|
Encyclical
Letter Fides Et Ratio of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II to the
Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Relationship Between Faith and
Reason
Blessing
My Venerable Brother Bishops, Health and the Apostolic Blessing!
Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to
the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a
desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing
and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth
about themselves (cf. Ex 33:18; Ps 27:8-9; 63:2-3; Jn 14:8; 1 Jn 3:2).
INTRODUCTION - “KNOW YOURSELF”
1. In both East and West, we may trace a journey which has led humanity
down the centuries to meet and engage truth more and more deeply. It is
a journey which has unfolded—as it must—within the horizon of personal
self-consciousness: the more human beings know reality and the world,
the more they know themselves in their uniqueness, with the question of
the meaning of things and of their very existence becoming ever more
pressing. This is why all that is the object of our knowledge becomes a
part of our life. The admonition Know yourself was carved on the temple
portal at Delphi, as testimony to a basic truth to be adopted as a
minimal norm by those who seek to set themselves apart from the rest of
creation as “human beings”, that is as those who “know themselves”.
Moreover, a cursory glance at ancient history shows clearly how in
different parts of the world, with their different cultures, there
arise at the same time the fundamental questions which pervade human
life: Who am I? Where have I come from and where am I going? Why is
there evil? What is there after this life? These are the questions
which we find in the sacred writings of Israel, as also in the Veda and
the Avesta; we find them in the writings of Confucius and Lao-Tze, and
in the preaching of Tirthankara and Buddha; they appear in the poetry
of Homer and in the tragedies of Euripides and Sophocles, as they do in
the philosophical writings of Plato and Aristotle. They are questions
which have their common source in the quest for meaning which has
always compelled the human heart. In fact, the answer given to these
questions decides the direction which people seek to give to their
lives.
2. The Church is no stranger to this journey of discovery, nor could
she ever be. From the moment when, through the Paschal Mystery, she
received the gift of the ultimate truth about human life, the Church
has made her pilgrim way along the paths of the world to proclaim that
Jesus Christ is “the way, and the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6). It is
her duty to serve humanity in different ways, but one way in particular
imposes a responsibility of a quite special kind: the diakonia of the
truth.1 This mission on the one hand makes the believing community a
partner in humanity's shared struggle to arrive at truth; 2 and on the
other hand it obliges the believing community to proclaim the
certitudes arrived at, albeit with a sense that every truth attained is
but a step towards that fullness of truth which will appear with the
final Revelation of God: “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then
face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully” (1 Cor
13:12).
3. Men and women have at their disposal an array of resources for
generating greater knowledge of truth so that their lives may be ever
more human. Among these is philosophy, which is directly concerned with
asking the question of life's meaning and sketching an answer to it.
Philosophy emerges, then, as one of noblest of human tasks. According
to its Greek etymology, the term philosophy means “love of wisdom”.
Born and nurtured when the human being first asked questions about the
reason for things and their purpose, philosophy shows in different
modes and forms that the desire for truth is part of human nature
itself. It is an innate property of human reason to ask why things are
as they are, even though the answers which gradually emerge are set
within a horizon which reveals how the different human cultures are
complementary.
Philosophy's powerful influence on the formation and development of the
cultures of the West should not obscure the influence it has also had
upon the ways of understanding existence found in the East. Every
people has its own native and seminal wisdom which, as a true cultural
treasure, tends to find voice and develop in forms which are genuinely
philosophical. One example of this is the basic form of philosophical
knowledge which is evident to this day in the postulates which inspire
national and international legal systems in regulating the life of
society.
4. Nonetheless, it is true that a single term conceals a variety of
meanings. Hence the need for a preliminary clarification. Driven by the
desire to discover the ultimate truth of existence, human beings seek
to acquire those universal elements of knowledge which enable them to
understand themselves better and to advance in their own
self-realization. These fundamental elements of knowledge spring from
the wonder awakened in them by the contemplation of creation: human
beings are astonished to discover themselves as part of the world, in a
relationship with others like them, all sharing a common destiny. Here
begins, then, the journey which will lead them to discover ever new
frontiers of knowledge. Without wonder, men and women would lapse into
deadening routine and little by little would become incapable of a life
which is genuinely personal.
Through philosophy's work, the ability to speculate which is proper to
the human intellect produces a rigorous mode of thought; and then in
turn, through the logical coherence of the affirmations made and the
organic unity of their content, it produces a systematic body of
knowledge. In different cultural contexts and at different times, this
process has yielded results which have produced genuine systems of
thought. Yet often enough in history this has brought with it the
temptation to identify one single stream with the whole of philosophy.
In such cases, we are clearly dealing with a “philosophical pride”
which seeks to present its own partial and imperfect view as the
complete reading of all reality. In effect, every philosophical system,
while it should always be respected in its wholeness, without any
instrumentalization, must still recognize the primacy of philosophical
enquiry, from which it stems and which it ought loyally to serve.
Although times change and knowledge increases, it is possible to
discern a core of philosophical insight within the history of thought
as a whole. Consider, for example, the principles of non-contradiction,
finality and causality, as well as the concept of the person as a free
and intelligent subject, with the capacity to know God, truth and
goodness. Consider as well certain fundamental moral norms which are
shared by all. These are among the indications that, beyond different
schools of thought, there exists a body of knowledge which may be
judged a kind of spiritual heritage of humanity. It is as if we had
come upon an implicit philosophy, as a result of which all feel that
they possess these principles, albeit in a general and unreflective
way. Precisely because it is shared in some measure by all, this
knowledge should serve as a kind of reference-point for the different
philosophical schools. Once reason successfully intuits and formulates
the first universal principles of being and correctly draws from them
conclusions which are coherent both logically and ethically, then it
may be called right reason or, as the ancients called it, orthós logos,
recta ratio.
5. On her part, the Church cannot but set great value upon reason's
drive to attain goals which render people's lives ever more worthy. She
sees in philosophy the way to come to know fundamental truths about
human life. At the same time, the Church considers philosophy an
indispensable help for a deeper understanding of faith and for
communicating the truth of the Gospel to those who do not yet know it.
Therefore, following upon similar initiatives by my Predecessors, I
wish to reflect upon this special activity of human reason. I judge it
necessary to do so because, at the present time in particular, the
search for ultimate truth seems often to be neglected. Modern
philosophy clearly has the great merit of focusing attention upon man.
From this starting-point, human reason with its many questions has
developed further its yearning to know more and to know it ever more
deeply. Complex systems of thought have thus been built, yielding
results in the different fields of knowledge and fostering the
development of culture and history. Anthropology, logic, the natural
sciences, history, linguistics and so forth—the whole universe of
knowledge has been involved in one way or another. Yet the positive
results achieved must not obscure the fact that reason, in its
one-sided concern to investigate human subjectivity, seems to have
forgotten that men and women are always called to direct their steps
towards a truth which transcends them. Sundered from that truth,
individuals are at the mercy of caprice, and their state as person ends
up being judged by pragmatic criteria based essentially upon
experimental data, in the mistaken belief that technology must dominate
all. It has happened therefore that reason, rather than voicing the
human orientation towards truth, has wilted under the weight of so much
knowledge and little by little has lost the capacity to lift its gaze
to the heights, not daring to rise to the truth of being. Abandoning
the investigation of being, modern philosophical research has
concentrated instead upon human knowing. Rather than make use of the
human capacity to know the truth, modern philosophy has preferred to
accentuate the ways in which this capacity is limited and conditioned.
This has given rise to different forms of agnosticism and relativism
which have led philosophical research to lose its way in the shifting
sands of widespread scepticism. Recent times have seen the rise to
prominence of various doctrines which tend to devalue even the truths
which had been judged certain. A legitimate plurality of positions has
yielded to an undifferentiated pluralism, based upon the assumption
that all positions are equally valid, which is one of today's most
widespread symptoms of the lack of confidence in truth. Even certain
conceptions of life coming from the East betray this lack of
confidence, denying truth its exclusive character and assuming that
truth reveals itself equally in different doctrines, even if they
contradict one another. On this understanding, everything is reduced to
opinion; and there is a sense of being adrift. While, on the one hand,
philosophical thinking has succeeded in coming closer to the reality of
human life and its forms of expression, it has also tended to pursue
issues—existential, hermeneutical or linguistic—which ignore the
radical question of the truth about personal existence, about being and
about God. Hence we see among the men and women of our time, and not
just in some philosophers, attitudes of widespread distrust of the
human being's great capacity for knowledge. With a false modesty,
people rest content with partial and provisional truths, no longer
seeking to ask radical questions about the meaning and ultimate
foundation of human, personal and social existence. In short, the hope
that philosophy might be able to provide definitive answers to these
questions has dwindled.
6. Sure of her competence as the bearer of the Revelation of Jesus
Christ, the Church reaffirms the need to reflect upon truth. This is
why I have decided to address you, my venerable Brother Bishops, with
whom I share the mission of “proclaiming the truth openly” (2 Cor 4:2),
as also theologians and philosophers whose duty it is to explore the
different aspects of truth, and all those who are searching; and I do
so in order to offer some reflections on the path which leads to true
wisdom, so that those who love truth may take the sure path leading to
it and so find rest from their labours and joy for their spirit.
I feel impelled to undertake this task above all because of the Second
Vatican Council's insistence that the Bishops are “witnesses of divine
and catholic truth”.3 To bear witness to the truth is therefore a task
entrusted to us Bishops; we cannot renounce this task without failing
in the ministry which we have received. In reaffirming the truth of
faith, we can both restore to our contemporaries a genuine trust in
their capacity to know and challenge philosophy to recover and develop
its own full dignity.
There is a further reason why I write these reflections. In my
Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, I drew attention to “certain
fundamental truths of Catholic doctrine which, in the present
circumstances, risk being distorted or denied”.4 In the present Letter,
I wish to pursue that reflection by concentrating on the theme of truth
itself and on its foundation in relation to faith. For it is undeniable
that this time of rapid and complex change can leave especially the
younger generation, to whom the future belongs and on whom it depends,
with a sense that they have no valid points of reference. The need for
a foundation for personal and communal life becomes all the more
pressing at a time when we are faced with the patent inadequacy of
perspectives in which the ephemeral is affirmed as a value and the
possibility of discovering the real meaning of life is cast into doubt.
This is why many people stumble through life to the very edge of the
abyss without knowing where they are going. At times, this happens
because those whose vocation it is to give cultural expression to their
thinking no longer look to truth, preferring quick success to the toil
of patient enquiry into what makes life worth living. With its enduring
appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility
of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to
recover its original vocation. This is why I have felt both the need
and the duty to address this theme so that, on the threshold of the
third millennium of the Christian era, humanity may come to a clearer
sense of the great resources with which it has been endowed and may
commit itself with renewed courage to implement the plan of salvation
of which its history is part.
CHAPTER I - THE REVELATION OF GOD'S WISDOM
Jesus, revealer of the Father
7. Underlying all the Church's thinking is the awareness that she is
the bearer of a message which has its origin in God himself (cf. 2 Cor
4:1-2). The knowledge which the Church offers to man has its origin not
in any speculation of her own, however sublime, but in the word of God
which she has received in faith (cf. 1 Th 2:13). At the origin of our
life of faith there is an encounter, unique in kind, which discloses a
mystery hidden for long ages (cf. 1 Cor 2:7; Rom 16:25-26) but which is
now revealed: “In his goodness and wisdom, God chose to reveal himself
and to make known to us the hidden purpose of his will (cf. Eph 1:9),
by which, through Christ, the Word made flesh, man has access to the
Father in the Holy Spirit and comes to share in the divine nature”.5
This initiative is utterly gratuitous, moving from God to men and women
in order to bring them to salvation. As the source of love, God desires
to make himself known; and the knowledge which the human being has of
God perfects all that the human mind can know of the meaning of life.
8. Restating almost to the letter the teaching of the First Vatican
Council's Constitution Dei Filius, and taking into account the
principles set out by the Council of Trent, the Second Vatican
Council's Constitution Dei Verbum pursued the age-old journey of
understanding faith, reflecting on Revelation in the light of the
teaching of Scripture and of the entire Patristic tradition. At the
First Vatican Council, the Fathers had stressed the supernatural
character of God's Revelation. On the basis of mistaken and very
widespread assertions, the rationalist critique of the time attacked
faith and denied the possibility of any knowledge which was not the
fruit of reason's natural capacities. This obliged the Council to
reaffirm emphatically that there exists a knowledge which is peculiar
to faith, surpassing the knowledge proper to human reason, which
nevertheless by its nature can discover the Creator. This knowledge
expresses a truth based upon the very fact of God who reveals himself,
a truth which is most certain, since God neither deceives nor wishes to
deceive.6
9. The First Vatican Council teaches, then, that the truth attained by
philosophy and the truth of Revelation are neither identical nor
mutually exclusive: “There exists a twofold order of knowledge,
distinct not only as regards their source, but also as regards their
object. With regard to the source, because we know in one by natural
reason, in the other by divine faith. With regard to the object,
because besides those things which natural reason can attain, there are
proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are
divinely revealed, cannot be known”.7 Based upon God's testimony and
enjoying the supernatural assistance of grace, faith is of an order
other than philosophical knowledge which depends upon sense perception
and experience and which advances by the light of the intellect alone.
Philosophy and the sciences function within the order of natural
reason; while faith, enlightened and guided by the Spirit, recognizes
in the message of salvation the “fullness of grace and truth” (cf. Jn
1:14) which God has willed to reveal in history and definitively
through his Son, Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Jn 5:9; Jn 5:31-32).
10. Contemplating Jesus as revealer, the Fathers of the Second Vatican
Council stressed the salvific character of God's Revelation in history,
describing it in these terms: “In this Revelation, the invisible God
(cf. Col 1:15; 1 Tim 1:17), out of the abundance of his love speaks to
men and women as friends (cf. Ex 33:11; Jn 15:14-15) and lives among
them (cf. Bar 3:38), so that he may invite and take them into communion
with himself. This plan of Revelation is realized by deeds and words
having an inner unity: the deeds wrought by God in the history of
salvation manifest and confirm the teaching and realities signified by
the words, while the words proclaim the deeds and clarify the mystery
contained in them. By this Revelation, then, the deepest truth about
God and human salvation is made clear to us in Christ, who is the
mediator and at the same time the fullness of all Revelation”.8
11. God's Revelation is therefore immersed in time and history. Jesus
Christ took flesh in the “fullness of time” (Gal 4:4); and two thousand
years later, I feel bound to restate forcefully that “in Christianity
time has a fundamental importance”.9 It is within time that the whole
work of creation and salvation comes to light; and it emerges clearly
above all that, with the Incarnation of the Son of God, our life is
even now a foretaste of the fulfilment of time which is to come (cf.
Heb 1:2).
The truth about himself and his life which God has entrusted to
humanity is immersed therefore in time and history; and it was declared
once and for all in the mystery of Jesus of Nazareth. The Constitution
Dei Verbum puts it eloquently: “After speaking in many places and
varied ways through the prophets, God 'last of all in these days has
spoken to us by his Son' (Heb 1:1-2). For he sent his Son, the eternal
Word who enlightens all people, so that he might dwell among them and
tell them the innermost realities about God (cf. Jn 1:1-18). Jesus
Christ, the Word made flesh, sent as 'a human being to human beings',
'speaks the words of God' (Jn 3:34), and completes the work of
salvation which his Father gave him to do (cf. Jn 5:36; 17:4). To see
Jesus is to see his Father (Jn 14:9). For this reason, Jesus perfected
Revelation by fulfilling it through his whole work of making himself
present and manifesting himself: through his words and deeds, his signs
and wonders, but especially though his death and glorious Resurrection
from the dead and finally his sending of the Spirit of truth”.10
For the People of God, therefore, history becomes a path to be followed
to the end, so that by the unceasing action of the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn
16:13) the contents of revealed truth may find their full expression.
This is the teaching of the Constitution Dei Verbum when it states that
“as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly progresses
towards the fullness of divine truth, until the words of God reach
their complete fulfilment in her”.11
12. History therefore becomes the arena where we see what God does for
humanity. God comes to us in the things we know best and can verify
most easily, the things of our everyday life, apart from which we
cannot understand ourselves.
In the Incarnation of the Son of God we see forged the enduring and
definitive synthesis which the human mind of itself could not even have
imagined: the Eternal enters time, the Whole lies hidden in the part,
God takes on a human face. The truth communicated in Christ's
Revelation is therefore no longer confined to a particular place or
culture, but is offered to every man and woman who would welcome it as
the word which is the absolutely valid source of meaning for human
life. Now, in Christ, all have access to the Father, since by his Death
and Resurrection Christ has bestowed the divine life which the first
Adam had refused (cf. Rom 5:12-15). Through this Revelation, men and
women are offered the ultimate truth about their own life and about the
goal of history. As the Constitution Gaudium et Spes puts it, “only in
the mystery of the incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on
light”.12 Seen in any other terms, the mystery of personal existence
remains an insoluble riddle. Where might the human being seek the
answer to dramatic questions such as pain, the suffering of the
innocent and death, if not in the light streaming from the mystery of
Christ's Passion, Death and Resurrection?
Reason before the mystery
13. It should nonetheless be kept in mind that Revelation remains
charged with mystery. It is true that Jesus, with his entire life,
revealed the countenance of the Father, for he came to teach the secret
things of God.13 But our vision of the face of God is always
fragmentary and impaired by the limits of our understanding. Faith
alone makes it possible to penetrate the mystery in a way that allows
us to understand it coherently.
The Council teaches that “the obedience of faith must be given to God
who reveals himself”.14 This brief but dense statement points to a
fundamental truth of Christianity. Faith is said first to be an
obedient response to God. This implies that God be acknowledged in his
divinity, transcendence and supreme freedom. By the authority of his
absolute transcendence, God who makes himself known is also the source
of the credibility of what he reveals. By faith, men and women give
their assent to this divine testimony. This means that they acknowledge
fully and integrally the truth of what is revealed because it is God
himself who is the guarantor of that truth. They can make no claim upon
this truth which comes to them as gift and which, set within the
context of interpersonal communication, urges reason to be open to it
and to embrace its profound meaning. This is why the Church has always
considered the act of entrusting oneself to God to be a moment of
fundamental decision which engages the whole person. In that act, the
intellect and the will display their spiritual nature, enabling the
subject to act in a way which realizes personal freedom to the full.15
It is not just that freedom is part of the act of faith: it is
absolutely required. Indeed, it is faith that allows individuals to
give consummate expression to their own freedom. Put differently,
freedom is not realized in decisions made against God. For how could it
be an exercise of true freedom to refuse to be open to the very reality
which enables our self-realization? Men and women can accomplish no
more important act in their lives than the act of faith; it is here
that freedom reaches the certainty of truth and chooses to live in that
truth.
