacraments were instituted solely to nourish faith. But this the Synod of Trent has condemned: "If any one says that these sacra- ments were instituted solely to nourish the faith, let him be anathema" [n. 848]. We have already touched somewhat on the nature and origin of the Sacred Books. According to the principles of the modernists one could well describe them as a collection of experiences, not such as come in general to everyone, but extraordinary and distinguished, which have been had in every religion.-Precisely thus do the modernists teach about our books of both the Old and the New Testament. Yet, in accord with their own opinions they note very shre~dly that, although experience belongs to the present, yet one can assume it equally of the past and of the future, inasmuch as naturally he who believes either, lives the past by recollection in the manner of the present, or the future by anticipation. Moreover, this explains how the historical and apocalyptic books can be classified among the Sacred Books. Thus, then, in these Books God certainly speaks through the believer, but as the theology of the modern- ists puts it, only by immanence and vital permanence.-We shall ask, what then about inspiration? This, they reply, is by no means distin- guished from that impulse, unless perhaps in vehemence, by which the believer is stimulated to reveal his faith by word or writing. What we have in poetic inspiration is similar; wherefore a certain one said: "God is in us, when he stirs we are inflamed." 1 In this way God should be called the beginning of the inspiration of the Sacred Books.-Further- more, regarding this inspiration, the modernists add that there is nothing at all in the Sacred Books that lacks such inspiration. When they affirm this one would be inclined to believe them more orthodox than some in more recent times who restrict inspiration somewhat as, for example, when they introduce so-called tacit citations. But this is mere words and pretense on their part. For, if we judge the Bible according to the precepts of agnosticism, namely, as a human work written by men for men, al- though the theologian is granted the right of calling it divine by im- manence, just how can inspiration be forced into it? Now, the modernist assuredly asserts a general inspiration of the Sacred Books, but admits no inspiration in the Catholic sense. What the school of modernists imagines about the Church offers a richer field for discussion.-They lay down in the beginning that the Church arose from a twofold necessity: one in any believer, especially 1 Ovid, Fasti 6, 5.
52 7 in him who has found an original and special experience, to communicate his faith to others; the other, after faith has communicated among many, in collectivity to coalesce into a society and to watch over, increase, and propagate the common good. What, then, is the Church? It is the fruit of the collective conscience, or of the association of individual consciences which, by virtue of vital permanence, depends on some first believer, that is, for Catholics, on Christ. Moreover, any society needs a directing authority, whose duty it is to direct all associates toward the common end, to foster prudently the elements of cohesion, which in a religious society are fulfilled by doctrine and worship. Hence, the triple authority in the Catholic Church: disciplinary, dogmatzc, liturgical.-Now the nature of the authority is to be gathered from its origin; from its nature, indeed, its rights and duties are to be sought. In past ages a common error was that authority came to the Church from without, namely, immediately from God; therefore it was rightly held to be autocratic. But this con- ception has now grown obsolete. Just as the Church is said to have emanated from the collectivity of consciences, so in like manner authority emanates vitally from the Church itself. Authority, then, just as the Church, originates from religious conscience, and so is subject to the same; and if it spurns this subordination, it veers towards tyranny. More- over, we are now living at a time when the sense of liberty has grown to its highest point. In the civil state public conscience has introduced popular government. But conscience in man, just as life, is only one. Unless, then, ecclesiastical authority wishes to excite and foment an intestine war in the conscience of men, it has an obligation to use demo- cratic forms ( of procedure), the more for this reason, because unless it does so, destruction threatens. For, surely, he is mad who thinks that with the sense of liberty as it now flourishes any recession can ever take place. If it were restricted and checked by force, it would break forth the stronger, with the destruction alike of the Church and religion. All this do the modernists think, who as a result are quite occupied with devising ways to reconcile the authority of the Church with the liberty of believers. But the Church has not only within the walls of its own household 2092 those with whom she should exist on friendly terms, but she has them outside. For the Church does not occupy the world all by herself; other societies occupy it equally, with which communications and contacts necessarily take place. These rights, then, which are the duties of the Church in relation to civil societies, must be determined, and must not be determined otherwise than according to the nature of the Church her- self, as the modernists have indeed described to us.-In this, moreover, they clearly use the same rules as were introduced above for science and faith. There discussion centered on ob7ects, here on ends. So, just as by
reason of the object we see faith and science extraneous to each other, so the state and Church are extraneous to each other because of the ends which they pursue; the former pursuing a temporal, the latter a spiritual end. Of course it was once permitted to subordinate the tem- poral to the spiritual; it was permitted to interject discussion on mixed questions, in which the Church was held as mistress and queen, since the Church, of course, was declared to have been instituted by God with- out intermediary, inasmuch as He is the author of the supernatural order. But all this is repudiated by philosophers and historians. The state, then, must be disassociated from the Church, just as even the Catholic from the citizen. Therefore, any Catholic, since he is also a citizen, has the right and the duty, disregarding the authority of the Church, pushing aside her wishes, counsels, and precepts, yes, spurning her rebukes, of pursuing what he thinks is conducive to the good of the state. To pre- scribe a way of action for a citizen on any pretext is an abuse of ecclesi- astical power, to be rejected by every means.-Of course, Venerable Brothers, the source from which all this flows is indeed the very source which Pius VI, Our predecessor, solemnly condemned [cf. n. 1502 f.] in the Apostolic Constitution, Auctorem fidei. But it is not enough for the school of modernists that the state should be separated from the Church. For, just as faith, as far as phenomenal elements are concerned, as they say, should be subordinated to science, so in temporal affairs should the Church be subject to the state. This, indeed, they do not by chance say openly, but by reason of their thinking are forced to admit. For laying down the principle that the state alone has power in temporal matters, if it happens that the believer, not content with internal acts of religion, proceeds to external acts, as for example, the administration or reception of the sacraments, these will necessarily fall under the dominion of the state. What, then, about the authority of the Church? Since this is not explained except through external acts, it will be entirely responsible to the state. Obviously forced by this con- clusion, many of the liberal Protestants entirely reject all external sacred worship, rather, even any external religious association, and strive to introduce individual religion, as they say. But if the modernists do not yet proceed openly to this point, they ask meanwhile that the Church of her own accord tend in the direction in which they themselves impel her, and that she adapt herself to the forms of the state. Now these are their ideas on disciplinary authority.-On the other hand, by far more evil and pernicious are their opinions on doctrinal and dogmatic power. On the magisterium of the Church they comment, for example, as fol- lows: A religious society can never truly coalesce into one unless the conscience of the associates be one, and the formula which they use one. But this twofold unity demands a kind of common mind whose duty it
is to find and determine the formula which corresponds best with the common conscience; and this mind must have sufficient authority to impose on the community the formula which it has determined upon. Moreover, in this union and fusion, as it were, both of the mind which draws up the formula, and of the power which prescribes it, the modern- ists place the notion of the magisterium of the Church. Since, then, the magisterium finally arises at some time from the individual consciences, and has as a mandate the public duty to the benefit of the same con- sciences, it necessarily follows that the magisterium depends on these, and so must bend to popular forms. Therefore, to prohibit the con- sciences of individuals from expressing publicly and openly the impulses which they feel; to obstruct the way of criticism whereby it impels dogma in the path of necessary evolutions, is not the use but the abuse of the power permitted for the public weal. Similarly, in the very use of power, measure and moderation are to be applied. To censure and proscribe any book without the knowledge of the author, without permitting any ex- planation, without discussion, is surely very close to tyranny.-Thus, here also a middle course must be found to preserve the rights at once of authority and liberty. Meanwhile the Catholic must so conduct him- self as to proclaim publicly his strict respect for authority, yet not to fail to obey his own mind.-In general they prescribe as follows for the Church: that, since the end of ecclesiastical power pertains only to the spiritual, all external trappings must be abolished, by which it is adorned most magnificently for the eyes of the onlookers. In this the following is completely overlooked, that religion, although it pertains to souls, is not confined to souls exclusively, and that the honor paid to authority redounds to Christ as its founder. Moreover, to complete this whole subject of faith and its various 2094 branches, it remains for us, Venerable Brethren, to consider finally the precepts of the modernists on the development of both.-Here is a gen- eral principle: In a religion which is living nothing is without change, an<l so there must be change. From here they make a step to what is essentially the chief point in their doctrines, namely, evolution. Dogma, then, Church, worship, the Books that we revere as sacred, even faith itself, unless we wish all these to be powerless, must be bound by the laws of evolution. This cannot appear surprising to you, if you bear in mind what the modernists have taught on each of these subjects. So, granted the law of evolution, we have the way of evolution described by the modernists themselves. And first, as regards faith. The primitive form of faith, they say, was crude and common to all men, since it had its origin in human nature and human life. Vital evolution contributed progress; to be sure, not by the novelty of forms added to it from the outside, but by the daily increasing pervasion of the religious sense into
53° the conscience. Moreover, this progress was made in two ways: first, in a negative way, by eliminating anything extraneous, as for example, that might come from family or nation; seC!Ond, in a positive way, by the in- tellectual and moral refinement of man, whereby the notion of the divine becomes fuller and clearer, and the religious sense more accurate. The same causes for the progress of faith are to be brought forward as were employed to explain its origins. But to these must be added certain ex- traordinary men ( whom we call prophets, and of whom Christ is the most outstanding), not only because they bore before themselves in their lives and works something mysterious which faith attributed to the divinity, but also because they met with new experiences never had before, corresponding to the religious needs of the time of each.-But the progress of dogma arises chiefly from this, that impediments to faith have to be overcome, enemies have- to be conquered, objections have to be refuted. Add to this a perpetual struggle to penetrate more deeply the things that are contained in the mysteries of faith. Thus, to pass over other examples, it happened in the case of Christ: in Him that divine something or other, which faith admitted, was slowly and gradually ex- panded, so that finally He was held to be God.-The necessity of accom- modating itself to the customs and traditions of the people especially contributed to the evolution of worship; likewise, the necessity of em- ploying the power of certain acts, which they have acquired by usage.- Finally, the cause of evolution as regards the Church arose in this, that she needs to be adjusted to contemporary historical conditions, and to the forms of civil government publicly in vogue. This do they think regarding each. But before we proceed we wish that this doctrine of necessities or needs be well noted; for beyond all that we have seen, this is, as it were, the basis and foundation of that famous method which they call historical. To linger still on the doctrine of evolution, this is to be noted especially, that, although needs or necessities impel to evolution, yet if driven by this alone, easily trangressing the boundaries of tradition and thus sepa- rating itself from the primitive vital principle, it would lead to ruin rather than to progress. Thus, following the mind of the modernists more com- pletely, we shall say that evolution comes out of the conflict of two forces, one of which leads to progress, the other holds back to conservation. The conserving force flourishes in the Church and is contained in tradition. Indeed, religious authority makes use of it; and this it does both by right itself, for it is in the nature of authority to guard tradition, and in fact, for authority remote from the changes of life is pressed on not at all, or very little by the incentives that drive to progress. On the contrary the force which attracts to progress and responds to the inner needs, lies hidden, and works in the consciences of individuals, especially of those
53 1 who attain life, as they say, more closely and intimately.-Behold here, Venerable Brethren, we perceive that most pernicious doctrine raise its head, which introduces into the Church the members of the laity as ele- ments of progress.-By a kind of covenant and pact between these two forces, the conserver and the promoter of progress, namely, between au- thority and the consciences of individuals, advances and changes take place. For the consciences of individuals, or certain of them, act on the collective conscience; but this last acts upon those who have authority, and forces them to effect agreements and to abide by the pact.-As a result of this, moreover, it is easy to understand why the modernists marvel so, when they realize that they are caught or are punished. What is held up to them as a fault, they themselves hold as a religious duty to be ful- filled. No one knows the needs of consciences better than they themselves, because they come in closer touch with them than does ecclesiastical authority. Therefore, they gather all these needs, as it were, within themselves; and so they are bound by the duty of speaking and writing publicly. Let authority rebuke them, if it wishes; they themselves are supported by the conscience of duty, and they know by intimate ex- perience that they deserve not criticism but praise. Surely it does not escape them that progress is by no means made without struggles, nor struggles without victims; so let they themselves be victims, just as the prophets and Christ. Because they are held in evil repute, they do not look askance at authority on this account; they even concede that it is carrying out its duty. They complain only that they are not heard; for thus the course of souls is impeded; yet the time to put an end to delays will most certainly come, for the laws of evolution can be halted, but they can by no means be broken. Therefore, they continue on their estab- lished road; they continue, although refuted and condemned, concealing their incredible audacity with a veil of feigned humility. Indeed, they bow their heads in pretense, yet with their hands and minds they boldly follow through what they have undertaken. Moreover, thus they act quite willingly and wittingly, both because they hold that authority must be stimulated and not overturned, and because it is a necessity for them to remain within the fold of the Church, that they may gradually change the collective conscience. Yet when they say this, they do not remark that they confess that the collective conscience is apart from them, and thus without right they commend themselves as its interpreters. . . . [Then is adduced and explained what is contained in this Enchiridion n. 1636, r705, r8oo ].-But after we have observed the philosopher, believer, and theologian among the followers of modernism, it now remains for us to observe the historian, critic, apologist, and reformer in like manner. [IV] Certain of the modernists who have given themselves over to 2096 composing history, seem especially solicitous lest they be believed to be
philosophers; why, they even profess to be entirely without experience of philosophy. This they do with consummate astuteness, lest, for ex- ample, anyone think that they are imbued with the prejudiced opinions of philosophy, and for this reason, as they say, are not at all objective. Yet the truth is that their history or criticism bespeaks pure philosophy; and whatever conclusions are arrived at by them, are derived by right reason- ing from their philosophic principles. This is indeed easily apparent to one who reflects.-The first three canons of such historians and critics, as we have said, are those same principles which we adduced from the philosophers above: namely, agnosticism, the theorem of the transfigura- tion of things by faith, and likewise another which it seemed could be called d1sfiguration. Let us now note the consequences that come from them individually.-According to agnosticism, history, just as science, is concerned only with phenomena. Therefore, just as God, so any divine intervention in human affairs must be relegated to faith, as belonging to it alone. Thus, if anything occurs consisting of a double element, divine and human, such as are Christ, the Church, the sacraments, and many others of this kind, there will have to be a division and separation, so that what was human may be assigned to history, and what divine to faith. Thus, the distinction common among the modernists between the Christ of history and the Christ of faith, the Church of history and the Church of faith, the sacraments of history and the sacraments of faith, and other similar distinctions in general.-Then this human element itself, which we see the historian assume for himself, must be mentioned, such as appears in documents, raised above historical conditions by faith through transfiguration. So, the additions made by faith must in turn be dissociated, and relegated to faith itself, and to the history of faith; so when Christ is being discussed, whatever surpasses the natural condition of man, as is shown by psychology, or has been raised out of the place and the time in which He lived, must be dissociated.-Besides, in accord with the third principle of philosophy those things also which do not pass beyond the field of history, they view through a sieve, as it were, and eliminate all and relegate likewise to faith, which in their judgment, as they say, are not in the logic of facts or suited to the characters. Thus they do not will that Christ said those things which appear to exceed the capacity of the listening multitude. Hence from His real history they delete and transfer to faith all his allegories that occur in His discourses. Perhaps we shall ask by what law these matters are dissociated? From the character of the man, from the condition which He enjoyed in the state; from His education, from the complexus of the incidents of any fact, in a word, if we understand well, from a norm which finally at some time recedes into the merely subjective. They aim, of course, themselves to take on the character of Christ and, as it were, to make it their own;
whatever, in like circumstances they would have done, all this they transfer to Christ.-Thus then to conclude, a priori and according to certain prin- ciples of philosophy which they in truth hold but profess to ignore, they affirm that Christ, in what they call real history, is not God and never did anything divine; indeed, that He did and said as a man what they them- selves attribute to Him the right of doing and saying, taking themselves back to His times. [V] Moreover, as history receives its conclusions from philosophy, so 2097 criticism takes its conclusions from history. For the critic, following the indications furnished by the historian, divides documents in two ways. Whatever is left after the threefold elimination just mentioned he assigns to real history; the rest he delegates to the history of faith or internal history. For they distinguish sharply between these two histories; the his- tory of faith ( and this we wish to be well noted) they oppose to the real history, as it is real. Thus, as we have already said, the two Christs: one real, the other, who never was in fact, but pertains to faith; one who lived in a certain place and in a certain age; another, who is found only in the pious commentaries of faith; such, for example, is the Christ whom the Gospel of John presents, which, according to them is nothing more or less than a meditation. But the domination of philosophy over history is not ended with this. 2098 After the documents have been distributed in a twofold manner, the philosopher is again on hand with his dogma of vital immanence; and he declares that all things in the history of the Church are to be explained by vital emanation. But either the cause or the condition of vital emanation is to be placed in some need or want; therefore, too, the fact must be conceived after the need, and the one is historically posterior to the other. -Why then the historian? Having scrutinized the documents again, either those that are contained in the Sacred Books or have been intro- duced from elsewhere, he draws up from them an index of the particular needs which relate not only to dogma but to liturgy, and other matters which have had a place one after the other in the Church. He hands over the index so made to the critic. Now he ( the critic) takes in hand the documents which are devoted to the history of faith, and he so arranges them age by age that they correspond one by one with the index submitted, always mindful of the precept that the fact is preceded by the need, and the need by the fact. Surely, it may at times happen that some parts of the Bible, as for example the epistles, are the fact itself created by the need. Yet whatever it is, the law is that the age of any document is not to be determined otherwise than by the age of any need that has ariser.. in the Church.-Besides, a distinction must be made between the origin of any fact and the development of the same, for what can be born on one day, takes on growth only with the passage of time. For this reason the critic
must, as we have said, again divide the documents already distributed through the ages, separating the ones which have to do with the origin of the thing, and those which pertain to its development, and he must in turn arrange them by periods. Then again there is place for the philosopher, who enjoins upon the historian so to exercise his zeal as the precepts and laws of evolution prescribe. Thereupon the historian examines the documents again; ex- amines carefully the circumstances and conditions which the Church has experienced for period after period: her conserving power, the needs both internal and external which have stimulated her to progress, the obstacles which have been in her way, in a word, everything whatsoever which helps to determine how the laws of evolution have been kept. Finally, after this he describes the history of the development in broad outlines, as it were. The critic comes in and adapts the rest of the documents. He applies his hand to writing. The history is finished.-Now we ask, to whom is this history to be ascribed? To the historian or to the critic? Surely to neither; but to the philosopher. The whole business is carried on through apriorism; and indeed by an apriorism reeking with heresy. Surely such men are to be pitied, of whom the Apostle would have said: "They become vain in their thoughts . . . professing themselves to be wise they became fools" [ Rom. r :21-22 J; but yet they move i.:s to anger, when they accuse the Church of so confusing and changing documents that they may testify to her advantage. Surely they charge the Church with that for which they feel that they themselves are openly condemned by their own conscience. Furthermore, as a result of this division and arrangement of the docu- ments by ages it naturally follows that the Sacred Books cannot be at- tributed to those authors to whom in fact they are ascribed. For this reason the modernists generally do not hesitate to assert that those same books, especially the Pentateuch and the first three Gospels, from the brief original account grew gradually by additions, by interpolations, indeed, in the manner of either theological or allegorical interpretations; or even by the interjection of parts solely to join different passages together.-To state it briefly and more clearly, there must certainly be admitted the vital evolution of the Sacred Books, born of the evolution of faith and corre- sponding to the same.-Indeed, they add that the traces of this evolution are so manifest that its history can almost be described. Nay, rather, they do in fact describe it with no hesitation, so that you would believe that they saw the very writers with their own eyes as they applied their hand in every age to amplifying the Sacred Books. Moreover, to support these actions they call to their aid a criticism which they call textual; and they strive to convince us that this or that fact or expression is not in its own place, and they bring forward other such arguments.-You would indeed
say that they had prescribed for themselves certain types, as it were, of narrations and discourses, as a result of which they decide with certainty what stands in its own place or in a strange place.-Let him who wishes judge how skilled they can be to make decisions in this way. Moreover, he who gives heed to them as they talk about their studies on the Sacred Books, as a result of which it was granted them to discover so many things improperly stated, would almost believe that no man before them had turned the pages of these same books; and that an almost infinite number of doctors had not examined them from every point of view, a group clearly far superior to them in mind, and erudition, and sanctity of life. These very wise doctors indeed, far from finding fault with the Sacred Scriptures in any part, rather, the more thoroughly they investi- gated them, the more they gave thanks to divine authority for having deigned so to speak with men. But alas, our doctors with respect to the Sacred Books did not rely upon those aids on which the modernists did; thus they did not have philosophy as a master and guide, nor did they choose themselves as their own authority in making decisions. Now, then, we think that it is clear of what sort the method of the modernists is in the field of history. The philosopher goes ahead; the historian succeeds him; right behind, in order, works criticism, both internal and textual. And since it is characteristic of the first cause to communicate its power to its consequences, it becomes evident that such criticism is not criticism at all; that it is rightly called agnostic, immanentist, and evolutionist; and that so, he who professes it and uses it, professes the errors implicit in the same and opposes Catholic doctrine.-For this reason it can seem most strange that criticism of this kind has such weight today among Catholics. This obviously has a twofold cause: first of all the pact by which the historians and the critics of this kind are so closely joined, the differences of nationality and the dissension of religions being placed in the background; then the endless effrontery by which all with one voice extol whatever each of them prattles, and attribute it to the progress of science; by which in close array they attack him who wishes to examine the new marvel or his own; by which they accuse him who denies it of ignorance, adorn him with praises who embraces and defends it. Thus no small number are deceived who, if they should examine the matter more closely, would be horrified.-From this powerful domineering on the part of those in error, and this heedless compliance on the part of fickle souls, a corruption in the surrounding atmosphere results which penetrates everywhere and diffuses its pestilence. [VI] But let us pass on to the apologist. He, too, among the modernists 2101 depends in a twofold manner upon the philosopher. First, indirectly, taking history as his subject matter, written at the dictation of the philos- opher, as we have seen; then directly, having obtained his doctrines and
judgments from him. Hence that precept widespread in the school of the modernists that the new apologetics should resolve controversies over religion by historical and psychological investigations. Therefore, the modernist apologist approaches his task by advising the rationalists that they defend religion not by means of the Sacred Books, nor by history as widely employed in the Church which is written in the old way, but by real history composed of modern principles and the modern method. And this they assert not as if using an argumentum ad hominem, but because in very fact they think that only such history hands down the truth. They are indeed unconcerned about asserting their sincerity in what they write; they are already known among the nationalists; they are already praised for doing service under the same banner; and on this praise, which a real Catholic would reject, they congratulate themselves, and, hold it up against the reprimands of the Church.-But now let us see how one of them proceeds in his apologies. The end which he places before himself for accomplishment, is this: to win a person thus far inexperienced in the faith over to it, that he may attain this experience of the Catholic religion, which according to the modernists is the only basis of faith. A twofold way is open to this: one objective, the other subjective. The first proceeds from agnosticism, and it strives to show that that vital virtue is in religion, especially the Catholic religion, which persuades every psychologist and likewise historian of good mind that in its history something of the unknown must be concealed. To this end it is necessary to show that the Catholic religion, as it exists today, is exactly that which Christ founded, or that it is nothing other than the progressive development of that germ which Christ introduced. First, then, it must be determined of what nature the germ is. This, furthermore, they wish to prove by the following formula: The Christ announced the coming of the kingdom of God, which was to be established shortly; and that He Himself would be its Messias, that is, the divinely given founder and ordainer. Then it must be shown in what way this germ, always immanent and permanent in the Catholic religion, has evolved gradually, and according to history, and has adapted itself to succeeding circumstances, taking to itself from these vitally whatever of the doctrinal, cultural, and ecclesiastical forms was useful to it, but meanwhile overcoming such obstacles as met it, scatter- ing its enemies, and surviving all attacks and combats. Yet after it has been shown that all these, namely, obstacles, enemies, attacks, combats, and likewise the vitality and fecundity of Church have been of such nature that, although the laws of evolution appear unimpaired in the history of the Church, yet they are not alike to be fully developed by the same history; the unknown will stand before it, and will present itself of its own accord.-Th us do they argue. In all this reasoning, however, they fail to notice one thing, that that determination of the primitive germ is due
solely to the apriorism of the agnostic and evolutionist philosopher, and the germ itself is so gratuitously defined by them as to fit in with their case. Yet while by reciting arguments the new apologists struggle to proclaim 2102 and bring conviction to the Catholic religion, of their own accord they grant and concede that there is much in it which offends. With a kind of ill-concealed pleasure they even declare repeatedly and openly that they find errors and contradictions also in the field of dogma; yet they add that these not only admit of an excuse, but, which should be an object of wonder, that these have been produced rightly and lawfully. Thus, even according to themselves much in the Sacred Books within the field of science and history is affected by error. But they say that here it is not a question of science or history, but only of religion and morals. There science and history are a kind of covering with which the religious and moral experiences are bound, so that they may be more easily spread among the masses; since, indeed, the masses would not understand this otherwise, a more perfect kind of science and history would not have been a help but a harm to them. But, they add, the Sacred Books, because they are religious by nature, necessarily possess life; now, life also has its own truth and logic, quite different from rational truth and rational logic, rather of an entirely different order, namely, the truth of comparison and proportion not only with reference to the medium ( so they themselves call it) in which it is lived, but also with reference to the end for which it is lived. Finally, they proceed to such a point that, abandoning all restraint, they assert that whatever is evolved through life, is entire! y true and legitimate.-Now We, Venerable Brethren, for whom there is one, unique truth, and who regard the Sacred Books thus, "that written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit they have God as their author" [seen. 1787], declare that this is the same as giving the lie of utility, or the officious lie to God Himself, and "\Ve assert in the words of St. Augustine: "Once some officious lie is admitted against so high an authority, there will re- main r10t a clause in those books which, according as it will appear to anyone difficult to practise or incredible of belief, is not referred according to this same pernicious rule to the plan and purpose of a lying author." 1 Therefore it will happen, as the same Holy Doctor adds: "In these, namely the Scriptures, everyone will believe what he wishes; what he does not wish, he will not believe."-But the modernist apologists move forward rapidly. They.also concede that in the Sacred Books such reasonings are frequently discovered which attempt to prove a certain doctrine without rational foundation; such kind are those which rest upon the prophecies. And they defend these as a kind of artifice for preaching, which are made legitimate by life. What more? They admit, rather, they assert that Christ 1 St. Augustine, Letter 28, c. 3 [ML 33 (Aug. II), 112, 3).
Himself manifestly erred in indicating the time of the coming of the kingdom of God; and this should not seem strange, they say, for He, too, was bound by the laws of life! Again, what about the dogmas of the Church? These also abound in open contradictions; but in addition to the fact that they are admitted by vital logic, they are not opposed to symbolic truth; for in these it is a question of the infinite, to which belong infinite considerations. Finally, they so prove and defend all this that they do not hesitate to profess that no more noble honor is shown the Infinite than the affirming of contradictions about Him.-But when a contradic- tion is approved, what will not be approved? He who does not yet believe can be disposed toward faith not only by objective but also by subjective arguments. To this end the modernist apologists return to the doctrine of immanence. They labor in fact to persuade man that in him, and in the innermost recesses of his nature and life are concealed a desire and need for some religion; not for any religion, but for such a one as is the Catholic religion; for this, they say, is ab- solutely postulated by the perfect development of life.-Here, moreover, we should again complain vigorously that there are not lacking among Catholics those who, although they reject the doctrine of immanence as a doctrine, yet employ it as a method of apology; and they do this so heed- lessly that they seem to admit in human nature not only a capacity and a suitability for the supernatural order, as certain Catholic apologists have always demonstrated within proper bounds, but a genuine need in the true sense of the word.-To speak more accurately, this need of the Cath- olic religion is introduced by modernists who wish to be known as the more moderate. For, those who can be called integralists wish that the germ be demonstrated to the man who does not yet believe, as being hidden in him, the very germ which was in the consciousness of Christ and was transmitted to men by Him.-Thus then, Venerable Brethren, we recog- nize the apologetic method of the modernists, summarily described, as quite in keeping with their doctrine; a method indeed, as also the doc- trines, full of errors, not suited for edifying, but for destroying, not for making Catholics, but for dragging Catholics into heresy, yes, even for the complete subversion of every religion. [VII] Finally, a few words must be said about the modernist as a re- former. What we have said thus far shows abundantly with how great and keen a zeal for innovating these men are carried away. Moreover, this zeal extends to absolutely everything which exists among Catholics. They wish philosophy to be reformed, especially in ecclesiastical seminaries, so that, after relegating scholastic philosophy to the history of philosophy along with the other obsolete systems, youth may be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and in accord with our age.-To reform theology, they wish that that which we call rational have modern philoso-
phy as a basis, but they demand that positive theology be based especially upon the history of dogma.-They also demand that history be written and be taught according to their method and modern prescriptions. Dogmas and the evolution of the same, they declare, must be brought into harmony with science and history.-As regards catechesis, they demand that only those dogmas be noted in catechism, which have been reformed, and are within the capacity of the masses. As for worship they say that external devotions are to be reduced in number, and that steps be taken to prevent their increase, although some who are more favorable toward symbolism show themselves more indulgent on this score.-They cry out that the gov- ernment of the Church must be reformed in every respect, but especially on the disciplinary and dogmatic side. Thus, both within and without it is to be brought in harmony with the modern conscience, as they say, which tends entirely towards democracy; so to the lower clergy and to laity itself appropriate parts in the government should be assigned, and when authority has been unified too much and too centralized, it is to be dis- persed.-The Roman congregations they likewise wish to be modified in the performance of their holy duties, but especially that which is known as the Holy Office and is also called the Index. Likewise, they contend that the action of ecclesiastical authority must be changed in the political and social fields, so that it may at the same time live apart from civil affairs, yet adapt itself to them in order to imbue them with its spirit.-In the field of morals they adopt the principle of the Americanists, that the active virtues are to be placed before the passive, and should be put ahead of them in practice.-They desire that the clergy be prepared to practise the ancient humility and poverty; moreover, that in thought and deed they conform with the precepts of modernism.-Finally, there are some who, giving heed to the words of their Protestant masters, desire the removal of holy celibacy itself from the priesthood- What, then, do they leave un- touched in the Church, that is not to be reformed by them or according to their pronouncements? In explaining all this doctrine of the modernists, Venerable Brethren, 2105 We shall seem to some, by chance, to have delayed too long. Yet it was quite necessary to do so, both that, as is customary, We might not be charged by them with ignorance of their tenets, and that it might be clear that when it is a question of modernism we are dealing not with scattered teachings in no way connected with one another, but with a single and compact body, as it were, in which, if you admit one thing, the rest necessarily follows. Thus we have made use of what amounts to didactic reasoning, and sometimes we have not rejected the atrocious words which the modernists have employed. Now as we look back upon the whole system in one glance, as it were, no one will be surprised when we define it as the synthesis of all heresies.
Surely, if anyone had proposed this to himself, to bring together into one the sap and blood of all the errors that have ever existed about the faith, no one would have performed the task more completely than the modernists have done it. Rather they have gone so much beyond this as not only to destroy completely the Catholic religion, but all religion, as We have already intimated. Hence, the applause of the rationalists; for this reason do those among the rationalists who speak more freely and openly congratulate themselves on having found no more efficacious allies than the modernists. Now let us return for a moment, Venerable Brothers, to that most pernicious doctrine of agnosticism. By it evidently, as far as the intellect is concerned, every way to God is barred to man, while a more fitting ap- proach is supposed to be open through a certain sense of the soul and action. Who does not see how wrong this is? For the sense of the soul is the response to the action of the thing which the intellect and the external senses have proposed. Take away the intellect and man will be prone to follow the external senses, in which direction he is already proceeding. Again this is bad; for any phantasies of the religious sense will not destroy common sense; moreover, by common sense we are taught that any dis- turbance or occupation of the soul is not a help but rather a hindrance to the search for truth, for truth, we say, as it is in itself; for that other subjective truth, the fruit of the internal sense and action, if indeed it is adapted to play, contributes nothing at all to man whose chief concern it is to learn whether outside himself there is a God into whose hands he will one day fall.-But the modernists do introduce experience as an aid to so great a task. Yet, what will this add to that sense of the soul? Nothing at all, except to make it more vehement; and as a result of this vehemence to make its conviction of the truth of the object proportionately stronger. Now these two certainly never make the sense of the soul cease to be sense, nor do they change its nature which is always liable to deception, unless it is directed by the intellect; but rather they confirm and assist it, for the more intense the sense, by that greater right it is sense. Now since we are here dealing with religious sense and the experience contained in it, you know well, Venerable Brethren, how much there is need of prudence in this matter; likewise how much doctrine to guide pru- dence itself. You know this from your own experience with souls, especially certain ones in whom the sense is pre-eminent; you know it from your habit of reading books which treat of asceticism, which works, although they are of little worth in the estimation of the modernists, yet present a doctrine far more solid and more profound for observing wisdom than that which they arrogate to themselves. Indeed, it seems to Us the part of madness, or at least consummate imprudence, to hold as true without investigation the intimate experiences which the modernists recommend.