To assist reason in its effort to understand the mystery there are the
signs which Revelation itself presents. These serve to lead the search
for truth to new depths, enabling the mind in its autonomous
exploration to penetrate within the mystery by use of reason's own
methods, of which it is rightly jealous. Yet these signs also urge
reason to look beyond their status as signs in order to grasp the
deeper meaning which they bear. They contain a hidden truth to which
the mind is drawn and which it cannot ignore without destroying the
very signs which it is given.
In a sense, then, we return to the sacramental character of Revelation
and especially to the sign of the Eucharist, in which the indissoluble
unity between the signifier and signified makes it possible to grasp
the depths of the mystery. In the Eucharist, Christ is truly present
and alive, working through his Spirit; yet, as Saint Thomas said so
well, “what you neither see nor grasp, faith confirms for you, leaving
nature far behind; a sign it is that now appears, hiding in mystery
realities sublime”.16 He is echoed by the philosopher Pascal: “Just as
Jesus Christ went unrecognized among men, so does his truth appear
without external difference among common modes of thought. So too does
the Eucharist remain among common bread”.17
In short, the knowledge proper to faith does not destroy the mystery;
it only reveals it the more, showing how necessary it is for people's
lives: Christ the Lord “in revealing the mystery of the Father and his
love fully reveals man to himself and makes clear his supreme
calling”,18 which is to share in the divine mystery of the life of the
Trinity.19
14. From the teaching of the two Vatican Councils there also emerges a
genuinely novel consideration for philosophical learning. Revelation
has set within history a point of reference which cannot be ignored if
the mystery of human life is to be known. Yet this knowledge refers
back constantly to the mystery of God which the human mind cannot
exhaust but can only receive and embrace in faith. Between these two
poles, reason has its own specific field in which it can enquire and
understand, restricted only by its finiteness before the infinite
mystery of God.
Revelation therefore introduces into our history a universal and
ultimate truth which stirs the human mind to ceaseless effort; indeed,
it impels reason continually to extend the range of its knowledge until
it senses that it has done all in its power, leaving no stone unturned.
To assist our reflection on this point we have one of the most fruitful
and important minds in human history, a point of reference for both
philosophy and theology: Saint Anselm. In his Proslogion, the
Archbishop of Canterbury puts it this way: “Thinking of this problem
frequently and intently, at times it seemed I was ready to grasp what I
was seeking; at other times it eluded my thought completely, until
finally, despairing of being able to find it, I wanted to abandon the
search for something which was impossible to find. I wanted to rid
myself of that thought because, by filling my mind, it distracted me
from other problems from which I could gain some profit; but it would
then present itself with ever greater insistence... Woe is me, one of
the poor children of Eve, far from God, what did I set out to do and
what have I accomplished? What was I aiming for and how far have I got?
What did I aspire to and what did I long for?... O Lord, you are not
only that than which nothing greater can be conceived (non solum es quo
maius cogitari nequit), but you are greater than all that can be
conceived (quiddam maius quam cogitari possit)... If you were not such,
something greater than you could be thought, but this is impossible”.20
15. The truth of Christian Revelation, found in Jesus of Nazareth,
enables all men and women to embrace the “mystery” of their own life.
As absolute truth, it summons human beings to be open to the
transcendent, whilst respecting both their autonomy as creatures and
their freedom. At this point the relationship between freedom and truth
is complete, and we understand the full meaning of the Lord's words:
“You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free” (Jn 8:32).
Christian Revelation is the true lodestar of men and women as they
strive to make their way amid the pressures of an immanentist habit of
mind and the constrictions of a technocratic logic. It is the ultimate
possibility offered by God for the human being to know in all its
fullness the seminal plan of love which began with creation. To those
wishing to know the truth, if they can look beyond themselves and their
own concerns, there is given the possibility of taking full and
harmonious possession of their lives, precisely by following the path
of truth. Here the words of the Book of Deuteronomy are pertinent:
“This commandment which I command you is not too hard for you, neither
is it far off. It is not in heaven that you should say, 'Who will go up
for us to heaven, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?'
Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will go over
the sea for us, and bring it to us, that we may hear and do it?' But
the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, that
you can do it” (30:11-14). This text finds an echo in the famous dictum
of the holy philosopher and theologian Augustine: “Do not wander far
and wide but return into yourself. Deep within man there dwells the
truth” (Noli foras ire, in te ipsum redi. In interiore homine habitat
veritas).21
These considerations prompt a first conclusion: the truth made known to
us by Revelation is neither the product nor the consummation of an
argument devised by human reason. It appears instead as something
gratuitous, which itself stirs thought and seeks acceptance as an
expression of love. This revealed truth is set within our history as an
anticipation of that ultimate and definitive vision of God which is
reserved for those who believe in him and seek him with a sincere
heart. The ultimate purpose of personal existence, then, is the theme
of philosophy and theology alike. For all their difference of method
and content, both disciplines point to that “path of life” (Ps 16:11)
which, as faith tells us, leads in the end to the full and lasting joy
of the contemplation of the Triune God.
CHAPTER II - CREDO UT INTELLEGAM
“Wisdom knows all and understands all” (Wis 9:11)
16. Sacred Scripture indicates with remarkably clear cues how deeply
related are the knowledge conferred by faith and the knowledge
conferred by reason; and it is in the Wisdom literature that this
relationship is addressed most explicitly. What is striking about these
biblical texts, if they are read without prejudice, is that they embody
not only the faith of Israel, but also the treasury of cultures and
civilizations which have long vanished. As if by special design, the
voices of Egypt and Mesopotamia sound again and certain features common
to the cultures of the ancient Near East come to life in these pages
which are so singularly rich in deep intuition.
It is no accident that, when the sacred author comes to describe the
wise man, he portrays him as one who loves and seeks the truth: “Happy
the man who meditates on wisdom and reasons intelligently, who reflects
in his heart on her ways and ponders her secrets. He pursues her like a
hunter and lies in wait on her paths. He peers through her windows and
listens at her doors. He camps near her house and fastens his tent-peg
to her walls; he pitches his tent near her and so finds an excellent
resting-place; he places his children under her protection and lodges
under her boughs; by her he is sheltered from the heat and he dwells in
the shade of her glory” (Sir 14:20-27).
For the inspired writer, as we see, the desire for knowledge is
characteristic of all people. Intelligence enables everyone, believer
and non-believer, to reach “the deep waters” of knowledge (cf. Prov
20:5). It is true that ancient Israel did not come to knowledge of the
world and its phenomena by way of abstraction, as did the Greek
philosopher or the Egyptian sage. Still less did the good Israelite
understand knowledge in the way of the modern world which tends more to
distinguish different kinds of knowing. Nonetheless, the biblical world
has made its own distinctive contribution to the theory of knowledge.
What is distinctive in the biblical text is the conviction that there
is a profound and indissoluble unity between the knowledge of reason
and the knowledge of faith. The world and all that happens within it,
including history and the fate of peoples, are realities to be
observed, analysed and assessed with all the resources of reason, but
without faith ever being foreign to the process. Faith intervenes not
to abolish reason's autonomy nor to reduce its scope for action, but
solely to bring the human being to understand that in these events it
is the God of Israel who acts. Thus the world and the events of history
cannot be understood in depth without professing faith in the God who
is at work in them. Faith sharpens the inner eye, opening the mind to
discover in the flux of events the workings of Providence. Here the
words of the Book of Proverbs are pertinent: “The human mind plans the
way, but the Lord directs the steps” (16:9). This is to say that with
the light of reason human beings can know which path to take, but they
can follow that path to its end, quickly and unhindered, only if with a
rightly tuned spirit they search for it within the horizon of faith.
Therefore, reason and faith cannot be separated without diminishing the
capacity of men and women to know themselves, the world and God in an
appropriate way.
17. There is thus no reason for competition of any kind between reason
and faith: each contains the other, and each has its own scope for
action. Again the Book of Proverbs points in this direction when it
exclaims: “It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of
kings is to search things out” (Prov 25:2). In their respective worlds,
God and the human being are set within a unique relationship. In God
there lies the origin of all things, in him is found the fullness of
the mystery, and in this his glory consists; to men and women there
falls the task of exploring truth with their reason, and in this their
nobility consists. The Psalmist adds one final piece to this mosaic
when he says in prayer: “How deep to me are your thoughts, O God! How
vast is the sum of them! If I try to count them, they are more than the
sand. If I come to the end, I am still with you” (139:17-18). The
desire for knowledge is so great and it works in such a way that the
human heart, despite its experience of insurmountable limitation,
yearns for the infinite riches which lie beyond, knowing that there is
to be found the satisfying answer to every question as yet unanswered.
18. We may say, then, that Israel, with her reflection, was able to
open to reason the path that leads to the mystery. With the Revelation
of God Israel could plumb the depths of all that she sought in vain to
reach by way of reason. On the basis of this deeper form of knowledge,
the Chosen People understood that, if reason were to be fully true to
itself, then it must respect certain basic rules. The first of these is
that reason must realize that human knowledge is a journey which allows
no rest; the second stems from the awareness that such a path is not
for the proud who think that everything is the fruit of personal
conquest; a third rule is grounded in the “fear of God” whose
transcendent sovereignty and provident love in the governance of the
world reason must recognize.
In abandoning these rules, the human being runs the risk of failure and
ends up in the condition of “the fool”. For the Bible, in this
foolishness there lies a threat to life. The fool thinks that he knows
many things, but really he is incapable of fixing his gaze on the
things that truly matter. Therefore he can neither order his mind (Prov
1:7) nor assume a correct attitude to himself or to the world around
him. And so when he claims that “God does not exist” (cf. Ps 14:1), he
shows with absolute clarity just how deficient his knowledge is and
just how far he is from the full truth of things, their origin and
their destiny.
19. The Book of Wisdom contains several important texts which cast
further light on this theme. There the sacred author speaks of God who
reveals himself in nature. For the ancients, the study of the natural
sciences coincided in large part with philosophical learning. Having
affirmed that with their intelligence human beings can “know the
structure of the world and the activity of the elements... the cycles
of the year and the constellations of the stars, the natures of animals
and the tempers of wild beasts” (Wis 7:17, 19-20)—in a word, that he
can philosophize—the sacred text takes a significant step forward.
Making his own the thought of Greek philosophy, to which he seems to
refer in the context, the author affirms that, in reasoning about
nature, the human being can rise to God: “From the greatness and beauty
of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator”
(Wis 13:5). This is to recognize as a first stage of divine Revelation
the marvellous “book of nature”, which, when read with the proper tools
of human reason, can lead to knowledge of the Creator. If human beings
with their intelligence fail to recognize God as Creator of all, it is
not because they lack the means to do so, but because their free will
and their sinfulness place an impediment in the way.
20. Seen in this light, reason is valued without being overvalued. The
results of reasoning may in fact be true, but these results acquire
their true meaning only if they are set within the larger horizon of
faith: “All man's steps are ordered by the Lord: how then can man
understand his own ways?” (Prov 20:24). For the Old Testament, then,
faith liberates reason in so far as it allows reason to attain
correctly what it seeks to know and to place it within the ultimate
order of things, in which everything acquires true meaning. In brief,
human beings attain truth by way of reason because, enlightened by
faith, they discover the deeper meaning of all things and most
especially of their own existence. Rightly, therefore, the sacred
author identifies the fear of God as the beginning of true knowledge:
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (Prov 1:7; cf. Sir
1:14).
“Acquire wisdom, acquire understanding” (Prov 4:5)
21. For the Old Testament, knowledge is not simply a matter of careful
observation of the human being, of the world and of history, but
supposes as well an indispensable link with faith and with what has
been revealed. These are the challenges which the Chosen People had to
confront and to which they had to respond. Pondering this as his
situation, biblical man discovered that he could understand himself
only as “being in relation”—with himself, with people, with the world
and with God. This opening to the mystery, which came to him through
Revelation, was for him, in the end, the source of true knowledge. It
was this which allowed his reason to enter the realm of the infinite
where an understanding for which until then he had not dared to hope
became a possibility.
For the sacred author, the task of searching for the truth was not
without the strain which comes once the limits of reason are reached.
This is what we find, for example, when the Book of Proverbs notes the
weariness which comes from the effort to understand the mysterious
designs of God (cf. 30:1-6). Yet, for all the toil involved, believers
do not surrender. They can continue on their way to the truth because
they are certain that God has created them “explorers” (cf. Qoh 1:13),
whose mission it is to leave no stone unturned, though the temptation
to doubt is always there. Leaning on God, they continue to reach out,
always and everywhere, for all that is beautiful, good and true.
22. In the first chapter of his Letter to the Romans, Saint Paul helps
us to appreciate better the depth of insight of the Wisdom literature's
reflection. Developing a philosophical argument in popular language,
the Apostle declares a profound truth: through all that is created the
“eyes of the mind” can come to know God. Through the medium of
creatures, God stirs in reason an intuition of his “power” and his
“divinity” (cf. Rom 1:20). This is to concede to human reason a
capacity which seems almost to surpass its natural limitations. Not
only is it not restricted to sensory knowledge, from the moment that it
can reflect critically upon the data of the senses, but, by discoursing
on the data provided by the senses, reason can reach the cause which
lies at the origin of all perceptible reality. In philosophical terms,
we could say that this important Pauline text affirms the human
capacity for metaphysical enquiry.
According to the Apostle, it was part of the original plan of the
creation that reason should without difficulty reach beyond the sensory
data to the origin of all things: the Creator. But because of the
disobedience by which man and woman chose to set themselves in full and
absolute autonomy in relation to the One who had created them, this
ready access to God the Creator diminished.
This is the human condition vividly described by the Book of Genesis
when it tells us that God placed the human being in the Garden of Eden,
in the middle of which there stood “the tree of knowledge of good and
evil” (2:17). The symbol is clear: man was in no position to discern
and decide for himself what was good and what was evil, but was
constrained to appeal to a higher source. The blindness of pride
deceived our first parents into thinking themselves sovereign and
autonomous, and into thinking that they could ignore the knowledge
which comes from God. All men and women were caught up in this primal
disobedience, which so wounded reason that from then on its path to
full truth would be strewn with obstacles. From that time onwards the
human capacity to know the truth was impaired by an aversion to the One
who is the source and origin of truth. It is again the Apostle who
reveals just how far human thinking, because of sin, became “empty”,
and human reasoning became distorted and inclined to falsehood (cf. Rom
1:21-22). The eyes of the mind were no longer able to see clearly:
reason became more and more a prisoner to itself. The coming of Christ
was the saving event which redeemed reason from its weakness, setting
it free from the shackles in which it had imprisoned itself.
23. This is why the Christian's relationship to philosophy requires
thorough-going discernment. In the New Testament, especially in the
Letters of Saint Paul, one thing emerges with great clarity: the
opposition between “the wisdom of this world” and the wisdom of God
revealed in Jesus Christ. The depth of revealed wisdom disrupts the
cycle of our habitual patterns of thought, which are in no way able to
express that wisdom in its fullness.
The beginning of the First Letter to the Corinthians poses the dilemma
in a radical way. The crucified Son of God is the historic event upon
which every attempt of the mind to construct an adequate explanation of
the meaning of existence upon merely human argumentation comes to
grief. The true key-point, which challenges every philosophy, is Jesus
Christ's death on the Cross. It is here that every attempt to reduce
the Father's saving plan to purely human logic is doomed to failure.
“Where is the one who is wise? Where is the learned? Where is the
debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?”
(1 Cor 1:20), the Apostle asks emphatically. The wisdom of the wise is
no longer enough for what God wants to accomplish; what is required is
a decisive step towards welcoming something radically new: “God chose
what is foolish in the world to shame the wise...; God chose what is
low and despised in the world, things that are not to reduce to nothing
things that are” (1 Cor 1:27-28). Human wisdom refuses to see in its
own weakness the possibility of its strength; yet Saint Paul is quick
to affirm: “When I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Cor 12:10). Man cannot
grasp how death could be the source of life and love; yet to reveal the
mystery of his saving plan God has chosen precisely that which reason
considers “foolishness” and a “scandal”. Adopting the language of the
philosophers of his time, Paul comes to the summit of his teaching as
he speaks the paradox: “God has chosen in the world... that which is
nothing to reduce to nothing things that are” (cf. 1 Cor 1:28). In
order to express the gratuitous nature of the love revealed in the
Cross of Christ, the Apostle is not afraid to use the most radical
language of the philosophers in their thinking about God. Reason cannot
eliminate the mystery of love which the Cross represents, while the
Cross can give to reason the ultimate answer which it seeks. It is not
the wisdom of words, but the Word of Wisdom which Saint Paul offers as
the criterion of both truth and salvation.
The wisdom of the Cross, therefore, breaks free of all cultural
limitations which seek to contain it and insists upon an openness to
the universality of the truth which it bears. What a challenge this is
to our reason, and how great the gain for reason if it yields to this
wisdom! Of itself, philosophy is able to recognize the human being's
ceaselessly self-transcendent orientation towards the truth; and, with
the assistance of faith, it is capable of accepting the “foolishness”
of the Cross as the authentic critique of those who delude themselves
that they possess the truth, when in fact they run it aground on the
shoals of a system of their own devising. The preaching of Christ
crucified and risen is the reef upon which the link between faith and
philosophy can break up, but it is also the reef beyond which the two
can set forth upon the boundless ocean of truth. Here we see not only
the border between reason and faith, but also the space where the two
may meet.
CHAPTER III - INTELLEGO UT CREDAM
Journeying in search of truth
24. In the Acts of the Apostles, the Evangelist Luke tells of Paul's
coming to Athens on one of his missionary journeys. The city of
philosophers was full of statues of various idols. One altar in
particular caught his eye, and he took this as a convenient
starting-point to establish a common base for the proclamation of the
kerygma. “Athenians,” he said, “I see how extremely religious you are
in every way. For as I went through the city and looked carefully at
the objects of your worship, I found among them an altar with the
inscription, 'To an unknown god'. What therefore you worship as
unknown, this I proclaim to you” (Acts 17:22-23). From this
starting-point, Saint Paul speaks of God as Creator, as the One who
transcends all things and gives life to all. He then continues his
speech in these terms: “From one ancestor he made all nations to
inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence
and the boundaries of the places where they would live, so that they
would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him—though
indeed he is not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:26-27).
The Apostle accentuates a truth which the Church has always treasured:
in the far reaches of the human heart there is a seed of desire and
nostalgia for God. The Liturgy of Good Friday recalls this powerfully
when, in praying for those who do not believe, we say: “Almighty and
eternal God, you created mankind so that all might long to find you and
have peace when you are found”.22 There is therefore a path which the
human being may choose to take, a path which begins with reason's
capacity to rise beyond what is contingent and set out towards the
infinite.
In different ways and at different times, men and women have shown that
they can articulate this intimate desire of theirs. Through literature,
music, painting, sculpture, architecture and every other work of their
creative intelligence they have declared the urgency of their quest. In
a special way philosophy has made this search its own and, with its
specific tools and scholarly methods, has articulated this universal
human desire.
25. “All human beings desire to know”,23 and truth is the proper object
of this desire. Everyday life shows how concerned each of us is to
discover for ourselves, beyond mere opinions, how things really are.
Within visible creation, man is the only creature who not only is
capable of knowing but who knows that he knows, and is therefore
interested in the real truth of what he perceives. People cannot be
genuinely indifferent to the question of whether what they know is true
or not. If they discover that it is false, they reject it; but if they
can establish its truth, they feel themselves rewarded. It is this that
Saint Augustine teaches when he writes: “I have met many who wanted to
deceive, but none who wanted to be deceived”.24 It is rightly claimed
that persons have reached adulthood when they can distinguish
independently between truth and falsehood, making up their own minds
about the objective reality of things. This is what has driven so many
enquiries, especially in the scientific field, which in recent
centuries have produced important results, leading to genuine progress
for all humanity.
No less important than research in the theoretical field is research in
the practical field—by which I mean the search for truth which looks to
the good which is to be performed. In acting ethically, according to a
free and rightly tuned will, the human person sets foot upon the path
to happiness and moves towards perfection. Here too it is a question of
truth. It is this conviction which I stressed in my Encyclical Letter
Veritatis Splendor: “There is no morality without freedom... Although
each individual has a right to be respected in his own journey in
search of the truth, there exists a prior moral obligation, and a grave
one at that, to seek the truth and to adhere to it once it is known”.25
It is essential, therefore, that the values chosen and pursued in one's
life be true, because only true values can lead people to realize
themselves fully, allowing them to be true to their nature. The truth
of these values is to be found not by turning in on oneself but by
opening oneself to apprehend that truth even at levels which transcend
the person. This is an essential condition for us to become ourselves
and to grow as mature, adult persons.
26. The truth comes initially to the human being as a question: Does
life have a meaning? Where is it going? At first sight, personal
existence may seem completely meaningless. It is not necessary to turn
to the philosophers of the absurd or to the provocative questioning
found in the Book of Job in order to have doubts about life's meaning.
The daily experience of suffering—in one's own life and in the lives of
others—and the array of facts which seem inexplicable to reason are
enough to ensure that a question as dramatic as the question of meaning
cannot be evaded.26 Moreover, the first absolutely certain truth of our
life, beyond the fact that we exist, is the inevitability of our death.
Given this unsettling fact, the search for a full answer is
inescapable. Each of us has both the desire and the duty to know the
truth of our own destiny. We want to know if death will be the
definitive end of our life or if there is something beyond—if it is
possible to hope for an after-life or not. It is not insignificant that
the death of Socrates gave philosophy one of its decisive orientations,
no less decisive now than it was more than two thousand years ago. It
is not by chance, then, that faced with the fact of death philosophers
have again and again posed this question, together with the question of
the meaning of life and immortality.
27. No-one can avoid this questioning, neither the philosopher nor the
ordinary person. The answer we give will determine whether or not we
think it possible to attain universal and absolute truth; and this is a
decisive moment of the search. Every truth—if it really is
truth—presents itself as universal, even if it is not the whole truth.
If something is true, then it must be true for all people and at all
times. Beyond this universality, however, people seek an absolute which
might give to all their searching a meaning and an answer—something
ultimate, which might serve as the ground of all things. In other
words, they seek a final explanation, a supreme value, which refers to
nothing beyond itself and which puts an end to all questioning.
Hypotheses may fascinate, but they do not satisfy. Whether we admit it
or not, there comes for everyone the moment when personal existence
must be anchored to a truth recognized as final, a truth which confers
a certitude no longer open to doubt.
Through the centuries, philosophers have sought to discover and
articulate such a truth, giving rise to various systems and schools of
thought. But beyond philosophical systems, people seek in different
ways to shape a “philosophy” of their own—in personal convictions and
experiences, in traditions of family and culture, or in journeys in
search of life's meaning under the guidance of a master. What inspires
all of these is the desire to reach the certitude of truth and the
certitude of its absolute value.
The different faces of human truth
28. The search for truth, of course, is not always so transparent nor
does it always produce such results. The natural limitation of reason
and the inconstancy of the heart often obscure and distort a person's
search. Truth can also drown in a welter of other concerns. People can
even run from the truth as soon as they glimpse it because they are
afraid of its demands. Yet, for all that they may evade it, the truth
still influences life. Life in fact can never be grounded upon doubt,
uncertainty or deceit; such an existence would be threatened constantly
by fear and anxiety. One may define the human being, therefore, as the
one who seeks the truth.
29. It is unthinkable that a search so deeply rooted in human nature
would be completely vain and useless. The capacity to search for truth
and to pose questions itself implies the rudiments of a response. Human
beings would not even begin to search for something of which they knew
nothing or for something which they thought was wholly beyond them.
Only the sense that they can arrive at an answer leads them to take the
first step. This is what normally happens in scientific research. When
scientists, following their intuition, set out in search of the logical
and verifiable explanation of a phenomenon, they are confident from the
first that they will find an answer, and they do not give up in the
face of setbacks. They do not judge their original intuition useless
simply because they have not reached their goal; rightly enough they
will say that they have not yet found a satisfactory answer.
The same must be equally true of the search for truth when it comes to
the ultimate questions. The thirst for truth is so rooted in the human
heart that to be obliged to ignore it would cast our existence into
jeopardy. Everyday life shows well enough how each one of us is
preoccupied by the pressure of a few fundamental questions and how in
the soul of each of us there is at least an outline of the answers. One
reason why the truth of these answers convinces is that they are no
different in substance from the answers to which many others have come.
To be sure, not every truth to which we come has the same value. But
the sum of the results achieved confirms that in principle the human
being can arrive at the truth.
30. It may help, then, to turn briefly to the different modes of truth.
Most of them depend upon immediate evidence or are confirmed by
experimentation. This is the mode of truth proper to everyday life and
to scientific research. At another level we find philosophical truth,
attained by means of the speculative powers of the human intellect.
Finally, there are religious truths which are to some degree grounded
in philosophy, and which we find in the answers which the different
religious traditions offer to the ultimate questions.27
The truths of philosophy, it should be said, are not restricted only to
the sometimes ephemeral teachings of professional philosophers. All men
and women, as I have noted, are in some sense philosophers and have
their own philosophical conceptions with which they direct their lives.
In one way or other, they shape a comprehensive vision and an answer to
the question of life's meaning; and in the light of this they interpret
their own life's course and regulate their behaviour. At this point, we
may pose the question of the link between, on the one hand, the truths
of philosophy and religion and, on the other, the truth revealed in
Jesus Christ. But before tackling that question, one last datum of
philosophy needs to be weighed.
31. Human beings are not made to live alone. They are born into a
family and in a family they grow, eventually entering society through
their activity. From birth, therefore, they are immersed in traditions
which give them not only a language and a cultural formation but also a
range of truths in which they believe almost instinctively. Yet
personal growth and maturity imply that these same truths can be cast
into doubt and evaluated through a process of critical enquiry. It may
be that, after this time of transition, these truths are “recovered” as
a result of the experience of life or by dint of further reasoning.
Nonetheless, there are in the life of a human being many more truths
which are simply believed than truths which are acquired by way of
personal verification. Who, for instance, could assess critically the
countless scientific findings upon which modern life is based? Who
could personally examine the flow of information which comes day after
day from all parts of the world and which is generally accepted as
true? Who in the end could forge anew the paths of experience and
thought which have yielded the treasures of human wisdom and religion?
This means that the human being—the one who seeks the truth—is also the
one who lives by belief.
32. In believing, we entrust ourselves to the knowledge acquired by
other people. This suggests an important tension. On the one hand, the
knowledge acquired through belief can seem an imperfect form of
knowledge, to be perfected gradually through personal accumulation of
evidence; on the other hand, belief is often humanly richer than mere
evidence, because it involves an interpersonal relationship and brings
into play not only a person's capacity to know but also the deeper
capacity to entrust oneself to others, to enter into a relationship
with them which is intimate and enduring.
It should be stressed that the truths sought in this interpersonal
relationship are not primarily empirical or philosophical. Rather, what
is sought is the truth of the person—what the person is and what the
person reveals from deep within. Human perfection, then, consists not
simply in acquiring an abstract knowledge of the truth, but in a
dynamic relationship of faithful self-giving with others. It is in this
faithful self-giving that a person finds a fullness of certainty and
security. At the same time, however, knowledge through belief, grounded
as it is on trust between persons, is linked to truth: in the act of
believing, men and women entrust themselves to the truth which the
other declares to them.
Any number of examples could be found to demonstrate this; but I think
immediately of the martyrs, who are the most authentic witnesses to the
truth about existence. The martyrs know that they have found the truth
about life in the encounter with Jesus Christ, and nothing and no-one
could ever take this certainty from them. Neither suffering nor violent
death could ever lead them to abandon the truth which they have
discovered in the encounter with Christ. This is why to this day the
witness of the martyrs continues to arouse such interest, to draw
agreement, to win such a hearing and to invite emulation. This is why
their word inspires such confidence: from the moment they speak to us
of what we perceive deep down as the truth we have sought for so long,
the martyrs provide evidence of a love that has no need of lengthy
arguments in order to convince. The martyrs stir in us a profound trust
because they give voice to what we already feel and they declare what
we would like to have the strength to express.
33. Step by step, then, we are assembling the terms of the question. It
is the nature of the human being to seek the truth. This search looks
not only to the attainment of truths which are partial, empirical or
scientific; nor is it only in individual acts of decision-making that
people seek the true good. Their search looks towards an ulterior truth
which would explain the meaning of life. And it is therefore a search
which can reach its end only in reaching the absolute.28 Thanks to the
inherent capacities of thought, man is able to encounter and recognize
a truth of this kind. Such a truth—vital and necessary as it is for
life—is attained not only by way of reason but also through trusting
acquiescence to other persons who can guarantee the authenticity and
certainty of the truth itself. There is no doubt that the capacity to
entrust oneself and one's life to another person and the decision to do
so are among the most significant and expressive human acts.
It must not be forgotten that reason too needs to be sustained in all
its searching by trusting dialogue and sincere friendship. A climate of
suspicion and distrust, which can beset speculative research, ignores
the teaching of the ancient philosophers who proposed friendship as one
of the most appropriate contexts for sound philosophical enquiry.
From all that I have said to this point it emerges that men and women
are on a journey of discovery which is humanly unstoppable—a search for
the truth and a search for a person to whom they might entrust
themselves. Christian faith comes to meet them, offering the concrete
possibility of reaching the goal which they seek. Moving beyond the
stage of simple believing, Christian faith immerses human beings in the
order of grace, which enables them to share in the mystery of Christ,
which in turn offers them a true and coherent knowledge of the Triune
God. In Jesus Christ, who is the Truth, faith recognizes the ultimate
appeal to humanity, an appeal made in order that what we experience as
desire and nostalgia may come to its fulfilment.
34. This truth, which God reveals to us in Jesus Christ, is not opposed
to the truths which philosophy perceives. On the contrary, the two
modes of knowledge lead to truth in all its fullness. The unity of
truth is a fundamental premise of human reasoning, as the principle of
non-contradiction makes clear. Revelation renders this unity certain,
showing that the God of creation is also the God of salvation history.
It is the one and the same God who establishes and guarantees the
intelligibility and reasonableness of the natural order of things upon
which scientists confidently depend,29 and who reveals himself as the
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. This unity of truth, natural and
revealed, is embodied in a living and personal way in Christ, as the
Apostle reminds us: “Truth is in Jesus” (cf. Eph 4:21; Col 1:15-20). He
is the eternal Word in whom all things were created, and he is the
incarnate Word who in his entire person 30 reveals the Father (cf. Jn
1:14, 18). What human reason seeks “without knowing it” (cf. Acts
17:23) can be found only through Christ: what is revealed in him is
“the full truth” (cf. Jn 1:14-16) of everything which was created in
him and through him and which therefore in him finds its fulfilment
(cf. Col 1:17).
35. On the basis of these broad considerations, we must now explore
more directly the relationship between revealed truth and philosophy.
This relationship imposes a twofold consideration, since the truth
conferred by Revelation is a truth to be understood in the light of
reason. It is this duality alone which allows us to specify correctly
the relationship between revealed truth and philosophical learning.
First, then, let us consider the links between faith and philosophy in
the course of history. From this, certain principles will emerge as
useful reference-points in the attempt to establish the correct link
between the two orders of knowledge.
CHAPTER IV - THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FAITH AND REASON
Important moments in the encounter of faith and reason
36. The Acts of the Apostles provides evidence that Christian
proclamation was engaged from the very first with the philosophical
currents of the time. In Athens, we read, Saint Paul entered into
discussion with “certain Epicurean and Stoic philosophers” (17:18); and
exegetical analysis of his speech at the Areopagus has revealed
frequent allusions to popular beliefs deriving for the most part from
Stoicism. This is by no means accidental. If pagans were to understand
them, the first Christians could not refer only to “Moses and the
prophets” when they spoke. They had to point as well to natural
knowledge of God and to the voice of conscience in every human being
(cf. Rom 1:19-21; 2:14-15; Acts 14:16-17). Since in pagan religion this
natural knowledge had lapsed into idolatry (cf. Rom 1:21-32), the
Apostle judged it wiser in his speech to make the link with the
thinking of the philosophers, who had always set in opposition to the
myths and mystery cults notions more respectful of divine
transcendence.
One of the major concerns of classical philosophy was to purify human
notions of God of mythological elements. We know that Greek religion,
like most cosmic religions, was polytheistic, even to the point of
divinizing natural things and phenomena. Human attempts to understand
the origin of the gods and hence the origin of the universe find their
earliest expression in poetry; and the theogonies remain the first
evidence of this human search. But it was the task of the fathers of
philosophy to bring to light the link between reason and religion. As
they broadened their view to include universal principles, they no
longer rested content with the ancient myths, but wanted to provide a
rational foundation for their belief in the divinity. This opened a
path which took its rise from ancient traditions but allowed a
development satisfying the demands of universal reason. This
development sought to acquire a critical awareness of what they
believed in, and the concept of divinity was the prime beneficiary of
this. Superstitions were recognized for what they were and religion
was, at least in part, purified by rational analysis. It was on this
basis that the Fathers of the Church entered into fruitful dialogue
with ancient philosophy, which offered new ways of proclaiming and
understanding the God of Jesus Christ.
37. In tracing Christianity's adoption of philosophy, one should not
forget how cautiously Christians regarded other elements of the
cultural world of paganism, one example of which is gnosticism. It was
easy to confuse philosophy—understood as practical wisdom and an
education for life—with a higher and esoteric kind of knowledge,
reserved to those few who were perfect. It is surely this kind of
esoteric speculation which Saint Paul has in mind when he puts the
Colossians on their guard: “See to it that no-one takes you captive
through philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition,
according to the elemental spirits of the universe and not according to
Christ” (2:8). The Apostle's words seem all too pertinent now if we
apply them to the various kinds of esoteric superstition widespread
today, even among some believers who lack a proper critical sense.
Following Saint Paul, other writers of the early centuries, especially
Saint Irenaeus and Tertullian, sound the alarm when confronted with a
cultural perspective which sought to subordinate the truth of
Revelation to the interpretation of the philosophers.
38. Christianity's engagement with philosophy was therefore neither
straight-forward nor immediate. The practice of philosophy and
attendance at philosophical schools seemed to the first Christians more
of a disturbance than an opportunity. For them, the first and most
urgent task was the proclamation of the Risen Christ by way of a
personal encounter which would bring the listener to conversion of
heart and the request for Baptism. But that does not mean that they
ignored the task of deepening the understanding of faith and its
motivations. Quite the contrary. That is why the criticism of
Celsus—that Christians were “illiterate and uncouth”31—is unfounded and
untrue. Their initial disinterest is to be explained on other grounds.
The encounter with the Gospel offered such a satisfying answer to the
hitherto unresolved question of life's meaning that delving into the
philosophers seemed to them something remote and in some ways outmoded.
That seems still more evident today, if we think of Christianity's
contribution to the affirmation of the right of everyone to have access
to the truth. In dismantling barriers of race, social status and
gender, Christianity proclaimed from the first the equality of all men
and women before God. One prime implication of this touched the theme
of truth. The elitism which had characterized the ancients' search for
truth was clearly abandoned. Since access to the truth enables access
to God, it must be denied to none. There are many paths which lead to
truth, but since Christian truth has a salvific value, any one of these
paths may be taken, as long as it leads to the final goal, that is to
the Revelation of Jesus Christ.
A pioneer of positive engagement with philosophical thinking—albeit
with cautious discernment—was Saint Justin. Although he continued to
hold Greek philosophy in high esteem after his conversion, Justin
claimed with power and clarity that he had found in Christianity “the
only sure and profitable philosophy”.32 Similarly, Clement of
Alexandria called the Gospel “the true philosophy”,33 and he understood
philosophy, like the Mosaic Law, as instruction which prepared for
Christian faith 34 and paved the way for the Gospel.35 Since
“philosophy yearns for the wisdom which consists in rightness of soul
and speech and in purity of life, it is well disposed towards wisdom
and does all it can to acquire it. We call philosophers those who love
the wisdom that is creator and mistress of all things, that is
knowledge of the Son of God”.36 For Clement, Greek philosophy is not
meant in the first place to bolster and complete Christian truth. Its
task is rather the defence of the faith: “The teaching of the Saviour
is perfect in itself and has no need of support, because it is the
strength and the wisdom of God. Greek philosophy, with its
contribution, does not strengthen truth; but, in rendering the attack
of sophistry impotent and in disarming those who betray truth and wage
war upon it, Greek philosophy is rightly called the hedge and the
protective wall around the vineyard”.37
39. It is clear from history, then, that Christian thinkers were
critical in adopting philosophical thought. Among the early examples of
this, Origen is certainly outstanding. In countering the attacks
launched by the philosopher Celsus, Origen adopts Platonic philosophy
to shape his argument and mount his reply. Assuming many elements of
Platonic thought, he begins to construct an early form of Christian
theology. The name “theology” itself, together with the idea of
theology as rational discourse about God, had to this point been tied
to its Greek origins. In Aristotelian philosophy, for example, the name
signified the noblest part and the true summit of philosophical
discourse. But in the light of Christian Revelation what had signified
a generic doctrine about the gods assumed a wholly new meaning,
signifying now the reflection undertaken by the believer in order to
express the true doctrine about God. As it developed, this new
Christian thought made use of philosophy, but at the same time tended
to distinguish itself clearly from philosophy. History shows how
Platonic thought, once adopted by theology, underwent profound changes,
especially with regard to concepts such as the immortality of the soul,
the divinization of man and the origin of evil.