54 1 But why, to speak cursorily, if there is so much force and value in these ex- periences, should not the same value be attributed to that experience which many thousands of Catholics assert that they have regarding the erroneous path on which the modernists tread? Is not all this false and fallacious? But the great majority of men firmly hold this, and will hold this: that through sense alone and experience, with no guidance and light of the mind, man can never attain God. And so we again have atheism, and no religion. The modernists promise themselves nothing better by proclaiming the 2108 doctrine of symbolism. For if all intellectual elements, as they say, are merely symbols of God, will not the very name of God, or of the divine personality be a symbol. And if this is so, then there will be a possibility of doubt about the divine personality and the way is open to pantheism. Moreover, in the same way the other doctrine of divine immanence leads to pure and unmixed pantheism. For we ask this: Does such immanence distinguish God from man or not? If it does so distinguish, in what then does it differ from Catholic doctrine, or why does it reject the doctrine of external revelation? If it does not so distinguish, we have pantheism. But this immanence of the modernists holds and grants that every phenom- enon of conscience proceeds from man as man. Thus good reasoning infers from this that God and man are one and the same; and so we have pantheism. Indeed, the distinction which they proclaim between science and faith 2109 admits no other conclusion. For, they place the object of science in the reality of the knowable; the object of faith, on the contrary, in the reality of the unknowable. Now, the unknowable is fully established from this, that between the material object and the intellect there is no proportion, and this defect of proportion can never be removed, not even in the doctrine of the modernists. Therefore, the unknowable will always remain un- knowable, to the believer as well as to the philosopher. Therefore, if we will possess any religion, it will be of an unknowable reality. Why this cannot also be the soul of the universe, as certain rationalists admit, we certainly do not see. But let these words suffice now to show fully how the doctrine of the modernists leads by manifold routes to atheism, and to the destruction of all religion. Indeed, the error of the Protestants was the first to take the step down this road; the error of the modernists follows; atheism will be the next step. [After fixing the causes of these errors- curiosity, pride, ignorance of true philosophy-certain rules are laid down for the support and organization of philosophical, theological, and profane studies, and for the cautious selection of teachers, etc.]
The Author and Historical Truth of the Fourth Gospel 1 [Response of the Biblical Commission, May 29, 1907]
Question I: Whether from the constant, universal, and solemn tradition of the Church coming down from the second century, inasmuch as it is taken chiefly a) from the testimonies and allusions of the Holy Fathers, ecclesiastical writers, even heretics, which, since they must derive from the disciples and first successors of the apostles, are necessarily closely connected with the very origin of the work itself; b) from the acceptance always and everywhere of the name of the author of the fourth Gospel in the Canon and in the catalogues of the Sacred Scriptures; c) fro~ the oldest manuscripts, codices, and versions in various languages of the same Books; d) from the public liturgical practice obtaining in the whole world from the beginnings of the Church; prescinding from theological proof, it is demonstrated by such strong historical proof that John the Apostle and no other is to be recognized as the author of the fourth Gospel, that the reasons adduced by critics in opposition by no means weaken this tradition?-Answer: In the affirmative. Question !I: Whether the internal reasons also, which are taken from the text of the fourth Gospel, considered separately, from the testimony of the author and the manifest relationship of the Gospel itself with the First Epistle of the Apostle John, are to be considered as confirming the tradition which undoubtedly attributes the fourth Gospel to the same Apostle?-And whether the difficulties which are assumed from a com- parison of the Gospel with the other three, the diversity of the times, purposes, and audiences, for whom and against whom the author wrote, being kept in view, can be reasonably solved, just as the most Holy Fathers and exegetes have shown in different places?-Answer: In the affirmative to both parts. Question l/1: Whether, not withstanding the practice which flourished constantly in the whole Church from the earliest times, of arguing from the fourth Gospel as tram a truly historical document, in consideration, nevertheless, of the peculiar nature of the same Gospel, and of the manifest intention of the author to illustrate and to prove the divinity of Christ from the very deeds and words of the Lord, it can be said that the deeds related in the fourth Gospel are totally or partially so invented that they are allegories or doctrinal symbols; but that the words of the Lord are not properly and truly the words of the Lord himself, but theological compositions of the writer, although placed in the mouth of the Lord?- Answer: In the negative.
The Authority of the Decisions of the Biblical Commission 1 [From Motu proprio, "Praestantia Scripturae," Nov. 18, 1907]
. After long discussions and most conscientious deliberations, certain 2113 excellent decisions have been published by the Pontifical Biblical Com- mission, very useful for the true adnncement of Biblical studies and for directing the same by a definite norm. Yet we notice that there are not lacking those who have not received and do not receive such decisions with the obedience which is proper, even though they are approved by the Pontiff. Therefore, we see that it must be declared and ordered as We do now declare and expressly order, that all are bound by the duty of conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Pontifical Commission, both those which have thus far been published and those which will here- after be proclaimed, just as to the decrees of the Sacred Congregations which pertain to doctrine and have been approved by the Pontiff; and that all who impugn such decisions as these by word or in writing cannot avoid the charge of disobedience, or on this account be free of grave sin; and this besides the scandal by which they offend, and the other matters for which they can be responsible before God, especially because of other pronouncements in these matters made rashly and erroneously. In addition to this, intending to repress the daily increasing boldness of 2114 spirit of many Modernists, who by sophisms and artifices of every kind endeavor to destroy the force and the efficacy not only of the Decree, "Lamentabili sane exitu," which was published at Our command by the Sacred Roman and Universal Inquisition on the third of July of the current year [ see n. 207 r ff.], but also of Our Encyclical Letter, "Pascendi Dominici gregis," given on the eighth of September of this same year [seen. 2071 ff.] by Our Apostolic authority, We repeat and confirm not only that Decree of the Sacred Supreme Congregation, but also that Encyclical Letter of Ours, adding the penalty of excommunication against all who contradict them; and We declare and decree this: if anyone, which may God forbid, proceeds to such a point of boldness that he defends any of the propositions, opinions, and doctrines disproved in either document mentioned above, he is zpso facto affiicted by the censure imposed in the chapter Docentes of the Constitution of the Apostolic See, first among those excommunications latae sententiae which are reserved simply to the Roman Pontiff. This excommunication, however, is to be understood with no change in the punishments, which those who have committed anything against the above mentioned documents may incur, if at any 1 ASS 40 (1907), 724 ff.; AE 15 (1907), 425 f.; EB n. 278 ff.
time their propositions, opinions, or doctrines are heretical; which indeed has happened more than once in the case of the adversaries of both these documents, but especially when they defend the errors of modernism, that is, the refuge of all heresies.
The Nature and Authorship of the Book of Isaias 1 [Response of the Biblical Commission, June 29th, 1908]
Question I: Whether it can be taught that the prophecies which are read in the book of Isaias, and here and there in the Scriptures, are not prophecies in the true sense of the word, but either accounts composed after the event or, if it is necessary that they be acknowledged as being foretold before the event, that the prophet foretold them not from any natural revelation of God who knows the future, but by a kind of happy sagacity and natural acumen of the mind from things that have already happened?-Reply: In the negative. Question II: Whether the opinion which prevails that Isaias and the other prophets uttered only prophecies which were to take place in the near future, or after no great space of time, can be reconciled with those prophecies, especially the Messianic and eschatological, which were cer- tainly pronounced by these same prophets a long time in advance, and also with the common opinion of the Holy Fathers who assert with one accord that the prophets foretold those things also which were to be ful- filled after many ages?-Reply: In the negative. Question III: Whether it can be admitted that the prophets, not only as reformers of human depravity, and heralds of the divine Word for the benefit of those who heed it, but also as foretellers of future events, must have continually addressed themselves, not to future listeners but to contemporary ones, on an equal footing with themselves, and in a manner to make possible a clear understanding; that as a consequence the second part of book of Isaias ( chapter 40, 66), in which the prophet living among them addresses and consoles not the Jews on an equal footing with Isaias, but the lamenting in Babylonian exile, cannot have had Isaias himself, who was already dead, as its author, but should be assigned to some un- known prophet living among the exiles?-Reply: In the negative. Question IV: Whether the philological argument taken from the language and style to impugn the identity of the author of the book of Isaias, is to be considered of such importance as to force a serious person, skilled in the art of criticism and in the Hebrew language, to recognize in the same book a plurality of authors?-Reply: In the negative. Question V: Whether solid arguments stand out, even taken collectively, 1 ASS 41 (1908), 613 £.; AE 16 (1908), 297; EB n. 287 ff.
to induce the conviction that the Book of Isaias is not to be attributed to Isaias himself alone, but to two, or even to several authors.-Reply: In the negative.
The Relationship Between Philosophy and Theology 1 [From the Encyclical, "Communium rerum," April 21, 1909]
(Therefore) the task of philosophy is chiefly to set forth promi- 2120
nently the "reasonable service" [Rom. 12:1] of our faith, and the duty
which follows from that of joining faith to divine authority which pro- poses the most profound mysteries which, proven by many evidences of truth, "are become exceedingly credible" [Ps. 92:5]. Far different from this is the task of theology, which relies on divine revelation and makes more solid in the faith those who confess that they rejoice in the honor of the Christian name; for no Christian should dispute how what the Catho- lic Church believes in heart, and confesses in words is not so; but always unhesitatingly holding to the same faith, but loving and living according to it, humbly seek the reason, insofar as he can, how it is so. If he can understand, let him give thanks to God; if he cannot let him not push his horns to the struggle [Cf. I Mach. 7:46], but let him submit his head to veneration.
The Historical Character of the Earlier Chapters of Genesis 2 [Response of the Biblical Commission, June 30th, 1909)
Question I: Whether the various exegetical systems which have been 21211 proposed to exclude the literal historical sense of the three first chapters of the Book of Genesis, and have been defended by the pretense of science, are sustained by a solid foundation ?-Reply: In the negative.
Question II: Whether, when the nature and historical form of the Book 212~ of Genesis does not oppose, because of the peculiar connections of the three first chapters with each other and with the following chapters, because of the manifold testimony of the Old and of the New Testaments; because of the almost unanimous opinion of the Holy Fathers, and because of the traditional sense which, transmitted from the Israelite people, the Church always held, it can be taught that the three aforesaid chapters of Genesis do not contain the stories of events which really happened, that is, which correspond with objective reality and historical truth; but are either accounts celebrated in fable drawn from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and adapted by a holy writer to mono- 1 AAS I (1909), 381; AE 17 (1909), 170. 2 AAS I (1909), 567 ff.; AE 17 (1909), 334; EB n. 332 ff.
theistic doctrine, after expurgating any error of polytheism; or allegories and symbols, devoid of a basis of objective reality, set forth under the guise of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or, finally, legends, historical in part and fictitious in part, composed freely for the instruction and edification of souls?-Reply: In the negative to both parts. Question III: Whether in particular the literal and historical sense can be called into question, where it is a matter of facts related in the same chapters, which pertain to the foundations of the Christian religion; for example, among others, the creation of all things wrought by God in thr beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the oneness of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immor- tality; the command given to man by God to prove his obedience; the transgression of the divine command through the devil's persuasion under the guise of a serpent; the casting of our first parents out of that first state of innocence; and also the promise of a future restorer?-Reply: In the negative. Question IV: Whether in interpreting those passages of these chapters, which the Fathers and Doctors have understood differently, but concern- ing which they have not taught anything certain and definite, it is per- mitted, while preserving the judgment of the Church and keeping the analogy of faith, to follow and defend that opinion which everyone has wisely approved?-Reply: In the affirmative. Question V: Whether all and everything, namely, words and phrases which occur in the aforementioned chapters, are always and necessarily to be accepted in a special sense, so that there may be no deviation from this, even when the expressions themselves manifestly appear to have been taken improperly, or metaphorically or anthropomorphically, and either reason prohibits holding the proper sense, or necessity forces its aban- donment?-Rep/y: In the negative. Question V !: Whether, presupposing the literal and historical sense, the allegorical and prophetical interpretation of some passages of the same chapters, with the example of the Holy Fathers and the Church herself showing the way, can be wisely and profitably applied?-Rep/y: In the affirmative. Question VII: Whether, since in writing the first chapter of Genesis it was not the mind of the sacred author to teach in a scientific manner the detailed constitution of visible things and the complete order of creation, but rather to give to his people a popular notion, according as the common speech of the times went, accommodated to the understanding and capacity of men, the propriety of scientific language is to be investigated exactly and always in the interpretation of these?-Reply: In the negative. Questzon VIII: Whether in that designation and distinction of six days,
with which the account of the first chapter of Genesis deals, the word -(dies) can be assumed either in its proper sense as a natural day, or in the improper sense of a certain space of time; and whether with regard to such a question there can be free disagreement among exegetes?-Reply: In the affirmative.
The Authors and the Time of the Composition of the Psalms 1 [Reply of the Biblical Commission, May r, r9ro]
Question I: Whether the designations Psalms of David, Hymns of 2129 David, Davidian Psalter, used in the ancient collections and in the Coun- cils themselves to designate the Book of r 50 psalms of the Old Testament, just as also the opinion of many Fathers and Doctors who held that ab- solutely all the psalms of the Psalter are to be ascribed to David alone, have such force that David ought to be held as the only author of the entire Psalter ?-Reply: In the negative. Question II: Whether from a comparison of the Hebraic with the 2130 Alexandrian Greek text and with other old versions it can rightly be argued that the titles of the psalms prefixed to the Hebraic text are more ancient than the so-called version of the seventy men; and therefore have derived, if not directly from the authors themselves of the psalms, at least from an old Judaic tradition?-Reply: In the affirmative. Question III: Whether the aforesaid titles of the psalms, witnesses of 2131 the Judaic tradition, since there is not serious argument against their authenticity, can prudently b~ called into doubt?-Reply: In the negative. Question IV: \Vhether, if the by no means infrequent testimonies of 2132 Holy Scripture about the natural skill of David, illustrated by the grace cf the Holy Spirit in composing the religious hymns, are considered, the institutions established by him on the liturgical singing of the psalms, the attributing of the psalms to him both in the Old Testament and the New, and in the inscriptions themselves which were prefixed to the psalms from antiquity, besides the consensus of opinion of the Jews, Fathers, and Doctors of the Church, it can be prudently denied that David is the chief author of the hymns of the Psalter; or on the other hand affirmed that only a few hymns of the Psalter are to be attributed to him' Reply:-In the negative to both parts. Question V: Whether in appearance the Davidian origin can be denied 2133 to those psalms which are cited in the Old and New Testament distinctly under the name of David, among which to be considered before the rest come: psalm 2, Quare fremuerunt gentes; psalm r5, Conserva me, Domi11e; psalm r7, Diligam te, Domine, fortitudo mea; psalm 3r, Beati, Quorum 1 AAS 2 (1910), 354 f.; EB n. 340 ff.
remissae sunt iniquitates; psalm 68, Salvum me fac, Deus; psalm 109, Dixit Dominus Domino meo?-Reply: In the negative. Question VI: Whether the opinion of those can be admitted who hold that among the psalms of the psalter some, whether of David or of other authors, which for liturgical and musical reasons, the listlessness of the amanuenses, or for other unknown reasons, have been divided into several groups or joined into one; and likewise that there are other psalms, such as Miserere mei, Deus, which, that they may be made to fit in better with historic circumstances or the solemnities of the Jewish people, have been lightly revised and modified by the subtraction or addition of one or two verses, although preserving the inspiration of the entire sacred text?- Reply: In the affirmative to both parts. Question VII: Whether the opinion can probably be sustained of those among more recent writers who, relying on internal indications only, or on an inaccurate interpretation of the sacred text, tried to show that not a few psalms were composed after the times of Esdras and Nehemias, even in the late period of the Machabees.-Reply: In the negative. Question VIII: Whether because of the many testimonies of the Sacred Books of the New Testament, and the unanimous consent of the Fathers, together also with the indications of the writers of the Judaic nation, more psalms should be recognized as prophetic and messianic, which have pre- dicted the coming of the future Liberator, the kingdom, the ;Jriesthood, the passion, the death, and resurrection; and therefore their opinion ought to be completely rejected, who pervert the prophetic and messianic nature of the psalms and restrict the same oracles on Christ only to pronouncing the future lot of the elect people?-Reply: In the affirmative for both parts.
The Age for Admitting to First Eucharistic Communion 1 [From the Decree, "Quern singulari," of the Congregation on the Sacraments, August 8, r9ro]
I. The age of discretion both for confession and for Holy Communion is that at which the child begins to reason, that is, at about the seventh year, more or less. The obligation of satisfying both precepts of confession and communion begins from that time [seen. 437). II. For first confession and for first communion a full and perfect knowledge of Christian doctrine is not necessary. But the child will be obliged afterwards to learn gradually the whole catechism in accord with his intelligence. III. The knowledge of religion which is required in a child, that he may prepare himself fittingly for his first communion, is that by which in accord 1 AAS 2 (1910), 582£.
with his capacity he perceives the mysteries of faith necessary by a necessity of means, and by which he distinguishes Eucharistic bread from the com- mon and corporeal, in order that he may approach the most blessed Eucharist with that devotion which his age carries. IV. The obligation of the precept of confession and communion which 2140 rests upon a child, falls especially upon those who should have care of him, that is, upon parents, confessor, teachers, and pastor. But to the father, or to those who take his place, and to the confessor, it pertains, according to the Roman Catechism, to admit the child to first communion. V. Once or several times a year let the pastors take care to announce 2141 and to hold general communion for children, and to admit to it not only new communicants but also others who by the consent of their parents or confessor, as has been mentioned above, have already partaken for the first time from the holy altar. Let some days for instruction and prepara- tion be set aside in advance. VI. Those who have charge over children must make every effort to see 2142 that these same children after first communion approach the holy table often, and, if it can be done, daily, just as Jesus Christ and Mother Church desire [ see n. r 98 r ff.]; and that they do this with that devotion of mind which is appropriate to such an age. Let those who have this responsibility remember besides the very serious obligation by which they are bound, see to it that the children themselves continue to be present at the public instructions in catechism, or otherwise in some manner supply the same with religious instruction. VII. The custom of never admitting children to confession, or of never 2143 absolving them when they have ;;rrived at the use of reason, is to be disapproved entirely. Therefore, the local ordinaries will see to it, even by applying the remedy of the law, that this custom is entirely abandoned. VIII. The abuse of not administering Viaticum and extreme unction 2144 to children past the age of reason, and of burying them according to the rite of infants is entirely an abuse. Let the local ordinaries deal severely with those who do not abandon such a custom.
The Oath Against the Errors of Modernism 1 [From Motu proprio, "Sacrorum antis ti tum," September r, r9ro]
I . . . firmly embrace and accept all and everything that has been 2145 defined, affirmed, and declared by the unerring magisterium of the Church, especially those chief doctrines which are directly opposed to the errors of this time. And first, I profess that God, the beginning and end of all things, can be certainly known and thus can also be demon-
1 ASS 2 (1910), 669 ff.
55° strated by the natural light of reason "by the things that are made" [ cf. Rom. I :20], that is, by the visible works of creation, as the cause by the effects. Secondly, I admit and recognize the external arguments of revelation, that is, divine facts, and especially miracles and prophecies, as very certain signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion; and I hold that these same arguments have been especially accommodated to the intelligence of all ages and men, even of these times. Thirdly, likewise, with a firm faith I believe that the Church, guardian and mis- tress of the revealed word, was instituted proximately and directly by the true and historical Christ Himself, while he sojourned among us, and that the same was built upon Peter, the chief of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors until the end of time. Fourthly, I accept sincerely the doctrine of faith transmitted from the apostles through the orthodox fathers, always in the same sense and interpretation, even to us; and so I reject the heretical invention of the evolution of dogmas, passing from one meaning to another, different from that which the Church first had; and likewise I reject all error whereby a philosophic fiction is substituted for the divine deposit, given over to the Spouse of Christ and to be guarded faithfully by her, or a creation of the human conscience formed gradually by the efforts of men and to be perfected by indefinite progress in the future. Fifthly, I hold most certainly and profess sincerely that faith is not a blind religious feeling bursting forth from the recesses of the subconscious, unformed morally under the pressure of the heart and the impulse of the will, but the true assent of the intellect to the truth received extrinsically ex auditu, whereby we believe that what has been said, attested, and revealed by the personal God, our Creator and Lord, to be true on account of the authority of God the highest truth. I also subject myself with the reverence which is proper, and I adhere with my whole soul to all the condemnations, declarations, and prescrip- tions which are contained in the Encyclical letter, "Pascendi" [ see n. 2071 ff.] and in the Decree, "Lamentabili" [ see n. 2001 f.], especially on that which is called the history of dogma. In the same manner I disapprove the error of those who affirm that the faith proposed by the Church can be in conflict with history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, cannot be reconciled with the more authentic origins of the Catholic religion.-! also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that the more erudite Christian puts on a dual personality, one of the believer, the other of the historian, as if it were permitted the historian to hold what is in contradiction to the faith of the believer; or to establish premises from which it follows that dogmas are either false or doubtful, provided they are not directly denied.-! disapprove likewise that method of studying and interpreting Sacred Scripture, which disregards the tradition of the Church, the
analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, and adheres to the fictions of the rationalists, and no less freely than boldly adopts textual criticism as the only and supreme rule.-Besides I reject the opinion of those who hold that to present the historical and theological disciplines the teacher or the writer on these subjects must first divest himself of previously conceived opinion either on the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition, or on the aid promised by God for the perpetual preservation of every revealed truth; then that the writings of the in- dividual Fathers are to be interpreted only by the principles of science, setting aside all divine authority, and by that freedom of judgment with which any profane document is customarily investigated. Finally, in short, 2147 I profess to be utterly free of the error according to which the modernists hold that there is nothing divine in the sacred tradition; or, what is far worse, admit this in the pantheistic sense, so that nothing remains but the bare and simple fact to be assimilated with the common facts of history, namely, of men by their industry, skill, and genius continuing through subsequent ages the school inaugurated by Christ and His disciples. So I retain most firmly the faith of the Fathers, and shall re- tain it until the final breath of life, regarding the certain gift of truth, which is, was, and will be always in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles,1 not so that what may seem better and more fitting according to each one's period of culture may be held, but so that the absolute and immutable truth preached 2 by the apostles from the begin- ning may never be believed otherwise, may never be understood other- wise. All these things I promise that I shall faithfully, completely, and sin- cerely keep and inviolably watch, never deviating from them in word and writing either while teaching or in any other pursuit. So I promise, so I swear, so may God, etc.
Certain Errors of the Orientals 3 rFrom the letter, "Ex quo," to the Archbishops Apostolic Delegates in Byzantium, in Greece, in Egypt, in Mesopotamia, in Persia, in Syria, and in the Oriental Indies, Decen1ber 26, r9ro]
No less rashly than falsely does one approach this opm10n, that the 2147a dogma concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son by no means is taken from the very words of the Gospel, or is sanctioned by the faith of the ancient Fathers;-rnost imprudently, likewise, is doubt lJrcn. 4, c. 26, 2 I MG 7, rn58 c. l. 2 Tertullian, De praescr. c. 28 [ ML 2, 40]. 3 AAS 3 ( r 91 r), II 8 f.
raised as to whether the sacred dogmas on purgatory and on the Immacu- late Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary were acknowledged by the holy men of earlier years;- . . . regarding the constitution of the Church . . . first of all an error, long since condemned by Our predeces- sor, Innocent X, is being renewed [ cf. n. 1091 ], in which it is argued that St. Paul is held as a brother entirely equal to St. Peter;-then, with no less falsity, one is invited to believe that the Catholic Church was not in the earliest days a sovereignty of one person, that is a monarchy; or that the primacy of the Catholic Church does not rest on valid argu- ments.-But . . . the Catholic doctrine on the most Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist is not left untouched when it is taught inflexibly that the opinion can be accepted which maintains that among the Greeks the words of consecration do not produce an effect unless preceded by that prayer which they call epiclesis,1 although, on the other hand, it is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything touching on the substance of the sacraments; and no less in- harmonious with this is the view that confirmation conferred by any priest at all is to be held valid. These opinions are noted as "grave errors."
The Author, the Time of Composition, and Historical Truth of the Gospel According to Matthew 2 [Response of the Biblical Commission, June 19, 19u]
I. Whether after noting the universal and constant agreement of the Church from the earliest times, which is clearly shown by the eloquent testimonies of the Fathers, the inscriptions of the manuscripts of the Gospels, even the most ancient versions of the Sacred Scriptures, and the catalogues handed down by the Holy Fathers, the ecclesiastical writers, the Highest Pontiffs, and the Councils, and finally the liturgical practice of the Eastern and Western Church, it can and should be affirmed with certainty that Matthew, the Apostle of Christ, is in fact the author of the vulgate Gospef under his name?-Reply: In the affirma- tive. JI. Whether the opinion should be considered as sufficiently supported 1 That epiclesis is not required for consecration the following, before Pius X, taught:
Benedict XII by the communication, "lam dudum," in the year 1341, condemning among the errors of the Armenians, error n. 66 (cf. above 532 ff.): Clement VI by the letter, "Super q11ih11sdam," to Consolator, Cathol. Armen. (Bar rTh] ad 1351, n. 11); Benedict XIII, Instr. 31st of May, 1729 sent to the Patriarch Melchit. Antioch. (CL 2, 4_,9): Benedict XIV in the Brief, "Sing11laris Romanornm," Sept. 1, 1741, confirming the synod provinc. Maronit (CL 2,197); Pius VII in the Brief, "Adorabile Eucharistiae," 8th of May, 1822, to the Patriarch Graeco-Melchit. Antioch. (CL 2, 551). 2 AAS 3 (19u), 294-296; EB n. 401 ff.
by the assent of tradition, which holds that Matthew preceded the other evangelists in his writing, and that he composed the first Gospel in the native language then employed by the Jews of Palestine, to whom that work was directed?-Reply: In the affirmative to both parts. III. Whether the redaction of this original text can be placed beyond 2150 the time of the overthrow of Jerusalem, so that the prophecies which are read there about this same overthrow were written after the event; or whether what is customarily alleged to be the testimony of Irenaeus [ Adv. haer., lib. 3, cap. r, n. 2] of uncertain and controversial inter- pretation, is to be considered of such weight that it forces us to reject the opinion of those who think, more in accord with tradition, that the same redaction was composed even before Paul's arrival in the City? -Reply: In the negative to both parts. IV. Whether that opinion of certain moderns can even with some 2151 probability be sustained, according to which Matthew did not properly or strictly compose the Gospel such as has been handed down to us, but only some collection of the words or conversations of Christ, which another anonymous author has made use of as sources, whom they make the redactor of the Gospel itself.-Reply: In the negative. V. Whether from the fact thanhe Fathers and all ecclesiastical writers, 2152 indeed the Church herself from her own incunabula used, as canonical, only the Greek text of the Gospel known under the name of Matthew, not even excepting those who taught expressly that Matthew the Apostle wrote in his native language, it can be proved with certainty that the Greek Gospel is identical as to substance with that Gospel written in his native language by the same Apostle?-Reply: In the affirmative. VI. Whether from the fact that the author of the first Gospel pursues 2153 especially the dogmatic and apologetic aim, namely, of demonstrating to the Jews that Jesus is the Messias foretold by the prophets, and de- scended from the lineage of David, and from the fact that when arrang- ing the deeds and words which he narrates and sets forth anew, he does not always hold to the chronological order, it may be deduced that these matters are not to be accepted as true; or, also, whether it can be affirmed that the accounts of the accomplishments and discourses of Christ, which are read in the Gospel itself, have undergone a kind of alteration and' adaptation under the influence of the prophets of the Old Testament, and the status of the more mature Church, and so are by no means in conformity with historical truth?-Reply: In the negative to both parts. VII. Whether in particular the opinions of those persons should be 2154 rightly considered as devoid of solid foundation, who call into question the historical authenticity of the two first chapters, in which the genealogy and infancy of Christ are related; as also of certain opinions on dogmatic matters of great moment, as are those which have to do with the primacy
of Peter [Matt. r6: r7-r9 ], the form of baptizing, together with the uni- versal mission of preaching handed over to the apostles [Matt. 28:19-20], the apostles' profession of faith in the divinity of Christ [Matt. 14:33], and other such matters which occurred in Matthew announced in a spe- cial way ?-Reply: In the affirmative.
The Author, the Time of Composition, the Historical Truth of the Gospels According to Mark and According to Luke 1 [Reply of the Biblical Commission, June 26, 1912]
I. Whether the evident judgment of tradition, from the beginnings of the Church in wonderful agreement with and confirmed by manifold arguments, namely, the eloquent testimonies of the Holy Fathers and ecclesiastical writers, the citations and allusions which occur in the writ- ings of the same, the practice of the ancient heretics, the versions of the Books of the New Testament, the most ancient and almost entire body of manuscripts, and also the internal reasons taken from the very text of the Sacred Books, definitely compels the affirmation that Mark, the disciple and expounder of Peter, and Luke the physician, the hearer and companion of Paul, are in fact the authors of the Gospels which are respectively attributed to them?-Reply: In the affirmative. II. Whether the reasons by which some critics strive to demonstrate that the last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark [ Mark 16:9-20] were not written by Mark himself, but were added by another hand, are such as to give the right to affirm that they are not to be accepted ao inspired and canonical; or at least demonstrate that the author of the said verses is not Mark?-Reply: In the negative to both parts. III. Whether one may likewise doubt the inspiration and canonicity of the accounts given by Luke of the infancy of Christ rLuke 1-2]; or the apparition of the Angel strengthening Christ, and the sweat of blood [Luke 22:43 f.]; or whether it can at least be shown by solid reasons-as fleased the ancient heretics, and is agreeable also to some more recent critics-that the said accounts do not belong to the genuine Gospel of Luke?-Reply: In the negative to both parts. ,2158 IV. Whether those most rare and very peculiar documents, in which the Canticle Magnlficat is directed not to the Blessed Virgin but to Eliza- beth, can and should in any way prevail against the harmonious testi- mony of almost all manuscripts, both of the original Greek text and of the versions, as well as against the interpretation which the context no less than the spirit of the Virgin herself, and the constant tradition of the Church clearly exacts?-Reply: In the negative.
V. Whether, with respect to the chronological order of the Gospels, 2159 it is right to withdraw from that opinion which, strengthened equally by the most ancient and continued testimony of tradition, testifies that Mark was the second in order to write and Luke the third, after Matthew, who was the first of all to write his Gospel in his native tongue; or, whether their opinion, which asserts that the Gospel was composed second and third before the Greek version of the first Gospel, is to be regarded in turn as in opposition to this idea?-Reply: In the negative to both parts. VI. Whether the time of composition of the Gospel of Mark and 2160 Luke may be postponed until the overthrow of the city of Jerusalem; or, because the prophecy of the Lord in Luke about the overthrow of this city seems more definite, it can be sustained that his Gospel at least was composed after the siege had already begun?-Reply: In the negative to both parts. VII. Whether it ought to be affirmed that the Gospel of Luke preceded 2161 the book of the Acts of the Apostles; and although this book, with same author Luke [ Acts r: r f.], was finished before the end of the Apostle's Roman captivity [Acts 28:30 f.], his Gospel was not composed after this time ?-Reply: In the affirmative. VIII. Whether, keeping in mind both the testimonies of tradition and 2162 internal evidence, as regards the sources which both evangelists used in composing the Gospels, that opinion can prudently be called into question which holds that Mark wrote according to the preaching of Peter, but Luke according to •he preaching of Paul; and which also asserts that other sources worthy of trust were also at hand for these same evangelists, either oral or even already consigned to writing ?-Reply: In the nega- tive. IX. Whether the words and deeds which are described accurately and, 2163 as it were, graphically by Mark according to the preaching of Peter, and are most sincerely set forth by Luke, following everything diligently from the beginning through witnesses clearly worthy of trust, inasmuch as they themselves from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word [Luke r :2 f. ], rightly vindicate that complete historical faith in themselves which the Church has always given them; or, whether on the contrary the same deeds and actions are to be judged void of historical truth, at least in part, either because the writers were not eye- witnesses, or because in both Gospels defects in order and discrepancies in the succession of the deeds are not rarely caught; or because, since they came and wrote later, they were obliged to represent conceptions neces- sarily extraneous to the minds of Christ and the apostles, or deeds now more or less distorted by the imagination of the people; or, finally, be- cause they indulged in preconceived dogmatic ideas, each one according
to his purpose?-Reply: In the affirmative to the first part; in the negative to the second.
The Synoptic Question or the Mutual Relations between the Three Earlier Gospels 1 [Reply of the Biblical Commission, June 26, 1912]
I. Whether, preserving what must be jealously preserved according to the decisions made above, especially on the authenticity and integrity of the three Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke; on the substantial iden- tity of the Greek Gospel of Matthew with its early original; also on the order of time in which the same were written, to explain their mutual likenesses and differences, midst so many varying and opposite opinions of the authors, it is impossible for exegetes to dispute freely and to appeal to the hypotheses of tradition whether written or oral, or even of the dependence of one upon a preceding or upon several preceding ?-Reply: In the affirmative. II. Whether they should be advised to preserve what was established above, who, supported by no testimony of tradition or by historical argu- ment, easily taken in by the hypothesis publicly proclaimed of two sources, which labors to explain the composition of the Greek Gospel of Matthew and of the Gospel of Luke chiefly by their dependence upon the Gospel of Mark and a so-called collection of the Lord's discourses; and whether they are thus able to defend this freely?-Reply. In the negative to both parts.