40. In this work of christianizing Platonic and Neo-Platonic thought,
the Cappadocian Fathers, Dionysius called the Areopagite and especially
Saint Augustine were important. The great Doctor of the West had come
into contact with different philosophical schools, but all of them left
him disappointed. It was when he encountered the truth of Christian
faith that he found strength to undergo the radical conversion to which
the philosophers he had known had been powerless to lead him. He
himself reveals his motive: “From this time on, I gave my preference to
the Catholic faith. I thought it more modest and not in the least
misleading to be told by the Church to believe what could not be
demonstrated—whether that was because a demonstration existed but could
not be understood by all or whether the matter was not one open to
rational proof—rather than from the Manichees to have a rash promise of
knowledge with mockery of mere belief, and then afterwards to be
ordered to believe many fabulous and absurd myths impossible to prove
true”.38 Though he accorded the Platonists a place of privilege,
Augustine rebuked them because, knowing the goal to seek, they had
ignored the path which leads to it: the Word made flesh.39 The Bishop
of Hippo succeeded in producing the first great synthesis of philosophy
and theology, embracing currents of thought both Greek and Latin. In
him too the great unity of knowledge, grounded in the thought of the
Bible, was both confirmed and sustained by a depth of speculative
thinking. The synthesis devised by Saint Augustine remained for
centuries the most exalted form of philosophical and theological
speculation known to the West. Reinforced by his personal story and
sustained by a wonderful holiness of life, he could also introduce into
his works a range of material which, drawing on experience, was a
prelude to future developments in different currents of philosophy.
41. The ways in which the Fathers of East and West engaged the
philosophical schools were, therefore, quite different. This does not
mean that they identified the content of their message with the systems
to which they referred. Consider Tertullian's question: “What does
Athens have in common with Jerusalem? The Academy with the Church?”.40
This clearly indicates the critical consciousness with which Christian
thinkers from the first confronted the problem of the relationship
between faith and philosophy, viewing it comprehensively with both its
positive aspects and its limitations. They were not naive thinkers.
Precisely because they were intense in living faith's content they were
able to reach the deepest forms of speculation. It is therefore
minimalizing and mistaken to restrict their work simply to the
transposition of the truths of faith into philosophical categories.
They did much more. In fact they succeeded in disclosing completely all
that remained implicit and preliminary in the thinking of the great
philosophers of antiquity.41 As I have noted, theirs was the task of
showing how reason, freed from external constraints, could find its way
out of the blind alley of myth and open itself to the transcendent in a
more appropriate way. Purified and rightly tuned, therefore, reason
could rise to the higher planes of thought, providing a solid
foundation for the perception of being, of the transcendent and of the
absolute.
It is here that we see the originality of what the Fathers
accomplished. They fully welcomed reason which was open to the
absolute, and they infused it with the richness drawn from Revelation.
This was more than a meeting of cultures, with one culture perhaps
succumbing to the fascination of the other. It happened rather in the
depths of human souls, and it was a meeting of creature and Creator.
Surpassing the goal towards which it unwittingly tended by dint of its
nature, reason attained the supreme good and ultimate truth in the
person of the Word made flesh. Faced with the various philosophies, the
Fathers were not afraid to acknowledge those elements in them that were
consonant with Revelation and those that were not. Recognition of the
points of convergence did not blind them to the points of divergence.
42. In Scholastic theology, the role of philosophically trained reason
becomes even more conspicuous under the impulse of Saint Anselm's
interpretation of the intellectus fidei. For the saintly Archbishop of
Canterbury the priority of faith is not in competition with the search
which is proper to reason. Reason in fact is not asked to pass
judgement on the contents of faith, something of which it would be
incapable, since this is not its function. Its function is rather to
find meaning, to discover explanations which might allow everyone to
come to a certain understanding of the contents of faith. Saint Anselm
underscores the fact that the intellect must seek that which it loves:
the more it loves, the more it desires to know. Whoever lives for the
truth is reaching for a form of knowledge which is fired more and more
with love for what it knows, while having to admit that it has not yet
attained what it desires: “To see you was I conceived; and I have yet
to conceive that for which I was conceived (Ad te videndum factus sum;
et nondum feci propter quod factus sum)”.42 The desire for truth,
therefore, spurs reason always to go further; indeed, it is as if
reason were overwhelmed to see that it can always go beyond what it has
already achieved. It is at this point, though, that reason can learn
where its path will lead in the end: “I think that whoever investigates
something incomprehensible should be satisfied if, by way of reasoning,
he reaches a quite certain perception of its reality, even if his
intellect cannot penetrate its mode of being... But is there anything
so incomprehensible and ineffable as that which is above all things?
Therefore, if that which until now has been a matter of debate
concerning the highest essence has been established on the basis of due
reasoning, then the foundation of one's certainty is not shaken in the
least if the intellect cannot penetrate it in a way that allows clear
formulation. If prior thought has concluded rationally that one cannot
comprehend (rationabiliter comprehendit incomprehensibile esse) how
supernal wisdom knows its own accomplishments..., who then will explain
how this same wisdom, of which the human being can know nothing or next
to nothing, is to be known and expressed?”.43
The fundamental harmony between the knowledge of faith and the
knowledge of philosophy is once again confirmed. Faith asks that its
object be understood with the help of reason; and at the summit of its
searching reason acknowledges that it cannot do without what faith
presents.
The enduring originality of the thought of Saint Thomas Aquinas
43. A quite special place in this long development belongs to Saint
Thomas, not only because of what he taught but also because of the
dialogue which he undertook with the Arab and Jewish thought of his
time. In an age when Christian thinkers were rediscovering the
treasures of ancient philosophy, and more particularly of Aristotle,
Thomas had the great merit of giving pride of place to the harmony
which exists between faith and reason. Both the light of reason and the
light of faith come from God, he argued; hence there can be no
contradiction between them.44
More radically, Thomas recognized that nature, philosophy's proper
concern, could contribute to the understanding of divine Revelation.
Faith therefore has no fear of reason, but seeks it out and has trust
in it. Just as grace builds on nature and brings it to fulfilment,45 so
faith builds upon and perfects reason. Illumined by faith, reason is
set free from the fragility and limitations deriving from the
disobedience of sin and finds the strength required to rise to the
knowledge of the Triune God. Although he made much of the supernatural
character of faith, the Angelic Doctor did not overlook the importance
of its reasonableness; indeed he was able to plumb the depths and
explain the meaning of this reasonableness. Faith is in a sense an
“exercise of thought”; and human reason is neither annulled nor debased
in assenting to the contents of faith, which are in any case attained
by way of free and informed choice.46
This is why the Church has been justified in consistently proposing
Saint Thomas as a master of thought and a model of the right way to do
theology. In this connection, I would recall what my Predecessor, the
Servant of God Paul VI, wrote on the occasion of the seventh centenary
of the death of the Angelic Doctor: “Without doubt, Thomas possessed
supremely the courage of the truth, a freedom of spirit in confronting
new problems, the intellectual honesty of those who allow Christianity
to be contaminated neither by secular philosophy nor by a prejudiced
rejection of it. He passed therefore into the history of Christian
thought as a pioneer of the new path of philosophy and universal
culture. The key point and almost the kernel of the solution which,
with all the brilliance of his prophetic intuition, he gave to the new
encounter of faith and reason was a reconciliation between the
secularity of the world and the radicality of the Gospel, thus avoiding
the unnatural tendency to negate the world and its values while at the
same time keeping faith with the supreme and inexorable demands of the
supernatural order”.47
44. Another of the great insights of Saint Thomas was his perception of
the role of the Holy Spirit in the process by which knowledge matures
into wisdom. From the first pages of his Summa Theologiae,48 Aquinas
was keen to show the primacy of the wisdom which is the gift of the
Holy Spirit and which opens the way to a knowledge of divine realities.
His theology allows us to understand what is distinctive of wisdom in
its close link with faith and knowledge of the divine. This wisdom
comes to know by way of connaturality; it presupposes faith and
eventually formulates its right judgement on the basis of the truth of
faith itself: “The wisdom named among the gifts of the Holy Spirit is
distinct from the wisdom found among the intellectual virtues. This
second wisdom is acquired through study, but the first 'comes from on
high', as Saint James puts it. This also distinguishes it from faith,
since faith accepts divine truth as it is. But the gift of wisdom
enables judgement according to divine truth”.49
Yet the priority accorded this wisdom does not lead the Angelic Doctor
to overlook the presence of two other complementary forms of
wisdom—philosophical wisdom, which is based upon the capacity of the
intellect, for all its natural limitations, to explore reality, and
theological wisdom, which is based upon Revelation and which explores
the contents of faith, entering the very mystery of God.
Profoundly convinced that “whatever its source, truth is of the Holy
Spirit” (omne verum a quocumque dicatur a Spiritu Sancto est) 50 Saint
Thomas was impartial in his love of truth. He sought truth wherever it
might be found and gave consummate demonstration of its universality.
In him, the Church's Magisterium has seen and recognized the passion
for truth; and, precisely because it stays consistently within the
horizon of universal, objective and transcendent truth, his thought
scales “heights unthinkable to human intelligence”.51 Rightly, then, he
may be called an “apostle of the truth”.52 Looking unreservedly to
truth, the realism of Thomas could recognize the objectivity of truth
and produce not merely a philosophy of “what seems to be” but a
philosophy of “what is”.
The drama of the separation of faith and reason
45. With the rise of the first universities, theology came more
directly into contact with other forms of learning and scientific
research. Although they insisted upon the organic link between theology
and philosophy, Saint Albert the Great and Saint Thomas were the first
to recognize the autonomy which philosophy and the sciences needed if
they were to perform well in their respective fields of research. From
the late Medieval period onwards, however, the legitimate distinction
between the two forms of learning became more and more a fateful
separation. As a result of the exaggerated rationalism of certain
thinkers, positions grew more radical and there emerged eventually a
philosophy which was separate from and absolutely independent of the
contents of faith. Another of the many consequences of this separation
was an ever deeper mistrust with regard to reason itself. In a spirit
both sceptical and agnostic, some began to voice a general mistrust,
which led some to focus more on faith and others to deny its
rationality altogether.
In short, what for Patristic and Medieval thought was in both theory
and practice a profound unity, producing knowledge capable of reaching
the highest forms of speculation, was destroyed by systems which
espoused the cause of rational knowledge sundered from faith and meant
to take the place of faith.
46. The more influential of these radical positions are well known and
high in profile, especially in the history of the West. It is not too
much to claim that the development of a good part of modern philosophy
has seen it move further and further away from Christian Revelation, to
the point of setting itself quite explicitly in opposition. This
process reached its apogee in the last century. Some representatives of
idealism sought in various ways to transform faith and its contents,
even the mystery of the Death and Resurrection of Jesus, into
dialectical structures which could be grasped by reason. Opposed to
this kind of thinking were various forms of atheistic humanism,
expressed in philosophical terms, which regarded faith as alienating
and damaging to the development of a full rationality. They did not
hesitate to present themselves as new religions serving as a basis for
projects which, on the political and social plane, gave rise to
totalitarian systems which have been disastrous for humanity.
In the field of scientific research, a positivistic mentality took hold
which not only abandoned the Christian vision of the world, but more
especially rejected every appeal to a metaphysical or moral vision. It
follows that certain scientists, lacking any ethical point of
reference, are in danger of putting at the centre of their concerns
something other than the human person and the entirety of the person's
life. Further still, some of these, sensing the opportunities of
technological progress, seem to succumb not only to a market-based
logic, but also to the temptation of a quasi-divine power over nature
and even over the human being.
As a result of the crisis of rationalism, what has appeared finally is
nihilism. As a philosophy of nothingness, it has a certain attraction
for people of our time. Its adherents claim that the search is an end
in itself, without any hope or possibility of ever attaining the goal
of truth. In the nihilist interpretation, life is no more than an
occasion for sensations and experiences in which the ephemeral has
pride of place. Nihilism is at the root of the widespread mentality
which claims that a definitive commitment should no longer be made,
because everything is fleeting and provisional.
47. It should also be borne in mind that the role of philosophy itself
has changed in modern culture. From universal wisdom and learning, it
has been gradually reduced to one of the many fields of human knowing;
indeed in some ways it has been consigned to a wholly marginal role.
Other forms of rationality have acquired an ever higher profile, making
philosophical learning appear all the more peripheral. These forms of
rationality are directed not towards the contemplation of truth and the
search for the ultimate goal and meaning of life; but instead, as
“instrumental reason”, they are directed—actually or
potentially—towards the promotion of utilitarian ends, towards
enjoyment or power.
In my first Encyclical Letter I stressed the danger of absolutizing
such an approach when I wrote: “The man of today seems ever to be under
threat from what he produces, that is to say from the result of the
work of his hands and, even more so, of the work of his intellect and
the tendencies of his will. All too soon, and often in an unforeseeable
way, what this manifold activity of man yields is not only subject to
'alienation', in the sense that it is simply taken away from the person
who produces it, but rather it turns against man himself, at least in
part, through the indirect consequences of its effects returning on
himself. It is or can be directed against him. This seems to make up
the main chapter of the drama of present-day human existence in its
broadest and universal dimension. Man therefore lives increasingly in
fear. He is afraid of what he produces—not all of it, of course, or
even most of it, but part of it and precisely that part that contains a
special share of his genius and initiative—can radically turn against
himself”.53
In the wake of these cultural shifts, some philosophers have abandoned
the search for truth in itself and made their sole aim the attainment
of a subjective certainty or a pragmatic sense of utility. This in turn
has obscured the true dignity of reason, which is no longer equipped to
know the truth and to seek the absolute.
48. This rapid survey of the history of philosophy, then, reveals a
growing separation between faith and philosophical reason. Yet closer
scrutiny shows that even in the philosophical thinking of those who
helped drive faith and reason further apart there are found at times
precious and seminal insights which, if pursued and developed with mind
and heart rightly tuned, can lead to the discovery of truth's way. Such
insights are found, for instance, in penetrating analyses of perception
and experience, of the imaginary and the unconscious, of personhood and
intersubjectivity, of freedom and values, of time and history. The
theme of death as well can become for all thinkers an incisive appeal
to seek within themselves the true meaning of their own life. But this
does not mean that the link between faith and reason as it now stands
does not need to be carefully examined, because each without the other
is impoverished and enfeebled. Deprived of what Revelation offers,
reason has taken side-tracks which expose it to the danger of losing
sight of its final goal. Deprived of reason, faith has stressed feeling
and experience, and so run the risk of no longer being a universal
proposition. It is an illusion to think that faith, tied to weak
reasoning, might be more penetrating; on the contrary, faith then runs
the grave risk of withering into myth or superstition. By the same
token, reason which is unrelated to an adult faith is not prompted to
turn its gaze to the newness and radicality of being.
This is why I make this strong and insistent appeal—not, I trust,
untimely—that faith and philosophy recover the profound unity which
allows them to stand in harmony with their nature without compromising
their mutual autonomy. The parrhesia of faith must be matched by the
boldness of reason.
CHAPTER V - THE MAGISTERIUM'S INTERVENTIONS IN PHILOSOPHICAL MATTERS
The Magisterium's discernment as diakonia of the truth
49. The Church has no philosophy of her own nor does she canonize any
one particular philosophy in preference to others.54 The underlying
reason for this reluctance is that, even when it engages theology,
philosophy must remain faithful to its own principles and methods.
Otherwise there would be no guarantee that it would remain oriented to
truth and that it was moving towards truth by way of a process governed
by reason. A philosophy which did not proceed in the light of reason
according to its own principles and methods would serve little purpose.
At the deepest level, the autonomy which philosophy enjoys is rooted in
the fact that reason is by its nature oriented to truth and is equipped
moreover with the means necessary to arrive at truth. A philosophy
conscious of this as its “constitutive status” cannot but respect the
demands and the data of revealed truth.
Yet history shows that philosophy—especially modern philosophy—has
taken wrong turns and fallen into error. It is neither the task nor the
competence of the Magisterium to intervene in order to make good the
lacunas of deficient philosophical discourse. Rather, it is the
Magisterium's duty to respond clearly and strongly when controversial
philosophical opinions threaten right understanding of what has been
revealed, and when false and partial theories which sow the seed of
serious error, confusing the pure and simple faith of the People of
God, begin to spread more widely.
50. In the light of faith, therefore, the Church's Magisterium can and
must authoritatively exercise a critical discernment of opinions and
philosophies which contradict Christian doctrine.55 It is the task of
the Magisterium in the first place to indicate which philosophical
presuppositions and conclusions are incompatible with revealed truth,
thus articulating the demands which faith's point of view makes of
philosophy. Moreover, as philosophical learning has developed,
different schools of thought have emerged. This pluralism also imposes
upon the Magisterium the responsibility of expressing a judgement as to
whether or not the basic tenets of these different schools are
compatible with the demands of the word of God and theological enquiry.
It is the Church's duty to indicate the elements in a philosophical
system which are incompatible with her own faith. In fact, many
philosophical opinions—concerning God, the human being, human freedom
and ethical behaviour— engage the Church directly, because they touch
on the revealed truth of which she is the guardian. In making this
discernment, we Bishops have the duty to be “witnesses to the truth”,
fulfilling a humble but tenacious ministry of service which every
philosopher should appreciate, a service in favour of recta ratio, or
of reason reflecting rightly upon what is true.
51. This discernment, however, should not be seen as primarily
negative, as if the Magisterium intended to abolish or limit any
possible mediation. On the contrary, the Magisterium's interventions
are intended above all to prompt, promote and encourage philosophical
enquiry. Besides, philosophers are the first to understand the need for
self-criticism, the correction of errors and the extension of the too
restricted terms in which their thinking has been framed. In
particular, it is necessary to keep in mind the unity of truth, even if
its formulations are shaped by history and produced by human reason
wounded and weakened by sin. This is why no historical form of
philosophy can legitimately claim to embrace the totality of truth, nor
to be the complete explanation of the human being, of the world and of
the human being's relationship with God.