The Author, Time of Composition, Historical Veracity of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles [Reply of the Biblical Commission, June 12, 1913]
I. Whether in view especially of the tradition of the whole Church going back to the earliest ecclesiastical writers, and noting the internal reasons of the book of Acts, considered in itself or in its relation to the third Gospel, and especially because of the mutual affinity and connection between the two prologues [Luke r:r-4; Acts r:r f.], it must be held as certain that the volume that is entitled Actus Apostolorum, or, IIpdtw, 'A1roaT0Awv, has Luke the Evangelist as author?-Reply: In the affirma- tive. II. Whether for critical reasons taken from the language and style, and from the manner of narrating, and from the oneness of aim and doctrine, it can be demonstrated that the book of the Acts of the Apostles 1 AAS 4 (1912), 465; EB n. 417£.
should be attributed to one author alone; and therefore that the opinion of more recent writers which holds that Luke is not the only author of the book, but that different persons are to be recognized as authors of the same book is devoid of any foundation?-Reply: In the affirmative to both parts. III. Whether in outward appearance, the prominent chapters in the 2168 Acts where the use of the third person is broken off and the first person plural introduced, weaken the unity and authenticity of composition; or rather historically and philologically considered are to be said to con- firm it?-Reply: In the negative to the first part; in the affirmative to the second. IV. Whether because of the fact that the book itself is abruptly con- 2169 eluded after scarcely making mention of the two years of Paul's first Roman captivity, it may be inferred that the author had written a second volume now lost, or had intended to write it; and so the time of composi- tion of the Book of Acts can be deferred long after this captivity; or whether it should rather rightly and worthily be held that Luke toward the end of the first Roman captivity of the Apostle Paul had completed his book?-Reply: In the negative to the first part; in the affirmative to the second. V. Whether, if there is considered together the frequent and easy com- 2170 munication which Luke undoubtedly had with the first and prominent founders of the Palestinian church, and also with Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, whose assistant in the preaching of the Gospel and com- panion in travel he was; also his customary industry and diligence in seeking witnesses, and in observing things with his own eyes; also, and finally, the evident and amazing agreement for the most part of the Book of Acts with the letters of Paul and the more genuine monuments of history, it should be held with certainty that Luke had at hand sources worthy of all trust, and applied them accurately, well, and faithfully, so that he rightly indicates for himself full historical authority ?-Reply: In the affirmative. VI. Whether the difficulties which are usually raised from the super- 2171 natural deeds related by Luke, and from the narration of certain dis- courses which, since they are handed down in summary, are considered fictitious and adapted to circumstances; also from certain passages, appar- ently at least, in disagreement with history whether profane or biblical; finally also from certain accounts which seem to be at odds with the author of the Acts, or with other sacred authors, are such as can call the historical authority of the Acts into doubt or at least in some manner diminish it?-Reply: In the negative.
The Author, Integrity, and Time of Composition of the Pastoral Letters of Paul the Apostle 1 [Response of the Biblical Commission, June r2, r9r3]
I. Whether, keeping in mind the tradition of the Church which con- tinues universally and steadily from the earliest times, just as the ancient ecclesiastical records testify in many ways, it should be held with cer- tainty that the so-called pastoral letters, that is, the two to Timothy and another to Titus, notwithstanding the rashness of certain heretics who have eliminated them as being contrary to their dogma from the number of Pauline epistles, without giving any reason, were composed by the Apostle Paul himself, and have always been reckoned among the genuine and canonical ?-Reply: In the affirmative. II. Whether the so-called fragmentary hypothesis introduced by cer- tain more recent critics and variously set forth, who for no otherwise probable reason, rather while quarreling among themselves, contend that the pastoral letters were constructed at a later time from fragments of letters, or from corrupt Pauline letters by unknown authors, and notably increased, can bring some slight prejudice upon the clear and very strong testimony of tradition?-Reply: In the negative. III. Whether the difficulties which are brought up in many places whether from the style and language of the author, or from the errors especially of the Gnostics, who already at that time are described as ser- pents; or from the state of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, which is supposed to have been already evolved, and other such reasons in opposition in some way, weaken the opinion which holds the authenticity of the pas- toral letters as valid and certain?-Reply: In the negative. IV. Whether, since no less from historical reasons as from ecclesiastical tradition, in harmony with the testimonies of the oriental and occidental most holy Fathers; also from the indications themselves which are easily drawn from the abrupt conclusion of the Book of the Acts and from the Pauline letters written at Rome, and especially from the second letter to Timothy, the opinion of a twofold Roman captivity of the Apostle Paul should be held as certain, it can be safely affirmed that the pastoral letters were written in that period of time which intervenes between the libera- tion from the first captivity and the death of the Apostle?-Reply: In the affirmitive. 1 AAS 5 (1913), 292 ff.; EB n. 425 ff.
The Author and Method of Composition of the Epistle to the Hebrews 1 [Reply of the Biblical Commission, June 24, r9r4]
I. Whether so much force is to be attributed to the doubts which m 2176 the first centuries possessed the minds of some in the Occident regarding the divine inspiration and Pauline origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews, because of the special abuse of heretics, that, although aware of the perpetual, unanimous, and continued affirmation of the Oriental Fathers, to which was added after the fourth century the full agreement of the entire Western Church; weighing also the acts of the Highest Pontiffs and of the sacred Councils, especially of Trent, and also the perpetual practice of the universal Church, one may hesitate to classify it with cer- tainty not only among the canonical-which is determined regarding faith-but also among the genuine epistles of the Apostle Paul?-Reply: In the negative. II. Whether the arguments which are usually drawn from the un- 2177 usual absence of the name of Paul, and the omission of the customary introduction and salutation in the Epistle to the Hebrews-or from the purity of the same Greek language, the elegance and perfection of diction and style,-or from the way by which the Old Testament is cited in it and arguments made from it,-or from certain differences which supposedly existed between the doctrine of this and of the other epistles of Paul, somehow are able to weaken the Pauline origin of the same; or whether, on the other hand, the perfect agreement of doctrine and opinions, the likeness of admonitions and exhortations, and also the harmony of the phrases and of the words themselves celebrated also by some non-Catholics, which are observed between it and the other writ- ings of the Apostle of the Gentiles, demonstrate and confirm the same Pauline origin?-Reply: In the negative to the first part; in the affirmative to the second. III. Whether the Apostle Paul is so to be considered the author of 2178 this epistle that it should necessarily be affirmed that he not only con- ceived and expressed it all by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but also endowed it with that form with which it stands out?-Reply: In the negative, save for a later judgment of the Church. 1 ASS 6 (1914), 417 f.; EB n. 429 ff.
Parousia, or the Second Advent of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Epistles of St. Paul the Apostle 1 [Reply of the Biblical Commission, June 18, 1915]
I. Whether to solve the difficulties which occur in the epistles of St. Paul and of the other apostles, where there is mention of "parousia," as they say, or of the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, a Catholic exegete is permitted to assert that the apostles, although under the in- spiration of the Holy Spirit, taught no error, nevertheless express their own human feelings in which error or deception can lie concealed?- Reply: In the negative. II. Whether, bearing in mind the genuine notion of the apostolic gift, and the undoubted fidelity of St. Paul with regard to the doctrine of the Master, likewise the Catholic dogma on the inspiration and iner- rancy of the Holy Scriptures, according to which all that the sacred writer asserts, declares, and introduces ought to be maintained as asserted, de- clared, and introduced by the Holy Spirit; weighing also the texts of the epistles of the Apostle considered in themselves, especially in harmony with the method of speaking of the Lord himself, one should affirm that the Apostle Paul in his writings said nothing at all which does not agree perfectly with that ignorance of parousia of the time, which Christ Him- self proclaimed to belong to man?-Reply: In the affirmative. III. Whether, noting the Greek expression, "~µfi, oi (wvn, oi 1r(p,An1roµ(vo,," weighing also the explanation of the Fathers, especially of John Chrysostom, who was most versed in the native idiom and in the epistles of Paul, it is permitted to reject the traditional interpretation in the Catholic schools as more remotely desired and devoid of solid foundation ( which was retained by the renewers themselves also of the sixteenth century), which explains the words of St. Paul in chapter 4, epist. I to the Thessalonians, vv. 15-7, without in any way involving the affirmation of parousia so proximate that the Apostle numbers him- self and his readers among those faithful who are to go to meet Christ as survivers?-Reply: In the negative. 1 ASS 7 (1915), 357 f.; EB n. 432 ff.
On Dying and Dead Schismatics 1 [Reply of the Holy Office to various local ordinaries, May 17, 1916]
I. Whether when material schismatics at the point of death, in good 2181a faith seek either absolution or extreme unction, these sacraments can be conferred on them without their renouncing errors?-Reply: In the nega- tive, but that it be required that they reject errors as best they can, and make a profession of faith. II. Whether absolution and extreme unction can be conferred on schismatics at the point of death when unconscious?-Reply: Condition- ally, in the affirmative, especially if from additional circumstances it can be conjectured that they at least implicitly reject their errors, yet effectually removing scandal, at least by manifesting to bystanders that they accept the Church and have returned at the last moment to unity. III. As regards ecclesiastical burial the Roman Ritual must stand firm.
Spiritism 2 [Reply of the Holy Office, April 24, 1917]
Whether it is permitted through a medium, as they call him, or with- 2182 out a medium, with or without the application of hypnotism, to be present at spiritistic conversations or manifestations of any kind, even though these phenomena present the appearance of honesty or piety, whether by interrogating souls or spirits, or by listening to responses, or only by looking on, even with a tacit or expressed protestation that one does not wish to have anything to do with wicked spirits.-Reply: In negative in all cases. From the Codex of Canon Law promulgated on May 19, r9r8, variously, see in Index systematicus.
Certain Propositions on Knowledge of the Soul of Christ 3 [Decree of the Holy Office, June 5, 1918]
When the question was proposed by the Sacred Congregation on Seminary and University Studies, whether the following propositions can be safely taught: I. It is not established that there was in the soul of Christ while living 2183 1 Koiner Pastoralblatt 50 ( 1916), 504 f.; Lznzer Diozesanblatt 1916, II: Theol.-prakt. Quartalschrift 69 (Linz, 1916), 693. 2 AAS 9 (1917), 268.
BAAS IO (1918), 282.
among men the knowledge which the blessed and the comprehensors have [cf. Phil. 3:12, 13]. II. Nor can the opiriion be called certain which has established that the soul of Christ was ignorant of nothirig, but from the beginriing kriew all things in the Word, past, present, and future, or all thirigs that God knows by the knowledge of vision. III. The opinion of certain more recent persoris on the limited kriowl- edge of the soul of Christ is to be accepted in Catholic schools no less than the notion of the ancierits on universal knowledge. The Most Eminent and Reverend Cardinals, general Inquisitors in mat- ters of faith and morals, the prayer of the Consultors being held first, decreed that the answer must be: In the negative.
The Inerrancy of Holy Scripture 1 [From the Ericyclical, "Spiritus Paraclitus," September 15, 1920]
By the doctrine of Jerome those statements are well confirmed and illustrated by which Our predecessor, Leo XIII, solemnly declared the ancient and constant faith of the Church in the absolute immunity of Scriptures from any errors: Tantum abcst . .. [seen. 1951]. And, intro- ducing the definitions of the Councils of Florence and Trent, confirmed in the Vatican Synod, he has the following: "Therefore, nothing at all matters . . . otherwise He Himself were not the Author of all Sacred Scripture" [ See n. 1952]. Although these words of Our predecessors leave no place for ar:i.biguity or evasion, We must grieve, Venerable Brothers, that not only were there not lacking some among those outside the Church, but even among the sons of the Catholic Church, moreover-which wounds Our soul more severely-among the clergy itself and the teachers of the sacred disciplines, who relying proudly on their own judgment, either openly reject the magisterium of the Church on this subject or secretly oppose it. Indeed, We approve the plan of those who, to extricate themselves and others from the difficulties of the Sacred Codex, in order to elimiriate these difficulties, rely on all the aids of scholarship and literary criticism, and investigate new avenues and methods of research; but they will wander pitifully from their purpose, if they disregard the precepts of Our prede- cessor and pass beyond certain limits and bounds which the Fathers have set [Prov. 22:28]. Yet by these precepts and limits the opinion of the more recent critics is not restrained, who, after introducing a distinction between the primary or religious element of Scripture, and the secondary or profane, wish, indeed, that inspiration itself pertain to all the ideas, 1 AAS 12 (1920), 393 ff.; EB n. 465 ff.
rather even to the individual words of the Bible, but that its effects and especially immunity from error and absolute truth be contracted and nar- rowed down to the primary or religious element. For their belief is that that only which concerns religion is intended and is taught by God in the Scriptures; but that the rest, which pertains to the profane disciplines and serves revealed doctrine as a kind of external cloak of divine truth, is only permitted and is left to the feebleness of the writer. It is not sur- prising, then, if in physical, historical, and other similar affairs a great many things occur in the Bible, which cannot at all be reconciled with the progress of the fine arts of this age. There are those who contend that these fabrications of opinions are not in opposition to the prescrip- tions of Our predecessor, since he declared that the sacred writer in mat- ters of nature speaks according to external appearance, surely fallacious [ see n. 1947 ]. But how rashly, how falsely this is affirmed, is plainly evi- dent from the very words of the Pontiff. And no less do they dissent from the doctrine of the Church who 2187 think that the historical parts of Scriptures depend not on the absolute truth of facts, but only on what they call the relative and harmonious opinion of the multitude; and they do not hesitate to infer this from the very words of Pope Leo, because he said that the principles estab- lished regarding the things of nature can be transferred to the historical disciplines [ see n. 1949]. And so they contend that the sacred writers, just as in physical matters they spoke according to what was apparent, so they related events unwittingly, inasmuch as these seemed to be estab- lished according to the common opinion of the multitude or the false testimonies of others; and that they did not indicate the sources of their knowledge, and did not make the narrations of others their own. Why shall we refute at length a matter plainly injurious to Our predecessor, and false and full of error? For what is the similarity of the things of nature and history, when the physical are concerned with what "appears to the senses," and so should agree with phenomena; while on the other hand the law of history is chiefly this, that what is written must be in agreement with the things accomplished, according as they were accom- plished in fact? If the opinion of these men is once accepted, how will that truth of sacred story stand safe, immune from every falsehood, which Our predecessor declares must be retained in the entire text of its liter- ature? But if he affirms that the same principles that have a place in physics can to advantage be transferred to history and related disciplines, he certainly does not establish this on a universal basis, but is only pro- fessing that we use the same methods to refute the fallacies of adversaries as we use to protect the historical faith of Sacred Scripture against their attacks . . . • Nor is Sacred Scripture lacking other detractors; We recognize those 2188
who, if they are restrained within certain limits, so abuse right principles indeed that they cause the foundations of the truth of the Bible to totter, and undermine the Catholic doctrine handed down by the Fathers in common. Among these Fathers Jerome, if he were still alive, would surely hurl the sharpest weapons of his speech, because, neglecting the sense and judgment of the Church, they very smoothly take refuge in citations which they call implicit, or in accounts historical in appearance; or, they contend that certain kinds of literature are found in the sacred books, with which the whole and perfect truth of the divine word can- not be reconciled; or, they have such an opinion on the origin of the Bible that its authority collapses and utterly perishes. Now, what must be thought of those who in expounding the Gospels themselves diminish the human faith due them and overturn divine faith? For what our Lord Jesus Christ said, and what He did they are of the opinion did not come down to us entire and unchanged, although they are witnesses of all those who wrote down religiously what they themselves had seen and heard; but that-especially with reference to the fourth Gospel- part came down from the evangelists who themselves planned and added much, and part was brought together from the account of the faithful of another age. Now, Venerable Brethren, with the passing of the fifteenth genera- tion after the death of the greatest Doctor We have communicated with you not to delay to bring these words to the clergy and your people, that all, under the patronage and leadership of Jerome, may not only retain and guard the Catholic doctrine of the divine inspiration of the Scrip- tures, but may also cling most zealously to the principles which are pre- scribed in the Encyclical Letter, "Providentissimus Deus," and in this Our own .•••
The Doctrines of Theosophy 1 [Reply of the Holy Office, July 18, 1919]
Whether the doctrines, which today are called theosophical, can be in harmony with Catholic doctrine; and thus whether it is permitted to join theosophical societies, attend their meetings, and read their books, daily papers, journals, and writings.-Reply: In the negative in all cases. 1 AAS II (1919), 317.
The Relation Between Church and State 1 [From the Encyclical, "Ubi arcano," December 23, 1922]
But if the Church thinks it unlawful to mingle in these worldly affairs, 2190 concerned in the mere controlling of politics, without reason, yet by her own right she strives that civil power invent no cause for obstructing in any way those higher blessings in which man's eternal salvation is contained, or for threatening harm or destruction by unjust laws and orders; or for undermining the divine constitution of the Church; or, finally, of trampling upon the sacred laws of God in the civil community of men.
The Law and Method of Following the Doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas 2 [From the Encyclical, "Studiorum Ducem," June 29, 1923]
We desire very much that those especially who hold the magisteria 2191 of the higher disciplines in the schools of the clergy note carefully and observe inviolably all the precepts which both Our predecessors, and first of all Leo XIII 3 and Pius X,4 have decreed and We ourselves have ordered last year. 5 Moreover, let them be convinced that they will then satisfy the demands of their office and will likewise fulfill Our expecta- tion, if, when they begin truly to love the Doctor Aquinas, by a long and intensive study of his works, and by interpreting the Doctor himself, they communicate the warmth of this love to the students under their instruction, and render them capable of exciting a similar zeal in others. Naturally among lovers of St. Thomas, such as all the sons of the 2192 Church who are concerned with the highest studies should be, We desire that there exist that honorable rivalry with just freedom from which studies make progress, but no detraction which is not favorable to truth and which serves only to break the bonds of charity. Therefore, let what- ever is prescribed 6 in the Code of Canon Law be sacred to each one of them, that "the professors may carry on the study of rational 7 philosophy 1 AAS 14 (1922), 698. 2 AAS 15 (1923), 323 f. 3 Litt. Encyclical, "Aeterni Patris," August 4, 1879 rAAS 12 (1879), 97 ff.]. 4 Motu proprio, "Doctoris Angelici," June 29, 1914 [AAS 6 (1914), 336 ff.]. 5 Encyclical, "Ofiiciorum omnium," August 1, 1922 [AAS 14 (1922), 449 ff.]. 6 Can. 1366, Sec. 2. 7 The 24 theses [AAS 6 (1914), 383 ff.] to be proposed are referred to here as "the
and of theology and the instruction of their students in these disciplines according to the method, doctrines, and principles of the Angelic Doc- tor, and may hold them sacred," and that all so conduct themselves ac- cording to this norm as to be truly able to call him that master. "But let not some exact from others anything more than this which the Church, the mistress and mother of all demands of all; for in those matters about which there is wont to be varied opinions among teachers of higher dis- tinction among our Catholic schools no one is to be prevented from following the opinion which seems to him the more probable."
The Revival of Merits and Gifts 1 [From the Bull of Jubilee, "Infinita Dei misericordia," May 29, 1924)
Now when the Hebrews in the year of the Sabbath, after recovering their goods which had passed into the ownership of others, were re- turning "to their own possession," and the servants, now free, were be- taking themselves "to their former family" [ Lev. 25: IO], and the debt of the debtors was cancelled, all this more happily happens and is ac- complished among us in the year of atonement. For, all who by doing penance carry out the salutary orders of the Apostolic See in the course of the great Jubilee, the same regain anew and receive that abundance of merits and gifts which they had lost by sinning, and they are so set free from the cruel domination of Satan that they regain the freedom "wherewith Christ has made us free" [Gal. 4:31], and, finally, of all the punishment which they would have been obliged to pay for their faults and sins, because of the highly accumulated merits of Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the saints, they are fully absolved.
The Kingship of Christ 2 [From the Encyclical, "Quas primas," December II, 1925]
Moreover, on what foundation this dignity and power of our Lord rests, Cyril of Alexandria aptly observes: "He obtained his dominion over all creatures, to speak in a word, not by having wrested it by force or brought it in from some other source, but by His own essence and
greatest principles and pronouncements," of St. Thomas (S.C. de Sem. et Stud. Univ. AAS 8 [19161, 157), containing "safe norms for directing, without imposing any duty to embrace all" (Benedict XV, Ench. Cleric. 1938, n. 929); furthermore, the arguments of St. Thomas for the existence of God are "today also the strongest of all" (Pius XI, AAS 15 [1923], 317). 1 AAS 16 (1924), 2!0. On this passage, see Zeitschr. f. kath. Theo/. 49 (1925), 298 ff. (J. B. U mberg). 2 AAS 17 (1925), 598 ff.
nature"; 1 naturally, His kingdom depends on that wonderful union which is called hypostatic. Therefore, it follows not only that Christ is to be adored as God by angels and men, but also that angels and men obey and are subject to His power as man, namely, that Christ obtains His power over all creatures solely in the name of the hypostatic union. -But yet what could be more pleasing to us and more pleasant to con- template than that Christ commands us not only by right of birth but also by an acquired right, that is, of redemption? Would that all forgetful men would recall what price they have cost our Savior, for, "not with corruptible things as with gold or silver were you redeemed but by the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled" [I Pet. 1: 18, 19]. Now we are not our own, since Christ has bought us "with a great price" [I Cor. 5:20]; our very bodies "are members of Christ" [I Cor. 6: 15]. Now to explain briefly the force and nature of this kingship, it is 2195 hardly sufficient to say that it consists of a threefold power, and if it lacked this, it is scarcely recognized as a kingship. Testimonies drawn and gathered from Sacred Scriptures indicate more than sufficiently this fact about the universal power of our Redeemer, and according to the Catholic faith it must be believed that Jesus Christ was given to men as a Redeemer, in whom to trust; but at the same time as a legislator, to whom to give obedience ( Cone. Trid., sess. VI, can. 21 rsee n. 831 ]). But the Gospels do not insist so much on the fact that He established laws, as they do of Him observing laws; and, indeed, whoever keep these precepts, the same are said in different words in different places by the divine Master both to prove their love for Him, and to remain in His love [John 14:15; 15:10]. Jesus Himself declared to the Jews, who accused Him of violating the quiet of Sabbath by the wonderful healing of the sick man, that the Father had bestowed judicial power on Him: "For neither doth the Father judge any man, but hath given all judgment to the Son" [John 5:22]; by which this also is understood- since the fact cannot be separated from the judgment-that by His own right He confers rewards and punishments upon men while still living. And furthermore that power which is called executive is to be attributed to Christ, since it is necessary that all obey His power, and since no one can escape what has been imposed upon the contumacious in the impos- ing of punishment. Nevertheless, that such a kingdom is spiritual in a special way, and pertains to spiritual things, not only do the words which we have quoted above from the Bible show, but Christ the Lord by His manner of ac- tion confirms. For, on more than one given occasion, when the Jews, or rather the apostles themselves were of the opinion through error that the Messias would deliver the people into liberty and would restore the lfn Joann. I. 12, c. 18 [MG 74, 622].
kingdom of Israel, He Himself destroyed and dispelled their vain opin- ion and hope; when He was about to be proclaimed king by a sur- rounding multitude, He declined the name and honor by fleeing and hiding; in the presence of the Roman governor He declared that His kingdom was not "of this world" [John 18:36]. Indeed. this kingdom is presented in the Gospels as such, into which men prepare to enter by doing penance; moreover, they cannot enter it except through faith and baptism, which, although an external rite, yet signifies and effects an interior regeneration; it is opposed only to the kingdom of Satan and to the powers of darkness, and demands of its followers not only that, with mind detached from wealth and earthly things, they prefer gentle- ness of character, and hunger and thirst after justice, but also that they renounce themselves and take up their cross. Moreover, since Christ as Redeemer has acquired the Church by His blood, and as Priest has offered and continues to offer Himself as a victim for our sins, does it not seem right that He assume the nature of both offices and participate in them? Otherwise he would err basely, who should deprive Christ, the man, of power over all civil affairs, since He has received the most absolute right over created things from the Father, so that all have been placed under His authority. But yet, as long as He led His life on earth, He abstained entirely from exercising such domination; and just as He once belittled the possession and desire of human things, so He then permitted and today permits the possession of them. And regarding this the following is very aptly said: "He does not snatch away mortal things, who gives heavenly kingdoms" [Hymn, "Crudelis Herodes," in the Office of the Epiphany]. And so the kingdom of our Redeemer embraces all men, and in this matter We gladly make the words of Our predecessor of immortal memory Our own: "Clearly His power is not only over Catholic peoples, or over those alone who, cleansed by holy baptism, surely belong to the Church, if right is considered, though error of opinion leads them in devi- ous ways, or dissension separates them from charity, but it embraces even those who are reckoned as destitute of Christian faith, so that in all truth all mankind is under the power of Jesus Christ" [Encyclical, "Annum sacrum," given May-25, 1899]. Nor is there in this matter any difference among individuals and domestic and civic groups, because men united in society are no less under the power of Christ. Surely the same (Christ) is the source of individual and common salvation: "Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved" [ Acts 4: 12]; the same Person is the author of prosperity and true happiness for individual citizens and for the state: "For the city is not made happy from one source, and man from another,
since the state is nothing else than a harmonious multitude of men." 1 Therefore, let the rulers of nations not refuse to offer the public service of reverence and obedience to the power of Christ through themselves and through the people, if they truly wish, while preserving their authority to advance and increase the fortunes of their country.
Laicism 2 [From the same Encyclical, "Quas primas," December II, 1925]
Now, if we order that Christ the King be worshiped by all of Catholic 2197 name, by this very fact we intend to provide for the necessity of the times and to apply a special remedy for the plague which infects human society. 3 We call the plague of our age so-called laicism, with its errors and nefarious efforts . . . . For the power of Christ over all nations has begun to be denied; hence, the right of the Church which exists from the very right of Christ, to teach the human race, to pass laws and to rule for the purpose of leading people especially to eternal salvation has been denied. Then, indeed, little by little the religion of Christ was placed on the same level with false religions, and was put in the same class most shamefully; it was then subjected to civil power, and was almost given over to the authority of rulers and magistrates; some proceeded further, who thought that a kind of natural religion, and some sort of natural impulse of the mind should be substituted for divine religion. States have not been lack- ing which proclaimed that they could live without God, and that their religion should consist in an impious neglect of God.
The Johannine Comma • [From the Decree of the Holy Office, January 13, 1897, and the Declaration of the Holy Office, June 2, 1927]
To the question: "Whether it can safely be denied, or at least called into 2198 doubt that the text of St. John in the first epistle, chapter 5, verse 7, is authentic, which read as follows: 'And there are three that give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one?' "-the response was given on January 13, 1897: In the negative. At this response there arose on June 2, 1927, the following declaration, at first given privately by the same Sacred Congregation and afterwards
1 St. Augustine, Letter to Macedonius c. 3, n. 9 [ML 33, 670]. 2 AAS 17 (1925), 604 f. 3 The institution, that is, of the Feast of Christ the King.
~ ASS 29 (1896/97), 639 and EB n. 120 f.
57° repeated many times, which was made a part of public law in EB n. 121 by authority of the Holy Office itself: "This decree was passed to check the audacity of private teachers who attributed to themselves the right either of rejecting entirely the authen- ticity of the Johannine comma, or at least of calling it into question by their own final judgment. But it was not meant at all to prevent Catholic writers from investigating the subject more fully and, after weighing the arguments accurately on both sides, with that moderation and temperance which the gravity of the subject requires, from inclining toward an opinion in opposition to its authenticity, provided they professed that they were ready to abide by the judgment of the Church, to which the duty was delegated by Jesus Christ not only of interpreting Holy Scripture but also of guarding it faithfully."
Meetings to Procure the Unity of All Christians 1 [From the Decree of the Holy Office, July 8, 1927]
Whether it is permitted Catholics to be present at, or to take part in conventions, gatherings, meetings, or societies of non-Catholics which aim to associate together under a single agreement all who in any way lay claim to the name of Christian? Reply: In the negative, and there must be complete adherence to the decree (De participatione catholicorum societati, "ad procurandam christianitatis unitatem") on the participation of Catholics in a society "to procure the unity of Christianity." 2
The Connection of the Sacred Liturgy with the Church 3 [From the Apostolic Constitution, "Divini cultus," December 20, 1928]
Since the Church has received from her founder, Christ, the duty of guarding the holiness of divine worship, surely it is part of the same, of course after preserving the substance of the sacrifice and the sacraments, to prescribe the following: ceremonies, rites, formulas, prayers, chant- by which that august and public ministry is best controlled, whose special name is Liturgy, as if an exceedingly sacred action. And the liturgy is an undoubtedly sacred thing; for, through it we are brought to God and are joined with Him; we bear witness to our faith, and we are obligated to it 1 AAS 19 (1927), 278. 2 AAS II (1919), 309; letter of the Holy Office, "Apostolicae Sedis," September 16, I 864, to all the Bishops of England, and another letter, "Quod vos," November 8, I 865, to certain Anglican Puscyites, ib,d., 3 JO ff. Cf. also the Encyclical, "Mortalium anirnos," of Pius XI, January 6, 1928 lAAS 20 (1928), 5 ff.J. 8 AAS 21 (1929), 33 f.
57 1 by a most serious duty because of the benefits and helps received, of which we are always in need. Hence a kind of intimate relationship bc'.tween dogma and sacred liturgy, and likewise between Christian worship and the sanctification of the people. Therefore, Celestine I proposed and ex- pressed a canon of faith in the venerated formulas of the Liturgy: "Let the law of supplication establish the law of believing. For when the leaders of holy peoples administer legislation enjoined upon themselves they plead the cause of the human race before divine Clemency, and they beg and pray while the entire Church sighs with them" [see n. 139].
Masturbation Procured Directly 1 [From the Decree of the Holy Office, August 2, 1929]
Whether masturbation procured directly is permitted to obtain sperm, 2201 by which a contagious disease blenorrag1a (gonorrhea) may be detected and, insofar as it can be done, cured. Reply: In the negative.
The Christian Education of Youth 2 [From the Encyclical, "Divini illius magistri," December 3r, 1929]
Since every method of education aims for that formation of man which 2202 he ought to acquire in this mortal life, in order to attain the ultimate goal destined for him by the Creator, it is plainly evident that as no education can be truly so called which is not entirely ordered to that final end, in the present order of things established by the providence of God, namely after He revealed Himself in His Only-begotten, who alone is "the way, the truth, and the life" [John r4:6], no full and perfect education can exist except that which is called Christian . . . . The task of educating does not belong to individual men but necessarily 2203 to society. Now necessary societies are three in number, distinct from one another, yet harmoniously combined by the will of God, to which man is assigned from birth; of these, two, namely, the family and civil society, are of the natural order; and the third, the Church, to be sure, is of the supernatural order. Family living holds first place, and, since it was established and prepared by God Himself for this purpose, to care for the generation and upbringing of offspring, thus by its nature and by its inherent rights it has priority over civil society. Nevertheless, the family is an imperfect society, because it is not endowed with all those things by which it may attain its very noble purpose perfectly; but civil associa- 1 AAS 21 (1929), 490. 2 AAS 22 (1<130), 49 ff.
tion, since it has in its power all things necessary to achieve its destined end, namely, the common good of this earthly life, is a society absolute in all respects and perfect; for this same reason, therefore, it is pre-eminent over family life, which indeed can fulfill its purpose safely and rightly only in civil society. Finally, the third society, in which man by the waters of baptism enters a life of divine grace, is the Church, surely a supernatural society embracing the whole human race; perfect in herself, since all things are at her disposal for attaining her end, namely the eternal salvation of man, and thus supreme in her own order. Consequently, education, which is concerned with the whole man, with man individually and as a member of human society, whether estab- lished in the order of nature or in the order of divine grace, pertains to these three necessary societies, harmoniously according to the proper end of each, proportionately according to the present order divinely established. But in the first place, in a more pre-eminent way education pertains to the Church, namely, because of a twofold title in the supernatural order which God conferred upon her alone; and thus by an entirely more power- ful and more valid title than any other title of the natural order. The first reason for such a right rests on the supreme authority of the magisterium and on the mission which the divine Founder of the Church bestowed upon her in those words: "All power is given to me in heaven and on earth. Going therefore teach ye . . . even unto the consummation of the world" [Matt. 28:18-20]. Upon this magisterium Christ the Lord conferred immunity from error, together with the command to teach His doctrine to all; therefore, the Church "has been established by her divine Founder as the pillar and foundation of truth, to teach all men the divine faith, to guard its deposit given to her whole and inviolate, and to direct and fashion men in their public and private actions unto purity of morals and integrity of life, according to the norm of revealed doctrine." 1 The second reason for the right arises from that supernatural duty of a mother, by which the Church, most pure spouse of Christ, bestows upon men a life of divine grace, and nurtures and promotes it by her sacraments and precepts. Worthily then does St. Augustine say: "He will not have God as father, who would not be willing to have the Church as mother." 2 Therefore, the Church promotes letters, the sciences, and the arts, insofar as they are necessary or useful for Christian education and for everyone of her activities for the salvation of souls, founding and supporting her schools and institutions, in which every discipline is taught and an ap- proach is made to all grades of erudition. 3 And it must not be thought
1 Pius IX, Encyclical Epistle, "Quum non sine," July 14, 1864 [AP I, 3, 652). 2 De Symbolo ad catech. 13 [ML 40, 668]. s Cod. /11r. Can. c. 1375.
that so-called physical education is alien to her maternal magisterium, since this also has the capacity to benefit or harm Christian education. And this action of the Church in every kind of culture of the mind, just as it is of the highest benefit to families and nations, which with Christ removed from their midst are rushing into destruction,-as Hilary rightly says: "What can be so perilous to the world as not to have accepted Christ?" 1 -so it causes no inconvenience to the civil organization in these things; for the Church, as she is a most prudent mother, does not in the least prevent her schools and institutions in every nation educating the laity from conforming with the prescribed laws of the authorities, but is ready in every way to cooperate with the authorities, and if any diffi- culties by chance should arise, to dissolve them by a mutual understanding. Besides, it is the right of the Church which she cannot surrender, and the duty which she cannot abandon, to watch over all education, such as is imparted to her children, namely, the faithful in either public or private institutions, not only insofar as pertains to religious doctrine as it is taught there, but also with regard to any other discipline or arrangement of affairs, according as they have some relationship with religion and moral precepts. 2 The rights of the family and of the state, even the very rights which 2206 belong to individual citizens with reference to just freedom in investigating the things of science and of the methods of science, and of any profane culture of the mind, not only are not at variance with such a special right of the Church, but are even quite in harmony with it. For, to make known at once the cause and origin of such concord, the supernatural order, on which the rights of the Church depend, far from destroying and weaken- ing the natural order, to which the other rights which we have mentioned pertain, rather elevates and perfects it; indeed, of these orders one furnishes help and, as it were, the complement to the other, consistent with the nature and dignity of each one, since both proceed from God, who cannot be inconsistent with Himself: "The works of God are perfect and all His ways are judgment" [Deut. 32:4]. Indeed, this matter will appear clearer if we consider the duty of educating, which pertains to the family and to the state, separately and more closely. And, first, the duty of the family agrees wonderfully with the duty of 2207 the Church, since both very similarly proceed from God. For God com- municates fecundity directly to the family, in the natural order, the princi- ple of life and thus the principle of education to life, at the same time along with authority, which is the principle of order. On this subject the Angelic Doctor with his customary clarity of 1 Commentary on Matthew, chap. 18, n. 3 [ML 9, 1019]. 2 Cod. fur. Can. c. 1381, 1382.
thought and precision in speaking says: "The father according to the flesh in a particular way shares in the method of the principle which is found universally in God . . . The father is the principle of generation and of education, and of all things which pertain to the perfection of human life." 1 The family, then, holds directly from the Creator the duty and the right to educate its offspring; and since this right cannot be cast aside, because it is connected with a very serious obligation, it has precedence over any right of civil society and of the state, and for this reason no power on earth may infringe upon it. . . • From this duty of educating, which especially belongs to the Church and the family, not only do the greatest advantages, as we have seen, emanate into all society, but no harm can befall the true and proper rights of the state, insofar as pertains to the education of citizens, according to the order established by God. These rights are assigned to civil society by the Author of nature himself, not by the right of fatherhood, as of the Church and of the family, but on account of the authority which is in Him for promoting the common good on earth, which indeed is its proper end. From this it follows that education does not pertain to civil society in the same way as it does to the Church or the family, but clearly in another way, which naturally corresponds to its proper end. This end, moreover, that is, the common good of the temporal order, consists in peace and security, which families and individual citizens enjoy by exercising their rights; and at the same time in the greatest possible abundance of spiritual and temporal things for mortal life, which abundance is to be attained by the effort and consent of all. The duty, then, of the civil authority, which is in the state, is twofold, namely, of guarding and advancing but by no means, as it were, of absorbing the family and individual citizens or of substituting itself in their place. Therefore, as far as education is concerned, it is the right or, to speak more accurately, the office of the state to guard the priority right of the family by its laws, as we have mentioned above; that is, of educating offspring in the Christian manner, and so of acknowledging the super- natural right of the Church in such a Christian education. It is likewise the duty of the state to guard this right in the child itself, if at any time the care of parents-because of their inertia, or ignorance, or bad behavior-fails either physically or morally; since their right of educating, as we have said above, is not absolute and despotic, but depen- dent on the natural and divine law, and for this reason subject not only to the authority and judgment of the Church, but also to the vigilance and care of the state for the common good; for the family is not a perfect society, which possesses within itself all things necessary for bringing itself 1 Summa thcol., Ila I!ae, q. 102, a. I.
to full and complete perfection. In these cases, otherwise very rare, the state does put itself in the place of the family, but, always in keeping with the natural rights of the child and the supernatural rights of the Church, considers and provides for the needs of the moment by opportune assistance. In general, it is the right and duty of the state to guard the moral and 2210 religious education of youth according to the norms of right reason and faith, by removing the public impediments that stand in the way of it. But it is especially the duty of the state, as the common good demands, to promote the education and instruction of youth in several ways; first and by itself, by favoring and aiding the work undertaken by the Church and the family, the extent of whose success is demonstrated by history and experience; where this work is lacking or does not suffice, by performing the work itself, even by establishing schools and institutions; for the state more than the other societies abounds in resources, which, having been given it for the common needs of all, it is quite right and proper that it expend these for the benefit of those from whom it received them. Besides, the state can prescribe and then see to it that all citizens learn both civil and political duties; also that they be instructed in science and in the learning of morals and of physical culture, insofar as it is fitting, and the common good in our times actually demands. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that the state is bound by this duty, not only to respect, while pro- moting public and private education in all these ways, the inherent rights of the Church and family of a Christian education, but also to have regard for justice which attributes to each one his own. Thus, it is not lawful for the state to reduce the entire control of education and instruction to itself so that families are forced physically and morally to send their children to the schools of the state, contrary to the duties of their Christian conscience or to their legitimate preference. Yet, this does not prevent the state from establishing schools which may be called preparatory for civic duties, especially for military service, for the proper administration of government, or for maintaining peace at home and abroad; all of which, indeed, since they are so necessary for the common good, demand a peculiar skill and a special preparation, provided that the state abstains from offending the rights of the Church and of the family in matters that pertain to them. It belongs to civil society to supply, not only for youth but also for all 2211 ages and classes, an education which can be called civic, and which on the positive side, as they say, consists in this, that matters are presented publicly to men belonging to such a society which by imbuing their minds with the knowledge and image of things, and by an emotional appeal urge their wills to the honorable and guide them by a kind Of moral compulsion; but on the negative side, that it guards against and obstructs
the things that oppose it. Now this civic education, so very broad and complex that it includes almost the entire activity of the state for the common good, ought to conform with the laws of justice, and cannot be in conflict with the doctrine of the Church, which is the divinely constituted teacher of these laws. It should never be forgotten that in the Christian sense the entire man is to be educated, as great as he is, that is, coalescing into one nature, through spirit and body, and instructed in all parts of his soul and body, which either proceed from nature or excel it, such as we finally recognize him from right reason and divine revelation, namely, man whom, when fallen from his original estate, Christ redeemed and restored to this super- natural dignity, to be the adopted son of God, yet without the preternatural privileges by which his body had before been immortal, and his soul just and sound. Hence, it happened that the defilements which flowed into the nature of man from Adam's sin, especially the infirmity of the will and the unbridled desires of the soul, survive in man. And, surely, "folly is bound up in the heart of a child and the rod of correction shall drive it away" [Prov. 22:15]. Therefore, from childhood the inclination of will, if perverse, must be restrained; but if good, must be promoted, and especially the minds of children should be imbued with the teachings that come from God, and their souls strengthened by the aids of divine grace; and, if these should be lacking, no one could be restrained in his desires nor be guided to complete perfection by the training and instruction of the Church, which Christ has endowed with heavenly doctrine and divine sacraments for the purpose of being the efficacious teacher of all men. Therefore, every form of teaching children, which, confined to the mere forces of nature, rejects or neglects those matters which contribute with God's help to the right formation of the Christian life, is false and full of error; and every way and method of educating youth, which gives no consideration, or scarcely any, to the transmission of original sin from our first parents to all posterity, and so relies wholly on the mere powers of nature, strays completely from the truth. For the most part those systems of teaching which are openly proclaimed in our day tend to this goal. They have various names, to be sure, whose chief characteristic is to rest the basis of almost all instruction on this, that it is sound for children to instruct themselves, evidently by their own genius and will, spurning the counsel of their elders and teachers, and putting aside every human and even divine law and resource. Yet, if all these are so circumscribed by their own limits that new teachers of this kind desire that youth also take an active part in their own instruction, the more properly as they advance in years and in the knowledge of things, and likewise that all fcrce and severity, of which, however, just correction is by no means a part, this
indeed is true, but not at all new, since the Church has taught this, anJ Christian teachers, in a manner handed down by their ancestors, have retained it, imitating God who wished all created things and especially all men to cooperate actively with Him according to their proper nature, for divine Wisdom "reaches from end to end .and orders all things sweetly" l Wisd. 8:r ] . . . . But much more pernicious are those opinions and teachings regarding 2214 the following of nature absolutely as a guide. These enter upon a certain phase of human education which is full of difficulties, namely, that which has to do with moral integrity and chastity. For here and there a great many foolishly and dangerously hold and advance the method of educa- tion, which is disgustingly called "sexual," since they foolishly feel that they can, by merely natural means, after discarding every religious and pious aid, warn youth against sensuality and excess, by initiating and in- structing all of them, without distinction of sex, even publicly, in hazardous doctrines; and what is worse, by exposing them prematurely to the occasions, in order that their minds having become accustomed, as they say, may grow hardened to the dangers of puberty. But in this such persons gravely err, because they do not take into account the inborn weakness of human nature, and that law planted within our members, which, to use the words of the Apostle Paul, "fights against the law of my mind" [Rom. 7:23]; and besides, they rashly deny what we have learned from daily experience, that young people certainly more than others fall more often into disgraceful acts, not so much be- cause of an imperfect knowledge of the intellect as because of a will ex- posed to enticements and unsupported by divine assistance. In this extremely delicate matter, all things considered, if some young people should be advised at the proper time by those to whom God has entrusted the duty, joined with opportune graces, of educating children, surely those precautions and skills are to be employed which are well known to Christian teachers. Surely, equally false and harmful to Christian education is that method 2215 of instructing youth, which is commonly called "coeducation." Both the sexes have been established by God's wisdom for this purpose, that in the family and in society they may complement each other, and may aptly join in any one thing; for this reason there is a distinction of body and of soul by which they differ from each other, which accordingly must be maintained in education and in instruction, or, rather ought to be fostered by proper distinction and separation, in keeping with age and circum- stances. Such precepts in accord with the precepts of Christian prudence are to be observed at the proper time and opportunely not only in all schools, especially through the disturbed years of youth, upon which the manner of living for almost all future life entirely depends, but also in
gymnastic games and exercises, in which special care must be taken for the Christian modesty of girls, inasmuch as it is especially unbecoming for them to expose themselves, and to exhibit themselves before the eyes of all. But to obtain perfect education care- must be taken that all the con- ditions which surround children while they are being trained, fittingly correspond with the end proposed. And surely from the necessity of nature the environment of the child for his proper training must be regarded as his family, established by God for this very purpose. Therefore, finally, we shall rightly consider that institution stable and safest which is received in a family rightly ordered and well disciplined; and the more efficacious and stable as the parents especially and other members of the household present themse1ves before the children as an example of virtue. Moreover, for the weaknesses of human nature, rendered weaker by the ancestral sin, God in His goodness has provided the abundant helps of His grace and that plentiful supply of assistance which the Church possesses for purifying souls and for leading them on to sanctity; the Church, we say, that great family of Christ, which is the educational environment most intimately and harmoniously connected with individual families. Since, however, new generations would have to be instructed in all those arts and sciences by which civil society advances and flourishes; and since the family alone did not suffice for this, accordingly public schools came into being; yet in the beginning-note carefully-through the efforts of the Church and the family working together, and only much later through the efforts of the state. Thus the seats and schools of learning, if we view their origin in the light of pistory, were by their very nature helps, as it were, and almost a complement to both the Church and the family. So the consequence is that public schools not only cannot be in opposition to the family and the Church, but must ever be in harmony with both, as far as circumstances permit, so that these three, namely, school, family, and Church seem to effect essentially one sanctuary of Christian education, unless we wish the school to stray from its clear purpose and be converted into a disease and the destruction of youth. From this it necessarily follows that through schools which are called neutral or lay, the entire foundation of Christian education is destroyed and overturned, inasmuch as religion has been entirely removed from them. But they will be neutral schools in no way except in appearance, since they are in fact plainly hostile to religion or will be. It is a long task and there is indeed no need to repeat what Our pred- ecessors, especially Pius IX and Leo XIII openly declared, in whose reigns especially it happened that the serious disease of such laicism invaded the
public schools. We repeat and confirm their declarations and likewise the
prescripts of the Sacred Canons, according to which Catholic youths are prohibited from frequenting for any reason either neutral or mixed schools, namely, those which Catholics and non-Catholics attend for instruction; but it will be permitted to attend these, provided in the judgment of a prudent ordinary, in certain conditions of place and time, special pre- cautions be taken. 2 For no school can be tolerated ( especially if it is the "only" school and all children are bound to attend it) in which, although the precepts of sacred doctrine are taught separately to Catholics, yet the teachers are not Catholics, and who imbue Catholic and non-Catholic children generally with a knowledge of the arts and letters. For, because the instruction in religion is given in a certain school 2220
( usually too sparingly), such a school for this reason does not satisfy the rights of the Church and family; nor is it thus made suitable for the attendance of Catholic pupils; for, in order that any school measure up to this, it is quite necessary that all instruction and doctrine, the whole or- ganization of the school, namely, its teachers, plan of studies, books, in fact, whatever pertains to any branch of learning, be so permeated and be so strong in Christian spirit, under the guidance and the eternal vigilance of the Church, that religion itself forms both the basis and the end of the entire scheme of instruction; and this not only in the schools in which the elements of learning are taught but also in those of higher studies. "It is necessary," to use the words of Leo XIII, "not only that youth be taught religion at definite times, but that all the rest of their instruction be pervaded with a religious feeling. If this be lacking, if this sacred condition does not permeate and stimulate the minds of the teachers and those taught, small benefit will be received from any learning, and no little damage will often follow." 3 Moreover, whatever is done by the faithful of Christ to promote and 2221
protect the Catholic school for their children, is without any doubt a religious work, and thus a most important duty of "Catholic Action"; accordingly, all those sodalities are very pleasing to Our paternal heart and worthy of special praise, which in many places in a special manner and most zealously are engaged in so essential a work. Therefore, let it be proclaimed on high, well noted, and recognized by all that the faithful of Christ in demanding a Catholic School for their children are nowhere in the world guilty of an act of a political dissension, 1 Pius IX, Ep., "Quum non sine," July 14, 1864; Syllabus, Prop. 48 [ see note, 1748];
Leo XIII, Alloc., "Summi Pontificatus," August 20, 1880; Encyclical letter, "Nobilis- sima," February 8, 1884; Encyclical letter, "Quo<l multum," August 22, 1886; Epistle, "Officio sanctissimo," December 22, 1887; Encyclical letter, "Caritatis," March 19, 1894; etc. Cf. Cod. ltrr. Can. cum Fo11tium Annot; ad can. 1374. 2 Cod. for. Can., c. 1374. 3 Encyclical letter, "Militantis Ecclesiae," August 1, 1897.
but perform a religious duty which their own conscience peremptorily demands; and, these Catholics do not intend to withdraw their children from the training and spirit of the state, but rather to train them for this very end, in a manner most perfect, and best accommodated to the useful- ness of the nation, since a true Catholic, indeed, well instructed in Catholic teaching, is by this very fact the best citizen, a supporter of his country, and obedient with a sincere faith to public authority under any legitimate form of government. The salutary efficiency of schools, moreover, is to be attributed not so much to good laws as to good teachers, who, being well prepared and each having a good knowledge of the subject to be taught the students, truly adorned with the qualities of mind and spirit, which their most important duty obviously demands, glow with a pure and divine love for the youth committed to them, just as they love Jesus Christ and His Church, -whose most beloved children these are-and by this very fact sincerely have the true good of the family and the fatherland at heart. Therefore, We are greatly consoled and We acknowledge the goodness of God with a grateful heart, when we see that in addition to the men and women of religious communities who devote themselves to the teaching of children and youth, there are so many and such excellent lay teachers of both sexes, and that these-for their greater spiritual advancement joining in associa- tions and spiritual sodalities, which are to be praised and promoted as a noble and strong aid to "Catholic Action"-unmindful of their own ad- vantage, devote themselves strenuously and unceasingly to that which St. Gregory of Nazianzus calls "the art of arts and the science of sciences," 1 namely, the direction and formation of youth. Yet, since those words of the divine Master apply to them also: "The harvest indeed is great, but laborers are few" [Matt. 9:37 ], such teachers of Christian education- whose training should be of special concern to the pastors of souls, and superiors of religious orders-we exhort the Lord of the harvest with suppliant prayers to provide such teachers in greater numbers. Furthermore, the education of the child, inasmuch as he is "soft as wax to be molded into vice" 2 in whatever environment he lives, must be directed and watched by removing occasions of evil, and by supplying opportunely occasions for good in times of relaxation of mind, and en- joyment of companions, because "evil communications corrupt good manners" [I Cor. 15:33]. Yet, such watchfulness and vigilance, as we have said should be applied, does not at all demand that young people be removed from association with men with whom they must live their lives, and whom they must consult in regard to the salvation of their souls; but only that they be 1 Oratio 2, 16 [MG 35, 426]. 2 Horace, De arte poetica, 1, 163.
fortified and strengthened in a Christian manner-especially today- against the enticements and errors of the world, which, according to the words of John, are entirely "concupiscence of the flesh, concupiscence of the eyes, and pride of life" [I John 2:16], so that, as Tertullian wrote of the early Christians: "Let our people keep themselves as Christians who should at all times be sharers in the possession of the world, not of its error." 1 Christian education aims properly and immediately to make man a true 2224 and perfect Christian by cooperating with divine grace, namely, to mold and fashion Christ Himself in those who have been reborn in baptism, according to the clear statement of the Apostle: "My little children of whom I am in labor again, until Christ be formed in you" [Gal. 4:19]. For, the true Christian must live a supernatural life in Christ: "Christ our life" [ Col. 3 :4], and manifest the same in all his actions, "that the life of Jesus may be made manifest in our mortal flesh" [II Cor. 4: II I. Since this is so, Christian education embraces the sum total of human actions, because it pertains to the workings of the senses and of the spirit, to the intellect and to morals, to individuals, to domestic and civil society, not indeed, to weaken it, but according to the example and teaching of Jesus Christ, to elevate, regulate, and perfect it. Thus the true Christian, molded by Christian education, is none other than the supernatural man who thinks, judges, and acts constantly and consistently in accordance with right reason; supernaturally inspired by the examples and teachings of Jesus Christ; that is, a man outstanding in force of character. For whoever follows his own inclination and acts stubbornly, intent on his own desires, is not a man of strong character; but only he who follows the eternal principles of justice, just as even the pagan host himself recognizes when he praises "the just" man together with "the man tenacious of purpose"; 2 but these ideas of justice cannot be fully observed unless there is attributed to God whatever is God's due, as is done by the true Christian. The true Christian, far from renouncing the activities of this life and from suppressing his natural talents, on the contrary fosters and brings them to perfection by so cooperating with the supernatural life that he embellishes the natural way of living, and supports it by more efficacious aids, which are in accord not only with spiritual and eternal things but also with the necessities of natural life itself. 1 De idolatria, 14 (ML r, 682). 2 Horace, Od., r. 3, od. 3, v. 1.
Christian Marriage 1 [From the Encyclical, "Casti Connubii," Pius XI, Dec. 31, 1930J
First, then, let this remain as an unchangeable and inviolable basis; marriage was not instituted or restored by man but by God; not by man but by the very author of nature, God; and by the restorer of the same nature was it fortified, confirmed, and elevated through laws; and these laws, therefore, cannot be subject to any decision of man and not even to any contrary agreement on the part of the spouses themselves. This is a doctrine of Holy Scripture [Gen. 1:27 f.; 2:22 f.; Matt. 19:3 ff.; Eph. 5 :2 3 ff.]; this is the continued and unanimous tradition of the Church; this is the solemn definition of the sacred Council of Trent, which declares and confirms [sess. 24; seen. 969 ff.] that the perpetual and indissoluble bond of marriage, and the unity and the stability of the same emanate from God as their author. But, although marriage by its nature was instituted by God, nevertheless man's will has its own role, and a most noble one in it; for, every in- dividual marriage, inasmuch as it is a conjugal union between a certain man and a certain woman, it arises only from the free consent of both spouses, and indeed this free act of the will, by which both parties hand over and accept the rights 2 proper to matrimony, is so necessary to con- stitute a true marriage that it cannot be supplied by any human power. 3 Yet such freedom has this purpose on! y, to establish that contracting parties really wish to enter upon marriage and wish to do so with a certain person or not; but the nature of marriage is wholly removed from the freedom of man, so much so that as soon as man has contracted marriage he is subject to its divine laws and essential properties. For the Angelic Doctor, discussing good faith in marriage and offspring, says: "These things are so effected in marriage by the conjugal agreement itself that if anything contrary were expressed in the consent which makes the marriage, it would not be a true marriage." 4 By wedlock, then, souls are joined and made as one, and the souls are affected earlier and more strongly than bodies; not by any transient affection of the senses or the spirit, but by a deliberate and firm decision of the will; and from this joining of souls, with God so decreeing, a sacred and inviolable bond arises. This entirely proper and peculiar nature of this contract makes it com- pletely different not only from the connections of animals performed by 1 AAS 22 (1930), 539 ff. 2 Cf. Cod. fur. Can., can. 1081, sec. 2, 3 Cf. Cod. fur. Can., can. 1081, sec. r. 4 Summa t!ieol., Suppl., q. 49, a. 3.
blind instinct of nature alone, in which there is no reason nor free will, but also from those unrestrained unions of men, which are far removed from every true and honorable bond of wills, and destitute of any right to family life. From this it is now well established that truly legitimate authority has 2226 the power by law and so is compelled by duty to restrain, to prevent, and to punish base marriages, which are opposed to reason and to nature; but since a matter is involved which follows upon human nature itself, that is no less definitely established which Our predecessor, Leo XIII, of happy memory, plainly taught: 1 "In choosing a state of life there is no doubt but that it is within the power and discretion of individuals to prefer either one of two: either to adopt the counsel of Jesus Christ with respect to virginity, or to bind himself with the bonds of matrimony. To take away the natural and primeval right of marriage, or in any way to circumscribe the chief purpose of marriage established in the beginning by the authority of God, "Increase and multiply" [ Gen. I :28], is not within the power of any law of man." Now as We come to explain what are these blessings, granted by God, 2227 of true matrimony, and how great they are, Venerable Brethren, there come to Us the words of that very famous Doctor of the Church, whom not so long ago We commemorated in Our Encyclical Letter, Ad Salutem, published on the fulfillment of the fifteenth century after his death. St. Augustine says: "All these are blessings, because of which marriage is a blessing: offspring, conjugal faith, and the sacrament." 2 How these three headings are rightly said to contain a very splendid summary of the whole doctrine on Christian marriage, the Holy Doctor clearly shows when he says: "By conjugal faith care is taken that there be no intercourse outside the marriage bond with another man or another woman; by offspring, that children be begotten in love, nourished with kindness, and brought up religiously; but by the sacrament, that the marriage be not broken, and that the separated man or woman have intercourse with another not even for the sake of offspring. This is, as it were, the law of marriage, whereby the fruitfulness of nature is adorned and the depravity of incontinence is controlled." 3 [ 1] Thus the child holds the first place among the blessing of matri- 2228 mony. Clearly the Creator of the human race Himself, who because of His kindness wished to use men as helpers in propagating life, taught this in Paradise, when He instituted marriage, saying to our first parents, and through them to all spouses: "Increase and multiply and fill the earth" 1 Encyclical letter, "Rerum novarum," May 15, 1891 [AAS 23 (1890/91), 645; AL XI (Rome) 104]. 2 St. Augustine, De bona con111gali, 24, 32 [ML 40, 394]. 8 St. Augustine, Op. cit., 24, 32 [ML 40,394].
[ Gen. 1 :28]. This thought St. Augustine very beautifully infers from the words of St. Paul the Apostle to Timothy [I Tim. 5:14], when he says: "So the Apostle is witness that marriage is accomplished for the sake of generation. I wish, he says, young girls to marry. And as if someone said to Him: Why? he immediately adds: To bear children, to be mothers of families" [I Tim. 5:14]. 1 Indeed, Christian parents should further understand that they are destined not only to propagate and to preserve the human race on earth, nay rather, not to raise any kind of worshipers of the true God, but to produce offspring of the Church of Christ; to procreate "fellow-citizens of the saints and members of God's household" [Eph. 2:19], that the people devoted to the worship of God and our Savior may increase daily. For, even if Christian spouses, although they themselves are sanctified, have not the power to transfuse sanctification into their offspring, surely the natural generation of life has become a way of death, by which original sin passes into the offspring; yet in some manner they share something of that primeval marriage of Paradise, since it is their privilege to offer their own offspring to the Church, so that by this most fruitful mother of the sons of God they may be regenerated through the !aver of baptism unto supernatural justice, and become living members of Christ, par- takers of immortal life, and, finally, heirs of eternal glory which we all desire with all our heart. . . . But the blessing of offspring is not completed by the good work of procreation; something else must be added which is contained in the dutiful education of the offspring. Surely, the most wise God would have made insufficient provision for the child that is born, and so for the whole human race, unless He had also assigned the right and duty of educating to the same ones to whom He had given the power and right of generating. For it cannot escape anyone that offspring, not only in matters which pertain to the natural life, and much less in those which pertain to the supernatural life, cannot be sufficient unto itself or provide for itself, but is for many years in need of the assistance of others, of care, and of education. But it is certain that, when nature and God bid, this right and duty of educating offspring belongs especially to those who began the work of nature by generating, and they are also absolutely forbidden to expose this work to ruin by leaving it unfinished and imperfect. Surely, the best possible provision has been made in matrimony for this most necessary education of children, in which, since parents are joined to each other by an insoluble bond, there is always at hand the care and mutual assistance of both. . . . Nor can this be passed over in silence, that, since the duty committed to parents for the good of offspring is of such great dignity and importance, 1 St. Augustine, Op. cit., 24, 32 [ML 40, 394].
any honorable use of this faculty given by God to procreate new life, at the command of the Creator Himself and the laws of nature, is the right and privilege of matrimony alone, and must be confined within the sacred limits of marriage. [2] Another blessing of matrimony which we have spoken of as men- 2231 tioned by Augustine, is the blessing of faith, which is the mutual fidelity of spouses in fulfilling the marriage contract, so that what by this contract, sanctioned by divine law, is due only to one spouse, cannot be denied him nor permitted to anyone else; nor is that to be conceded to the spouse, which can never be conceded, since it is contrary to divine rights and laws and is especially opposed to conjugal faith. Thus this faith demands in the first place the absolute unity of marriage, which the Creator Himself established in the matrimony of our first parents when He willed that it exist only between one man and one woman. And although afterwards God, the supreme legislator, somewhat relaxed this primeval law for a time, nevertheless there is no doubt that the Evangelical Law entirely restored that original and perfect unity and did away with all dispensations, as the words of Christ and the uniform way either of teaching or acting on the part of the Church plainly show [see note 969] . . . . Nor did Christ the Lord wish to condemn only polygamy and polyandry, whether successive 1 or simultaneous, as they are called, or any other dis- honorable act; but, in order that the sacred bonds of marriage may be absolutely inviolate, He forbade also even the willful thoughts and desires about all these things: "But I say to you that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her hath already committed adultery with her in his heart" [Matt. 5:28]. These words of Christ the Lord cannot become void even by the consent of one spouse; for they express the law of God and of nature, which no will of man can ever break or bend. 2 Even mutual familiar intercourse between spouses, that the blessing of conjugal faith may shine with due splendor, should be so distinguished by the mark of chastity that husband and wife conduct themselves in all things according to the law of God and of nature, and strive always to follow the will of the most wise and most holy Creator, with great reverence for the work of God. Moreover, this conjugal fidelity, most aptly called by St. Augustine 3 2232 the "faith of chastity," will flourish more readily, and even much more pleasantly, and as ennobling coming from another most excellent source, namely, from conjugal love, which pervades all duties of the married life 1 Successive polygamy is here understood as illicit wherein a wife, while the conjugal bond remains, is rejected, and another like companion is adopted. 2 Cf. de~ree of the Holy Office, March 2, 1679, prop. 50 (seen. 1200). 1 De bono conjugali, 24, 32 [ML 40,394).
and holds a kind of primacy of nobility in Christian marriage. "Besides, matrimonial fidelity demands that husband and wife be joined in a peculiarly holy and pure love, not as adulterers love each other, but as Christ loved the Church; for the Apostle prescribed this rule when he said: "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church" [Eph. 5:25; cf. Col. 3:19]; which Church certainly He embraced with tremendous love, not for His own advantage, but keeping before Him only the good of His Spouse." 1 We speak, then, of a love that rests not only on a carnal inclination that very quickly disappears, nor on pleasing words only, but that is also set in the innermost affection of the heart; and, "since the proof of love is a manifestation of deeds," 2 that is proven by external deeds. Now these deeds in home life include not only mutual assistance, but also should extend to this, rather should aim especially for this, that husband and wife help each other daily to form and to perfect the interior man more fully, so that through their partnership in life they may advance in the virtues more and more, and may grow especially in true love toward God and their neighbors, on which indeed "dependeth the whole Law and the Prophets" [Matt. 22:40]. Manifestly the most perfect example of all holi- ness set befor~ men by God is Christ the Lord. All, in whatever condition and whatever honorable way of life they have entered, with God's help should also arrive at the highest degree of Christian perfection, as is proven by the examples of many saints. This mutual interior formation of husband and wife, this constant zeal for bringing each other to perfection, in a very true sense, as the Roman Catechism teaches, can be said to be the very first reason and purpose of matrimony; if, however, matrimony be not accepted too narrowly as instituted for the proper procreation and education of children, but more broadly as the mutual participation in all life, companionship, and associa- tion. With this same love the remaining rights as well as duties of marriage must be regulated, so that not only the law of justice, but also the norm of love may be that of the Apostle: "Let the husband render the debt to the wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband" [I Cor. 7:3]. Finally, after the domestic society has been confirmed by the bond of this love, of necessity there must flourish in it that which is called by Augustine the order of love. Now this order includes both the primacy of the husband over the wife and the children, and the prompt and not unwilling subjection and obedience of the wife, which the Apostle com- mends with these words: "Let women be subject to their husbands as to 1 Catech. Rom., II, 8, 24. 2 St. Gregory the Great, Hamil. 30 in Evange. (John 14:23-31), n. 1 [ML 76, 1220]. Cf. Catech. Rom., II, 8, 13.
the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church" [Eph. 5:22 f.]. Yet this obedience does not deny or take away the liberty which by full right belongs to a woman, both in view of her dignity as a human being, and in view of her noble duties of wife, mother, and companion; nor does it demand that she obey every desire of her husband, that is, not in keeping with right reason or with her dignity as a wife; nor, finally, does it mean that a wife is to be placed on the same level with persons who in law are called minors, to whom the free exercise of their rights is not customarily granted because of lack of mature judgment, or because of inexperience in human affairs; but it forbids that exaggerated liberty which has no care for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body of the family the heart be separated from the head, to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For, if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and just as he holds primacy in ruling, she can and ought to claim primacy in iove for herself as her own. Furthermore, this obedience of the wife to her husband, insofar as per- tains to degree and manner, can be different, according to different persons, places, and conditions of the time; rather, if a husband fail in his duty, it is the wife's responsibility to take his place in directing the family. But the very structure of the family and its chief law, as constituted and con- firmed by God, can never and nowhere be overturned or tainted. On this point of maintaining order between husband and wife Our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, wisely taught in his Encyclical Letter on Christian marriage which We have mentioned: "The man is the ruler of the family and the head of the woman; yet, since she is flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, let her be subject and obedient to the man, not in the manner of a maidservant but of a companion, so that of course, neither honor nor dignity be lacking in the obedience rendered. But let divine charity be the unfailing guide of duty in him who is at the head, and in her who obeys, since both bear the image, the one, of Christ, the other of the Church. . . ." 1 [3] Yet the sum total of such great benefits is completed and, as it were, 2234 brought to a head by that blessing of Christian marriage which we have called, in Augustine's words, a sacrament, by which is denoted the in- dissolubility of the bond and the raising and hallowing by Christ of the contract into an efficacious sign of grace. In the first place, to be sure, Christ Himself lays stress on the indis- soluble firmness of the nuptial bond when he says: "What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder" [Matt. 19:6]; and, "Everyone that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another committeth adultery, 1 Encyclical letter, "Arcanum di vi nae sapientiae," February IO, I 880 l ASS 12 (1879/80), 389; AL 2 (Romae) 18].
and he that marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery" [Luke 16:18]. Moreover, St. Augustine places in this indissolubility what he calls "the blessing of the sacrament," in these clear words: "But in the sacrament it is intended ·that the marriage be not broken, and that the man or the woman dismissed be not joined with another, even for the sake of off- spring." 1 And this inviolable stability, although not of the same perfect measure in every case, pertains to all true marriages; for that saying of the Lord, "What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder," although, said of the marriage of our first parents, the prototype of every future marriage, must apply to all true marriages. Therefore, although before Christ the sublimity and severity of the primeval law were so tempered that Moses allowed the citizens of the people of God because of the hard- ness of their hearts to grant a bill of divorce for certain causes; yet Christ in accord with His power as Supreme Legislator revoked this permission of greater license, and restored the primeval law in its entirety through those words which are never to be forgotten: "What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder." So, most wisely did Pius VI, Our predecessor of happy memory, writing to the Bishop of Agria,2 say: "From this it is manifestly clear that matrimony, even in the state of nature, and surely long before it was raised to the dignity of a sacrament properly so called, was so established by God that it carries with it a perpetual and indissoluble bond, which, accordingly, cannot be dissolved by any civil law. And so, although the sacramental element can be separated from matrimony, as is true in a marriage between infidels, still in such a marriage, inasmuch as it is a true marriage, there must remain and surely does remain that perpetual bond which by divine right is so inherent in marriage from its very beginning that it is not subject to any civil power. And so whatever marriage is said to be contracted, either it is so contracted that it is in fact a true marriage, and then will have that perpetual bond inherent by divine law in every true marriage, or it is supposed to be contracted without that pe-petual bond, and then is not a marriage, but an illicit union repugnant by its purpose to the divine law, and therefore cannot be entered upon or maintained. 3 If this stability seems subject to exception, however rare, as in the case of certain natural marriages entered into between unbelievers, or if be- tween the faithful of Christ, those which are valid but not consummated, that exception does not depend on the will of man or of any merely 1 St. Augustine, De Gen. ad litt., IX 7, 12 [ML 34, 397]. 2 Erlau(Eger) in Hungary. 3 Pius VI, Rescript to the Bishop of Agria, July 11, 1789 [A. de Roskovany, Matri- monium in Eccl. cath., I ( r 870), 29 I J.
human power, but on divine law, whose only guardian and interpreter is the Church of Christ. Yet, not even such a power can for any cause ever affect a Christian marriage which is valid and consummated. For, since the marriage contract is fully accomplished in such case, so also absolute stability and indissolubility by God's will are apparent, which cannot be relaxed by any human authority. If we wish to investigate with due reverence the intimate reason for this divine will, we shall easily discover it in the mystical signification of Christian marriage, which is fully and perfectly had in a marriage con- summated between the faithful. For with the Apostle, in his Epistle to the Ephesians as witness [Eph. 5:32] (to which we referred in the be- ginning), the marriage of Christians recalls that most perfect union which exists between Christ and the Church: "This is a great sacrament, but I speak in Christ and in the church," which union, indeed, as long as Christ shall live and the Church through Him, surely can never be dissolved by any separation . . . . In this blessing of the sacrament, in addition to its indissoluble firm- 2237 ness, far higher emoluments are also contained, very aptly indicated by the word, "sacrament"; for to Christians this is not a hollow and empty name, since Christ the Lord, "the Institutor and Perfector" 1 of the sacra- ments, raising the marriage of His faithful to a true and proper sacra- ment of the New Law, made it in very fact a sign and source of that peculiar interior grace by which it perfects natural love, confirms an indissoluble union, and sanctifies the spouses. 2 And since Christ established valid conjugal consent between the faith- ful as a sign of grace, the nature of the sacrament is so intimately bound up with Christian marriage that no true matrimony can exist between baptized persons "unless by that very fact it be a sacrament." 3 When then the faithful with sincere minds give such consent, they open up a treasure of sacramental grace for themselves, from which they draw supernatural strength for fulfilling their obligations and duties faithfully, nobly, and perseveringly even until death. This sacrament, in the case of those who, as they say, place no obex in its way, not only increases the permanent principle of supernatural life, namely sanctifying grace, but also bestows peculiar gifts, good dis- positions of mind, and seeds of grace, by increasing and perfecting the natural powers, so that the spouses are able not only to understand by reason, but to know intimately, to hold firmly, to wish efficaciously, and to carry out, indeed, whatever pertains to the marriage state, both its ends and obligations; finally, it grants them the right to obtain the actual 1 Council of Trent, sess. 24 [Seen. 969]. 2 Council of Trent, ibid. a Cod. fur. Can., c. 1012.