Today, then, with the proliferation of systems, methods, concepts and
philosophical theses which are often extremely complex, the need for a
critical discernment in the light of faith becomes more urgent, even if
it remains a daunting task. Given all of reason's inherent and
historical limitations, it is difficult enough to recognize the
inalienable powers proper to it; but it is still more difficult at
times to discern in specific philosophical claims what is valid and
fruitful from faith's point of view and what is mistaken or dangerous.
Yet the Church knows that “the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” are
hidden in Christ (Col 2:3) and therefore intervenes in order to
stimulate philosophical enquiry, lest it stray from the path which
leads to recognition of the mystery.
52. It is not only in recent times that the Magisterium of the Church
has intervened to make its mind known with regard to particular
philosophical teachings. It is enough to recall, by way of example, the
pronouncements made through the centuries concerning theories which
argued in favour of the pre-existence of the soul,56 or concerning the
different forms of idolatry and esoteric superstition found in
astrological speculations,57 without forgetting the more systematic
pronouncements against certain claims of Latin Averroism which were
incompatible with the Christian faith.58
If the Magisterium has spoken out more frequently since the middle of
the last century, it is because in that period not a few Catholics felt
it their duty to counter various streams of modern thought with a
philosophy of their own. At this point, the Magisterium of the Church
was obliged to be vigilant lest these philosophies developed in ways
which were themselves erroneous and negative. The censures were
delivered even-handedly: on the one hand, fideism 59 and radical
traditionalism,60 for their distrust of reason's natural capacities,
and, on the other, rationalism 61 and ontologism 62 because they
attributed to natural reason a knowledge which only the light of faith
could confer. The positive elements of this debate were assembled in
the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, in which for the first time an
Ecumenical Council—in this case, the First Vatican Council—pronounced
solemnly on the relationship between reason and faith. The teaching
contained in this document strongly and positively marked the
philosophical research of many believers and remains today a standard
reference-point for correct and coherent Christian thinking in this
regard.
53. The Magisterium's pronouncements have been concerned less with
individual philosophical theses than with the need for rational and
hence ultimately philosophical knowledge for the understanding of
faith. In synthesizing and solemnly reaffirming the teachings
constantly proposed to the faithful by the ordinary Papal Magisterium,
the First Vatican Council showed how inseparable and at the same time
how distinct were faith and reason, Revelation and natural knowledge of
God. The Council began with the basic criterion, presupposed by
Revelation itself, of the natural knowability of the existence of God,
the beginning and end of all things,63 and concluded with the solemn
assertion quoted earlier: “There are two orders of knowledge, distinct
not only in their point of departure, but also in their object”.64
Against all forms of rationalism, then, there was a need to affirm the
distinction between the mysteries of faith and the findings of
philosophy, and the transcendence and precedence of the mysteries of
faith over the findings of philosophy. Against the temptations of
fideism, however, it was necessary to stress the unity of truth and
thus the positive contribution which rational knowledge can and must
make to faith's knowledge: “Even if faith is superior to reason there
can never be a true divergence between faith and reason, since the same
God who reveals the mysteries and bestows the gift of faith has also
placed in the human spirit the light of reason. This God could not deny
himself, nor could the truth ever contradict the truth”.65
54. In our own century too the Magisterium has revisited the theme on a
number of occasions, warning against the lure of rationalism. Here the
pronouncements of Pope Saint Pius X are pertinent, stressing as they
did that at the basis of Modernism were philosophical claims which were
phenomenist, agnostic and immanentist.66 Nor can the importance of the
Catholic rejection of Marxist philosophy and atheistic Communism be
forgotten.67
Later, in his Encyclical Letter Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII warned
against mistaken interpretations linked to evolutionism, existentialism
and historicism. He made it clear that these theories had not been
proposed and developed by theologians, but had their origins “outside
the sheepfold of Christ”.68 He added, however, that errors of this kind
should not simply be rejected but should be examined critically:
“Catholic theologians and philosophers, whose grave duty it is to
defend natural and supernatural truth and instill it in human hearts,
cannot afford to ignore these more or less erroneous opinions. Rather
they must come to understand these theories well, not only because
diseases are properly treated only if rightly diagnosed and because
even in these false theories some truth is found at times, but because
in the end these theories provoke a more discriminating discussion and
evaluation of philosophical and theological truths”.69
In accomplishing its specific task in service of the Roman Pontiff's
universal Magisterium,70 the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith has
more recently had to intervene to re-emphasize the danger of an
uncritical adoption by some liberation theologians of opinions and
methods drawn from Marxism.71
In the past, then, the Magisterium has on different occasions and in
different ways offered its discernment in philosophical matters. My
revered Predecessors have thus made an invaluable contribution which
must not be forgotten.
55. Surveying the situation today, we see that the problems of other
times have returned, but in a new key. It is no longer a matter of
questions of interest only to certain individuals and groups, but
convictions so widespread that they have become to some extent the
common mind. An example of this is the deep-seated distrust of reason
which has surfaced in the most recent developments of much of
philosophical research, to the point where there is talk at times of
“the end of metaphysics”. Philosophy is expected to rest content with
more modest tasks such as the simple interpretation of facts or an
enquiry into restricted fields of human knowing or its structures.
In theology too the temptations of other times have reappeared. In some
contemporary theologies, for instance, a certain rationalism is gaining
ground, especially when opinions thought to be philosophically well
founded are taken as normative for theological research. This happens
particularly when theologians, through lack of philosophical
competence, allow themselves to be swayed uncritically by assertions
which have become part of current parlance and culture but which are
poorly grounded in reason.72
There are also signs of a resurgence of fideism, which fails to
recognize the importance of rational knowledge and philosophical
discourse for the understanding of faith, indeed for the very
possibility of belief in God. One currently widespread symptom of this
fideistic tendency is a “biblicism” which tends to make the reading and
exegesis of Sacred Scripture the sole criterion of truth. In
consequence, the word of God is identified with Sacred Scripture alone,
thus eliminating the doctrine of the Church which the Second Vatican
Council stressed quite specifically. Having recalled that the word of
God is present in both Scripture and Tradition,73 the Constitution Dei
Verbum continues emphatically: “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture
comprise a single sacred deposit of the word of God entrusted to the
Church. Embracing this deposit and united with their pastors, the
People of God remain always faithful to the teaching of the
Apostles”.74 Scripture, therefore, is not the Church's sole point of
reference. The “supreme rule of her faith” 75 derives from the unity
which the Spirit has created between Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture
and the Magisterium of the Church in a reciprocity which means that
none of the three can survive without the others.76
Moreover, one should not underestimate the danger inherent in seeking
to derive the truth of Sacred Scripture from the use of one method
alone, ignoring the need for a more comprehensive exegesis which
enables the exegete, together with the whole Church, to arrive at the
full sense of the texts. Those who devote themselves to the study of
Sacred Scripture should always remember that the various hermeneutical
approaches have their own philosophical underpinnings, which need to be
carefully evaluated before they are applied to the sacred texts.
Other modes of latent fideism appear in the scant consideration
accorded to speculative theology, and in disdain for the classical
philosophy from which the terms of both the understanding of faith and
the actual formulation of dogma have been drawn. My revered Predecessor
Pope Pius XII warned against such neglect of the philosophical
tradition and against abandonment of the traditional terminology.77
56. In brief, there are signs of a widespread distrust of universal and
absolute statements, especially among those who think that truth is
born of consensus and not of a consonance between intellect and
objective reality. In a world subdivided into so many specialized
fields, it is not hard to see how difficult it can be to acknowledge
the full and ultimate meaning of life which has traditionally been the
goal of philosophy. Nonetheless, in the light of faith which finds in
Jesus Christ this ultimate meaning, I cannot but encourage
philosophers—be they Christian or not—to trust in the power of human
reason and not to set themselves goals that are too modest in their
philosophizing. The lesson of history in this millennium now drawing to
a close shows that this is the path to follow: it is necessary not to
abandon the passion for ultimate truth, the eagerness to search for it
or the audacity to forge new paths in the search. It is faith which
stirs reason to move beyond all isolation and willingly to run risks so
that it may attain whatever is beautiful, good and true. Faith thus
becomes the convinced and convincing advocate of reason.
The Church's interest in philosophy
57. Yet the Magisterium does more than point out the misperceptions and
the mistakes of philosophical theories. With no less concern it has
sought to stress the basic principles of a genuine renewal of
philosophical enquiry, indicating as well particular paths to be taken.
In this regard, Pope Leo XIII with his Encyclical Letter Æterni Patris
took a step of historic importance for the life of the Church, since it
remains to this day the one papal document of such authority devoted
entirely to philosophy. The great Pope revisited and developed the
First Vatican Council's teaching on the relationship between faith and
reason, showing how philosophical thinking contributes in fundamental
ways to faith and theological learning.78 More than a century later,
many of the insights of his Encyclical Letter have lost none of their
interest from either a practical or pedagogical point of view—most
particularly, his insistence upon the incomparable value of the
philosophy of Saint Thomas. A renewed insistence upon the thought of
the Angelic Doctor seemed to Pope Leo XIII the best way to recover the
practice of a philosophy consonant with the demands of faith. “Just
when Saint Thomas distinguishes perfectly between faith and reason”,
the Pope writes, “he unites them in bonds of mutual friendship,
conceding to each its specific rights and to each its specific
dignity”.79
58. The positive results of the papal summons are well known. Studies
of the thought of Saint Thomas and other Scholastic writers received
new impetus. Historical studies flourished, resulting in a rediscovery
of the riches of Medieval thought, which until then had been largely
unknown; and there emerged new Thomistic schools. With the use of
historical method, knowledge of the works of Saint Thomas increased
greatly, and many scholars had courage enough to introduce the
Thomistic tradition into the philosophical and theological discussions
of the day. The most influential Catholic theologians of the present
century, to whose thinking and research the Second Vatican Council was
much indebted, were products of this revival of Thomistic philosophy.
Throughout the twentieth century, the Church has been served by a
powerful array of thinkers formed in the school of the Angelic Doctor.
59. Yet the Thomistic and neo-Thomistic revival was not the only sign
of a resurgence of philosophical thought in culture of Christian
inspiration. Earlier still, and parallel to Pope Leo's call, there had
emerged a number of Catholic philosophers who, adopting more recent
currents of thought and according to a specific method, produced
philosophical works of great influence and lasting value. Some devised
syntheses so remarkable that they stood comparison with the great
systems of idealism. Others established the epistemological foundations
for a new consideration of faith in the light of a renewed
understanding of moral consciousness; others again produced a
philosophy which, starting with an analysis of immanence, opened the
way to the transcendent; and there were finally those who sought to
combine the demands of faith with the perspective of phenomenological
method. From different quarters, then, modes of philosophical
speculation have continued to emerge and have sought to keep alive the
great tradition of Christian thought which unites faith and reason.
60. The Second Vatican Council, for its part, offers a rich and
fruitful teaching concerning philosophy. I cannot fail to note,
especially in the context of this Encyclical Letter, that one chapter
of the Constitution Gaudium et Spes amounts to a virtual compendium of
the biblical anthropology from which philosophy too can draw
inspiration. The chapter deals with the value of the human person
created in the image of God, explains the dignity and superiority of
the human being over the rest of creation, and declares the
transcendent capacity of human reason.80 The problem of atheism is also
dealt with in Gaudium et Spes, and the flaws of its philosophical
vision are identified, especially in relation to the dignity and
freedom of the human person.81 There is no doubt that the climactic
section of the chapter is profoundly significant for philosophy; and it
was this which I took up in my first Encyclical Letter Redemptor
Hominis and which serves as one of the constant reference-points of my
teaching: “The truth is that only in the mystery of the Incarnate Word
does the mystery of man take on light. For Adam, the first man, was a
type of him who was to come, Christ the Lord. Christ, the new Adam, in
the very revelation of the mystery of the Father and of his love, fully
reveals man to himself and brings to light his most high calling”.82
The Council also dealt with the study of philosophy required of
candidates for the priesthood; and its recommendations have
implications for Christian education as a whole. These are the
Council's words: “The philosophical disciplines should be taught in
such a way that students acquire in the first place a solid and
harmonious knowledge of the human being, of the world and of God, based
upon the philosophical heritage which is enduringly valid, yet taking
into account currents of modern philosophy”.83
These directives have been reiterated and developed in a number of
other magisterial documents in order to guarantee a solid philosophical
formation, especially for those preparing for theological studies. I
have myself emphasized several times the importance of this
philosophical formation for those who one day, in their pastoral life,
will have to address the aspirations of the contemporary world and
understand the causes of certain behaviour in order to respond in
appropriate ways.84
61. If it has been necessary from time to time to intervene on this
question, to reiterate the value of the Angelic Doctor's insights and
insist on the study of his thought, this has been because the
Magisterium's directives have not always been followed with the
readiness one would wish. In the years after the Second Vatican
Council, many Catholic faculties were in some ways impoverished by a
diminished sense of the importance of the study not just of Scholastic
philosophy but more generally of the study of philosophy itself. I
cannot fail to note with surprise and displeasure that this lack of
interest in the study of philosophy is shared by not a few theologians.
There are various reasons for this disenchantment. First, there is the
distrust of reason found in much contemporary philosophy, which has
largely abandoned metaphysical study of the ultimate human questions in
order to concentrate upon problems which are more detailed and
restricted, at times even purely formal. Another reason, it should be
said, is the misunderstanding which has arisen especially with regard
to the “human sciences”. On a number of occasions, the Second Vatican
Council stressed the positive value of scientific research for a deeper
knowledge of the mystery of the human being.85 But the invitation
addressed to theologians to engage the human sciences and apply them
properly in their enquiries should not be interpreted as an implicit
authorization to marginalize philosophy or to put something else in its
place in pastoral formation and in the praeparatio fidei. A further
factor is the renewed interest in the inculturation of faith. The life
of the young Churches in particular has brought to light, together with
sophisticated modes of thinking, an array of expressions of popular
wisdom; and this constitutes a genuine cultural wealth of traditions.
Yet the study of traditional ways must go hand in hand with
philosophical enquiry, an enquiry which will allow the positive traits
of popular wisdom to emerge and forge the necessary link with the
proclamation of the Gospel.86
62. I wish to repeat clearly that the study of philosophy is
fundamental and indispensable to the structure of theological studies
and to the formation of candidates for the priesthood. It is not by
chance that the curriculum of theological studies is preceded by a time
of special study of philosophy. This decision, confirmed by the Fifth
Lateran Council,87 is rooted in the experience which matured through
the Middle Ages, when the importance of a constructive harmony of
philosophical and theological learning emerged. This ordering of
studies influenced, promoted and enabled much of the development of
modern philosophy, albeit indirectly. One telling example of this is
the influence of the Disputationes Metaphysicae of Francisco Suárez,
which found its way even into the Lutheran universities of Germany.
Conversely, the dismantling of this arrangement has created serious
gaps in both priestly formation and theological research. Consider, for
instance, the disregard of modern thought and culture which has led
either to a refusal of any kind of dialogue or to an indiscriminate
acceptance of any kind of philosophy.
I trust most sincerely that these difficulties will be overcome by an
intelligent philosophical and theological formation, which must never
be lacking in the Church.
63. For the reasons suggested here, it has seemed to me urgent to
re-emphasize with this Encyclical Letter the Church's intense interest
in philosophy—indeed the intimate bond which ties theological work to
the philosophical search for truth. From this comes the Magisterium's
duty to discern and promote philosophical thinking which is not at odds
with faith. It is my task to state principles and criteria which in my
judgement are necessary in order to restore a harmonious and creative
relationship between theology and philosophy. In the light of these
principles and criteria, it will be possible to discern with greater
clarity what link, if any, theology should forge with the different
philosophical opinions or systems which the world of today presents.
CHAPTER VI - THE INTERACTION BETWEEN PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY
The knowledge of faith and the demands of philosophical reason
64. The word of God is addressed to all people, in every age and in
every part of the world; and the human being is by nature a
philosopher. As a reflective and scientific elaboration of the
understanding of God's word in the light of faith, theology for its
part must relate, in some of its procedures and in the performance of
its specific tasks, to the philosophies which have been developed
through the ages. I have no wish to direct theologians to particular
methods, since that is not the competence of the Magisterium. I wish
instead to recall some specific tasks of theology which, by the very
nature of the revealed word, demand recourse to philosophical enquiry.
65. Theology is structured as an understanding of faith in the light of
a twofold methodological principle: the auditus fidei and the
intellectus fidei. With the first, theology makes its own the content
of Revelation as this has been gradually expounded in Sacred Tradition,
Sacred Scripture and the Church's living Magisterium.88 With the
second, theology seeks to respond through speculative enquiry to the
specific demands of disciplined thought.
Philosophy contributes specifically to theology in preparing for a
correct auditus fidei with its study of the structure of knowledge and
personal communication, especially the various forms and functions of
language. No less important is philosophy's contribution to a more
coherent understanding of Church Tradition, the pronouncements of the
Magisterium and the teaching of the great masters of theology, who
often adopt concepts and thought-forms drawn from a particular
philosophical tradition. In this case, the theologian is summoned not
only to explain the concepts and terms used by the Church in her
thinking and the development of her teaching, but also to know in depth
the philosophical systems which may have influenced those concepts and
terms, in order to formulate correct and consistent interpretations of
them.
66. With regard to the intellectus fidei, a prime consideration must be
that divine Truth “proposed to us in the Sacred Scriptures and rightly
interpreted by the Church's teaching” 89 enjoys an innate
intelligibility, so logically consistent that it stands as an authentic
body of knowledge. The intellectus fidei expounds this truth, not only
in grasping the logical and conceptual structure of the propositions in
which the Church's teaching is framed, but also, indeed primarily, in
bringing to light the salvific meaning of these propositions for the
individual and for humanity. From the sum of these propositions, the
believer comes to know the history of salvation, which culminates in
the person of Jesus Christ and in his Paschal Mystery. Believers then
share in this mystery by their assent of faith.
For its part, dogmatic theology must be able to articulate the
universal meaning of the mystery of the One and Triune God and of the
economy of salvation, both as a narrative and, above all, in the form
of argument. It must do so, in other words, through concepts formulated
in a critical and universally communicable way. Without philosophy's
contribution, it would in fact be impossible to discuss theological
issues such as, for example, the use of language to speak about God,
the personal relations within the Trinity, God's creative activity in
the world, the relationship between God and man, or Christ's identity
as true God and true man. This is no less true of the different themes
of moral theology, which employ concepts such as the moral law,
conscience, freedom, personal responsibility and guilt, which are in
part defined by philosophical ethics.