59° assistance of grace as often as they need it for fulfilling the duties of this state. And yet, since it is a law of divine Providence in the supernatural order that men do not gather the full fruit of the sacraments which they receive after acquiring the use of reason, unless they cooperate with grace, the grace of marriage will remain in great part a useless talent hidden in the field, unless the spouses exercise supernatural strength and cultivate and develop the seeds of grace which they have received. But if they do all they can to make themselves docile to grace, they will be able to bear the burdens of their state and fulfill its duties, and will be strengthened and sanctified and, as it were, consecrated by so great a sacrament. For, as St. Augustine teaches, just as by baptism and holy orders a man is set aside and assisted either to lead his life in a Christian manner, or to fulfill the duties of the priesthood, and is never devoid of sacramental help, almost in the same manner ( although not by a sacramental sign) the faithful who have once been joined by the bond of marriage can never be deprived of its sacramental assistance and tie. But rather, as the same Holy Doctor adds, they take that holy bond with them even when they may have become adulterers, although not now to the glory of grace, but to the crime of sin, "as the apostate soul, as if withdrawing from union with Christ, even after faith has been lost, does not lose the sacrament of faith which it received from the !aver of regeneration." 1 But let these same spouses, not restrained but adorned by the golden tie of the sacrament, not impeded but strengthened, struggle with all their might for this end, that their wedlock, not only by the strength and significance of the sacrament, but also by their mentality and character, be and always remain the living image of that most fruitful union of Christ with the Church, which surely is to be revered as the mystery of the most perfect love.
The Abuse of Matrimony 2 [From the same Encyclical, "Casti Connubii," Dec. 31, 1930]
Let us discuss the offspring, which some have the audacity to call the troublesome burden of marriage, and which they declare should be studiously avoided not by honorable continence (permitted even in matrimony when both spouses consent), but by frustration of the natural act. Indeed, some vindicate themselves for this criminal abuse on the ground that they are tired of children and wish merely to fulfill their 1 St. August., De nupt. et concup., I, ro [ML 44, 420 J; cf. De bona coniug., 24, 32 [ML 40, ,94]. 2 AAS 22 (1930), 559 ff.
59 1 desires without the consequent burden; others on the ground that they can neither observe continence, nor because of difficulties of the mother or of family circumstances cannot have offspring. But surely no reason, not even the gravest, can bring it about that what is intrinsically against nature becomes in accord with nature, and honorable. Since, moreover, the conjugal act by its very nature is destined for the generating of offspring, those who in the exercise of it deliberately deprive it of its natural force and power, act contrary to nature, and do something that is shameful and intrinsically bad. Therefore, it is no wonder that Sacred Scripture itself testifies that the divine Majesty looks upon this nefarious crime with the greatest hatred, and sometimes has punished it with death, as St. Augustine re- lates: "It is illicit and disgraceful for one to lie even with his legitimate wife, when conception of offspring is prevented. Onan did this; God killed him therefor." 1 Since, therefore, certain persons, manifestly departing from Christian 2240 doctrine handed down from the beginning without interruption, have recently decided that another doctrine should be preached on this method of acting, the Catholic Church, to whom God himself has entrusted the teaching and the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, placed in the midst of this ruination of morals, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the marriage contract immune from this base sin, and in token of her divine mission raises high her voice through Our mouth and again proclaims: Any use of the marriage act, in the exercise of which it is designedly deprived of its natural power of pro- creating life, infringes on the law of God and of nature, and those who have committed any such act are stained with the guilt of serious sin. Therefore, We admonish the priests who devote time to hearing con- fessions, and others who have care of souls, in accord with Our highest authority, not to permit the faithful committed to them to err in this most serious law of God, and much more to keep themselves immune from false opinions of this kind, and not to connive in them in any way. 1 St. Augustine, De coniug. adult., 2, 12 [ML 40, 4821; cf. Gen. 38:8-ID; S. Poeni-
tent., April 3, June 3, 1916.-The following responses first appeared in the work ln• stitutiones Alphonsianac, authored by Cl. Marc, t. II, (1917), n. 2116 f. In the response of April 3, it is declared: a) that a wife because of a threat of death or grave injury can cooperate in an interrupted copulation with her husband; b) but by no means can she <lo so, not even for the sake of avoiding death, in a sodornitic copulation. In the response of June 3, it is declared: a) that a wife is bound to positive resistance, when a man wishes to use an instrument to practice onanism;-b) that in this case passive resistance does not suffice;--£) that a man who uses such instruments is truly likened to an oppressor, against whom the woman should oppose that resistance which a virgin does to an mvader. [See the text itself in the cited work; or, in A. Veerrneersch, De castitate ( 1919), n. 263, and in other authors.]
If any confessor or pastor of souls, which may God forbid, either him- self leads the faithful entrusted to him into these errors, or at least either by approval or by guilty silence confirms them in these errors, let him know that he must render a strict accounting to God, the Supreme Judge, for the betrayal of his trust, and let him consider the words of Christ as spoken to himself: "They are blind, and the leaders of the blind; and if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit" [Matt. 15:14].1 Holy Church knows very well that not rarely one of the spouses is sinned against rather than commits a sin, when for a very grave reason he permits a perversion of the right order, which he himself does not wish; and on this account he is without fault, provided he then remem- bers the law of charity and does not neglect to prevent and deter the other from sinning. Those spouses are not to be said to act against the order of nature who use their right in a correct and natural way, although for natural reasons of time, or of certain defects new life cannot spring from this. For in matrimony itself, as in the practice of the conjugal right, secondary ends are also considered, such as mutual aid, the cul- tivation of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence, which spouses are by no means forbidden to attempt, provided the intrinsic nature of that act is preserved, and so its due ordering is towards its primary end. . . . Every care must be taken lest the calamitous conditions of external affairs give occasion for a much more disastrous error. For no difficulties can arise which can nullify the obligation of the mandates of God which forbid acts that are evil from their interior nature; but in all collateral cir- cumstances spouses, strengthened by the grace of God, can always per- form their duty faithfully, and preserve their chastity in marriage un- tainted by this shameful stain; for the truth of the Christian faith stands expressed in the teaching of the Synod of Trent: "Let no one rashly assert that which the Fathers of the Council have placed under anathema, namely, that there are precepts of God impossible for the just to observe. God does not ask the impossible, but by His commands instructs you to 1 Decree of the Holy Office, November 22, 1922.-By this decree [Nederlandsche Kat/10licke Stemmen 23 (1923), 35 ff.] copula dimidiata is discussed: I. "Whether it can be tolerated that confessors of their own accord teach the practice of copula dimidiata, and promiscuously persuade all penitents of it, who fear the birth of more children." II. "Whether a confessor must be criticized, who, after all remedies have been at- tempted in vain to turn the penitent who abuses matrimony away from this evil, teaches the practice of copula dimidiata for the avoidance of moral sins." III. "Whether a confessor must be criticized, who in circumstances under II per- suades a penitent of copula dimidiata noted elsewhere, or to the penitent who asks whether this method is licit, replies simply that it is licit without any restriction or explanation." The reply is: "To question I: In the neQ:ative. To II and III: In the affirmative."
do what you are able, to pray for what you are not able, and assists you that you may be able" [ see n. 804]. This same doctrine was again solemnly repeated and confirmed in the condemnation of the Jansenist heresy, which dared to utter this blasphemy against the goodness of God: "Some precepts of God are impossible of fulfillment, even for just men who wish and strive to keep the laws according to the powers which they have; grace also is lacking to them which would render this possible" [ see n. rn92].
The Killing of the Foetus 1 [From the same Encyclical, "Casti Connubii," Dec. 31, 1930]
Another very grave crime is also to be noted, by which the life of the 2242 offspring hidden in the mother's womb is attempted. Moreover, some wish this to be permitted according to the pleasure of the mother or father; others, however, call it illicit unless very grave reasons attend, which they call by the name of medical, social, eugenic "indication." Since this pertains to the penal laws of the state, according to which the destruction of the offspring begotten but not yet born is prohibited, all of these demand that the "indication," which they defend individually in one way or another, be recognized even by the public laws, and be declared free of all punishment. Nay rather, there are not lacking those who demand that public magistrates lend a helping hand to these death- dealing operations, something which unfortunately we all know is taking place very frequently in some places. Now as for the medical and therapeutic "indication," to use their 2243 words, We have already said, Venerable Brethren, how sorry We are for the mother, whose health and even life are threatened by grave dangers resulting from nature's duty; but what reason can ever be strong enough to excuse in any way the direct murder of the innocent? For this is the case in point here. Whether this is brought upon the mother or the offspring, it is contrary to God's precept and the voice of nature: "Thou shalt not kill!" [Exod. 20:13].2 The life of each person is an equally sacred thing, and no one can ever have the power, not even public authority to destroy it. Consequently, it is most unjust to invoke the "right of the sword" against the innocent since this is valid against the guilty alone; nor is there any right in this case of a bloody defense against an unjust aggressor (for who will call an innocent child an unjust aggressor?); nor is there present any "right of extreme necessity," as it is called, which can extend even to the direct killing of the innocent. 1 AAS 22 ( 1930), 562 ff. 2 Cf. the decree of the Holy Office, May 5, 1898; July 24, 1895; May 31, 1884 [seen. 1889 ff.; AAS 28 (1895/96), 383 f.; 17 (1884), 556].
Pius XI, 1922-.1939 Therefore, honorable and experienced physicians praiseworthily endeavor to protect and to save the lives of both the mother and the offspring; on the other hand, most unworthy of the n~ble name of physician and of commendation would they prove themselves, as many as plan for the death of one or the other under the appearance of practising medicine or through motives of false pity. . . . Now what is put forth in behalf of social and eugenic indication, with licit and honorable means and within due limits, may and ought to be held as a solution for these matters; but because of the necessities upon which these problems rest, to seek to procure the death of the innocent is improper and contrary to the divine precept promulgated by the words of the Apostle: "Evil is not to be done that good may come of it" [Rom. 3:8]. Finally, those who hold high office among nations and pass laws may not forget that it belongs to public authority by appropriate laws and penalties to defend the lives of the innocent, and the more so as those whose lives are endangered and are attacked are less able to defend them- selves, among whom surely infants in their mothers' wombs hold first place. But if public magistrates not only do not protect those little ones, but by their laws and ordinances permit this, and thus give them over to the hands of physicians and others to be killed, let them remember that God is the judge and the avenger of innocent "blood which cnes from earth to heaven" [Gen. 4: ro].
The Right to Marriage, and Sterilization 1 [From the same Encyclical, "Casti Connubii," Dec. 31, 1930]
Finally, that pernicious practice should be condemned which is closely related to the natural right of man to enter into matrimony, and also in a real way pertains to the good of the offspring. For there are those who, overly solicitous about the ends of eugenics, not only give certain salutary counsels for more certainly procuring the health and vigor of the future offspring-which certainly is not contrary to right reason-but also place eugenics before every other end of a higher order; and by public authority wish to prohibit from marriage all those from whom, according to the norms and conjectures of their science, they think that a defective and corrupt offspring will be generated because of hereditary transmission, even if these same persons are naturally fitted for entering upon matrimony. Why, they even wish such persons even against their will to be deprived by law of that natural faculty through the operation of physicians; and this they propose not as a severe penalty for a crime 1 AAS 22 (1930), 664 f.
committed, to be sought by public authority, nor to ward off future .crimes of the guilt, 1 but, contrary to every right and claim, by arrogating this power to the civil magistrates, which they never had and can never have legitimately. Whoever so act completely forget that the family is more sacred than the state, and that men are generated primarily not for earth and for time, but for heaven and eternity. And, surely, it is not right that men, in other respects capable of matrimony, who according to conjecture, though every care and diligence be applied, will generate only defective offspring, be for this reason burdened with a serious sin if they contract marriage, although sometimes they ought to be dissuaded from matri- mony. In fact, public magistrates have no direct power over the bodies of 2246 their subjects; therefore, they can never directly do harm to, or in any way affect the integrity of the body, where no crime has taken place, and no cause for serious punishment is at hand, either for reasons of eugenics, or any other purpose. St. Thomas Aquinas taught the same, when, inquiring whether human judges have the power to inflict some evil on man to ward off future evils, concedes this to be correct with reference to certain other evils, but rightly and worthily denies it with regard to injuring the body: "Never ought anyone, according to human judgment, to be punished when without guilt, by a penalty of flogging to death, or of mutilation, or of beating." 2 Christian doctrine has established this, and by the light of human rea- son it is quite clear that private individuals have no other power over the members of their bodies, and cannot destroy or mutilate them, or in any other way render them unfitted for natural functions, except when the good of the whole body cannot otherwise be provided for.
The Emancipation of Women 3 [From the same Encyclical, "Casti Connubii," Dec. 3r, 1930]
Whoever, then, obscure the luster of conjugal faith and chastity by 2247 writing and speaking, these same teachers of error easily undermine the trustful and honorable obedience of the woman to the man. Many of them also boldly prattle that it is an unworthy form of servitude on the part of one spouse to the other; that all rights between spouses are equai; and when these are violated by the servitude of one, they proudly pro- claim that a kind of emancipation has been or ought to be effected. This emancipation, moreover, they establish in a threefold way: in the ruling 1 Cf. AAS 22 (1930), 604. 2 Summa theol., Ila, Jlac, q. 108, a. 4, ad 2. 3 AAS 22 (1930), 567 f.
of domestic society, in the administration of famlly affairs, and in pre- venting or destroying of the life of the offspring, and they call these social, economic, and physiological: physiological, indeed, in that they wish women freed, or to be freed of the duties of wife, whether conjugal or maternal, at her own free will (but we have already said enough to the effect that this is not emancipation but a wretched crime); economic, of course, whereby they wish woman, even unbeknown to or with the opposition of the man, to be able freely to possess, carry on, and ad- minister her own business affairs, to the neglect of children, husband, and the entire family; finally, social, insofar as they remove from the wife domestic cares whether of children or of family, that she may be able while neglecting these, to follow her own bent, and even to devote her- self to business and public affairs. But this is not a true emancipation of woman, nor is it a freedom which is in accord with reason, nor worthy of her and due to the office of a noble Christian mother and wife; rather it is a corruption of the feminine nature and of maternal dignity, and a perversion of the entire family, whereby the husband is deprived of a wife, the offspring of a mother, and the house and entire family of an ever watchful guardian. Rather, indeed, such false liberty and unnatural equality with man are turned to the destruction of the woman herself; for, if the woman descends from that royal seat to which she was raised within the walls of the home by the Gospel, she will shortly be reduced to ancient servitude (if not in appearance, yet in very fact), and will become, as she was among the pagans, a mere instrument of man. But that equality of rights which is so greatly exaggerated and ex- tended, ought to be recognized of course among those which are proper to a person and human dignity, and which follow upon the nuptial contract and are natural to marriage; and in these, surely, both spouses enjoy absolutely the same right and are bound by the same obligations; in other matters a kind of inequality and just proportion must exist, which the good of the family and the due unity and stability of domestic society and of order demand. Nevertheless, wherever the social and economic conditions of the mar- ried woman, because of changed ways and practices of human society, need to be changed in some manner, it belongs to public authority to adapt the civil rights of woman to the necessities and needs of this time, with due consideration of what the different natural disposition of the feminine sex, good morality, and the common good of the family demand; provided, also, that the essential order of domestic society remains intact, which is founded on an authority and wisdom higher than human, that is, divine, and cannot be changed by public laws and the pleasure of indi- viduals.
Divorces 1 [From the same Encyclical, "Casti Connubii," Dec. 31, 1930]
The advocates of neopaganism, having learned nothing from the 2249 present sad state of affairs, continue daily to attack more bitterly the sacred indissolubility of marriage and the laws that support it, and con- tend that there must be a decision to recognize divorces, that other and more humane laws be substituted for the obsolete laws. They bring forward many different causes for divorce, some deriving from the wickedness or sin of persons, others based on circumstances ( the former they call subjective, the latter objective); finally, whatever makes the individual married life more harsh and unpleasant .•.• So there is prattle to the effect that laws must be made to conform to these requirements and changed conditions of the times, the opinions of men, and the civil institutions and customs, all of which individually, and especially when brought together, most clearly testify that oppor- tunity for divorce must forthwith be granted for certain causes. Others, proceeding further with remarkable impudence, believe that inasmuch as matrimony is a purely private contract, it should be left directly to the consent and private opinion of the two who contracted it, as is the case in other private contracts, and so can be dissolved for any reason. But opposed to all these ravings stands the one most certain law 2250 of God, confirmed most fully by Christ, which can be weakened by no decrees of men or decisions of the people, by no will of legislators: "What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder" [Matt. 19:6]. And if a man, contrary to this law puts asunder, it is immediately illegal; so rightly, as we have seen more than once, Christ Himself has declared: "Everyone that putteth away his wife and marrieth another, committeth adultery, and he that marrieth her that is put away, committeth adultery" [Luke 16:18]. And these words of Christ refer to any marriage what- soever, even that which is purely natural and legitimate; for indissolu- bility 1s proper to every true marriage, and whatever pertains to the loosening of the bond is entirely removed from the good pleasure of the parties concerned and from every secular power.
"Sexual Education" and "Eugenics" 2 [From the Decree of the Holy Office, March 21, 1931]
I) Can the method be approved, which is called "sexual education," 2251 or even "sexual initiation?" 1 AAS 22 (1930), 572 ff. 2 AAS 23 (1931), II8 f.
Response: In the negative, and that the method must be preserved en- tirely as set forth up to the present by the Church and saintly men, and recommended by the Most Holy Father in the Encyclical Letter, "On the Christian Education of Youth," given on the 31st day of December, 1929 [see n. 2214]. Naturally, care must especially be taken that a full and solid religious instruction be given to the youth of both sexes with- out interruption; in this instruction there must be aroused a regard, de- sire, and love for the angelic virtue; and especially must it be inculcated upon them to insist on prayer, to be constant in the sacraments of penance and the most Holy Eucharist, to be devoted to the Blessed Virgin, Mother of holy purity, with filial devotion and to commit themselves wholly to her protection; to avoid carefully dangerous reading, obscene plays, as- sociation with the wicked, and all occasions of sin. By no means, then, can we approve what has been written and pub- lished in defense of the new method especially in these recent times, even on the part of some Catholic authors. II) What is to be thought of the so-called theory of "eugenics," whether "positive" or "negative," and of the means indicated by it to bring human progeny to a better state, disregarding the laws either natural or divine or ecclesiastical which concern the rights of the in- dividual to matrimony? Response: That this theory is to be entirely disapproved, and held as false and condemned, as in the Encyclical Letter on Christian marriage, "Casti connubii," dated on the 31st day of December, 1930 [ see n. 2245 f.].
The Authority of the Church in Social and Economic Affairs 1 [From the Encyclical, "Quadragesimo anno," May 15, 1931]
The principle which Leo XIII clearly established long ago must be layed down, that there rest in us the right and the duty of passing judgment with supreme authority on these social and economic prob- lems. 2 • • • For, although economic affairs and moral discipline make use of their own principles, each in its own sphere, nevertheless, it is false to say that the economic and the moral order are so distinct and alien to each other that the former in no way depends on the latter. 1 AAS 23 (1931), 190. 2 Cf. Encycl., "Rerum novarum," n. ,3 [ASS 23 (1890/91), 647; Al XI (Romae, 1891), 107].
The Ownership or Right of Property 1 [From the same Encyclical, "Quadragesimo anno," May 15, 1931]
Its individual and social nature. First, then, let it be held as acknowl- 2254 edged and certain that neither Leo nor those theologians who taught under the leadership and direction of the Church have ever denied or called into question the twofold nature of ownership, which is calleJ individual and social, according as it regards individuals or looks to the common good; but have always unanimously affirmed that the right to private ownership has been assigned to men by nature, or by the Creator himself, both that they may be able individually to provide for themselves and their families, and that by means of this institution the goods which the Creator has destined for the entire human family may truly serve this end, all of which can by no means be attained except by the maintenance of a definite and fixed order. . . . Obligations inherent in ownership. In order to place definite limits to 2255 the controversies which have begun to arise over ownership and the duties inherent therein, we must first lay down the fundamental principle which Leo XIII established, namely, that the right of property is dis- tinguished from its use. 2 For that justice which is known as "commuta- tive" directs men to preserve the division of property as sacred, and not to encroach on the rights of others by exceeding limits of proper owner- ship; but that owners make only honorable use of their property is not the concern of this justice, but of other virtues whose duties "it is not right to seek by passing a law." 3 Therefore, some unjustly declare ~hat ownership and its honorable use are bounded by the same limits; and, what is much more at odds with the truth, that because of its abuse or nonuse the right to property is destroyed and lost . . . . What the power of the state is. From the very nature of ownership 2256 which We have called both individual and social it follows that men must in very fact take into account in this matter not only their own advantage but also the common good. To define these duties in detail, when necessity demands it, and the natural law does not prescribe them, is the duty of those who are in charge of the state. Therefore, what is permitted those who possess property in consideration of the true neces- sity of the common good, what is illicit in the use of their possessions, public authority can decide more accurately, following the dictates of the natural and the divine law. Indeed, Leo XIII wisely taught that the description of private possessions has been entrusted by God to man's 1 AAS 23 (1931), 191 ff. 2 Encycl.,"Rerum novarum," n. 19 [ASS 23 (1890/91), 651; AL XI II3]. 3 Cf. Encycl., "Rerum novarum," n. 19 [seen. 19386].
industry and to the laws of peoples . . . ." 1 Yet it is plain that the state may not perform its duty arbitrarily. For the natural right of possessing private property and of transmitting goods by inheritance should always remain intact and unviolated, "for man is older than the state," 2 and also, "the domestic household is prior both in idea and in fact to the civil community." 3 Thus the most wise Pontiff had already declared it unlawful for the state to exhaust private funds by the heavy burden of taxes and tributes. "Public authority cannot abolish the right to hold private property, since this is not derived from the law of man but of nature, but can only control its use and bring it in harmony with the common good. 4 • • • Obligations regarding superfluous income. Superfluous incomes are not left entirely to man's discretion; that is, wealth that he does not need to sustain life fittingly and becomingly; but on the other hand Sacred Scripture and the holy Fathers of the Church continuously declare in clearest words that the rich are bound most seriously by the precept of practicing charity, beneficence, and liberality. The investment of rather large incomes so that opportunities for gainful employment may abound, provided that this work is applied to the production of truly useful products, we gather from a study of the principles of the Angelic Doctor,5 is to be considered a noble deed of magnificent virtue, and especially suited to the needs of the time. Titles in acquiring ownerships. Moreover, not only the tradition of all times but also the doctrine of Our predecessor, Leo, clearly testify that ownership in the first place is acquired by the occupation of a thing that belongs to no one, and by industry, or specification as it is called. For no injury is done anyone, whatever some may say to the contrary, when property is occupied which rests unclaimed and belongs to no one; but the industry which is exercised by man in his own name, and by the aid of which a new kind, or an increase is added to his property, is the only industry that gives a laborer a title to its fruits.
Capital and Labor 6 [From the same Encyclical, "Quadragesimo anno," May 15, 1931]
Far different is the nature of the labor which is hired out to others and is exercised on another's capital. This statement is especially in harmony 1 Encycl., "Rerum novarum," n. [ASS 23 (1890/91), 644; AL XI 102]. 2 Ibid., n. 6 [ASS 23 (1890/91), 644; AL XI ro2]. 3 Ibid., n. 10 [ASS 23 (1890/91), 646; AL XI 105]. 4 Ibid., n. 35 [ASS 24 (,890/91), 663; AL XI 133]. 5 Cf. Summa theol., Ila, Ilae, q. 9, a. 1, 3, 4. 6 AAS 23 (1931), 194 ff.
with what Leo XIII says is most true, "that the riches of the state are produced only by the labor of the working man." 1 Neither without the other is able to produce anything. Hence it fol- lows that unless one performs labor on his own property, the property of the one should be associated in some way with the labor of the other; for neither effects anything without the other. And this Leo XIII had in mind when he wrote: "There can be no capital without labor, nor labor without capital." 2 Therefore, it is entirely false to ascribe to one or the other alone whatever was obtained from the combined effort of both; and it is entirely unjust that either deny the efficacy of the other, and arrogate to himself whatever has been accomplished. . . . The directive principle of 7ust distribution. Without doubt, lest by these 2260 false decisions they block the approach to justice and peace, both should have been forewarned by the wise words of Our predecessor: "Although divided among private owners, the earth does not cease to serve the use- fulness of all. 3 • • •" Therefore, wealth which is being continuously in- creased through economic and social progress should be so distributed to individual persons and classes of men, that the common good of all society be preserved intact. By this law of social justice one class is for- bidden to exclude the other from a share in the profits. None the less, then, the wealthy class violates this law of social justice, when, as it were, free of all anxieties in their ·good fortune, it considers that order of things just by which all falls to its lot and nothing to the worker; and the class without property violates this law, when, strongly incensed be- cause of violated justice, and too prone to vindicate wrongly the one right of their own of which it is conscious, demands all for itself, on the ground that it was made by its own hands, and so attacks and strives to abolish ownership and income, or profits which have not been gained by labor, of whatever kind they are, or of whatever nature they are in human so- ciety, for no other reason than because they are such. And we must not pass over the fact that in this matter appeal is made by some, ineptly as well as unworthily, to the Apostle when he says: "If any man will not work, neither let him eat" [II Thess. 3:10]; for the Apostle utters the statement against those who abstain from work, even though they can and ought to work; and he advises us that we should make zealous use of time and strength, whether of body or mind, and that others should not be burdened, when we can provide for ourselves. But by no means does the Apostle teach that labor is the only title for receiving a livelihood and profits [cf. II Thess. 3:8-10]. To each, then, is his own part of property to be assigned; and it must 1 Encycl., "Rerum novarum," n. 27 [ASS 23 (1890/91), 657; AL XI 123]. 2 1bid., n.15 [ASS 23 1890/91), 649; AL XI 109]. 8 Ibid., n. 7 [ASS 28 (1890/91), 644; AL XI 102].
be brought about that distribution of created goods be made to conform to the norms of the common good or social justice.•••
The Just Wage or Salary of Labor 1 [From the same Encyclical]
Let us consider the question of wages which Leo XIII said "was of great importance," 2 stating and explaining the doctrine and precepts where necessary. The wage contract not unjust in its essence. And first, indeed, those who declare that the contract of letting out and of accepting labor for hire is unjust in its essence, and that therefore in its place there has to be substituted a contract of partnership, are in complete error, and gravely calumniate Our predecessor, whose Encyclical Letter "On Wages" not only admits such a contract, but treats it at length according to the prin- ciples of justice. . . . [ On what basis a just portion is to be estimated]. Leo XIII has already wisely declared in the following words that a fair amount of wages is to be estimated not on one but on several considerations: "In order that a fair measure of wages may be established, many conditions must be con- sidered. . . ." 3 The individual and social nature of labor. It must be observed both of ownership and of labor, especially of that which is let out to another, that besides their personal or individual concerns there must be con- sidered also a social ·aspect; for, unless there be a truly social and organic body; unless the social and juridical order protect labor; unless the vari- ous trades which depend on one another, united in mutual harmony, are mutually complementary; and unless, which is more important, the in- tellect, capital, and labor come together as in a unit, man's efforts can- not produce due fruits. Therefore, man's efforts cannot be estimated justly nor adequately repaid, if its social and individual nature is over- looked. Three fundamental matters to be considered. Moreover, from this twofold character, which is the deep-seated nature of human labor, flow most serious conclusions by which wages should be regulated and determined. a) The support of the workingman and his family. First, wages must be paid to the workingman which are sufficient for the support of him- self and of his family. 4 It is right, indeed, that the rest of the family 1 AAS 23 (1931), 198 ff. 2 Encyclical, "Rerum novarum," n. 34 [ASS 23 (1890/91), 661; AL XI 129]. 3 /bid., n. 17 [ASS 23 (1890/91), 649; AL XI III].
¼ Cf. Encycl., "Casti connubii," December 31, 1930 [AAS 22 (1930), 587].
according to their ability contribute to the common support of all, as one can see in the fami.lies of rural people especially, and also in many families of artisans and minor shopkeepers; but it is wrong to abuse the tender years of children and the weakness of women. Especially in the home or in matters which pertain to the home, let mothers of families perform their work by attending to domestic cares. But the worst abuse, and one to be removed by every effort, is that of mothers being forced to engage in gainful occupation away from home, because of the meager- ness of the father's salary, neglecting their own cares and special duties, and especially the training of their children. Every effort, then must be made that the fathers receive a sufficiently ample wage to meet the ordinary domestic needs adequate! y. But if in the present state of affairs this cannot always be carried out, social justice demands that changes be introduced as soon as possible, whereby every adult workingman may be made secure by such a salary. It will not be amiss here to bestow praise upon all those who in a very wise and useful plan have attempted various plans by which the wage of the laborer is adjusted to the burdens of the family, so that when burdens are increased, the wage is made greater; surely, if this should happen, enough would be done to meet extraordinary needs. b) The condition of business. An account must also be taken of a 2264 business and its owner; for, unjustly would immoderate salaries be de- manded, which the business cannot endure without its ruin and the ruin of the workers consequent on this. And yet if the business makes less profit because of dilatoriness, or laziness or neglect of technical and economic advance, this is not to be considered a just cause for lowering the wages of the worker. However, if no such amount of money returns to a business which is sufficient to pay the workers a just wage, because it is oppressed by unjust burdens or because it is forced to sell its product at a price lower than is just, those who so harass a business are guilty of a serious offense; for they deprive the workers of just wage, who, forced by necessity, are compelled to accept a wage less than is just. . . . c) The demands of the common good. Finally, the wage scale must 2265 be adjusted to the economic welfare of the people. We have already shown above how conducive it is to the welfare of the people, that workers and officials by setting aside whatever part of their wage is not used for necessary expenses, gradually acquire a modest fortune; but an- other thing, of scarcely less importance, and especially necessary in our time, must not be passed over, namely, that an opportunity to work be furnished to those who are both able and willing to work. . . . Another thing, then, is contrary to social justice, that, for the sake of personal gain, and with no consideration of the common welfare, the wages of workers be lowered or raised too much; and this same justice demands
that by a concerted planning and good will, insofar as it can be done, salaries be so regulated that as many as possible can have employment and receive suitable means for the maintenance of life. Very properly, also a reasonable proportion between salaries is of im- portance, with which is closely connected the proper proportion of prices at which those goods are sold which are produced by the various groups such as agriculture, industry, and others. If all these are kept in harmony, the various skills will combine and coalesce as into one body, and like members of one body will bring to each other mutual help and perfection. Then at length will the economic and social order be truly established and attain its ends, if all those benefits are supplied to all and to each, which can be furnished by the wealth and resources of nature, by technical skills, and by the social constitution of economic affairs. Indeed, these benefits should be as numerous as are necessary to satisfy the necessities and the honorable conveniences of life, and to raise men to that happier way of life which, provided it be conducted prudently, not only is no hindrance to virtue, but a great help to it.1
The Right Social Order 2 [From the same Encyclical, "Quadragesimo anno," May 15, 1931]
[The duty of the state]. When we now speak of the reformation of institutions, we have in mind chiefly the state, not as if all salvation is to be expected from its activity, because on account' of the evil of in- dividualism, which we have mentioned, matters have reached such a state that the highly developed social life, which once flourished com- positely in diverse institutions, has been brought low and almost wiped out; and individual men and the state remain almost alone, to the by no means small detriment of the state, which, having lost its form of social regimen and having taken on all the burdens formerly borne by the associations now destroyed, has been almost submerged and over- whelmed by an endless number of functions and duties ..•• Therefore, the supreme authority of the state should entrust to the smaller groups the expediting of business and problems of minor im- portance, by which otherwise it would be greatly distracted. Thus it will be brought about that all matters which pertain to the state will be executed more freely, more vigorously, and more efficiently, since it alone is qualified to perform them, directing, guarding, urging, and com- pelling, according as circumstances prompt and necessity demands. There- fore, let those who are in power be convinced that the more perfectly the 1 Cf. St. Thomas, De regimine principum I, 15-Encycl., "Rerum novarum," n. 27 (ASS 23 (1890/91), 656; AL; AL XI 121]. 2 AAS 23 (1931), 202 ss.
principle of the duty of the "subsidiary" is kept, and a graded hierarchial order flourishes among the various associations, the more outstanding will be the social authority and efficiency, and the happier and more prosperous the condition of the state. The mutual harmony of "orders." Moreover, both the state and every 2267 outstanding citizen should look especially and strive for this, that with the suppression of the conflicts between classes a pleasing harmony may be aroused and fostered between the orders. . . . Therefore the social political policy must work for a restoration of the "orders" . . . , "orders," namely, in which men are placed not according to the position which one holds in the labor market, but according to the diverse social roles which they exercise individually. For just as it hap- pens through natural impulse that, those who are united by proximity of place establish municipalities, so, also, those who labor at the same trade or profession-whether it be economic or of some other kind- form guilds or certain groups (collegia seu corpora quaedam), so that these groups, being truly autonomous, are customarily spoken of, if not as essential to civil society, yet at least as natural to it. . . . It is scarcely necessary to recall that what Leo XIII taught about the form of political government is equally applicable, with due proportion, to the guilds or groups, namely, that it is sound for men to choose what- ever form they prefer, provided that the demands of justice and of the common good be given consideration. 1 [ Freedom of association]. Now just as the inhabitants of a municipal- 2268 ity are accustomed to establish associations for very different purposes, with which each one has full power to join or not, so those who practice the same trade will enter equally free associations with one another for purposes in some way connected with the practice of their trade. Since these free associations are explained clearly and lucidly by Our predeces- sor, we consider it enough to stress this one point: that man has complete freedom not only to form such associations, which are of private right and order, but also to freely choose within these that organization and those laws which are considered especially conducive to that end which has been proposed." 2 The same freedom is to be maintained in instituting associations which extend beyond the limits of a single trade. Moreover, let these free associations which already flourish and enjoy salutary fruits, according to the mind of Christian social teaching make it their aim to prepare the way for those more outstanding guilds or "orders" about which we made mention above, and let them manfully carry this out. 1 Cf. Encyclical Letter, "Immortale Dei," November 1, 1885 [seen. 1871 f.]. 2 Cf.Encyclical Letter, "Rerum novarum," n. 42 [ASS 23 (1890/91), 667; AL (Rome) XI 138 f.].