It is necessary therefore that the mind of the believer acquire a
natural, consistent and true knowledge of created realities—the world
and man himself—which are also the object of divine Revelation. Still
more, reason must be able to articulate this knowledge in concept and
argument. Speculative dogmatic theology thus presupposes and implies a
philosophy of the human being, the world and, more radically, of being,
which has objective truth as its foundation.
67. With its specific character as a discipline charged with giving an
account of faith (cf. 1 Pet 3:15), the concern of fundamental theology
will be to justify and expound the relationship between faith and
philosophical thought. Recalling the teaching of Saint Paul (cf. Rom
1:19-20), the First Vatican Council pointed to the existence of truths
which are naturally, and thus philosophically, knowable; and an
acceptance of God's Revelation necessarily presupposes knowledge of
these truths. In studying Revelation and its credibility, as well as
the corresponding act of faith, fundamental theology should show how,
in the light of the knowledge conferred by faith, there emerge certain
truths which reason, from its own independent enquiry, already
perceives. Revelation endows these truths with their fullest meaning,
directing them towards the richness of the revealed mystery in which
they find their ultimate purpose. Consider, for example, the natural
knowledge of God, the possibility of distinguishing divine Revelation
from other phenomena or the recognition of its credibility, the
capacity of human language to speak in a true and meaningful way even
of things which transcend all human experience. From all these truths,
the mind is led to acknowledge the existence of a truly propaedeutic
path to faith, one which can lead to the acceptance of Revelation
without in any way compromising the principles and autonomy of the mind
itself.90
Similarly, fundamental theology should demonstrate the profound
compatibility that exists between faith and its need to find expression
by way of human reason fully free to give its assent. Faith will thus
be able “to show fully the path to reason in a sincere search for the
truth. Although faith, a gift of God, is not based on reason, it can
certainly not dispense with it. At the same time, it becomes apparent
that reason needs to be reinforced by faith, in order to discover
horizons it cannot reach on its own”.91
68. Moral theology has perhaps an even greater need of philosophy's
contribution. In the New Testament, human life is much less governed by
prescriptions than in the Old Testament. Life in the Spirit leads
believers to a freedom and responsibility which surpass the Law. Yet
the Gospel and the Apostolic writings still set forth both general
principles of Christian conduct and specific teachings and precepts. In
order to apply these to the particular circumstances of individual and
communal life, Christians must be able fully to engage their conscience
and the power of their reason. In other words, moral theology requires
a sound philosophical vision of human nature and society, as well as of
the general principles of ethical decision-making.
69. It might be objected that the theologian should nowadays rely less
on philosophy than on the help of other kinds of human knowledge, such
as history and above all the sciences, the extraordinary advances of
which in recent times stir such admiration. Others, more alert to the
link between faith and culture, claim that theology should look more to
the wisdom contained in peoples' traditions than to a philosophy of
Greek and Eurocentric provenance. Others still, prompted by a mistaken
notion of cultural pluralism, simply deny the universal value of the
Church's philosophical heritage.
There is some truth in these claims which are acknowledged in the
teaching of the Council.92 Reference to the sciences is often helpful,
allowing as it does a more thorough knowledge of the subject under
study; but it should not mean the rejection of a typically
philosophical and critical thinking which is concerned with the
universal. Indeed, this kind of thinking is required for a fruitful
exchange between cultures. What I wish to emphasize is the duty to go
beyond the particular and concrete, lest the prime task of
demonstrating the universality of faith's content be abandoned. Nor
should it be forgotten that the specific contribution of philosophical
enquiry enables us to discern in different world-views and different
cultures “not what people think but what the objective truth is”.93 It
is not an array of human opinions but truth alone which can be of help
to theology.
70. Because of its implications for both philosophy and theology, the
question of the relationship with cultures calls for particular
attention, which cannot however claim to be exhaustive. From the time
the Gospel was first preached, the Church has known the process of
encounter and engagement with cultures. Christ's mandate to his
disciples to go out everywhere, “even to the ends of the earth” (Acts
1:8), in order to pass on the truth which he had revealed, led the
Christian community to recognize from the first the universality of its
message and the difficulties created by cultural differences. A passage
of Saint Paul's letter to the Christians of Ephesus helps us to
understand how the early community responded to the problem. The
Apostle writes: “Now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have
been brought near in the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who has
made us both one, and has broken down the wall of hostility” (2:13-14).
In the light of this text, we reflect further to see how the Gentiles
were transformed once they had embraced the faith. With the richness of
the salvation wrought by Christ, the walls separating the different
cultures collapsed. God's promise in Christ now became a universal
offer: no longer limited to one particular people, its language and its
customs, but extended to all as a heritage from which each might freely
draw. From their different locations and traditions all are called in
Christ to share in the unity of the family of God's children. It is
Christ who enables the two peoples to become “one”. Those who were “far
off” have come “near”, thanks to the newness brought by the Paschal
Mystery. Jesus destroys the walls of division and creates unity in a
new and unsurpassed way through our sharing in his mystery. This unity
is so deep that the Church can say with Saint Paul: “You are no longer
strangers and sojourners, but you are saints and members of the
household of God” (Eph 2:19).
This simple statement contains a great truth: faith's encounter with
different cultures has created something new. When they are deeply
rooted in experience, cultures show forth the human being's
characteristic openness to the universal and the transcendent.
Therefore they offer different paths to the truth, which assuredly
serve men and women well in revealing values which can make their life
ever more human.94 Insofar as cultures appeal to the values of older
traditions, they point—implicitly but authentically—to the
manifestation of God in nature, as we saw earlier in considering the
Wisdom literature and the teaching of Saint Paul.
71. Inseparable as they are from people and their history, cultures
share the dynamics which the human experience of life reveals. They
change and advance because people meet in new ways and share with each
other their ways of life. Cultures are fed by the communication of
values, and they survive and flourish insofar as they remain open to
assimilating new experiences. How are we to explain these dynamics? All
people are part of a culture, depend upon it and shape it. Human beings
are both child and parent of the culture in which they are immersed. To
everything they do, they bring something which sets them apart from the
rest of creation: their unfailing openness to mystery and their
boundless desire for knowledge. Lying deep in every culture, there
appears this impulse towards a fulfilment. We may say, then, that
culture itself has an intrinsic capacity to receive divine Revelation.
Cultural context permeates the living of Christian faith, which
contributes in turn little by little to shaping that context. To every
culture Christians bring the unchanging truth of God, which he reveals
in the history and culture of a people. Time and again, therefore, in
the course of the centuries we have seen repeated the event witnessed
by the pilgrims in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. Hearing the
Apostles, they asked one another: “Are not all these who are speaking
Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native
language? Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of
Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and
Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and
visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians, we
hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God” (Acts
2:7-11). While it demands of all who hear it the adherence of faith,
the proclamation of the Gospel in different cultures allows people to
preserve their own cultural identity. This in no way creates division,
because the community of the baptized is marked by a universality which
can embrace every culture and help to foster whatever is implicit in
them to the point where it will be fully explicit in the light of
truth.
This means that no one culture can ever become the criterion of
judgment, much less the ultimate criterion of truth with regard to
God's Revelation. The Gospel is not opposed to any culture, as if in
engaging a culture the Gospel would seek to strip it of its native
riches and force it to adopt forms which are alien to it. On the
contrary, the message which believers bring to the world and to
cultures is a genuine liberation from all the disorders caused by sin
and is, at the same time, a call to the fullness of truth. Cultures are
not only not diminished by this encounter; rather, they are prompted to
open themselves to the newness of the Gospel's truth and to be stirred
by this truth to develop in new ways.
72. In preaching the Gospel, Christianity first encountered Greek
philosophy; but this does not mean at all that other approaches are
precluded. Today, as the Gospel gradually comes into contact with
cultural worlds which once lay beyond Christian influence, there are
new tasks of inculturation, which mean that our generation faces
problems not unlike those faced by the Church in the first centuries.
My thoughts turn immediately to the lands of the East, so rich in
religious and philosophical traditions of great antiquity. Among these
lands, India has a special place. A great spiritual impulse leads
Indian thought to seek an experience which would liberate the spirit
from the shackles of time and space and would therefore acquire
absolute value. The dynamic of this quest for liberation provides the
context for great metaphysical systems.
In India particularly, it is the duty of Christians now to draw from
this rich heritage the elements compatible with their faith, in order
to enrich Christian thought. In this work of discernment, which finds
its inspiration in the Council's Declaration Nostra Aetate, certain
criteria will have to be kept in mind. The first of these is the
universality of the human spirit, whose basic needs are the same in the
most disparate cultures. The second, which derives from the first, is
this: in engaging great cultures for the first time, the Church cannot
abandon what she has gained from her inculturation in the world of
Greco-Latin thought. To reject this heritage would be to deny the
providential plan of God who guides his Church down the paths of time
and history. This criterion is valid for the Church in every age, even
for the Church of the future, who will judge herself enriched by all
that comes from today's engagement with Eastern cultures and will find
in this inheritance fresh cues for fruitful dialogue with the cultures
which will emerge as humanity moves into the future. Thirdly, care will
need to be taken lest, contrary to the very nature of the human spirit,
the legitimate defense of the uniqueness and originality of Indian
thought be confused with the idea that a particular cultural tradition
should remain closed in its difference and affirm itself by opposing
other traditions.
What has been said here of India is no less true for the heritage of
the great cultures of China, Japan and the other countries of Asia, as
also for the riches of the traditional cultures of Africa, which are
for the most part orally transmitted.
73. In the light of these considerations, the relationship between
theology and philosophy is best construed as a circle. Theology's
source and starting-point must always be the word of God revealed in
history, while its final goal will be an understanding of that word
which increases with each passing generation. Yet, since God's word is
Truth (cf. Jn 17:17), the human search for truth—philosophy, pursued in
keeping with its own rules—can only help to understand God's word
better. It is not just a question of theological discourse using this
or that concept or element of a philosophical construct; what matters
most is that the believer's reason use its powers of reflection in the
search for truth which moves from the word of God towards a better
understanding of it. It is as if, moving between the twin poles of
God's word and a better understanding of it, reason is offered guidance
and is warned against paths which would lead it to stray from revealed
Truth and to stray in the end from the truth pure and simple. Instead,
reason is stirred to explore paths which of itself it would not even
have suspected it could take. This circular relationship with the word
of God leaves philosophy enriched, because reason discovers new and
unsuspected horizons.
74. The fruitfulness of this relationship is confirmed by the
experience of great Christian theologians who also distinguished
themselves as great philosophers, bequeathing to us writings of such
high speculative value as to warrant comparison with the masters of
ancient philosophy. This is true of both the Fathers of the Church,
among whom at least Saint Gregory of Nazianzus and Saint Augustine
should be mentioned, and the Medieval Doctors with the great triad of
Saint Anselm, Saint Bonaventure and Saint Thomas Aquinas. We see the
same fruitful relationship between philosophy and the word of God in
the courageous research pursued by more recent thinkers, among whom I
gladly mention, in a Western context, figures such as John Henry
Newman, Antonio Rosmini, Jacques Maritain, Étienne Gilson and Edith
Stein and, in an Eastern context, eminent scholars such as Vladimir S.
Soloviev, Pavel A. Florensky, Petr Chaadaev and Vladimir N. Lossky.
Obviously other names could be cited; and in referring to these I
intend not to endorse every aspect of their thought, but simply to
offer significant examples of a process of philosophical enquiry which
was enriched by engaging the data of faith. One thing is certain:
attention to the spiritual journey of these masters can only give
greater momentum to both the search for truth and the effort to apply
the results of that search to the service of humanity. It is to be
hoped that now and in the future there will be those who continue to
cultivate this great philosophical and theological tradition for the
good of both the Church and humanity.
Different stances of philosophy
75. As appears from this brief sketch of the history of the
relationship between faith and philosophy, one can distinguish
different stances of philosophy with regard to Christian faith. First,
there is a philosophy completely independent of the Gospel's
Revelation: this is the stance adopted by philosophy as it took shape
in history before the birth of the Redeemer and later in regions as yet
untouched by the Gospel. We see here philosophy's valid aspiration to
be an autonomous enterprise, obeying its own rules and employing the
powers of reason alone. Although seriously handicapped by the inherent
weakness of human reason, this aspiration should be supported and
strengthened. As a search for truth within the natural order, the
enterprise of philosophy is always open—at least implicitly—to the
supernatural.
Moreover, the demand for a valid autonomy of thought should be
respected even when theological discourse makes use of philosophical
concepts and arguments. Indeed, to argue according to rigorous rational
criteria is to guarantee that the results attained are universally
valid. This also confirms the principle that grace does not destroy
nature but perfects it: the assent of faith, engaging the intellect and
will, does not destroy but perfects the free will of each believer who
deep within welcomes what has been revealed.
It is clear that this legitimate approach is rejected by the theory of
so-called “separate” philosophy, pursued by some modern philosophers.
This theory claims for philosophy not only a valid autonomy, but a
self-sufficiency of thought which is patently invalid. In refusing the
truth offered by divine Revelation, philosophy only does itself damage,
since this is to preclude access to a deeper knowledge of truth.
76. A second stance adopted by philosophy is often designated as
Christian philosophy. In itself, the term is valid, but it should not
be misunderstood: it in no way intends to suggest that there is an
official philosophy of the Church, since the faith as such is not a
philosophy. The term seeks rather to indicate a Christian way of
philosophizing, a philosophical speculation conceived in dynamic union
with faith. It does not therefore refer simply to a philosophy
developed by Christian philosophers who have striven in their research
not to contradict the faith. The term Christian philosophy includes
those important developments of philosophical thinking which would not
have happened without the direct or indirect contribution of Christian
faith.
Christian philosophy therefore has two aspects. The first is
subjective, in the sense that faith purifies reason. As a theological
virtue, faith liberates reason from presumption, the typical temptation
of the philosopher. Saint Paul, the Fathers of the Church and, closer
to our own time, philosophers such as Pascal and Kierkegaard reproached
such presumption. The philosopher who learns humility will also find
courage to tackle questions which are difficult to resolve if the data
of Revelation are ignored—for example, the problem of evil and
suffering, the personal nature of God and the question of the meaning
of life or, more directly, the radical metaphysical question, “Why is
there something rather than nothing?”.
The second aspect of Christian philosophy is objective, in the sense
that it concerns content. Revelation clearly proposes certain truths
which might never have been discovered by reason unaided, although they
are not of themselves inaccessible to reason. Among these truths is the
notion of a free and personal God who is the Creator of the world, a
truth which has been so crucial for the development of philosophical
thinking, especially the philosophy of being. There is also the reality
of sin, as it appears in the light of faith, which helps to shape an
adequate philosophical formulation of the problem of evil. The notion
of the person as a spiritual being is another of faith's specific
contributions: the Christian proclamation of human dignity, equality
and freedom has undoubtedly influenced modern philosophical thought. In
more recent times, there has been the discovery that history as
event—so central to Christian Revelation—is important for philosophy as
well. It is no accident that this has become pivotal for a philosophy
of history which stakes its claim as a new chapter in the human search
for truth.
Among the objective elements of Christian philosophy we might also
place the need to explore the rationality of certain truths expressed
in Sacred Scripture, such as the possibility of man's supernatural
vocation and original sin itself. These are tasks which challenge
reason to recognize that there is something true and rational lying far
beyond the straits within which it would normally be confined. These
questions in fact broaden reason's scope for action.
In speculating on these questions, philosophers have not become
theologians, since they have not sought to understand and expound the
truths of faith on the basis of Revelation. They have continued working
on their own terrain and with their own purely rational method, yet
extending their research to new aspects of truth. It could be said that
a good part of modern and contemporary philosophy would not exist
without this stimulus of the word of God. This conclusion retains all
its relevance, despite the disappointing fact that many thinkers in
recent centuries have abandoned Christian orthodoxy.
77. Philosophy presents another stance worth noting when theology
itself calls upon it. Theology in fact has always needed and still
needs philosophy's contribution. As a work of critical reason in the
light of faith, theology presupposes and requires in all its research a
reason formed and educated to concept and argument. Moreover, theology
needs philosophy as a partner in dialogue in order to confirm the
intelligibility and universal truth of its claims. It was not by
accident that the Fathers of the Church and the Medieval theologians
adopted non-Christian philosophies. This historical fact confirms the
value of philosophy's autonomy, which remains unimpaired when theology
calls upon it; but it shows as well the profound transformations which
philosophy itself must undergo.
It was because of its noble and indispensable contribution that, from
the Patristic period onwards, philosophy was called the ancilla
theologiae. The title was not intended to indicate philosophy's servile
submission or purely functional role with regard to theology. Rather,
it was used in the sense in which Aristotle had spoken of the
experimental sciences as “ancillary” to “prima philosophia”. The term
can scarcely be used today, given the principle of autonomy to which we
have referred, but it has served throughout history to indicate the
necessity of the link between the two sciences and the impossibility of
their separation.
Were theologians to refuse the help of philosophy, they would run the
risk of doing philosophy unwittingly and locking themselves within
thought-structures poorly adapted to the understanding of faith. Were
philosophers, for their part, to shun theology completely, they would
be forced to master on their own the contents of Christian faith, as
has been the case with some modern philosophers. Either way, the
grounding principles of autonomy which every science rightly wants
guaranteed would be seriously threatened.
When it adopts this stance, philosophy, like theology, comes more
directly under the authority of the Magisterium and its discernment,
because of the implications it has for the understanding of Revelation,
as I have already explained. The truths of faith make certain demands
which philosophy must respect whenever it engages theology.
78. It should be clear in the light of these reflections why the
Magisterium has repeatedly acclaimed the merits of Saint Thomas'
thought and made him the guide and model for theological studies. This
has not been in order to take a position on properly philosophical
questions nor to demand adherence to particular theses. The
Magisterium's intention has always been to show how Saint Thomas is an
authentic model for all who seek the truth. In his thinking, the
demands of reason and the power of faith found the most elevated
synthesis ever attained by human thought, for he could defend the
radical newness introduced by Revelation without ever demeaning the
venture proper to reason.