The guiding principle of economics to be restored. Still another matter, closely connected with the former, must be kept in mind. Just as the unity of society cannot rest on mutual opposition of classes, so the right ordering of economic affairs cannot be given over to the free competition of forces . . . Therefore, higher and more noble principles are to be sought, with which to control this power firmly and soundly; namely, social justice and social charity. Therefore, the institutions of the people, and of all social life, must be imbued with this justice, so that it be truly efficient, or establish a juridical and social order, by which, as it were, the entire economy may be fashioned. Social charity, moreover, should be as a soul of this order, and an alert public authority should aim to protect and guard this effectively, a task which it will be able to accom- plish with less difficulty, if it will rid itself of those burdens which we have declared before are not proper to it. Furthermore, the various nations should strive for this by combining their zeal and labors, so that, since in economic affairs they depend for the most part on one another and need one another's help, they may by wise pacts and institutions promote a favorable and happy cooperation in the world of economics.
Socialism 1 [From the same Encyclical, "Quadragesimo anno," May 15, 1931]
We declare as follows: Whether socialism be considered as a doctrine, or as an historical fact, or as an "action," if it truly remain socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice in the matters which we have mentioned, it cannot be reconciled with the dogmas of the Catholic Church, since it conceives a human society completely at variance with Christian truth. Socialism conceives of a society and the social character of man en- tirely at variance with Christian truth. According to Christian doctrine man, endowed with a social nature, is placed on this earth, so. that by leading a life in society and under an authority ordained by God [ cf. Rom. 13: 1] he may develop and evolve fully all his faculties to the praise and glory of his Creator; and by faithfully performing the duty of his trade, or of any other vocation, he may acquire for himself both temporal and eternal happiness. Socialism, however, entirely ignorant of this sublime end both of man and of society, and unconcerned about it, affirms that human society was instituted for material advantages alone. . • . Catholic and socialist have contradictory meanings. But if socialism, 1 AAS 23 (1931), 215 ff.
as all errors, contains some truth in itself ( which, indeed, the Sovereign Pontiffs have never denied), nevertheless it is based on a doctrine of human society, peculiar to itself, and at odds with true Christianity. "Religious Socialism," "Christian Socialism" have contradictory mean- ings: no one can at the same time be a good Catholic and a socialist in the true sense of the word .•••
The Universal Motherhood of the Blessed Virgin Mary 1 · [From the Encyclical, "Lux veritatis," December 25, 1931]
She ( to be sure), by reason of the fact that she bore the Redeemer of 2271 the human race, in a certain manner is the most benign mother of us all, whom Christ the Lord wished to have as brothers [ cf. Rom. 8 :29]. Our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII,2 so speaks: "Such did God show her to us, whom, by the very fact that He chose her as the Mother of His Only-begotten, He clearly endowed with maternal feelings which express nothing but love and kindness; such did Jesus Christ show her by His own deed, when He wished of His own will to be under and obedient to Mary, as son to mother; such did He declare her from the Cross when He committed her, as the whole human race, to John the disciple, to be cared for and cherished by Him" rJohn 19:26 f.]; such, finally, did she herself give herself, who embraced with her great spirit that h~ritage of great labor left by her dying Son, and immediately began to exercise her maternal duties toward all.
The False Interpretation of Two Biblical Texts 3 [Response of the Biblical Commission, July 1, 1933]
I. Whether it is right for a Catholic person, especially when the 2272 authentic interpretation of the chief apostles has been given [ Acts 2:24- 33; 13:35-37], so to interpret the words of Psalm 15:10-n: "Thou wilt not ·1eave my soul in hell; nor wilt thou give thy holy one to see cor- ruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life," as if the sacred author did not speak of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ? -Reply: In the negative. II. Whether it is permitted to assert that the words of Jesus Christ 2273 which are read in St. Matthew 16:26: "For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?"; and likewise the words which 1 AAS 23 (1931), 514. 2 Encyclical, "Octobri mense," September 22, 1891 (ASS 24 (1891/92), 196; AL
(Rome), II, 304 f.]. 8 AAS 25 (1933) 344.
are found in St. Luke 9:25: "For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, and cast away himself," do not in a literal sense have reference to the eternal salvation of the soul, but only to the temporal life of man, notwithstanding the tenor of the words them- selves and their context, and also the unanimous Catholic interpretation? -Reply: In the negative.
The Need and the Office of the Priesthood 1 [From the Encyclical, "Ad catholici sacerdotii," December 20, 1935]
The human race has always experienced the need of priests, that is, of men who, by the office lawfully entrusted to them, are mediators be- tween God and humanity; whose entire duty in life embraces those activities which pertain to the eternal Godhead, and who offer prayers, remedies, and sacrifices in the name of society, which is obliged in very fact to cherish religion publicly, to acknowledge God as the Supreme Lord and first beginning, to propose Him as its last end, to offer Him immortal thanks, and to offer Him propitiation. In fact, among all peoples, whose customs are known, provided they are not compelled to act against the most sacred laws of nature, attendants of sacred affairs are found, although very often they serve vain superstitions, and like- wise wherever men profess some religion and wherever they erect altars, far from lacking priests, they venerate them with special honors. Yet, when divine revelation shone forth, the sacerdotal office was dis- tinguished by greater dignity; this dignity, indeed, in a hidden manner Melchisedech, priest and king [cf. Gen. 14:18], foretells, whose example Paul the Apostle refers [cf. Heb. 5:10; 6:20; 7:1-n, 15] to the person and priesthood of Jesus Christ. But if the attendant of sacred things, according to the famous defini- tion of the same Paul, is a man "taken from amongst men," yet "or- dained for men in the things that pertain to God" [Heb. 5:1], his office surely looks not to human and transitory things, however much they seem worthy of regard and praise, but to divine and eternal things . . . . In the sacred writings of the Old Testament, when the priesthood was established by the norms which Moses, influenced by the instigation and urging of God, had promulgated, special functions, duties, and rites were attributed to it. . . . The priesthood of the Old Testament derived its majesty and glory from nothing other than the fact that it foretold that priesthood of the New and eternal Testament given by Jesus Christ, namely, that estab- lished by the blood of the true God and of the true man. 1 AAS 28 (1936), 8 ff.
The Apostle of the Gentiles treating summarily and briefly of the greatness, dignity, and office of the Christian priesthood expresses his opinion in these words, as it were, in a nutshell: "Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ and the dispensers of the mysteries of God" [I Cor. 4:r].
The Effects of the Order of the Priesthood 1 [From the Encyclical, "Ad catholici sacerdotii," December 20, 1935]
The minister of Christ is the priest; therefore, he is, as it were, the 227S instrument of the divine Redeemer, that He may be able to continue through time His marvelous work which by its divine efficacy restored the entire society of men and brought it to a higher refinement. Rather, as we customarily say rightly and properly: "He is another Christ," since he enacts His role according to these words: "As the Father has sent me, I also send you" [John 20:21]; and in the same way and through the voice of the angels his Master sings: "Glory to God in the highest," and exhorts peace "to men of good will" [cf. Luke 2: r 4]. . . . Such powers, conferred upon the special sacrament of the priesthood, since they be- come imprinted on his soul with the indelible character by which, like Him whose priesthood he shares, he becomes "a priest forever" [Ps. 109:4 ], are not fleeting and transitory, but stable and permanent. Even if through human frailty he lapse into errors and disgraces, yet he will never be able to delete from his soul this sacerdotal character. And be- sides, through the sacrament of orders the priest not only acquire.; the sacerdotal character, not only high powers, but he is also made greater by a new and special grace, and by special helps, through which indeed- if only he will faithfully comply, by his free and personal cooperation, with the divinely efficient power of these heavenly gifts, surely he will be able worthily and with no dejection of spirit to meet the arduous duties of his ministry. . •. From holy retreats [ of spiritual exercises] of this kind such usefulness can also at times flow forth, that one, who has entered "in sortem Domini" not at the call of Christ Himself but induced by his earthly motives, may be able "to stir up the grace of God" [ cf. II Tim. 1 :6]; for since he is now bound to Christ and the Church by an everlasting bond, he can accordingly do nothing but adopt the words of St. Bernard: "For the future make good your ways and your ambitions and make holy your ministry; if sanctity of life did not precede, at least let it follow." 2 The grace which is commonly given by God and is given in a special 1 AAS 28 (1936), 10, 15, 50 f. ZEp. 27, ad Ardut. [ML 182,131].
manner to him who accepts the sacrament of orders, will undoubtedly aid him, if he really desires it, no less for emending what in the beginning was planned wrongly by him, than for executing and taking care of the duties of his office.
The Divine Office, the Public Praye_r of the Church 1 (From the Encyclical, "Ad catholici sacerdotii," December 20, 1935]
Finally, the priest in this matter, also, performing the work of Jesus Christ, who "passed the whole night in the prayer of God" [Luke 6:12], and "always lived to make intercession for us" [Heb. 7:25], is by office the intercessor with God for all; it is among his mandates to offer not only the proper and true sacrifice of the altar in the name of the Church to the heavenly Godhead, but also "the sacrifice of praise" [Ps. 49: 14] and common prayers; he, indeed, by the psalms, the supplications, and the canticles, which are borrowed in great measure from Sacred Scripture, daily, again and again discharges the duty of adoration due to God, and he performs the necessary office of such an accomplishment for men . . . . If private supplication is so powerful because of the solemn and great promises given by Jesus Christ [Matt. 7:7-11; Mark II:24; Luke n:9- 13], then the prayers, which are uttered in the Office in the name of the Church, the beloved spouse of the Redeemer, without doubt enjoy greater force and virtue.
Social Justice 2 [From the Encyclical, "Divini Redemptoris," March 19, 1937]
[51] For in reality besides the justice which is called commutative, social justice also must be fostered which demands duties from which neither workingmen nor employers can withdraw themselves. Now it is the part of social justice to exact from the individual what is necessary for the common good. But just as in the case of the structure of any living body, there is no regard for the good of the whole, unless each individual member be endowed with all those things which they need to fulfill their roles, so in the case of the constitution and composition of the community, there can be no provision for the good of the whole society, unless the individual members, namely, men endowed with the dignity of personality, are supplied with all they need to exercise their social duties. If, then, provision is made for social justice, the rich fruits 1 AAS 28 (1936), 18 f. 2 AAS 29 (1937), 921.
6u of active zeal will grow from economic life, which will mature in an order of tranquillity, and will give proof of the strength and solidarity of the state, just as the strength of the body is discerned from its un- disturbed, complete, and fruitful functioning. [52] Social justice will not be satisfied unless workingmen can furnish for themselves and for their families a livelihood in a secure way, based on an acceptable salary consistent with reality; unless an opportunity is given them of acquiring a modest fortune for themselves, so as to avoid that plague of universal pauperism, which is so widely diffused; unless, finally, opportune plans are made for their benefit, whereby the workers by means of public or private insurances may be able to have some provision for their old age, periods of illness, and unemployment. In this connection it is well to repeat what we said in the Encyclical Letter, "Quadragesimo anno": "Then only will the economic and social order be soundly established, etc." [ see n. 2265].
Resistance Against the Abuse of Power 1 [From the Encyclical, "Firmissimam constantiam," to the Mexican Bishops, March 28, 1937]
Surely it must be granted that for the development of the Christian 2278 life external aids, which are perceptible to the senses, are necessary, and likewise that the Church, as a society of men, has great need of a just freedom of action for the enjoyment and expansion of life, and that the faithful in civil society possess the right to live according to the dictates of reason and conscience. Consequently, then, when the natural freedoms of the religious and civil order are impugned, Catholic citizens cannot endure and suffer this. Yet the vindication of these rights and freedoms, according to attendant circumstances, can be more or less opportune, more or less strenuous. But you yourselves, Venerable Brothers, have often taught your faithful that the Church, despite serious trouble to herself, is the supporter of peace and order, and condemns all unjust rebellion and violence against constituted powers. Yet it has also been affirmed among you that, if at any time these powers manifestly impugn justice and truth, so as to overturn the foundations of authority, it is not evident why those citizens should be condemned who unite to protect themselves, and to preserve the nation by employing licit and proper means against those who abuse power to overthrow the state. But if the solution of this question necessarily depends on individual
Pius XII, 1939- :attendant circumstances, nevertheless some principles should be brought to light: I. Such vindications have the nature of means, or of relative end, not ,of ultimate and absolute end. 2. These vindications, as means, should be licit actions, not evils in themselves. 3. Since the vindications themselves should be appropriate and pro- portionate to the end, they are to be applied insofar as they conduce entirely or in part to the proposed end, yet in such a manner that they do not bring greater evils to the community and justice, than the very evils to be reformed. 4. Now the uses of such means and the full exercise of civil and political rights, since they include also problems of a purely temporal and technical order or of violent defense, do not belong directly to the duty of Catholic Action, although to Catholic Action does belong the duty of instructing Catholic men in the right exercise of their proper rights, and in the defense of the same by just means, according to the demand of the common good. 5. The clergy and Catholic Action, since, because of the mission of peace and love entrusted to them, they are bound to unite all men "in the bond of peace" [Eph. 4:3], should contribute very much to the prosperity of the nation, both by encouraging the union of citizens and classes, and by supporting all social initiatives which are not at odds with the doctrine and moral law of Christ.
PIUS XII 1939- The Natural Law 1 [From the Encyclical, "Summi Pontificatus," October 20, 1939]
'1279 It is well established that the first and profound source of the evils by which the modern state is afflicted, issues from this fact, that the universal standard of morality is denied and rejected, not only in the private life of individuals but also in the state itself, and in the mutual relationships which exist between races and nations; that is, the natural law is being nullified by detraction and neglect. This natural law rests on God as its foundation, the omnipotent creator and author of all, and likewise the supreme and most perfect legislator, the most wise and just vindicator of human actions. When the eternal Godhead is rashly denied, then the principle of all probity totters and sways, and the voice of nature becomes silent, or gradually is weak- 1 AAS 31 (1939), 423.
Pius XII, 1939- ened, which teaches the unlearned as well as those who have not as yet acquired the experience of civilization what is right and what is not right; what is permitted, and what is not permitted, and warns them that some day they must render an account for their good and evil deeds before the Supreme Judge.
The Natural Unity of the Human Race 1 [From the same Encyclical, "Summi Pontificatus," October 20, 1939]
[Pernicious error] is contained in the forgetfulness of that mutual 2280 relationship between men and of the love which both a common origin and the equality of the rational nature of all men demands, to whatever races they belong. . . . The Bible narrates that from the first marriage of man and woman all other men took their origin; and these, it relates, were divided into various tribes and nations, and were scattered over various parts of the world . . . . [ Acts 1J:26]: Therefore, by a wonderful insight of mind we can behold and contemplate the human race as a unity, because of its common origin from the Creator, according to these words: "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all" [Eph. 4:6]; and likewise, one in nature which consists of the materiality of the body and of the immortal and spiritual soul.
International Law 2 [From the same Encyclical, "Summi Pontificatus," October 20, 1939]
Venerable Brothers, that opinion which attributes almost infinite 2281 power to the state not only is an error fatal to the internal life of nations and to the promotion of greater growth, but also does harm to the mutual relations of peoples, since it infringes upon that unity by which all nations should be contained in their relations with one another, strips international laws of their force and strength, and, paving the way to the violation of other laws, renders it very difficult for them to live together in peace and tranquillity. For the human race, although by the law of natural order established by God it is disposed into classes of citizens, and likewise into nations and states, yet is bound by mutual bonds in juridical and moral affairs, and coalesces into a single great congregation of peoples destined to pursue the common good of all nations, and is ruled by special norms which both preserve unity and direct them daily to more prosperous circumstances. 1 AAS 31 (1939), 426 f. 2 AAS 31 (1939), 437 If.
Pius XII, 1939- Surely, there is no one who does not see, if rights are claimed for the state, which is quite absolute and responsible to no one, that this is entirely opposed to naturally ingrained law, and wholly refutes it; and it is clear, likewise, that such rights place at the discretion of rulers of the state the bonds lawfully agreed upon by which nations are joined to nne another; and they impede an honest agreement of minds and mutual collaboration for helpful action. If, Venerable Brothers, properly organ- ized and long lasting understandings between states demand this, the bonds of friendship, from which rich fruits arise, demand that peoples recognize the principles and norms of the natural law by which nations are joined to one another, and be obedient to the same. In similar fashion these same principles demand that for every nation its own liberty be preserved, and that those rights be assigned to all by which they may live and may advance day by day on the road of civil progress to more prosperous circumstances; finally, they demand that pacts entered upon, as exacted and sanctioned by international law, remain unimpaired and inviolable. There is no doubt that then only can nations live peacefully together, then only can they be governed publicly by established bonds, when mutual trust exists between them; when all are convinced that the trust given will be preserved on both sides; finally when all accept these words as certain, "better is wisdom than weapons of war" [cf. Eccles. 9:r8]; and, furthermore, when all are prepared to inquire into and discuss a matter more extensively, but not by force and threats to bring about a critical situation, if delays, disputes, difficulties, changes of front stand in the way, all of which indeed can arise not only from bad faith but also from a change of circumstances and from a mutual clash of individual interests. But then to separate the law of nations from the divine law, so that it depends upon the arbitrary decisions of the rulers of the state as its only foundation, is nothing other than to pull it down from its throne of honor and security, and to hand it over to a zeal which is excessive and concerned with private and public advantage, and which strives for nothing other than to assert its own rights and deny those of others. Surely, it must be affirmed that in the course of time, because of serious changes in attendant circumstances-which, while the pact was being made, were not foreseen, or perhaps could not even have been foreseen- either entire agreements or certain parts of these sometimes become un- just to either of the stipulating parties, or could seem so, or at least turn out exceedingly severe, or, finally, become such that they cannot be carried out to advantage. If this should happen refuge must necessarily, of course, be taken in a sincere and honest discussion, with a view to mak- ing opportune changes in the pact, or to composing an entirely new one. But, on the other hand, to hold proper pacts as fluid and fleeting things,
Pius XII, 193g-- and to attribute to oneself the tacit power, as often as one's own advan- tage seems to demand this, of infringing on the same of one's own free will, that is, without consulting, and overlooking the other party in the pact, certainly deprives states of due and mutual trust; and so the order of nature is completely destroyed, and peoples and nations are separated from one another as by precipitous and deep chasms.
Sterilization 1 [Decree of the Holy Office, February 24, 1940]
To the question proposed to the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the 2283 Holy Office; "Whether direct sterilization, either perpetual or temporary, is permitted on a man or a woman," the Most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, Doctors, and Cardinals, appointed to guard matters of faith and morals, on Thursday, the 21st day of February, 1940, have decided that the following answer must be given: "In the negative, and indeed that it is prohibited by the law of nature, and that, insofar as it pertains to eugenic sterilization, it has already been disapproved by the decree of this Congregation, on the 21st day of March, 1931.
The Corporal Origin of Man 2 (From an address of Pius XII November 30, 1941, at the beginning of the year of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences]
God has placed man in the highest place in the scale of living creatures; 2285 endowed, as he is, with a spiritual soul, the chief and the highest of all the animal kingdom. Manifold investigations in the fields of paleon- tology, biology, and morphology regarding other questions concerning the origin of man have thus far produced nothing clear and certain in a posifr,e way. Therefore, we can only leave for the future the reply to the question, whether some day, science illumined and guided by reve- lation will offer certain and definite solutions to so serious a question.
Members of the Church 3 [From the Encyclical, "Mystici Corporis," June 29, 1943]
Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the 2286 Church who have received the !aver of regeneration and profess the true 1 AAS 32 (1940), 73. 2 AAS 33 (1941), 506. 8 AAS 35 (1943), 202 f.
Pius XII, 1931)- faith, and have not, to their misfortune, separated themselves from the structure of the Body, or for very serious sins have not been excluded by lawful authority. "For in one spirit," says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free" [I Cor. 12:13]. So, just as in the true community of the faithful of Christ there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith [ cf. Eph. 4 :5]; and so he who refuses to hear the Church, as the Lord bids "let him be as the heathen and publican" [ cf. Matt. 18:17]. Therefore, those who are divided from one another in faith or in government cannot live in the unity of such a body, and in its one divine spirit.
The Jurisdiction of Bishops 1 [From the same Encyclical, ''Mystici Corporis," June 29, 1943]
Therefore, the bishops of the sacred rites are to be considered as the more illustrious members of the Universal Church not only because they are bound with the divine Head of the whole Body by a very special bond, and so are rightly called "principal parts of the members of the Lord," 2 but, as far as each one's own diocese is concerned, because as true shep- herds they individually feed and rule in the name of Christ the flocks entrusted to them [Cone. Vat., Const. de Eccl., cap. 3; seen. 1828]; yet while they do this, they are not entirely independent, but are placed under the due authority of the Roman Pontiff, although they enjoy the ordinary power of jurisdiction obtained directly from the same Highest Pontiff. So they should be revered by the people as divinely appointed successors of the apostles [ cf. Cod. lur. Can., can. 329, 1]; and more than to the rulers of the world, even the highest, are those words befitting to cur bishops, inasmuch as they have been anointed with the chrism of the Holy Spirit: "Touch ye not my anointed" [I Par. 16, 22; Ps. 104:15].
The Holy Spirit as the Soul of the Church 3 [From the same Encyclical, ''Mystici Corporis," June 29, 1943]
If we closely examine this divine principle of life and virtue given by Christ, insofar as He established it as the source of every gift and created grace, we easily understand that this is nothing else than the Paraclete, the Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, and who in a special manner is called "the Spirit of Christ," or "the Spirit of the Son" [Rom. 1 AAS 35 (1943), 2II f. 2 Greg.the Great, Moral., XIV, 35, 43; ML 75, 1062. 1 AAS 35 (1943), 218 ff.
Pius XII, 193<)- 8:9; II Cor. 3:17; Gal. 4:6]. For by this Breath of grace and truth did the Son of God anoint His soul in the uncontaminated womb of the Virgin; this Spirit holds it a delight to dwell in the beloved soul of the Redeemer as in His most beloved temple; this Spirit, Christ by shedding His own blood merited for us on the Cross; this Spirit, finally, when He breathed upon the apostles, He bestowed on the Church for the remission of sins [cf. John 20:22]; and, while Christ alone received this Spirit according to no measure [cf. John 3:34], yet to the members of the mystical body He is imparted only according to the measure of the giving of Christ, out of Christ's own fullness [ cf. Eph. 1 :8; 4:7]. And after Christ was glorified on the Cross, His Spirit is communicated to the Church in the richest effusion, that she and her individual members may more and more daily become like our Savior. It is the Spirit of Christ that has made us God's adopted sons [cf. Rom. 8:14-17; Gal. 4:6-7], that someday "we all beholding the glory of God with open face may be transformed into the the same image from glory to glory" [II Cor. 3:18]. Moreover, to this Spirit of Christ as to no visible principle is this also to be attributed, that all parts of the Body are joined to one another as they are with their exalted head; for He is entire in the Head, entire in the Body, entire in the individual members, and with these He is present, and these He assists in various ways, according to their various duties and offices, according to the greater or less degree of spiritual health which they enjoy. He is the one who by His heavenly grace is to be held as the principle of every vital and in fact every salutary act in all the parts of any body. He is the one who, although He Himself is present of Himself in all members, and is divinely active in the same, yet in the inferior mem- bers also operates through the ministry of the higher members; finally, He is the one who, while He always day by day produces the growth of the Church by imparting grace, yet refuses to dwell through sanctifying grace in members wholly cut off from the Body. Indeed, the presence and activity of the Spirit of Jesus Christ are succinctly and vigorously ex- pressed by Our most wise predecessor, Leo XIII, of immortal memory in the Encyclical, "Divinum illud," in these words: "Let it suffice to state this, that, as Christ is the Head of the Church, the Holy Spirit is her soul." 1
Knowledge of the Soul of Christ 2 [From the same Encyclical, "Mystici Corporis," June 29, 1943]
But such a most loving knowledge as the divine Redeemer from the 2289 first moment of His Incarnation bestowed upon us, surpasses any zealous 1 ASS 29 (1896), 650. 2 ASS 35 (1943), 230.
Pius XII, 193<)- power of the human mind; since through that beatific vision, which He began to enjoy when He had hardly been conceived in the womb of the Mother of God, He has the members of His mystical body always and constantly present to Him, and He embraces all with His redeeming love.
The Indwelling of the Holy Spirit in Souls 1 [From the same Encyclical, "Mystici Corporis," June 29, 1943]
Surely we are not ignorant of the many veils that stand in the way of our understanding and explaining this profound doctrine, which is con- cerned with our union with the divine Redeemer, and with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in a special way in souls; veils by which this pro- found doctrine is enveloped as by a kind of cloud, because of the weak- ness of the minds of those who make inquiry. And we know also that from correct and persistent investigation of this subject, and from the conflict of various opinions and the clash of ideas, provided love of truth and due obedience to the Church direct such investigations, precious light abounds and comes forth, by which also in the sacred science akin to this actual progress is attained. Therefore, we do not censure those who enter upon diverse ways and methods of reasoning to understand, and according to their power to clarify the mystery of this marvelous union of ours with Christ. But let this be a general and unshaken truth, if they do not wish to wander from sound doctrine and the correct teaching of the Church: namely, that every kind of mystic union, by which the faithful in Christ in any way pass beyond the order of created things and wrongly enter among the divine, so that even a single attribute of the eternal Godhead can be predicated of these as their own, is to be entirely rejected. And, besides, let them hold this with a firm mind as most certain, that all activities in these matters are to be held as common to the Most Holy Trinity, insofar as they depend upon God as the supreme efficient cause. Let them note also that there necessarily is here a question of a hidden mystery, which in this earthly exile, being covered by a veil, can never be looked into or be described by human tongue. Indeed, the divine Persons are said to indwell inasmuch as being present in an inscrutable manner in animate creatures endowed with intellect they are attained by them through knowledge and love,2 yet in a manner intimate and unique that transcends all nature. Indeed, to contemplate this so as at least to approach it slightly, that way and method are not to be over- looked which the Vatican Synod [ sess. 3, Const. de fid. cath., cap. 4; set n. 1795] strongly recommended in matters of this kind; this method, 1 AAS 35 ( 1943), 231 f. 2 Cf. St. Thomas, Summa theol., Ia, q. 43, a. 3.
Pius XII, 1939- indeed, struggling to obtain light by which the hidden things of God may be recognized at least slightly, proceeds thus, comparing these mysteries with one another and with the final end to which they are directed. Opportunely then does Our very wise predecessor, Leo XIII of happy memory, when he ·spoke of this union of ours with Christ and of the divine Paraclete dwelling within us, turn His eyes to that beatific vision by which at sometime in heaven this same mystic union will obtain its consummation and perfection. He says: "This wonderful union, which is called by the name 'indwelling,' differs only by our created state from that by which God gives joy and embraces the inhabit- ants of heaven." 1 In this heavenly vision it will be proper in an utterly ineffable manner to contemplate the Father, Son, and divine Spirit with the eyes of the mind increased by the higher light, and to assist through- out eternity at the processions of the divine Persons, and to rejoice with a happiness very like that with which the most holy and undivided Trinity is happy.
The Relationship between the B.V.M. and the Church 2 [From the same Encyclical, "Mystici Corporis," June 29, 1943]
It was she [ the Virgin Mother of God] who, free from sin either 2291 personal or original, always most closely united with her Son, offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father, together with the holocaust of her mother's rights and mother's love, as a new Eve, for all the sons of Adam stained by his pitiful fall, so that she, who in the Resh was the mother of our Head, by the new title also of grief and glory, in the spirit was made the mother of all His members. She it was who by very power- ful prayers accomplished that the Spirit of the divine Redeemer, already given on the Cross, should be bestowed with wonderful gifts on the day of Pentecost upon the recently risen Church. Finally, she herself by enduring her tremendous griefs with a strong and confident spirit, more than all the faithful of Christ, the true Queen of the Martyrs, "filled up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ .•. for His Body, which is the Church" [Col. 1:24]; and she has attended the mys- tical body of Christ, born 3 of the torn heart of our Savior, with the same mother's care and deep love with which she cherished and nurtured the Infant Jesus nursing in the crib. So may she, the most holy Mother 4 of all the members of Christ, to whose Immaculate Heart We have confidently consecrated all men, and 1 Cf. "Divinum illud"; ASS 29 (1896), 653. 2 AAS 35 (1943), 247 f. 3 Cf. Off. Ssmi. Co,-dis, in !,ymno ad Vesp. 4 Cf. Pius X, "Ad diem illum": ASS 36 (1903/04), 453.
Pius XII, 1939- who now is resplendent in heaven in the glory of body and soul, and reigns together with her Son, earnestly request and strive to obtain from Him that copious streams of grace fl.ow from the exalted Head upon all the members of the mystical body without interruption,
The Authenticity of the Vulgate 1 [From the Encyclical, "Divino affiante Spiritu," September 30, 1943]
But that the Synod of Trent wished the Vulgate to be the Latin version "which all should use as authentic," applies, as all know, to the Latin Church only, and to the public use of Scripture, and does not diminish the authority and force of the early texts. For at that time no considera- tion was being given to early texts, but to the Latin versions which were being circulated at that time, among which the Council decreed that that version was rightly to be preferred which was approved by the long use of so many centuries within the Church. So this eminent authority of the Vulgate, or, as it is expressed, authenticity, was established by the Council not especially for critical reasons, but rather because of its authorized use in the Church continued through the course of so many centuries; and by this use it is demonstrated that this text, as the Church has understood and understands, in matters of faith and morals is entirely free of error, so that, on the testimony and confirmation of the Church herself, in discussions, quotations, and meetings it can be cited safely and without danger of error; and accordingly such authenticity is expressed primarily not by the term critical but rather juridical. There- fore, this authority of the Vulgate in matters of doctrine does not at all prevent-rather it almost demands today-this same doctrine being called upon for help, whereby the correct meaning of Sacred Scripture may daily be made clearer and be better explained. And not even this is prohibited by the decree of the Council of Trent, namely, that for the use and benefit of the faithful in Christ and for the easier understanding of divine works translations be made into common languages; and these, too, from the early texts, as we know has already been praiseworthily done with the approval of the authority of the Church in many regions.
The Literal and Mystical Sense of Holy Scripture 2 [From the same Encyclical, "Divino affiante Spiritu," September 30, 1943]
Well equipped with a knowledge of ancient languages and with the help of critical scholarship, let the Catholic exegete approach that task 1 AAS 35 (1943), 309 f. 2 AAS 35 (1943), 310 f.
Pius XII, 1939- which of all those imposed upon him is the highest, namely, to discover and set forth the true meaning of the Sacred Scriptures. In this work let interpreters keep in mind that their greatest care should be to discern and define what the so-called literal sense of the language of the Bible is. Let them bring out this literal meaning of the words with all diligence through a knowledge of languages, employing the aid of the context and of comparison with similar passages; indeed, all these are customarily used for assistance in the interpretation of profane writers also, so that the mind of the author may become quite clear. Moreover, let the exe- getes of Sacred Scriptures, mindful of the fact that they are dealing with the divinely inspired word, no less diligently take into account the explanations and declarations of the magisterium of the Church, and like- wise the explanation given by the Holy Fathers, and also the "analogy of faith," as Leo XIII in the Encyclical letter, Providentissimus Deus, very wisely notes.1 Indeed, let them see to this with special zeal, that they explain not only those matters which are of concern to history, archaeology, philology, and other such disciplines as we grieve to say is done in certain commentaries, but, after bringing in such matters op- portunely, insofar as they can contribute to exegesis, point out especially what is the theological doctrine on matters of faith and morals in the individual books and texts, so that this explanation of theirs may not only help teachers of theology to set forth and confirm the dogmas of faith, but also be of assistance to priests in clarifying Christian doctrine to the people, and finally serve all the faithful to lead holy lives worthy of a Christian. When they have given such an interpretation, especially, as we have said, theological interpretation, let them effectively silence those who assert that with difficulty do they find anything by way of Biblical com- mentary to raise the mind to God, nourish the soul, and promote the interior life, and declare that recourse must be had to a certain spiritual and so-called mystical interpretation. How far from rightly they profess this the experience of many shows, who frequently considering and_ meditating upon the word of God, perfect their souls, and are moved by a strong love toward God; and this is clearly proved by the everlasting institution of the Church and the admonitions of the most eminent Doctors. Surely, all spiritual meaning is not excluded from Sacred Scripture. For what was said and done in the Old Testament, was most wisely so ordered and disposed by God that past events in a spiritual manner presignified what would take place in the new covenant of grace. So the exegete, just as he should find and expound the so-called literal significance of the words, which the sacred writer intended and ex- pressed, so also he should the spiritual significance, provided it can be 1 Leo XIII, Acta XIII, pp. 345-346; Ench. Bibi. n. 94-96.
Pius XII, 1931r rightly established that it was given by God. For God alone could know this spiritual significance and reveal it to us. Indeed, the divine Savior Himself indicates such a sense to us in the Holy Gospels and teaches us; the apostles, also, imitating the example of the Master, in speaking and writing profess this; so does the teaching handed down by the Church; finally, the ancient practice of the liturgy declares, wherever that famous pronouncement can rightly be applied: The law of praying is the law of believing. So, let Catholic exegetes make clear and set forth this spiritual sense, intended and ordained by God Himself, with that diligence which the dignity of the divine Word demands; but let them beware religiously lest they proclaim other transferred meanings of things as the genuine sense of Sacred Scripture.
Kinds of Literature in Holy Scripture 1 [From the same Encyclical, "Divino affiante Spiritu," September 30, 1943]
Therefore, let the interpreter with all care and without neglect of the light which the more recent investigations have shed, strive to discern what the real character and condition of life of the sacred writer were; in what age he flourished; what sources he used whether written or oral, and what forms of expression he employed. Thus he will be able to know better who the sacred writer was, and what he wished to indicate by his writing. For it escapes no one that the highest norm of interpretation is that by which what the writer intends to say is perceived and defined, as St. Athanasius advises: "Here, as it is fitting to do in all other passages of divine Scripture, we observe that it must be accurately and faithfully considered on what occasion the Apostle has spoken; what is the person and what is the subject on which he has written, lest anyone ignorant of these things, or understanding something else besides them, wander from the true meaning." 2 But what the literal sense is in the words and writings of the old oriental authors is very often not as clear as it is among the writers of our age. For what they wish to signify by words is not determined by the laws of grammar or philology alone, nor by the context of the pas- sage alone; the interpreter should by all means return mentally, as it were, to those remote ages of the Orient, in order that rightly assisted by the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and of other disciplines, he may discern and perceive what so-called literary genres the writers of that age sought to employ and in fact did employ. For the old Orientals, to express what they had in mind, did not always use the same forms and 1 AAS 35 (1943), 314 f. 2 ContraArianos, l, 54: MG XXVI, col. 123.
Pius XII, 1939- the same modes of speaking as we do today, but rather those which were accepted for use among men of their own times and localities. What these were, the exegete cannot determine, as it were, in advance, but only by an accurate investigation of the ancient literatures of the Orient. Furthermore, such investigation carried on within the last ten years with greater care and diligence than before, has shown more clearly what forms of speaking were employed in those ancient times, whether in describing matters in poetry, or in proposing norms and laws of life, or finally in narrating the facts and events of history. This same investiga- tion has also proven this clearly, that the people of Israel were especially pre-eminent among the rest of the ancient nations of the Orient in writing history properly, both because of the antiquity and the faithful recountal of events; which indeed, is surely the effect of divine inspira- tion, and the result of the special purpose of biblical history which per- tains to religion. Indeed, let no one who has a right understanding of Biblical inspiration, be surprised that among the Sacred Writers, as among the other ancients, certain definite ways of explaining and narrating are found; certain kinds of idioms especially appropriate to Semitic lan- guages, so called approximations, and certain hyperbolic methods of speaking, yes, sometimes even paradoxes by which events are more firmly impressed upon the mind. For none of those methods of speaking is foreign to the Sacred Scriptures which among ancient peoples, especially among Orientals, human speech customarily used to express its thought, yet on this condition, that the kind of speaking employed be not at odds with the sanctity and truth of God, just as with his usual perspicacity the Angelic Doctor has noted in the following words: "In Scripture divine matters are made known to us in the manner we customarily employ." 1 For just as the substantial Word of God was made like man in all things "without sin," 2 so also the words of God, expressed in human language, in all things have been made like human speech, with- out error, which Saint John Chrysostom has already extolled with highest praise as the m;vKara/3aau;, or, condescension of a provident God; and which he has asserted 3 again and again is the case in the Sacred Scriptures. Therefore, let the Catholic exegete, in order to satisfy the present day needs of Biblical matters, in explaining Sacred Scripture, and in showing and proving it free of all error, prudently use this aid, to inquire how the form of expression and the kind of literature employed by the Sacred writer, contribute to a true and genuine interpretation; and let him be convinced that this part of his office cannot be neglected 1 Comment. ad Heb., cap. I, lect. 4. 2 Heb. 4:15. 3 Cf. In Gen. I: 4 (MG LIII, col. 34-35); In Gen. II: 21 (ibid., col. 121); In Gen. III: 8 (ibid., col. 135); Hom. 15 in loan., ad I, 18 (MG LIX, col. 27 f.).
Pius XII, 1939- without great harm to Catholic exegesis. For not uncommonly-to touch upon one thing only-when some propose by way of rebuke that the Sacred Authors have strayed away from historical truth, or have not reported events accurately, it is found to be a question of nothing other than the customary natural methods of the ancients in speaking and narrating, which in the mutual intercourse among men were regu- larly employed, and in fact were employed in accord with a permissible and common practice. Therefore, intellectud honesty requires that when these matters are found in divine speech which is expressed for man in human words, they be not charged more with error than when they are uttered in the daily use of life. Therefore, by a knowledge and accurate appraisal of the modes and skills of speaking and writing among the ancients, many problems will be possible of solution, which are raised against the truth and historical trustworthiness of the divine Scripture; and no less fittingly will such study contribute to a fuller and clearer understanding of the mind of the Sacred Writer.
The Purposes of Matrimony 1 [Decree of the Holy Office, April 1, 1944]
Certain publications concerning the purposes of matrimony, and their interrelationship and order, have come forth within these last years which either assert that the primary purpose of matrimony is not the generation of offspring, or that the secondary purposes are not subordinate to the primary purpose, but are independent of it. In these works different primary purposes of marriage are designated by other writers, as for example: the complement and personal perfection of the spouses through a complete mutual participation in life and action; mutual love and union of spouses to be nurtured and perfected by the psychic and bodily surrender of one's own person; and many other such things. In the same writings a sense is sometimes attributed to words in the current documents of the Church ( as for example, primary, secondary purpose), which does not agree with these words according to the com- mon usage by theologians. This revolutionary way of thinking and speaking aims to foster errors and uncertainties, to avoid which the Most Eminent and Very Reverend Fathers of this supreme Sacred Congregation, charged with the guarding of matters of faith and morals, in a plenary session, on Wednesday, the 29th of March, 1944, when the question was proposed to them: "Whether the opinion of certain recent persons can be admitted, who either deny 1 AAS 36 (1944), 103.
Pius XII, 193g- that the primary purpose of matrimony is the generation and raising of offspring, or teach that the secondary· purposes are not essentially sub- ordinate to the primary purpose, but are equally first and independent," have decreed that the answer must be: In the negative.
Millenarianism (Chiliasm) 1 [Decree of the Holy Office, July 21, 1944]
In recent times on several occasions this Supreme Sacred Congregation 2296 of the Holy Office has been asked what must be thought of the system of mitigated Millenarianism, which teaches, for example, that Christ the Lord before the final judgment, whether or not preceded by the resur- rection of the many just, will come visibly to rule over this world. The answer is: The system of mitigated Millenarianism cannot be taught safely.
The Presence of Christ in the Mysteries of the Church 2 [From the Encyclical, "Mediator Dei," November 20, 1947]
In every liturgical act there is present together with the Church her 2297 divine Founder; Christ is present in the august Sacrifice of the altar, not only in the person of His minister, but especially in the species of the Eucharist; He is present in the sacraments through His power which He transfuses into them as instruments for effecting sanctity; finally, He is present in the praises and supplications directed to God, according to these words: "For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" [ Matt. r 8 :20]. • . . Therefore, the liturgical year, which the piety of the Church fosters and follows, is no cold and indifferent representation of those things which belong to times of the past, or a simple and bare recollection of things of an earlier age. But rather, it is Christ Himself, who perseveres in His Church, and who is pursuing the way of His great mercy; indeed, when He made His way through this mortal life doing good,3 He entered upon it with this purpose, that His mysteries might penetrate the minds of men and that through them in some way they might live; and these mysteries surely are present and operate continuously not in that uncertain and obscure manner about which certain more recent writers babble, but in the manner that is taught us by the Church; since, according to the opinion of the Doctors of the Church, the ex- 1 AAS 36 (1944), 212. z AAS 39 (1947), 528, 580. I Cf. Acts 10:38.
Pius XII, 1939- amples of Christian perfection are pre-eminent, and the sources of divine grace, because of the merits and deprecations of Christ and by their effect endure in us, although they exist individually in their own way according to each one's own character for the sake of our salvation.
The Full Notion of Liturgy 1 [From the same Encyclical, "Mediator Dei," November 20, 1947]
The sacred Liturgy, then, constitutes the public worship which our Redeemer, the Head of the Church, has shown to the heavenly Father; and which the society of the faithful in Christ attribute to their Founder, and through Him to the eternal Father; and, to sum up briefly, it con- stitutes the public worship of the mystical body of Jesus Christ, namely, the Head and its members. Therefore, they wander entirely away from the true and full notion and understanding of the Sacred Liturgy, who consider it only as an external part of divine worship, and presented to the senses; or as a kind of apparatus of ceremonial proprieties; and they no less err who think of it as a mere compendium of laws and precepts, by which the ecclesiastical Hierarchy bids the sacred rites to be arranged and ordered.
The Relationship Between the Ascetic Life and the Piety of the Liturgy 2 [From the same Encyclical, "Mediator Dei," November 20, 1947]
Therefore in the spiritual life there can be no difference and no con- flict between that divine action which infuses grace into souls to perpetu- ate our redemption, and the kindred and laborious work of man which should not render 3 God's gift in vain; and likewise between the efficacy of the external rite of the sacraments, which arises ex opere operato (from an accomplished task), and a well deserving act on the part of those who partake of and accept the sacraments; which act indeed we call opus operantis ( the work of the worker); and in like manner be- tween public supplications and private prayers; between the right way of acting and the contemplation of supernal things; between the ascetic life and the piety of the Liturgy; and, finally, between the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical Hierarchy and that legitimate magisterium and that power, which are properly called sacerdotal, and which are exercised in the sacred ministry. 1 AAS 39 ( 1947), 528 f., 532. 2 AAS 39 (1947), 537. I Cf. 11. Cor. 6:1.
Pius XII, 1939- For serious cause the Church urges that those who serve the altar as an intrusted duty, or who have entered an institution of the religious lifo devote 1 themselves at stated times to pious meditation, to diligent self examination and criticism, and other spiritual exercises, since they are appointed in a special way to the liturgical functions of regularly per- forming the Sacrifice and of offering due praise. Without doubt liturgi- cal prayer, since it is the public supplication of the illustrious Spouse of Jesus Christ, stands out with greater excellence than private prayers. But this greater excellence by no means indicates that these two kinds of prayer are different from and at odds with each other. For, since they are animated by one and the same zeal, they also come together and are united according to these words: "Christ is all and in all" [Col. 3:11), and strive for the same purposes, until Christ be formed in us. 2
The Participation of the Faithful in the Priesthood of Christ 3 [From the same Encyclical, "Mediator Dei," November 20, 1947]
It is expedient that all the faithful in Christ understand that it is their 2300 supreme duty and dignity to participate in the Eucharistic Sacrifice.•.• Yet, because the faithful in Christ participate in the Eucharistic Sacri- fice, they do not on this account enjoy sacerdotal power. It is indeed quite necessary that you keep this clearly before the eyes of your flocks. For there are those . . . who today revive errors long since condemned, and teach that in the New Testament the name "priesthood" includes all who have been cleansed by the water of baptism; and likewise that that precept by which Jesus Christ at the Last Supper entrusted to the apostles the doing of what He Himself had done, pertained directly to the entire Church of the faithful in Christ; and that hence, and hence only, has arisen the hierarchical priesthood. Therefore, they imagine that the people enjoy true sacerdotal power, but that the priest acts only by virtue of an office delegated by the community. So they believe that the Eucharistic Sacrifice is truly called a "concelebration," and they think that it is more expedient for priests standing together with the people to "concelebrate" than to offer the Sacrifice privately in the ab- sence of the people. It is superfluous to explain how captious errors of this kind contradict those truths which we have stated above, when treating of the rank
1 Cf. CIC can. 125, 126, 565, 571, 595, 1367. 2 Cf. Gal. 4:19. 3 AAS 39 (1947), 552 ff. Translator's note: In the 30th edition the numeration of nos. 2300 to 2333 is cor- rected. In previous editions no. 2300 had been 3000. Note in indexes of previous editions,
Pius XII, r93r_r which the priest enjoys in the mystical body of Christ. Yet we think that we must call this to mind namely, that the priest acts in place of the people only for this reason, that he plays the part of our Lord, Jesus Christ, insofar as He is the Head of all the members, and offers himself for them, and that for this reason he approaches the altar as a minister of Christ, inferior to Christ, but superior to the people. 1 The people, on the other hand, inasmuch as they do not in any way play the part of the divine Redeemer, and are not a conciliator between themselves and God, can by no means enjoy the sacerdotal right. All this, indeed, is established by the certitude of faith; yet, further- more, the faithful in Christ are also to be said to offer the divine victim, but in a different way. Now some of Our predecessors and doctors of the Church have de- clared this very clearly. "Not only," says Innocent III of immortal mem- ory, "do the priests offer the Sacrifice, but all the faithful also; for what is specially fulfilled by the ministry of the priests, this is done collectively by the prayers of the faithful." 2 And it is pleasing to bring to bear on this subject at least one of the many statements of St. Robert Bellarmine: "The Sacrifice," he says, "is offered chiefly in the person of Christ. And so the oblation that follows the Consecration is a kind of attestation that the whole Church consents in the oblation made by Christ, and offers it at the same time with him." 3 The rite and the prayers of the Eucharistic Sacrifice no less clearly point out and show that the oblation of the victim is performed by the priests together with the people. . . . It is not surprising that the faithful of Christ are raised to such a dignity. For, by the waters of baptism, by the general title of Christian they are made members of the mystical body of Christ, the priest, and by the "character", as it were, imprinted upon their souls, they are assigned to divine worship; and so they participate in the priesthood of Christ Himself according to their condition . . . . But there is also a very profound reason why all Christians, especially those who are present at the altar, are said to offer the Sacrifice. In this very important subject, lest insidious error arise, we should limit the word "offer" by terms of exact meaning. For that unbloody immolation, by which, when the words of consecration are uttered, Christ is made present on the altar in the state of a victim, is performed by the priest alone, because he bears the role of Christ, and not because he plays the role of the faithful in Christ. And so, because the priest places the victim upon the altar, he offers to God the Father, the same 1 Cf. S. Robert Bellarm., De Missa 2, c. 4. s Dt: sacra Altaris mysterio 3, 6. 8 De Missa I, c. 24.
Pius XII, 193<]- Victim by which he offers an oblation for the glory of the Most Holy Trinity and for the good of the whole Church. But the faithful in Christ participate in this oblation in a restricted sense in their own fashion, and in a twofold manner, namely, because they offer the Sacrifice not only through the hands of the priest, but also, in a manner, together with him; indeed, because of this participation the oblation of the people is also referred to the liturgical worship. Moreover, it is clear that the faithful in Christ offer the Sacrifice through the hands of the priest from this, that the minister at the altar plays the part of Christ, as of the Head, making His offering in the name of all His members, whereby indeed it happens that the whole Church is rightly said to offer the oblation of the Victim through Christ. But that the people together with the priest himself offer the Sacrifice is not established because of this, because the members of the Church, just as the priest himself, perform a visible liturgical rite, which belongs only to the minister divinely assigned to this; but for the reason that they join their prayer of praise, impetration, expiation, and thanksgiving with the prayers or intention of the priest, even of the High Priest Him- self; so that in the very same oblation of the Victim, also according to an external rite by the priest, they may be presented to God, the Father. For the external rite must by its very nature manifest internal worship; but the Sacrifice of the New Law signifies that supreme allegiance by means of which the principal Offerer Himself, who is Christ, and together with Him and through Him all of His mystical members attend and venerate God with due honor.
The Material and Form of the Sacrament of Orders 1 [Apostolic Constitution, "Sacramentum Ordinis," November 30, 1947]
I. The sacrament of orders instituted by Christ the Lord, by which 2301 spiritual power is handed down and grace is conferred to perform ecclesi.'lstical duties properly, the Catholic faith professes to be one and the same for the universal Church .•.. And for these sacraments in- stituted by Christ the Lord in the course of the ages the Church has not, and could not substitute other sacraments, since, as the Council of Trent teaches, the seven sacraments of the New Law have all been instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord, and the Church has no power over the "substance of the sacraments," that is, over those things which, with the sources of divine revelation as witnesses, Christ the Lord Himself de- creed to be preserved in a sacramental sign . . . . 3. It is established moreover, among all that the sacraments of the
Pius XII, 1939- New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, owe and signify the grace which they effect, and effect the grace which they signify. Indeed the effects which should be produced and so signified by the sacred ordination of the diaconate, presbyterate, and episcopate, namely, power and grace, are found to have been sufficiently signified in all the rites of the universal Church of different times and regions by the imposition of hands, and by the words that determine this. Further- more, there is no one who does know that the Roman Church always considered valid the ordinations conferred in the Greek rite, without the handing over of the instruments, so that at the Council of Florence, in which the union of the Greeks with the Church of Rome was accom- plished, it was not imposed on the Greeks that they change the rite of ordination, or that they insert in it the tradition of the instruments; rather, the Church wished that in the City itself (Rome) Greeks be ordained according to their own rite. From all this it is gathered that according to the mind of the Council of Florence the tradition of the instruments is not required for the substance and validity of this sacra- ment, according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. But if, according to the will and prescription of the Church, the same should some day be held necessary for validity also, all would know that the Church is able even to change and to abrogate what she has established. 4. Since these things are so, invoking divine light by Our supreme apostolic authority and certain knowledge We declare, and, according as there is need, decree, and determine that the matter of sacred orders of the diaconate, priesthood, and episcopate, and this alone, is the im- position of the hands; but that the form, and likewise alone, is the words which determine the application of this matter, by which the sacramental effects are signified with but one meaning, namely, the power of orders, and grace of the Holy Spirit, and which as such are accepted and applied by the Church. Hence it follows that in order to do away with all con- troversy and to preclude the way to anxieties of conscience, by Our Apostolic Authority \Ve do declare, and, if ever it has been otherwise lawfully arranged, decide that the tradition of the instruments at least for the future is not necessary for the validity of the sacred orders of the diaconate, priesthood, and episcopate. 5. But regarding the matter and form in the conferring of every order, by Our same supreme apostolic authority We decree and establish the following: In the ordination of deacons the matter is the one imposition of the bishop's hand, which occurs in the rite of that ordina~ion. But the form consists of the words of the "Preface," of which the following are essential and so required for validity: "Send forth upon him, we beseech, 0 Lord, the Holy Spirit, by which for the work of faithfully performing your ministry he may be strengthened by the gift of Thy sevenfold
Pius XII, 193g- 6JI grace." In the ordination of priests the matter is the first imposition of the bishop's hands which is done in silence, but there is no continuation of the same imposition by an extension of the right hand, nor the last to which these words are joined: "Receive the Holy Spirit: whose sins you shall forgive, etc." But the form consists of the words of the "preface," of which the following are essential and so required for validity: "Bestow, we beseech, almighty Father, upon this thy servant the dignity of the priesthood; renew in his vitals the spirit of sanctity, that he may obtain the gift of good merit acceptable to Thee, 0 God, and may by the example of his conversation introduce rigid judgment of morals." Finally, in the episcopal ordination or consecration the matter is the imposition of the hands by the consecrating bishop. But the form consists of the words of the "Preface," of which the following are es- sential and thus required for validity: "Fulfill in Thy priest the com- pletion of Thy ministry, and adorned in the ornaments of all glorification sanctify him with the moisture of heavenly unguent." . . . 6. That no occasion for doubt may be offered, we command that in any conferring of orders the imposition of hands be made by physically touching the head of the one to be ordained, although even the moral touch suffices for performing a sacrament validly . . . . The disposition of this Our Constitution does not have retroactive force.
The Time of the Documents of the Pentateuch, and the Literary Genre of the Eleven First Chapters of Genesis 1 [Letter of the Secretary of the Biblical Commission to Cardinal Suhard, Archbishop of Paris, January r6, 1948]
Our Most Holy Father has decided to commit to the consideration of 2302 the Pontifical Biblical Commission two questions which were recently submitted to His Holiness on the sources of the Pentateuch and the historicity of the eleven first chapters of Genesis. These two questions, to- gether with their doctrines and prayers, were examined most attentively by the Most Reverend Consultors and Most Eminent Cardinals assigned to the aforesaid Commission. At the end of their deliberations His Holiness has deigned to approve the response which follows, in audience on the 16th day of January, 1948, granted to the undersigned. The Pontifical Biblical Commission with a joyful heart praises the sense of filial confidence which inspired this consultation, and desires to respond to it in a sincere effort to promote Biblical studies, since within the limits of the traditional doctrine of the Church the fullest freedom is granted them. This freedom is affirmed explicitly in the Encyclical, 1 AAS 40 (1948), 45 ff.
Pius XII, 193g- Divina affiante Spiritu, of the Supreme Pontiff, who is reigning gloriously, with these words: "The Catholic exegete, impelled by an active and strong love of his science, and sincerely devoted to Holy Mother Church, should by no means be kept from attacking difficult questions as yet unresolved, again and again, not only to refute what is raised in op- position by adversaries, but to strive also to find a solid explanation which is in faithful accord with the doctrine of the Church, namely with what has been taught about Sacred Scripture free of all errors, and also satisfies in due measure certain conclusions of the profane sciences. But let all the other sons of the Church remember that the attempts of these strenuous workers in the vineyard of the Lord should be judged not only with an honest and just heart, but also with the highest charity; indeed, these men should beware of that zeal, which is by no means prudent, whereby it is thought that whatever is new, for this very reason should be attacked or brought into suspicion" [AAS 35 (1943), 319]. If anyone under the light of this commendation of the Supreme Pontiff should consider and interpret the three replies given officially by the Biblical Commission on the questions already mentioned, i.e., on the 23rd day of June, 1905, regarding the stories in the historical books of Sacred Scripture, which have only the appearance of history [ n. 1980] on the 27th day of June, 1906, on the Mosaic authenticity of the Pen- tateuch [n. 1997-20001, on the 30th day of June 1909, on the historical character of the three first chapters of Genesis [ n. 2121-2128 ], will con- cede that these responses are by no means opposed to the earlier and truly scientific examination of these questions, which was instituted ac- cording to the information obtained within the last forty years. Therefore, the Biblical Commission does not think that, at least for the present, new decrees on these questions should be issued. As for what pertains to the composition of the Pentateuch, the Biblical Commission in the above mentioned decree of the 27th day of June, 1906, recognized that it could be affirmed that "Moses in the composition of his work had made use of sources, namely, written documents or oral tradition" [ n. 1999], and that modifications and additions later than Moses can also be admitted [ cf. n. 2000]. There is no one today who doubts the existence of these sources, or who does not admit the succes- sive additions which are due to the social and religious conditions of later times, and which are evident also in the historical narrative. How- ever, among non-Catholic exegetes today very different opinions are offered regarding the nature and number of these documents, and their identification and time. Authors are not lacking in various countries who, from purely critical and historical reasons, without any apologetic zeal, definitely reject the theories set forth up to now, and try to explain cer- tain peculiarities of the composition of the Pentateuch not so much from
Pius XII, 1939- the diversity of supposed sources as from the special psychology and peculiar method, more thoroughly known today, of thinking and speak- ing on the part of the ancient Orientals; or also from the literary genre which varies according to subject matter. Therefore, we urge Catholic scholars to examine these questions with open minds in the light of sane criticism, and according to the findings which other sciences interested in the subject have obtained. For such an examination will undoubtedly show how great a part and what a profound influence Moses had as author and legislator. The question of the literary forms of the eleven first chapters of Genesis is more obscure and more complicated. These literary forms do not corre- spond exactly with any classical category, and are not to be judged according to Greco-Latin or modern literary forms. Hence the historicity of these chapters can neither be denied nor affirmed simply, without undue application to them of the norms of a literary form under which they cannot be classed. If, then, it is admitted that in these chapters history in the classic and modern sense is not found, it must also be confessed that modern science does not yet offer a positive solution to all the problems of these chapters..•. If anyone should contend a priori that their narratives contain no history in the modern sense of the word, he would easily insinuate that these are in a sense of the word historical, although in fact they relate in simple and figurative words, which corre- spond to the capacity of men who are less erudite, fundamental truths with reference to the economy of health, and also describe in popular manner the origin of humankind and of an elect people.
Artificial Fertilization 1 [From the Address of Pius XII on September 29, 1949, before the fourth international convention of Catholic physicians]
r. The practice of artificial fertilization, insofar as it concerns man, 2303 cannct be judged exclusively, or even principally, according to the norms of biology and medicine, neglecting moral and juridical norms. 2. Artificial fertilization outside of marriage is to be condemned purely and simply as immoral. In fact, natural law and positive divine law demand that procreated new life be the fruit of marriage alone. Only marriage guards the dignity of spouses ( especially of the wife, as far as this question is concerned), and their personal good. Only marriage of itself provides for the good and education of the child. Therefore, it follows that there can be no divergence of opinion among Catholics in condemning artificial fertiliza- 1 AAS 41 (1949), 559 f.
Pius XII, 1939- tion outside the conjugal union. Offspring conceived m such a manner would be by the very fact illegitimate. 3. Artificial fertilization, which is effected within marriage but by an active element of a third party, is in the same way immoral, and as such is to be condemned absolutely. Only spouses have a reciprocal right over the body to procreate new life, which right is exclusive and inalienable. The child also demands this. For upon him, who communicates new life to the child, nature itself by the force of this relationship imposes the obligation both of protecting and raising this offspring. Indeed, between the legitimate husband and the child procreated by the active element of the third party ( even if the husband should consent) no bond of origin, nor any moral and juridical bond of matrimonial procreation exists. 4. As for the morality of artificial fertilization within marriage, let it suffice for the present for Us to call to mind the principles of the natural law; the mere fact that the end which is intended is actually achieved in this way does not make the use of this means lawful; and the desire of spouses (in itself, moreover, lawful) of having offspring does not yet prove sufficiently that the use of artificial fertilization, by which this de- sire is fulfilled, is licit. It is an ertoneous opinion which holds that marriage between persons incapable of contracting marriage because of the impediment of im- potence can be rendered valid by the use of this means. On the other hand it goes without saying that the active element is always procured illicitly by acts which are contrary to nature. Although a priori new methods cannot be excluded merely because they are new, nevertheless, as far as artificial fertilization is concerned, not only is there need of the greatest circumspection, but it simply must be avoided. By these words We do not necessarily forbid the use of artificial means, which are destined only either to render the natural act easier or to bring it about that the completed act attain its end in a natural way. Let it not be forgotten: only the procreation of new life, which takes place according to the will and order of the Creator, obtains to a truly perfect degree the ends intended by it. Such procreation corresponds at once to the corporal and spiritual nature and the dignity of the spouses and to the normal and happy development of the infant.
Pius XII, 193g-
The Intention to be Possessed in Baptism 1 [Response of the Holy Office, December 28, 1949]
To this Supreme Sacred Congregation ••• the question has been 2304 proposed: "Whether, in judging matrimonial cases, baptism conferred in the sects of the Disciples of Christ, the Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, Methodists, when the necessary matter and form have been used, is to be presumed as invalid because of the lack of the required intention in the minister of doing what the Church does, or what Christ instituted; or whether it is to be presumed as valid unless in a particular case it is proven to the contrary." The reply: In the negative to the first part; in the affirmative to the second.
Some False Opinions that Threaten to Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrine 2 [From the Encyclical, "Humani generis," August 12, 1950]
The discord and departure from truth on the part of the human race 2305 in religious and moral affairs have always been a source and a cause of very painful grief to all good men, and especially to the faithful and sincere sons of the Church, and more than ever today when we perceive the very principles of Christian culture offended on all sides. Indeed, it is no wonder that such discord and wandering have always flourished outside the fold of Christ. For although human reason, speak- ing simply, by its natural powers and light can in fact arrive at true and certain knowledge of one personal God who in His providence guards and directs the world, and also of the natural law infused into our souls by the Creator, nevertheless, not a few obstacles prevent man's reason from efficaciously and fruitfully using this natural faculty which it possesses. For matters which pertain to God and have to do with rela- tionships between men and God, are truths which completely transcend the order of sensible things, and, when they are introduced into the action of life and shape it, demand devotion of self and self-abnegation. The human intellect, moreover, in acquiring such truths labors with difficulty not only on account of the impulse of the depraved senses and the imagination, but also of the desires which have their source in orig- inal sin. Therefore it happens that men in matters of this kind easily 1 AAS 41 (1949), 650. 2 AAS 42 (1950), 561-577. We present almost the entire text. See emendations of the text AAS 42 (1950), 960.
Pius XII, 193g-- persuade themselves that what they do not wish to be true, are false or at least doubtful. For this reason divine "revelation" must be considered morally neces- sary, in order that those truths, which in the realm of religion and morals are not of themselves beyond the scope of reason, yet in the present con- dition of the human race, may be readily grasped by all with strong certitude and with no admixture of error. 1 Yet on the other hand the human mind can sometimes expenence difficulties in forming a certain judgment "of credibility" about the Catholic faith, although so many wonderful external signs have been disposed by God, through which, even by the natural light of reason alone, the divine origin of the Christian religion can be proven with certainty. For man, whether induced by prejudiced opinions or instigated by desires and evil will, can refuse and resist not only the evidence of external signs, which is pre-eminent, but also the supernal inspirations which God brings into our hearts. Anyone who observes those who are outside the fold of Christ, can easily see the chief ways upon which many learned men have entered. There are those who contend that the so-called system of evolution, not yet irrefutably demonstrated within the scope of the natural sciences, and admitted imprudently and indiscreetly, extends to the origin of all things, and who boldly entertain the monistic and pantheistic theory that the whole world is subject to continuous evolution. Indeed, the supporters of communism gladly employ this theory, to bring out more efficaciously and defend their "dialectic materialism," casting out of mind every notion of God. Such fictions of evolution, by which whatever is absolute, firm, and immutable, is repudiated, have paved the way for a new erroneous phi- losophy which, in opposition to "idealism," "immanence," and "prag- matism," has obtained the name of "existentialism," since it is concerned only with the "existence" of individual things, and neglects the immutable essence of things_ There is also a kind of false "historicism," which attends oniy to events of human life, and razes the foundations of all truth and absolute law, not only insofar as it pertains to the philosophical matters, but to Chris- tian teachings as well. In such a great confusion of opinions as this it gives Us some solace to note those who not rarely today desire to return from the principles of "realism," in which they had once been instructed, to the well-springs of truth revealed by God, and to acknowledge and profess the word of God as preserved in Holy Scripture. Yet at the same time We must grieve that by no means a few of these, the more firmly they cling to the word 1 Cone. \'atic., D.B., 1876, Const. De Fide cath., cap. 2, De revelatione.