79. Developing further what the Magisterium before me has taught, I
intend in this final section to point out certain requirements which
theology—and more fundamentally still, the word of God itself—makes
today of philosophical thinking and contemporary philosophies. As I
have already noted, philosophy must obey its own rules and be based
upon its own principles; truth, however, can only be one. The content
of Revelation can never debase the discoveries and legitimate autonomy
of reason. Yet, conscious that it cannot set itself up as an absolute
and exclusive value, reason on its part must never lose its capacity to
question and to be questioned. By virtue of the splendour emanating
from subsistent Being itself, revealed truth offers the fullness of
light and will therefore illumine the path of philosophical enquiry. In
short, Christian Revelation becomes the true point of encounter and
engagement between philosophical and theological thinking in their
reciprocal relationship. It is to be hoped therefore that theologians
and philosophers will let themselves be guided by the authority of
truth alone so that there will emerge a philosophy consonant with the
word of God. Such a philosophy will be a place where Christian faith
and human cultures may meet, a point of understanding between believer
and non-believer. It will help lead believers to a stronger conviction
that faith grows deeper and more authentic when it is wedded to thought
and does not reject it. It is again the Fathers who teach us this: “To
believe is nothing other than to think with assent... Believers are
also thinkers: in believing, they think and in thinking, they
believe... If faith does not think, it is nothing”.95 And again: “If
there is no assent, there is no faith, for without assent one does not
really believe”.96
CHAPTER VII - CURRENT REQUIREMENTS AND TASKS
The indispensable requirements of the word of God
80. In Sacred Scripture are found elements, both implicit and explicit,
which allow a vision of the human being and the world which has
exceptional philosophical density. Christians have come to an ever
deeper awareness of the wealth to be found in the sacred text. It is
there that we learn that what we experience is not absolute: it is
neither uncreated nor self-generating. God alone is the Absolute. From
the Bible there emerges also a vision of man as imago Dei. This vision
offers indications regarding man's life, his freedom and the
immortality of the human spirit. Since the created world is not
self-sufficient, every illusion of autonomy which would deny the
essential dependence on God of every creature—the human being
included—leads to dramatic situations which subvert the rational search
for the harmony and the meaning of human life.
The problem of moral evil—the most tragic of evil's forms—is also
addressed in the Bible, which tells us that such evil stems not from
any material deficiency, but is a wound inflicted by the disordered
exercise of human freedom. In the end, the word of God poses the
problem of the meaning of life and proffers its response in directing
the human being to Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word of God, who is the
perfect realization of human existence. A reading of the sacred text
would reveal other aspects of this problem; but what emerges clearly is
the rejection of all forms of relativism, materialism and pantheism.
The fundamental conviction of the “philosophy” found in the Bible is
that the world and human life do have a meaning and look towards their
fulfilment, which comes in Jesus Christ. The mystery of the Incarnation
will always remain the central point of reference for an understanding
of the enigma of human existence, the created world and God himself.
The challenge of this mystery pushes philosophy to its limits, as
reason is summoned to make its own a logic which brings down the walls
within which it risks being confined. Yet only at this point does the
meaning of life reach its defining moment. The intimate essence of God
and of the human being become intelligible: in the mystery of the
Incarnate Word, human nature and divine nature are safeguarded in all
their autonomy, and at the same time the unique bond which sets them
together in mutuality without confusion of any kind is revealed.97
81. One of the most significant aspects of our current situation, it
should be noted, is the “crisis of meaning”. Perspectives on life and
the world, often of a scientific temper, have so proliferated that we
face an increasing fragmentation of knowledge. This makes the search
for meaning difficult and often fruitless. Indeed, still more
dramatically, in this maelstrom of data and facts in which we live and
which seem to comprise the very fabric of life, many people wonder
whether it still makes sense to ask about meaning. The array of
theories which vie to give an answer, and the different ways of viewing
and of interpreting the world and human life, serve only to aggravate
this radical doubt, which can easily lead to scepticism, indifference
or to various forms of nihilism.
In consequence, the human spirit is often invaded by a kind of
ambiguous thinking which leads it to an ever deepening introversion,
locked within the confines of its own immanence without reference of
any kind to the transcendent. A philosophy which no longer asks the
question of the meaning of life would be in grave danger of reducing
reason to merely accessory functions, with no real passion for the
search for truth.
To be consonant with the word of God, philosophy needs first of all to
recover its sapiential dimension as a search for the ultimate and
overarching meaning of life. This first requirement is in fact most
helpful in stimulating philosophy to conform to its proper nature. In
doing so, it will be not only the decisive critical factor which
determines the foundations and limits of the different fields of
scientific learning, but will also take its place as the ultimate
framework of the unity of human knowledge and action, leading them to
converge towards a final goal and meaning. This sapiential dimension is
all the more necessary today, because the immense expansion of
humanity's technical capability demands a renewed and sharpened sense
of ultimate values. If this technology is not ordered to something
greater than a merely utilitarian end, then it could soon prove inhuman
and even become potential destroyer of the human race.98
The word of God reveals the final destiny of men and women and provides
a unifying explanation of all that they do in the world. This is why it
invites philosophy to engage in the search for the natural foundation
of this meaning, which corresponds to the religious impulse innate in
every person. A philosophy denying the possibility of an ultimate and
overarching meaning would be not only ill-adapted to its task, but
false.
82. Yet this sapiential function could not be performed by a philosophy
which was not itself a true and authentic knowledge, addressed, that
is, not only to particular and subordinate aspects of
reality—functional, formal or utilitarian—but to its total and
definitive truth, to the very being of the object which is known. This
prompts a second requirement: that philosophy verify the human capacity
to know the truth, to come to a knowledge which can reach objective
truth by means of that adaequatio rei et intellectus to which the
Scholastic Doctors referred.99 This requirement, proper to faith, was
explicitly reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council: “Intelligence is
not confined to observable data alone. It can with genuine certitude
attain to reality itself as knowable, though in consequence of sin that
certitude is partially obscured and weakened”. 100
A radically phenomenalist or relativist philosophy would be ill-adapted
to help in the deeper exploration of the riches found in the word of
God. Sacred Scripture always assumes that the individual, even if
guilty of duplicity and mendacity, can know and grasp the clear and
simple truth. The Bible, and the New Testament in particular, contains
texts and statements which have a genuinely ontological content. The
inspired authors intended to formulate true statements, capable, that
is, of expressing objective reality. It cannot be said that the
Catholic tradition erred when it took certain texts of Saint John and
Saint Paul to be statements about the very being of Christ. In seeking
to understand and explain these statements, theology needs therefore
the contribution of a philosophy which does not disavow the possibility
of a knowledge which is objectively true, even if not perfect. This
applies equally to the judgements of moral conscience, which Sacred
Scripture considers capable of being objectively true. 101
83. The two requirements already stipulated imply a third: the need for
a philosophy of genuinely metaphysical range, capable, that is, of
transcending empirical data in order to attain something absolute,
ultimate and foundational in its search for truth. This requirement is
implicit in sapiential and analytical knowledge alike; and in
particular it is a requirement for knowing the moral good, which has
its ultimate foundation in the Supreme Good, God himself. Here I do not
mean to speak of metaphysics in the sense of a specific school or a
particular historical current of thought. I want only to state that
reality and truth do transcend the factual and the empirical, and to
vindicate the human being's capacity to know this transcendent and
metaphysical dimension in a way that is true and certain, albeit
imperfect and analogical. In this sense, metaphysics should not be seen
as an alternative to anthropology, since it is metaphysics which makes
it possible to ground the concept of personal dignity in virtue of
their spiritual nature. In a special way, the person constitutes a
privileged locus for the encounter with being, and hence with
metaphysical enquiry.
Wherever men and women discover a call to the absolute and
transcendent, the metaphysical dimension of reality opens up before
them: in truth, in beauty, in moral values, in other persons, in being
itself, in God. We face a great challenge at the end of this millennium
to move from phenomenon to foundation, a step as necessary as it is
urgent. We cannot stop short at experience alone; even if experience
does reveal the human being's interiority and spirituality, speculative
thinking must penetrate to the spiritual core and the ground from which
it rises. Therefore, a philosophy which shuns metaphysics would be
radically unsuited to the task of mediation in the understanding of
Revelation.
The word of God refers constantly to things which transcend human
experience and even human thought; but this “mystery” could not be
revealed, nor could theology render it in some way intelligible, 102
were human knowledge limited strictly to the world of sense experience.
Metaphysics thus plays an essential role of mediation in theological
research. A theology without a metaphysical horizon could not move
beyond an analysis of religious experience, nor would it allow the
intellectus fidei to give a coherent account of the universal and
transcendent value of revealed truth.
If I insist so strongly on the metaphysical element, it is because I am
convinced that it is the path to be taken in order to move beyond the
crisis pervading large sectors of philosophy at the moment, and thus to
correct certain mistaken modes of behaviour now widespread in our
society.
84. The importance of metaphysics becomes still more evident if we
consider current developments in hermeneutics and the analysis of
language. The results of such studies can be very helpful for the
understanding of faith, since they bring to light the structure of our
thought and speech and the meaning which language bears. However, some
scholars working in these fields tend to stop short at the question of
how reality is understood and expressed, without going further to see
whether reason can discover its essence. How can we fail to see in such
a frame of mind the confirmation of our present crisis of confidence in
the powers of reason? When, on the basis of preconceived assumptions,
these positions tend to obscure the contents of faith or to deny their
universal validity, then not only do they abase reason but in so doing
they also disqualify themselves. Faith clearly presupposes that human
language is capable of expressing divine and transcendent reality in a
universal way—analogically, it is true, but no less meaningfully for
that. 103 Were this not so, the word of God, which is always a divine
word in human language, would not be capable of saying anything about
God. The interpretation of this word cannot merely keep referring us to
one interpretation after another, without ever leading us to a
statement which is simply true; otherwise there would be no Revelation
of God, but only the expression of human notions about God and about
what God presumably thinks of us.
85. I am well aware that these requirements which the word of God
imposes upon philosophy may seem daunting to many people involved in
philosophical research today. Yet this is why, taking up what has been
taught repeatedly by the Popes for several generations and reaffirmed
by the Second Vatican Council itself, I wish to reaffirm strongly the
conviction that the human being can come to a unified and organic
vision of knowledge. This is one of the tasks which Christian thought
will have to take up through the next millennium of the Christian era.
The segmentation of knowledge, with its splintered approach to truth
and consequent fragmentation of meaning, keeps people today from coming
to an interior unity. How could the Church not be concerned by this? It
is the Gospel which imposes this sapiential task directly upon her
Pastors, and they cannot shrink from their duty to undertake it.
I believe that those philosophers who wish to respond today to the
demands which the word of God makes on human thinking should develop
their thought on the basis of these postulates and in organic
continuity with the great tradition which, beginning with the ancients,
passes through the Fathers of the Church and the masters of
Scholasticism and includes the fundamental achievements of modern and
contemporary thought. If philosophers can take their place within this
tradition and draw their inspiration from it, they will certainly not
fail to respect philosophy's demand for autonomy.
In the present situation, therefore, it is most significant that some
philosophers are promoting a recovery of the determining role of this
tradition for a right approach to knowledge. The appeal to tradition is
not a mere remembrance of the past; it involves rather the recognition
of a cultural heritage which belongs to all of humanity. Indeed it may
be said that it is we who belong to the tradition and that it is not
ours to dispose of at will. Precisely by being rooted in the tradition
will we be able today to develop for the future an original, new and
constructive mode of thinking. This same appeal is all the more valid
for theology. Not only because theology has the living Tradition of the
Church as its original source, 104 but also because, in virtue of this,
it must be able to recover both the profound theological tradition of
earlier times and the enduring tradition of that philosophy which by
dint of its authentic wisdom can transcend the boundaries of space and
time.
86. This insistence on the need for a close relationship of continuity
between contemporary philosophy and the philosophy developed in the
Christian tradition is intended to avert the danger which lies hidden
in some currents of thought which are especially prevalent today. It is
appropriate, I think, to review them, however briefly, in order to
point out their errors and the consequent risks for philosophical work.
The first goes by the name of eclecticism, by which is meant the
approach of those who, in research, teaching and argumentation, even in
theology, tend to use individual ideas drawn from different
philosophies, without concern for their internal coherence, their place
within a system or their historical context. They therefore run the
risk of being unable to distinguish the part of truth of a given
doctrine from elements of it which may be erroneous or ill-suited to
the task at hand. An extreme form of eclecticism appears also in the
rhetorical misuse of philosophical terms to which some theologians are
given at times. Such manipulation does not help the search for truth
and does not train reason—whether theological or philosophical—to
formulate arguments seriously and scientifically. The rigorous and
far-reaching study of philosophical doctrines, their particular
terminology and the context in which they arose, helps to overcome the
danger of eclecticism and makes it possible to integrate them into
theological discourse in a way appropriate to the task.
87. Eclecticism is an error of method, but lying hidden within it can
also be the claims of historicism. To understand a doctrine from the
past correctly, it is necessary to set it within its proper historical
and cultural context. The fundamental claim of historicism, however, is
that the truth of a philosophy is determined on the basis of its
appropriateness to a certain period and a certain historical purpose.
At least implicitly, therefore, the enduring validity of truth is
denied. What was true in one period, historicists claim, may not be
true in another. Thus for them the history of thought becomes little
more than an archeological resource useful for illustrating positions
once held, but for the most part outmoded and meaningless now. On the
contrary, it should not be forgotten that, even if a formulation is
bound in some way by time and culture, the truth or the error which it
expresses can invariably be identified and evaluated as such despite
the distance of space and time.
In theological enquiry, historicism tends to appear for the most part
under the guise of “modernism”. Rightly concerned to make theological
discourse relevant and understandable to our time, some theologians use
only the most recent opinions and philosophical language, ignoring the
critical evaluation which ought to be made of them in the light of the
tradition. By exchanging relevance for truth, this form of modernism
shows itself incapable of satisfying the demands of truth to which
theology is called to respond.
88. Another threat to be reckoned with is scientism. This is the
philosophical notion which refuses to admit the validity of forms of
knowledge other than those of the positive sciences; and it relegates
religious, theological, ethical and aesthetic knowledge to the realm of
mere fantasy. In the past, the same idea emerged in positivism and
neo-positivism, which considered metaphysical statements to be
meaningless. Critical epistemology has discredited such a claim, but
now we see it revived in the new guise of scientism, which dismisses
values as mere products of the emotions and rejects the notion of being
in order to clear the way for pure and simple facticity. Science would
thus be poised to dominate all aspects of human life through
technological progress. The undeniable triumphs of scientific research
and contemporary technology have helped to propagate a scientistic
outlook, which now seems boundless, given its inroads into different
cultures and the radical changes it has brought.
Regrettably, it must be noted, scientism consigns all that has to do
with the question of the meaning of life to the realm of the irrational
or imaginary. No less disappointing is the way in which it approaches
the other great problems of philosophy which, if they are not ignored,
are subjected to analyses based on superficial analogies, lacking all
rational foundation. This leads to the impoverishment of human thought,
which no longer addresses the ultimate problems which the human being,
as the animal rationale, has pondered constantly from the beginning of
time. And since it leaves no space for the critique offered by ethical
judgement, the scientistic mentality has succeeded in leading many to
think that if something is technically possible it is therefore morally
admissible.
89. No less dangerous is pragmatism, an attitude of mind which, in
making its choices, precludes theoretical considerations or judgements
based on ethical principles. The practical consequences of this mode of
thinking are significant. In particular there is growing support for a
concept of democracy which is not grounded upon any reference to
unchanging values: whether or not a line of action is admissible is
decided by the vote of a parliamentary majority. 105 The consequences
of this are clear: in practice, the great moral decisions of humanity
are subordinated to decisions taken one after another by institutional
agencies. Moreover, anthropology itself is severely compromised by a
one-dimensional vision of the human being, a vision which excludes the
great ethical dilemmas and the existential analyses of the meaning of
suffering and sacrifice, of life and death.
90. The positions we have examined lead in turn to a more general
conception which appears today as the common framework of many
philosophies which have rejected the meaningfulness of being. I am
referring to the nihilist interpretation, which is at once the denial
of all foundations and the negation of all objective truth. Quite apart
from the fact that it conflicts with the demands and the content of the
word of God, nihilism is a denial of the humanity and of the very
identity of the human being. It should never be forgotten that the
neglect of being inevitably leads to losing touch with objective truth
and therefore with the very ground of human dignity. This in turn makes
it possible to erase from the countenance of man and woman the marks of
their likeness to God, and thus to lead them little by little either to
a destructive will to power or to a solitude without hope. Once the
truth is denied to human beings, it is pure illusion to try to set them
free. Truth and freedom either go together hand in hand or together
they perish in misery. 106
91. In discussing these currents of thought, it has not been my
intention to present a complete picture of the present state of
philosophy, which would, in any case, be difficult to reduce to a
unified vision. And I certainly wish to stress that our heritage of
knowledge and wisdom has indeed been enriched in different fields. We
need only cite logic, the philosophy of language, epistemology, the
philosophy of nature, anthropology, the more penetrating analysis of
the affective dimensions of knowledge and the existential approach to
the analysis of freedom. Since the last century, however, the
affirmation of the principle of immanence, central to the rationalist
argument, has provoked a radical requestioning of claims once thought
indisputable. In response, currents of irrationalism arose, even as the
baselessness of the demand that reason be absolutely self-grounded was
being critically demonstrated.
Our age has been termed by some thinkers the age of “postmodernity”.
Often used in very different contexts, the term designates the
emergence of a complex of new factors which, widespread and powerful as
they are, have shown themselves able to produce important and lasting
changes. The term was first used with reference to aesthetic, social
and technological phenomena. It was then transposed into the
philosophical field, but has remained somewhat ambiguous, both because
judgement on what is called “postmodern” is sometimes positive and
sometimes negative, and because there is as yet no consensus on the
delicate question of the demarcation of the different historical
periods. One thing however is certain: the currents of thought which
claim to be postmodern merit appropriate attention. According to some
of them, the time of certainties is irrevocably past, and the human
being must now learn to live in a horizon of total absence of meaning,
where everything is provisional and ephemeral. In their destructive
critique of every certitude, several authors have failed to make
crucial distinctions and have called into question the certitudes of
faith.
This nihilism has been justified in a sense by the terrible experience
of evil which has marked our age. Such a dramatic experience has
ensured the collapse of rationalist optimism, which viewed history as
the triumphant progress of reason, the source of all happiness and
freedom; and now, at the end of this century, one of our greatest
threats is the temptation to despair.
Even so, it remains true that a certain positivist cast of mind
continues to nurture the illusion that, thanks to scientific and
technical progress, man and woman may live as a demiurge,
single-handedly and completely taking charge of their destiny.