Pius XII, 193g-- 0£ God, that much more diminish human reason; and the more they exalt the authority of God who reveals, the more sharply they spurn the magisterium of the Church, instituted by Christ the Lord to guard and interpret the truths revealed by God. This indeed is not only in open contradiction to Sacred Scripture, but is proved false from actual experi- ence. Often the very ones who disagree with the true Church openly complain about their own discord in matters of dogma, so that they unwillingly confess to the necessity of the living magisterium. Indeed, Catholic theologians and philosophers, upon whom falls the 2308 serious duty of protecting divine and human truth, and of inculcating these in the minds of men, may not ignore or neglect these opinions which more or less stray from the straight road. Moreover, they should thoroughly examine these opinions, because diseases cannot be cured un- less they have been rightly diagnosed; also because sometimes in false fabrications something of truth lies hidden; finally, because such theories provoke the mind to scrutinize and weigh certain truths, philosophical or theological, more carefully. But, if our philosophers and theologians strive to gather only such fruit from these doctrines, after cautious examination, there would be no reason for the intervention of the magisterium of the Church. How- ever, although vVe have found that Catholic doctors in general are on their guard against those errors, yet it is well established that there are not lacking today, just as in apostolic times, those who, in their extreme zeal for novelty and also in their fear of being held ignorant of those matters which the science of a progressive age has introduced, strive to withdraw themselves from the temperateness of the sacred magisterium; and thus they become involved in the danger of gradually and imper- ceptibly departing from the truth revealed by God, and of leading others into error along with themselves. Indeed, even another danger is observed, and is more serious, since it is more concealed under the appearance of virtue. There are many who, deploring the discord of the human race and the confusion of minds, and roused by an imprudent zeal for souls, are moved by a kind of im- pulse, and burn with a vehement desire to break down the barriers by which good and honest men are mutually separated, embracing such an irenicism that, forgetting the questions that separate men, they not only seek to refute destructive atheism by common strength, but even to reconcile opposing ideas in dogmatic matters. And just as once there were those who asked whether the traditional study of apologetics constituted an obstacle rather than an aid to the winning of souls for Christ, so today there are not lacking those who dare proceed to the point of seriously raising the question whether theology and its method, as they flourish in the schools with the approval of ecclesiastical authority, ought not
Pius XII, 193g- only to be perfected, but even to be entirely reformed, so that the king- dom of Christ may be propagated more efficaciously everywhere in the land, among men of every culture, and of every religious opinion. If these men aimed at nothing else than the better adaptation of ecclesias- tical science and its method to present day conditions and demands, by introducing a kind of new plan, there would be little reason to fear; but, burning with an imprudent irenicism, some seem to consider as obstacles to the restoration of fraternal unity those matters which rest upon the very laws and principles given by Christ, and upon the institu- tions founded by Him, or which are the bulwarks and pillars of the integ- rity of faith, by the collapse of which all things are united to be sure, but only in ruin . . . . As far as theology is concerned, some propose to diminish as much as possible the significance of dogmas, and to free dogma itself from the manner of speaking long accepted in the Church, and from the philo- sophical notions which are common among Catholic teachers; so that in explaining Catholic doctrine there may be a return to the manner of speaking of the Holy Scripture and of the Holy Fathers. They cherish the hope that the time will come when dogma, stripped of the elements which they say are extrinsic to divine revelation, may be profitably com- pared with the dogmatic opinions of those who are separated from the unity of the Church; and in this way gradually a mutual assimilation will be reached between Catholic dogma and the principles of the dissidents. In addition, when Catholic doctrine has been reduced to this condition, they think that the way is paved to satisfy present-day needs, by express- ing dogma in the terms of contemporary philosophy, whether of "im- manence" or of "idealism," or "existentialism," or of any other system. Certain more daring persons contend that this can and ought to be done for this reason, because they maintain that the mysteries of faith can never be expressed by notions that are adequately true, but only by so- called "approximative" notions, always changeable, by which truth is in- dicated to a certain degree, but is also necessarily deformed. So they think that it is not absurd, but quite necessary that theology in place of the various philosophies which it has used as its instruments in the course of time, substitute new notions for old ones, so that in ways that are different, and even in some degree opposite, yet possessing the same value, as they say, render the same divine truths in a human way. They add also that the history of dogmas consists in presenting the various successive forms with which revealed truth has clothed itself, according to the different doctrines and opinions which have arisen in the course of the ages. But it is clear from what we have said that such endeavors lead not only to dogmatic "relativism," as it is called, but actually contain it; in-
Pius XII, 1939- deed, the contempt for the doctrine as commonly handed down, and for the phraseology by which the same is expressed, more than sufficiently bear this out. Surely there is no one who does not see that the phraseology of such notions not only as employed in the schools but also by the magisterium of the Church herself, can be perfected and polished; and, besides, it is noted that the Church has not always been constant in em- ploying the same words. It is also evident that the Church cannot be bound to any system of philosophy which flourishes for a brief period of time; for, what has been set in order over many centuries by common consent of Catholic teachers, in order to achieve some understanding of dogma, without doubt does not rest on so perishable a foundation. Rather they are based on principles and notions derived from a true knowledge of created things; and surely in deriving this knowledge, truth divinely revealed has through the Church illumined the mind like a star. Therefore, it is no wonder that some such notions were not only employed by ecumenical councils but also so sanctioned that it is not right to de- part from them. Therefore, to neglect, or to reject, or to deprive so many great things 2312 of their value, which in many instances have been conceived, expressed, and perfected after long labor, by men of no ordinary genius and sanctity, under the watchful eye of the holy magisterium, and not without the light and guidance of the Holy Spirit for the expression of the truths of faith ever more accurately, so that in their place conjectural notions may be substituted, as well as certain unstable and vague expressions of a new philosophy, which like a flower of the field exists today and will die tomorrow, not only is the highest imprudence, but also makes dogma itself as a reed shaken by the wind. Moreover, the contempt for the words and ideas which the scholastic theologians customarily use, tends to weaken so-called speculative philosophy, which they think is void of true certitude, since it rests on theological reasoning. Surely it is lamentable that those eager for novelty easily pass from a 2313 contempt for scholastic theology to a neglect, and even a disrespect for the magisterium of the Church, which supports that theology by its authority. For, this magisterium is considered by them as a hindrance to progress and an obstacle to science; indeed, by certain non-Catholics it is looked upon as an unjust restraint by which some learned theologians are prevented from pursuing their science. And, although this sacred magisterium, in matters of faith and morals, should be the proximate and universal norm of faith to any theologian, inasmuch as Christ the Lord entrusted the entire deposit of faith to it, namely, the Sacred Scriptures and divine "tradition," to be guarded, and preserved, and interpreted; yet its office, by which the faithful are bound to flee those errors which more or less tend toward heresy, and so, too, "to keep its constitutions
Pius XII, 1939- and decrees, by which such perverse opinions are proscribed and pro- hibited," 1 is sometimes ignored as if it did not exist. There are some who consistently neglect to consult what has been set forth in the Ency- clical Letters of the Roman Pontiffs on the character and constitution of the Church, for the reason that a certain vague notion prevails drawn from the ancient Fathers, especially the Greek. For the popes, as they repeatedly say, do not wish to pass judgment on those matters which are in dispute among theologians, and so there must be a return to the early sources, and the more recent constitutions and decrees of the magisterium are to be explained from the writings of the ancients. Even if perchance these things seem to have been wisely said, yet they are not without error. It is true that, in general, the Pontiffs grant free- dom to theologians in those matters which are disputed with varying opinions, but history teaches that many things, which formerly were subject to free discussion, later cannot permit any discussion. It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: "He who heareth you, heareth me." [Luke ro:r6]; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in the Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due considera- tion, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among the theologians. It is also true that theologians must always have recourse to the sources of divine revelation; for it is their duty to indicate how what is taught by the living magisterium is found, either explicitly or implicitly, in Sacred Scripture and in divine "tradition." In addition, both sources of doctrine, divinely revealed, contain so many and such great treasures of truth that they are in fact never exhausted. Therefore, the sacred disci- plines always remain vigorous by a study of the sacred sources, while, on the other hand, speculation, which neglects the deeper investigation of sacred deposit, as we know from experience, becomes sterile. But for this reason even positive theology, as it is called, cannot be placed on equal footing with merely historical science. For, together with these sacred sources God has given a living magisterium to His Church, to illumine and clarify what is contained in the deposits of faith obscurely and im- plicitly. Indeed, the divine Redeemer entrusted this deposit not to in- dividual Christians, nor to the theologians to be interpreted authentically,
Pius XII, 193g- but to the magisterium of the Church alone. Moreover, if the Church exercises this duty of hers, as has been done again and again in the course of the ages, whether by ordinary or extraordinary exercise of this function, it is clear that the method whereby clear things are explained from the obscure is wholly false; but rather all should follow the oppo- site order. Therefore, Our predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, teaching that the most noble function of theology is to show how a doctrine defined by the Church is contained in the sources, added these words, not without grave reason: "By that very sense by which it is defined." 1 • • • But to return to the new opinions which We have touched upon above, 2315 many things are proposed or insti1led in the mind ( of the faithful) to the detriment of the divine authority of Sacred Scripture. Some boldly pervert the meaning of the definition of the Vatican Council, with respect to God as the author of Sacred Scripture; and they revive the opinion, many times disproved, according to which the immunity of the Sacred Writings from error extends only to those matters which are handed down regarding God and moral and religious subjects. Again, they speak falsely about the human sense of the Sacred Books, under which their divine -sense lies hidden, which they declare is alone infallible. In inter- preting Sacred Scripture they wish that no account be taken of the analogy of the faith and of "the tradition" of the Church, so that the teaching of the Holy Fathers and of the holy magisterium is to be re- ferred, as it were, to the norm of Sacred Scripture as explained by exegetes in a merely human manner, rather than that Sacred Scripture be interpreted according to the mind of the Church, which was estab- lished by Christ the Lord as the guardian and interpreter of the whole deposit of truth revealed by God. And besides, the literal sense of Sacred Scripture and its exposition, 2316 as elaborated by so many great exegetes under the watchful eye of the Church, according to their false opinions, should yield to the new exegesis which they call symbolic and spiritual; by which the Sacred Books of the Old Testament, which today are as a closed source in the Church, may be opened sometime to all. They declare that by this method all difficulties vanish, by which they only are shackled who cling to the literal sense of Scripture. Surely, everyone will see how foreign all this is to the principles and norms of interpretation rightly established by Our predecessors of happy memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter "Providentissimus," Benedict XV in the Encyclical Letter, "Spiritus Paraclitus," and also by us in the Encyclical Letter, "Divino Effiante Spiritu." And it is not strange that such innovations, as far as pertains to almost 2317 1 Pius IX, Inter gravissimas, October 26, 1870; Acta P.l., Vol. V, p. 260.
Pius XII, 19 J<J- all branches of theology, have already produced poisonous fruit. It is doubtful that human reason, without the aid of divine "revelation" and divine grace, can demonstrate the existence of a personal God by argu- ments deduced from created things; it is denied that the world had a beginning, and it is disputed that the creation of the world was neces- sary, since it proceeds from the necessary liberality of divine love; eternal and infallible foreknowledge of the free actions of men is likewise denied to God; all of which, indeed, are opposed to the declarations of the Vatican Council. 1 The question is also raised by some whether angels are personal creatures; and whether matter differs essentially from spirit. Others de- stroy the true "gratuity" of the supernatural order, since they think that God cannot produce beings endowed with intellect without ordering and calling them to the beatific vision. This is not all: the notion of original sin, without consideration of the definitions of the Council of Trent, is perverted, and at the same time the notion of sin in general as an offense against God, and likewise the concept of the satisfaction made by Christ for us. And there are those who contend that the doctrine of trans- substantiation, inasmuch as it is founded on an antiquated philosophical presence of Christ in the Most Holy Eucharist, is reduced to a kind of symbolism, so that the consecrated species are no more than efficacious signs of the spiritual presence of Christ, and of His intimate union with the faithful members in the mystical body. Some think that they are not bound by the doctrine proposed a few years ago in Our Encyclical Letter, bearing upon the sources of "revela- tion," which teaches that the mystical body of Christ and the Church are one and the same. 2 Some reduce to any empty formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to attain eternal salvation. Others, finally, do injury to the reasonable nature of the "credibility" of the Christian faith. It is well known how much the Church values human reason, in what is concerned with definitely demonstrating the existence of one personal God; and likewise with proving irrefutably from divine signs the founda- tions of the Christian faith itself; and, in like manner, with expressing rightly the law which the Creator has placed in the souls of men; and finally, with attaining some understanding, and this a most fruitful understanding, of the mysteries. 3 Yet reason will be able to fulfill this function only when it has been trained in the required manner; namely, when it has become imbued with that sound philosophy which has long stood out as a patrimony handed down from the earlier Christian ages, 1 Cf. Cone. Vat., Const. De Fide cath., cap.r, De Deo rerum omnium creatore. 2 Cf. Enc., Mystici Corporis Christi, AAS, vol. XXXV, p. 193 f. 3 Cf. Cone. Vat., D.B., 1796.
Pius Xll, 1939- and so possesses the authority of an even higher order, because the magisterium of the Church has carefully weighed its principles and chief assertions, which were gradually made clear and defined by men of great genius, by the test of divine "revelation" itself. Indeed, this philosophy, recognized and accepted within the Church, protects the true and sin- cere value of human understanding, and constant metaphysical principles -namely, of sufficient reason, causality, and finality-and, finally, the acquisition of certain and immutable truth. To be sure in this philosophy many things are treated with which 2321 matters of faith and morals are neither directly nor indirectly concerned, and which, therefore, the Church entrusts to free discussion of learned men; but in regard to other matters, especially the principles and chief assertions which we mentioned above, the same freedom is not granted. In such essential questions, one may indeed clothe philosophy with a more fitting and richer dress, fortify it with more efficacious words, rid it of certain supports of scholars which are not fitting, and also cautiously enrich it with certain sound elements of progressive human study; but it is never right to subvert it, or to contaminate it with false principles, or to consider it a great but obsolete monument. For truth and its philo- sophic declaration cannot be changed from day to day, especially when it is a question of principles known to the human mind per se, or of those opinions which rest both on the wisdom of the ages, and on the consent and support of divine revelation. Whatever truth the human mind in its honest search will be able to discover, surely cannot be opposed to truth already acquired, since God, the highest Truth, created and directs the human intellect not that it may daily oppose new truths to those rightly acquired, but that by the removal of errors, which perchance have crept in, it can build truth upon truth in the same order and structure by which the very nature of things, from which truth is drawn, is per- ceived to have been constituted. Therefore, the Christian, whether philos- opher or theologian, does not hastily and easily adopt every new thing thought up from day to day, but with the greatest care places it in the scale of justice, and weighs it, lest he lose or corrupt the truth already acquired, indeed with grave danger and harm to faith itself. If these matters are thoroughly examined, it will be evident why the 2322 Church demands that future priests be instructed in the philosophic disciplines "according to the manner, doctrine, and principles of the Angelic Doctor," 1 since it knows well from the experience of many ages that the method and system of Aquinas, whether in training beginners or investigating hidden truth, stand out with special prominence; more- over, that his doctrine is in harmony, as in a kind of symphony, with divine "revelation," and is most efficacious in laying safe foundations of
Pius XII, 1939- faith, and also in collecting usefully and securely the fruits of sound progress. 1 For this reason it is to be exceedingly deplored that the philosophy accepted and recognized within the Church is today held in scorn by some; so much so that it is impudently renounced as antiquated in form, and rationalistic, as they say, in its process of thinking. For they insist that this philosophy of ours defends the false opinion that an absolutely true metaphysics can exist, while on the other hand they assert that things, especially the transcendent, cannot be expressed more aptly than by disparate doctrines, which complement each other, although, in a manner they are opposed to each other. So, they concede that the philos- ophy of our schools, with its clear description and solution of questions, with its accurate demarcation of notions and clear distinctions, can in- deed be useful for a training in scholastic theology, well accommodated to the minds of men of the Middle Ages, but does not offer a system of philosophizing which corresponds with our modern culture and its needs. Then they raise the objection that an unchanging philosophy is nothing but a philosophy of immutable essences, while the modern mind must look to the "existence" of individual objects, and to life, which is always in a state of flux. While they despise this philosophy, they extol others, whether ancient or modern, whether of the peoples of the Orient or of the Occident, so that they seem to insinuate that any philosophy or belief with certain additions, if need be, as corrections or supplements, can be rec- onciled with Catholic dogma. No Catholic can doubt that this is quite false, especially since it involves those fictions which they call "imma- nence," or "idealism," or "materialism," whether historic or dialectic, or even "existentialism," whether professing atheism, or at least rejecting the value of metaphysical reasoning. And, finally, they find this fault with the traditional philosophy of our Schools, namely, that in the process of cognition it is concerned only with the intellect, and overlooks the function of the will, and of the affections of the mind. This certainly is not true. For never has Christian philosophy denied the usefulness and the efficacy of the good disposition of the entire mind for fully comprehending and embracing religious and moral truths; on the other hand, it has always taught that the lack of such dispositions can be the cause of the intellect becoming affected by disordered desires and an evil will, and of being so obscured that it does not see rightly. On the other hand the Common Doctor is of the opinion that the intellect can in some way perceive the higher goods that pertain to the moral order, whether natural or supernatural, since it experiences in the mind a kind of passionate "relationship" with these goods, whether
1 AAS, vol. XXXVIII, 1946, p. 387.
Pius XII, 1939- natural, or added by the gift of grace; 1 and it is evident how much even such an obscure understanding can be an aid to the investigations of reason. Yet, it is one thing to recognize the force of the will for the dis- position of the affections in aiding reason to acquire a more certain and firmer understanding of matters of morals; but these innovators make a different claim, namely, they assign to the faculties of desiring and coveting a kind of intuition, and that man, when he cannot through the process of reason decide with certainty what is to be accepted as true, turns to the will, by which he decides freely and chooses between oppo- site opinions, thus stupidly confusing the act of cognition and of the will. It is not strange that because of these new opinions two branches of 2325 philosophy are endangered, which by their nature are closely connected with the doctrine of faith, namely, theodicy and ethics. Indeed, some believe that the function of these disciplines is not to demonstrate any- thing certain about God or any other transcendental being, but rather to show that what faith teaches about a personal God and His precepts is in perfect harmony with the needs of life, and thus should be embraced by all, so that despair may be avoided and eternal salvation attained. Since all such opinions are openly opposed to the teachings of Our predecessors, Leo XIII and Pius X, they cannot be reconciled with the decrees of the Vatican Council. Surely, it would be superfluous to de- plore these wanderings from the truth, if all, even in philosophical mat- ters, would accept with due reverence the magisterium of the Church, whose duty it surely is not only to guard and interpret the deposit of truth revealed by God, but also to watch over these philosophical disci- plines, lest Catholic dogma suffer any harm from incorrect opinions. It remains for Us to say something on the questions which, although 2326 they have to do with the disciplines which are customarily called "posi- tive," yet are more or less connected with the truths of Christian faith. Not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion give as much consideration as possible to these disciplines. Surely, this is praiseworthy when it is a case of actually proven facts, but caution must be exercised when the question concerns "hypotheses," although in some manner based on human knowledge, in which hypotheses doctrine is discussed which is contained in the Sacred Scriptures or in "tradition." When such conjectural opinions are opposed directly or indirectly to the doc- trine revealed by God, then their demand can in no way be admitted. Wherefore, the magisterzum of the Church does not forbid that the 2327 teaching of "evolution" be treated in accord with the present status of human disciplines and of theology, by investigations and disputations by learned men in both fields; insofar, of course, as the inquiry is concerned 1 Cf. St. Thomas, Summa theol., Ila Hae, q. 1, a.4, ad 3; q.45, a.2, c.
Pius XII, 1939- with the ongm of the human body arising from already ex1stmg anJ living matter; and in such a way that the reasonings of both theories, namely of those in favor and of those in opposition, are weighed and judged with due seriousness, moderation, and temperance; and provided that all are ready to yield to the judgment of the Church, to which Christ has entrusted the duty of interpreting Sacred Scriptures authen- tically, and of preserving the dogmas of faith. 1 Yet some with daring boldness transgress this freedom of discussion, acting as if the origin of the human body from previously existing and living matter, were al- ready certain and demonstrated from certain already discovered indica- tions, and deduced by reasoning, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this thinking. When there is a question of another conjectural opinion, namely, of polygenism so-called, then the sons of the Church in no way enjoy such freedom. For the faithful in Christ cannot accept this view, which holds that either after Adam there existed men on this earth, who did not receive their origin by natural generation from him, the first parent of all; or that Adam signifies some kind of multitude of first parents; for it is by no means apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with what the sources of revealed truth and the acts of the magisterium of the Church teaches about original sin, which proceeds from a sin truly committed by one Adam, and which is transmitted to all by generation, and exists in each one as his own. 2 Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical there are those who boldly transgress the limits and precautions established by the Church. And, We especially deplore a certain entirely too liberal manner of interpreting the historical books of the Old Testa- ment, the supporters of which defend their case by reference without warrant to a letter given not long ago by the Pontifical Council on Biblical Affairs to the Archbishop of Paris. 3 This Letter plainly advises that the eleven first chapters of Genesis, although they do not conform properly with the methods of historical composition which distinguished Greek and Latin writers of past events, or the learned men of our age have used, nevertheless in a certain sense, to be examined and deter- mined more fully by exegetes, are truly a kind of history; and that the same chapters, in simple and figurative speech suited to the mentality of a people of little culture, both recount the principal truths on which the attainment of our eternal salvation depends, and also the popular de- 1 Cf. Address of the Pope to the members of the Academy of Sciences, November 30, 1941: AAS, vol. XXXIII, p. 506. 2 Cf. Rom. 5:12-19; Cone. Trid., scss. V, can. r-4. 8 January 16, 1948: AAS 40, 45-48.
Pius XII, 1939- scription of the origin of the human race and of the chosen people. But if the ancient sacred writers draw anything from popular narrations ( which indeed can be conceded) it must never be forgotten that they did so assisted by the impulse of divine inspiration, by which in selecting and passing judgment on those documents, they were preserved free from all error. Moreover, these matters which have been received into Sacred Litera- 2330 ture from popular narrations are by no means to be identified with mythologies or other things of this kind, which proceed from undue imagination rather than from that zeal for truth and simplicity which so shines forth in the Sacred Books of the Old Testament that our sacred writers must evidently be said to excel the ancient profane writers.
The Definition of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary 1 [From the Apostolic Constitution, "Munificentissimus Deus," Nov. 1, 1950]
All these arguments and considerations of the Holy Fathers and of 2331 the theologians are based on the Holy Scriptures as their ultimate founda- tion, which indeed place before us as though before our eyes the loving Mother of God as most closely joined with her divine Son, and as ever sharing His lot. Therefore, it seems almost impossible to think of her who conceived Christ, bore Him, nourished Him with her milk, held Him in her arms, and pressed Him to her breast, as separated from Him after this earthly life in her body, even though not in soul. Since our Redeemer is the Son of Mary, surely, as the most perfect observer of divine law, He could not refuse to honor, in addition to His Eternal Father, His most beloved Mother also. And, since He could adorn her with so great a gift as to keep her unharmed by the corruption of the tomb, it must be believed that He actually did this. But this especially must be remembered, that ever since the second century the Virgin Mary has been presented by the Holy Fathers as the new Eve, very closely connected with the new Adam, although sub- ject to Him in that struggle with the enemy of hell, which, as is pre- signified in the protevangelium [Gen. 3:15] was to result in a most complete victory over sin and death, which are always joined together in the writings of the Apostle of the Gentiles [Rom. 5:6; I Cor. 15:21- 26; 54-57 ]. Therefore, just as the glorious resurrection of Christ was an essential part, and the final evidence of this victory, so the Blessed Virgin's common struggle with her Son was to be concluded with the "glorifica- tion" of her virginal body, as the same Apostle says: "When , , , this 1 AAS 42 (1950), 767-770.
Pius XII, 1939- mortal hath put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: Death is swallowed up in victory" [I Cor. 15:54]. Therefore, the august Mother of God, joined in a secret manner with Jesus Christ, from all eternity "by one and the same decree" 1 of pre- destination, immaculate in her conception, a most pure virgin in her divine maternity, noble ally of the divine Redeemer, who has gained full triumph over sin and its consequences, has finally attained as the highest crown of her privileges, that she should be immune from the corruption of the tomb, and that in the same manner as her Son she would overcome death and be taken away soul and body to the supernal glory of heaven, where as Queen she would shine forth at the right hand of the same Son of hers, the immortal King of Ages [ I Tim. 1: 17]. Since, then, the universal Church, in which the Spirit of Truth flour- ishes, who infallibly directs it to achieve a knowledge of revealed truths, has through the course of the ages. repeatedly manifested its own faith; and since the bishops of the whole world with almost unanimous con- sent request that the truth of the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven be defined as a dogma of the divine and Catholic faith-a truth which is founded on the Sacred Scriptures, has been fixed deeply in the minds of the faithful in Christ, has been ap- proved by ecclesiastical worship even from the earliest times, is quite in harmony with the other revealed truths, and has been splendidly ex- plained and declared by the zeal, knowledge, and wisdom of the theo- logians-We think that the moment appointed in the plan of a provident God has now come to proclaim solemnly such an extraordinary privilege of the Virgin Mary. . . . Accordingly, after We directed Our prayers in supplication to God again and again, and invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God, who lavishes His special benevolence on the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the victor over sin and death, for the increasing glory of the same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the whole Church, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul, and by Our own authority We pronounce, declare, and define that the dogma was revealed by God, that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, after completing her course of life upon earth, was assumed to the glory of heaven both in body and soul. Therefore, if anyone, which may God forbid, should dare either to deny this, or voluntarily call into doubt what has been defined by Us, he should realize that he has cut himself off entirely from the divine and Catholic faith. 1 Bull, "Ineffabilis Deus," Acta Pii IX, P. 1, vol. I, p. 599.
Appendix
The Primacy of the Roman Pontiff 1 [From the Letter, "Manet beatum," to Rufus and the other Bishops through- out Macedonia, etc., March rr, 422]
The watchful care over the· universal Church confided to Peter abides 5000 with him by reason of the Lord's statement; for he knows on the testi- mony of the Gospel [Matt. r6:r8] that the Church was founded on him. His office can never be free from cares, since it is certain that all things depend on his deliberation. These considerations turn my mind to the regions of the Orient, which we behold in a way with genuine solicitude. Far be it from the priests of the Lord, that anyone of them fall into the offense of making the decrees of our elders foreign to him, by attempting something in the way of a novel and unlawful usurpation, realizing that he thus makes him a rival, in whom our Christ has placed the highest power of the priesthood, and whoever rises to reproach him cannot be an inhabitant of the heavenly regions. "To you," He said, "I shall give the keys of the kingdom of heaven" [Matt. r6:r9] into which no one shall enter without the favor of the door-keeper. He said: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my church" [ Matt. rr :29]. Whoever, therefore, desires before God to be judged worthy of the dignity of the priesthood, since one reaches God with the support of Peter, on whom, as we have said above, it is certain that the Church was founded, <should> be "meek
1 C. Silva-Tarouca, S.J., Epistularum Rom. Pontificum ad vicarios per lllyricum aliosque episcopos. Collectio Thessalonicensis, 1937, p. 27 ff. [Textus et docume121a Ser. theol., 23].
and humble of heart" [ Matt. II :29], lest as a contumacious disciple of him, whose <pride> he has imitated, he undergo the punishment of the teachers. . . . Since the circumstances demand, examine if you please, the decrees of the canons; you will find, what church ranks second after the church at Rome, or what is third. In these (decrees) there appears a distinct order, so that the pontiffs of the other churches recognize that they nevertheless are under one church . . . and share the same priesthood, and to whom they, preserving charity, should be subject because of ec- clesiastical discipline. Indeed this teaching of the canons has persisted from antiquity, and continues even at the present time, through the grace of Christ. No one has ever boldly raised his hands in opposition to the apostolic supremacy, from whose judgment there may be no withdrawal; no one in this has been rebellious, except him who wished judgment to be passed on himself. The above mentioned great churches preserve . . . their authority through the canons: the churches of Alexandria and of Antioch [ cf. n. 163, 436], having the knowledge of ecclesiastical law. They preserve, I say, the statutes of our elders .•. in all things rendering and receiving an interchange of that grace which they know that they owe to us in the Lord who is our peace. But since the situation demands it, it must be shown by documents that the greatest churches of the Orient in important affairs, in which there was need of greater inquiry, have always consulted the See of Rome, and, as often as experience demanded, asked for its help. Athanasius of holy memory and Peter, priests of the church of Alex- andria, sought the aid of this See. 1 When the Church of Antioch was afflicted during a very long period, with the result that conferences because of this were often held, it is clear that the Apostolic See was consulted, first under Meletius and later under Flavianus. According to its authority, after the many things which were accomplished by our church, no one doubts that Flavianus received the grace of communion, which he would have lacked forever if his writing had not gone forth hence upon this basis. 2 The emperor Theodosius of most kindly memory, thinking that the ordination of Nectarius did not possess stability, since it did not take place in our way, sending from his presence members of his court together with bishops, demanded that it be performed in this case by the Roman See, and that they direct it in the regular way, so as to strengthen the priesthood. 3 A short time ago, that is under my predecessor of happy memory, Innocent, the Pontiffs of the Oriental 1 Cf. the letters of St. Julius I, J f 183, 185 f. 188; and St. Damasus' letter J f. 233, 236. 2 Cf. St. Damasus' letter Jf. 235. 8 Cf. Epistle of the Council of Constantinople to St. Damasus, Cst p. 567.
churches, grieving that they were separated from the communion of blessed Peter, through envoys asked for peace, as your charity re- members.1 And at this time the Apostolic See without difficulty granted all, obeying the Master who says: "And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any- thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ. That we be not overreached by Satan. For we are not ignorant of his devices [II Cor. 2: ro £.], that is, who always rejoices at dissension. Since then, most beloved Brethren, I think that the examples which we have given suffice to prove the truth, although more are retained in your own minds, without harm to our brotherhood we wish to meet your assembly, as you see by this letter which has been directed by Us through Severus, a notary of the Apostolic See, most acceptable to Our heart, chosen from Our circle. Thus in agreement, as befits brothers, let not anyone wish- ing to endure in our communion bring up again for discussion the name of our brother and fellow priest, Bishop Perigenas, 2 whose sacer- dotal office the Apostle Peter has already confirmed at the sugges- tion of the Holy Spirit, leaving no question about this for the future, and let there be no objection to this, since he was appointed by Us dur- ing the space of that time in which the office was vacant. •••
The Incarnation 3 ["The formula of union" of the year 433, by which the peace between St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Antiochenes was established, was approved by St. Sixtus III]
But how we know and speak regarding the Virgin Mother of God, 5002 and about the manner of the incarnation of the only-begotten Son of God, necessary not because of increase but for satisfaction, we have taken and possess from above, from the divine Scriptures as well as 1 Cf. 2 St. Boniface I had confirmed Perigenas as Bishop of Corinth, but not all had ac- quiesced in this appointment. 3 The Greek text from the epistle of John of Antioch to Sixtus, ACOec. I, 1, 7, p. 159; ML 50, 603 lf.;-the Latin from the epistle of the same John to Cyril, insofar as it exists, ACOec. I, 2 p. 103. The same creed is found in the epistle of Cyril of Alexandria to John of Antioch, MG 77, 176; see Rn. 2060 "Although indeed no proper sentence of approbation of the formula of union through the Pontiff of Rome has been preserved, yet all that Xystus writes on the fact of the union between John and Cyril seems to leave no doubt that he approved a formula," says B. Silva- Tarouca, S.J., Institutiones hist. eccl. Pars II, fasc. I (1933) 135. Cf. letter 5 of Sixtus to Cyril, ML 50, 602 If.
from the tradition of the holy fathers, and we speak briefly, adding nothing at all to the faith of the holy Fathers, which was set forth at Nicea. For, as we have already said, this suffices for all understanding of piety and for all renunciation of heretical perfidy. But we speak not presuming the unlawful, but by confession of special weakness excluding those who wish to rise up against what we regard as beyond man. We confess our Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten son of God, perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and of a body, born of the Father before the ages according to the Godhead, but in the last days the same on account of us and on account of our salvation accord- ing to the incarnation from the Virgin Mary, consubstantial with the Father, the same according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the incarnation. For the unity of the two natures was made; wherefore, we confess one Christ, one son, one Lord. According to this unmingled unity we confess the holy Virgin Mother of God, be- cause the Word of God was made flesh and was made man, and by the conception united to Himself a temple assumed from her. Moreover, we recognize the. evangelical and apostolic voices about the Lord as men speaking with divine inspiration, joining these sometimes as if spoken of one person, but sometimes separating them as if of two natures, and these indeed befitting God according to the Godhead of Christ, but humbly teaching according to the incarnation.
The Object and Force of Rememorative Liturgical Action 1 [From the Bull, "Transiturus de hoc mundo," August II, 1264]
For other things whose memory we keep, we embrace in spirit and mind; but we do not for this reason hold their real presence. In this sacramental commemoration, however, Jesus Christ is present with us, under another form to be sure, but in His substance.
Gravity of Matter in Actions of Impurity 2 [From the Response of the Holy Office, February II, r66r]
Whether a confessor 1s to be denounced for solicitation on account of scarcity of material? 1 BR (T) III (1858), 705. 2 F.M. Cappello S.J., Tract can. mor. de sacramentis II, P. 1, De Poenit., ed. 2 (1929), n. 668, nota 39.
Reply: Since in actions of impurity scarcity of matter is not present, and if it should be present, is not in the matter at hand, they have decided that it should be denounced, and that a contrary opinion is not probable. To the decrees of the Holy Office of February IIth, 1661, Benedict XIV referred readers in the Constitution "Sacramentum Poenitentiae," of June l, 1741 (Docum. V in Cod. Juris. Can.).
Matrimony as a Contract and a Sacrament 1 [Reply of the Holy Office to Mission. Capucc., July 23, 1698]
Whether matrimony between apostates from the faith and those 5006 previously rightly baptized, entered upon after the apostasy, publicly according to the custom of pagans or Mohammedans, is truly matrimony and a sacrament. Reply: If any agreement of dissolubility be at hand, there is no matri- mony and no sacrament, but if none is at hand, there is matrimony and a sacrament. 1 P. Gasparii, Codicis Juris Can. /antes IV, n. 761; Collectanea S.C. de Prop. Fide
I, n. 243.
INDEXES
Index of Scriptural Passages
( Numbers on the right side of the columns refer to the marginal numbers in the text)
Gen. Exod. 32:4 I Par. 1:1-50:25 I :I-40:36 32:6 29:14 1997-2000 32:7 1997-2000 1:1-3:24 19 :12 f. Job 2121-2128 20:13 Jos. 1 :8 ff.
l :I 20:I 7 !050 I:l-24:33 16 :1 8 1997-2000 37:7 !07 1 :28 Lev. Judg. Ps. 2:7 228a l :I-27 :34 14:i ff. 1:1-150:6 2:22 228a 1997-2000 16:4 ff. 2129-2136 2 :23 £. 11 :44 16:29£. 2: 1-13 2:24 19:2 6:7 3:15 20:7 Ruth 15:1-II 25:10 I:I 6 43 1 15:JO f. 3,16 ff. 17:1-51 4:JO Num. I Kings 149• I 8:5 I I :I I :I-36:13 2:3 18:9 14:13 1997-2000 2:9 18:13 12:14 f. 7:3 21 :21 17:14 20:II f. 22:6 21 :ro 144• II Kings 31 :I 22:12 Deut. 12:13 f. 31:1-11 41:18 ff. 1:1-34:12 31 :8 49:10 1997-2000 III Kings 32:6 49:18 6:5 rn76 8:46 J07 35:7 28 :13 44 2 19:8 44:10 28:44 44 2 49:14