Current tasks for theology
92. As an understanding of Revelation, theology has always had to
respond in different historical moments to the demands of different
cultures, in order then to mediate the content of faith to those
cultures in a coherent and conceptually clear way. Today, too, theology
faces a dual task. On the one hand, it must be increasingly committed
to the task entrusted to it by the Second Vatican Council, the task of
renewing its specific methods in order to serve evangelization more
effectively. How can we fail to recall in this regard the words of Pope
John XXIII at the opening of the Council? He said then: “In line with
the keen expectation of those who sincerely love the Christian,
Catholic and apostolic religion, this doctrine must be known more
widely and deeply, and souls must be instructed and formed in it more
completely; and this certain and unchangeable doctrine, always to be
faithfully respected, must be understood more profoundly and presented
in a way which meets the needs of our time”. 107
On the other hand, theology must look to the ultimate truth which
Revelation entrusts to it, never content to stop short of that goal.
Theologians should remember that their work corresponds “to a dynamism
found in the faith itself” and that the proper object of their enquiry
is “the Truth which is the living God and his plan for salvation
revealed in Jesus Christ”. 108 This task, which is theology's prime
concern, challenges philosophy as well. The array of problems which
today need to be tackled demands a joint effort—approached, it is true,
with different methods—so that the truth may once again be known and
expressed. The Truth, which is Christ, imposes itself as an
all-embracing authority which holds out to theology and philosophy
alike the prospect of support, stimulation and increase (cf. Eph 4:15).
To believe it possible to know a universally valid truth is in no way
to encourage intolerance; on the contrary, it is the essential
condition for sincere and authentic dialogue between persons. On this
basis alone is it possible to overcome divisions and to journey
together towards full truth, walking those paths known only to the
Spirit of the Risen Lord. 109 I wish at this point to indicate the
specific form which the call to unity now takes, given the current
tasks of theology.
93. The chief purpose of theology is to provide an understanding of
Revelation and the content of faith. The very heart of theological
enquiry will thus be the contemplation of the mystery of the Triune
God. The approach to this mystery begins with reflection upon the
mystery of the Incarnation of the Son of God: his coming as man, his
going to his Passion and Death, a mystery issuing into his glorious
Resurrection and Ascension to the right hand of the Father, whence he
would send the Spirit of truth to bring his Church to birth and give
her growth. From this vantage-point, the prime commitment of theology
is seen to be the understanding of God's kenosis, a grand and
mysterious truth for the human mind, which finds it inconceivable that
suffering and death can express a love which gives itself and seeks
nothing in return. In this light, a careful analysis of texts emerges
as a basic and urgent need: first the texts of Scripture, and then
those which express the Church's living Tradition. On this score, some
problems have emerged in recent times, problems which are only
partially new; and a coherent solution to them will not be found
without philosophy's contribution.
94. An initial problem is that of the relationship between meaning and
truth. Like every other text, the sources which the theologian
interprets primarily transmit a meaning which needs to be grasped and
explained. This meaning presents itself as the truth about God which
God himself communicates through the sacred text. Human language thus
embodies the language of God, who communicates his own truth with that
wonderful “condescension” which mirrors the logic of the Incarnation.
110 In interpreting the sources of Revelation, then, the theologian
needs to ask what is the deep and authentic truth which the texts wish
to communicate, even within the limits of language.
The truth of the biblical texts, and of the Gospels in particular, is
certainly not restricted to the narration of simple historical events
or the statement of neutral facts, as historicist positivism would
claim. 111 Beyond simple historical occurrence, the truth of the events
which these texts relate lies rather in the meaning they have in and
for the history of salvation. This truth is elaborated fully in the
Church's constant reading of these texts over the centuries, a reading
which preserves intact their original meaning. There is a pressing
need, therefore, that the relationship between fact and meaning, a
relationship which constitutes the specific sense of history, be
examined also from the philosophical point of view.
95. The word of God is not addressed to any one people or to any one
period of history. Similarly, dogmatic statements, while reflecting at
times the culture of the period in which they were defined, formulate
an unchanging and ultimate truth. This prompts the question of how one
can reconcile the absoluteness and the universality of truth with the
unavoidable historical and cultural conditioning of the formulas which
express that truth. The claims of historicism, I noted earlier, are
untenable; but the use of a hermeneutic open to the appeal of
metaphysics can show how it is possible to move from the historical and
contingent circumstances in which the texts developed to the truth
which they express, a truth transcending those circumstances.
Human language may be conditioned by history and constricted in other
ways, but the human being can still express truths which surpass the
phenomenon of language. Truth can never be confined to time and
culture; in history it is known, but it also reaches beyond history.
96. To see this is to glimpse the solution of another problem: the
problem of the enduring validity of the conceptual language used in
Conciliar definitions. This is a question which my revered predecessor
Pius XII addressed in his Encyclical Letter Humani Generis. 112
This is a complex theme to ponder, since one must reckon seriously with
the meaning which words assume in different times and cultures.
Nonetheless, the history of thought shows that across the range of
cultures and their development certain basic concepts retain their
universal epistemological value and thus retain the truth of the
propositions in which they are expressed. 113 Were this not the case,
philosophy and the sciences could not communicate with each other, nor
could they find a place in cultures different from those in which they
were conceived and developed. The hermeneutical problem exists, to be
sure; but it is not insoluble. Moreover, the objective value of many
concepts does not exclude that their meaning is often imperfect. This
is where philosophical speculation can be very helpful. We may hope,
then, that philosophy will be especially concerned to deepen the
understanding of the relationship between conceptual language and
truth, and to propose ways which will lead to a right understanding of
that relationship.
97. The interpretation of sources is a vital task for theology; but
another still more delicate and demanding task is the understanding of
revealed truth, or the articulation of the intellectus fidei. The
intellectus fidei, as I have noted, demands the contribution of a
philosophy of being which first of all would enable dogmatic theology
to perform its functions appropriately. The dogmatic pragmatism of the
early years of this century, which viewed the truths of faith as
nothing more than rules of conduct, has already been refuted and
rejected; 114 but the temptation always remains of understanding these
truths in purely functional terms. This leads only to an approach which
is inadequate, reductive and superficial at the level of speculation. A
Christology, for example, which proceeded solely “from below”, as is
said nowadays, or an ecclesiology developed solely on the model of
civil society, would be hard pressed to avoid the danger of such
reductionism.
If the intellectus fidei wishes to integrate all the wealth of the
theological tradition, it must turn to the philosophy of being, which
should be able to propose anew the problem of being—and this in harmony
with the demands and insights of the entire philosophical tradition,
including philosophy of more recent times, without lapsing into sterile
repetition of antiquated formulas. Set within the Christian
metaphysical tradition, the philosophy of being is a dynamic philosophy
which views reality in its ontological, causal and communicative
structures. It is strong and enduring because it is based upon the very
act of being itself, which allows a full and comprehensive openness to
reality as a whole, surpassing every limit in order to reach the One
who brings all things to fulfilment. 115 In theology, which draws its
principles from Revelation as a new source of knowledge, this
perspective is confirmed by the intimate relationship which exists
between faith and metaphysical reasoning.
98. These considerations apply equally to moral theology. It is no less
urgent that philosophy be recovered at the point where the
understanding of faith is linked to the moral life of believers. Faced
with contemporary challenges in the social, economic, political and
scientific fields, the ethical conscience of people is disoriented. In
the Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, I wrote that many of the
problems of the contemporary world stem from a crisis of truth. I noted
that “once the idea of a universal truth about the good, knowable by
human reason, is lost, inevitably the notion of conscience also
changes. Conscience is no longer considered in its prime reality as an
act of a person's intelligence, the function of which is to apply the
universal knowledge of the good in a specific situation and thus to
express a judgment about the right conduct to be chosen here and now.
Instead, there is a tendency to grant to the individual conscience the
prerogative of independently determining the criteria of good and evil
and then acting accordingly. Such an outlook is quite congenial to an
individualist ethic, wherein each individual is faced with his own
truth different from the truth of others”. 116
Throughout the Encyclical I underscored clearly the fundamental role of
truth in the moral field. In the case of the more pressing ethical
problems, this truth demands of moral theology a careful enquiry rooted
unambiguously in the word of God. In order to fulfil its mission, moral
theology must turn to a philosophical ethics which looks to the truth
of the good, to an ethics which is neither subjectivist nor
utilitarian. Such an ethics implies and presupposes a philosophical
anthropology and a metaphysics of the good. Drawing on this organic
vision, linked necessarily to Christian holiness and to the practice of
the human and supernatural virtues, moral theology will be able to
tackle the various problems in its competence, such as peace, social
justice, the family, the defence of life and the natural environment,
in a more appropriate and effective way.
99. Theological work in the Church is first of all at the service of
the proclamation of the faith and of catechesis. 117 Proclamation or
kerygma is a call to conversion, announcing the truth of Christ, which
reaches its summit in his Paschal Mystery: for only in Christ is it
possible to know the fullness of the truth which saves (cf. Acts 4:12;
1 Tm 2:4-6).
In this respect, it is easy to see why, in addition to theology,
reference to catechesis is also important, since catechesis has
philosophical implications which must be explored more deeply in the
light of faith. The teaching imparted in catechesis helps to form the
person. As a mode of linguistic communication, catechesis must present
the Church's doctrine in its integrity, 118 demonstrating its link with
the life of the faithful. 119 The result is a unique bond between
teaching and living which is otherwise unattainable, since what is
communicated in catechesis is not a body of conceptual truths, but the
mystery of the living God. 120
Philosophical enquiry can help greatly to clarify the relationship
between truth and life, between event and doctrinal truth, and above
all between transcendent truth and humanly comprehensible language. 121
This involves a reciprocity between the theological disciplines and the
insights drawn from the various strands of philosophy; and such a
reciprocity can prove genuinely fruitful for the communication and
deeper understanding of the faith.
CONCLUSION
100. More than a hundred years after the appearance of Pope Leo XIII's
Encyclical Æterni Patris, to which I have often referred in these
pages, I have sensed the need to revisit in a more systematic way the
issue of the relationship between faith and philosophy. The importance
of philosophical thought in the development of culture and its
influence on patterns of personal and social behaviour is there for all
to see. In addition, philosophy exercises a powerful, though not always
obvious, influence on theology and its disciplines. For these reasons,
I have judged it appropriate and necessary to emphasize the value of
philosophy for the understanding of the faith, as well as the limits
which philosophy faces when it neglects or rejects the truths of
Revelation. The Church remains profoundly convinced that faith and
reason “mutually support each other”; 122 each influences the other, as
they offer to each other a purifying critique and a stimulus to pursue
the search for deeper understanding.
101. A survey of the history of thought, especially in the West, shows
clearly that the encounter between philosophy and theology and the
exchange of their respective insights have contributed richly to the
progress of humanity. Endowed as it is with an openness and originality
which allow it to stand as the science of faith, theology has certainly
challenged reason to remain open to the radical newness found in God's
Revelation; and this has been an undoubted boon for philosophy which
has thus glimpsed new vistas of further meanings which reason is
summoned to penetrate.
Precisely in the light of this consideration, and just as I have
reaffirmed theology's duty to recover its true relationship with
philosophy, I feel equally bound to stress how right it is that, for
the benefit and development of human thought, philosophy too should
recover its relationship with theology. In theology, philosophy will
find not the thinking of a single person which, however rich and
profound, still entails the limited perspective of an individual, but
the wealth of a communal reflection. For by its very nature, theology
is sustained in the search for truth by its ecclesial context 123 and
by the tradition of the People of God, with its harmony of many
different fields of learning and culture within the unity of faith.
102. Insisting on the importance and true range of philosophical
thought, the Church promotes both the defence of human dignity and the
proclamation of the Gospel message. There is today no more urgent
preparation for the performance of these tasks than this: to lead
people to discover both their capacity to know the truth 124 and their
yearning for the ultimate and definitive meaning of life. In the light
of these profound needs, inscribed by God in human nature, the human
and humanizing meaning of God's word also emerges more clearly. Through
the mediation of a philosophy which is also true wisdom, people today
will come to realize that their humanity is all the more affirmed the
more they entrust themselves to the Gospel and open themselves to
Christ.
103. Philosophy moreover is the mirror which reflects the culture of a
people. A philosophy which responds to the challenge of theology's
demands and evolves in harmony with faith is part of that
“evangelization of culture” which Paul VI proposed as one of the
fundamental goals of evangelization. 125 I have unstintingly recalled
the pressing need for a new evangelization; and I appeal now to
philosophers to explore more comprehensively the dimensions of the
true, the good and the beautiful to which the word of God gives access.
This task becomes all the more urgent if we consider the challenges
which the new millennium seems to entail, and which affect in a
particular way regions and cultures which have a long-standing
Christian tradition. This attention to philosophy too should be seen as
a fundamental and original contribution in service of the new
evangelization.
104. Philosophical thought is often the only ground for understanding
and dialogue with those who do not share our faith. The current ferment
in philosophy demands of believing philosophers an attentive and
competent commitment, able to discern the expectations, the points of
openness and the key issues of this historical moment. Reflecting in
the light of reason and in keeping with its rules, and guided always by
the deeper understanding given them by the word of God, Christian
philosophers can develop a reflection which will be both comprehensible
and appealing to those who do not yet grasp the full truth which divine
Revelation declares. Such a ground for understanding and dialogue is
all the more vital nowadays, since the most pressing issues facing
humanity—ecology, peace and the co-existence of different races and
cultures, for instance—may possibly find a solution if there is a clear
and honest collaboration between Christians and the followers of other
religions and all those who, while not sharing a religious belief, have
at heart the renewal of humanity. The Second Vatican Council said as
much: “For our part, the desire for such dialogue, undertaken solely
out of love for the truth and with all due prudence, excludes no one,
neither those who cultivate the values of the human spirit while not
yet acknowledging their Source, nor those who are hostile to the Church
and persecute her in various ways”. 126 A philosophy in which there
shines even a glimmer of the truth of Christ, the one definitive answer
to humanity's problems, 127 will provide a potent underpinning for the
true and planetary ethics which the world now needs.
105. In concluding this Encyclical Letter, my thoughts turn
particularly to theologians, encouraging them to pay special attention
to the philosophical implications of the word of God and to be sure to
reflect in their work all the speculative and practical breadth of the
science of theology. I wish to thank them for their service to the
Church. The intimate bond between theological and philosophical wisdom
is one of the Christian tradition's most distinctive treasures in the
exploration of revealed truth. This is why I urge them to recover and
express to the full the metaphysical dimension of truth in order to
enter into a demanding critical dialogue with both contemporary
philosophical thought and with the philosophical tradition in all its
aspects, whether consonant with the word of God or not. Let theologians
always remember the words of that great master of thought and
spirituality, Saint Bonaventure, who in introducing his Itinerarium
Mentis in Deum invites the reader to recognize the inadequacy of
“reading without repentance, knowledge without devotion, research
without the impulse of wonder, prudence without the ability to
surrender to joy, action divorced from religion, learning sundered from
love, intelligence without humility, study unsustained by divine grace,
thought without the wisdom inspired by God”. 128
I am thinking too of those responsible for priestly formation, whether
academic or pastoral. I encourage them to pay special attention to the
philosophical preparation of those who will proclaim the Gospel to the
men and women of today and, even more, of those who will devote
themselves to theological research and teaching. They must make every
effort to carry out their work in the light of the directives laid down
by the Second Vatican Council 129 and subsequent legislation, which
speak clearly of the urgent and binding obligation, incumbent on all,
to contribute to a genuine and profound communication of the truths of
the faith. The grave responsibility to provide for the appropriate
training of those charged with teaching philosophy both in seminaries
and ecclesiastical faculties must not be neglected. 130 Teaching in
this field necessarily entails a suitable scholarly preparation, a
systematic presentation of the great heritage of the Christian
tradition and due discernment in the light of the current needs of the
Church and the world.
106. I appeal also to philosophers, and to all teachers of philosophy,
asking them to have the courage to recover, in the flow of an
enduringly valid philosophical tradition, the range of authentic wisdom
and truth—metaphysical truth included—which is proper to philosophical
enquiry. They should be open to the impelling questions which arise
from the word of God and they should be strong enough to shape their
thought and discussion in response to that challenge. Let them always
strive for truth, alert to the good which truth contains. Then they
will be able to formulate the genuine ethics which humanity needs so
urgently at this particular time. The Church follows the work of
philosophers with interest and appreciation; and they should rest
assured of her respect for the rightful autonomy of their discipline. I
would want especially to encourage believers working in the
philosophical field to illumine the range of human activity by the
exercise of a reason which grows more penetrating and assured because
of the support it receives from faith.
Finally, I cannot fail to address a word to scientists, whose research
offers an ever greater knowledge of the universe as a whole and of the
incredibly rich array of its component parts, animate and inanimate,
with their complex atomic and molecular structures. So far has science
come, especially in this century, that its achievements never cease to
amaze us. In expressing my admiration and in offering encouragement to
these brave pioneers of scientific research, to whom humanity owes so
much of its current development, I would urge them to continue their
efforts without ever abandoning the sapiential horizon within which
scientific and technological achievements are wedded to the
philosophical and ethical values which are the distinctive and
indelible mark of the human person. Scientists are well aware that “the
search for truth, even when it concerns a finite reality of the world
or of man, is never-ending, but always points beyond to something
higher than the immediate object of study, to the questions which give
access to Mystery”. 131
107. I ask everyone to look more deeply at man, whom Christ has saved
in the mystery of his love, and at the human being's unceasing search
for truth and meaning. Different philosophical systems have lured
people into believing that they are their own absolute master, able to
decide their own destiny and future in complete autonomy, trusting only
in themselves and their own powers. But this can never be the grandeur
of the human being, who can find fulfilment only in choosing to enter
the truth, to make a home under the shade of Wisdom and dwell there.
Only within this horizon of truth will people understand their freedom
in its fullness and their call to know and love God as the supreme
realization of their true self.
108. I turn in the end to the woman whom the prayer of the Church
invokes as Seat of Wisdom, and whose life itself is a true parable
illuminating the reflection contained in these pages. For between the
vocation of the Blessed Virgin and the vocation of true philosophy
there is a deep harmony. Just as the Virgin was called to offer herself
entirely as human being and as woman that God's Word might take flesh
and come among us, so too philosophy is called to offer its rational
and critical resources that theology, as the understanding of faith,
may be fruitful and creative. And just as in giving her assent to
Gabriel's word, Mary lost nothing of her true humanity and freedom, so
too when philosophy heeds the summons of the Gospel's truth its
autonomy is in no way impaired. Indeed, it is then that philosophy sees
all its enquiries rise to their highest expression. This was a truth
which the holy monks of Christian antiquity understood well when they
called Mary “the table at which faith sits in thought”. 132 In her they
saw a lucid image of true philosophy and they were convinced of the
need to philosophari in Maria.
May Mary, Seat of Wisdom, be a sure haven for all who devote their
lives to the search for wisdom. May their journey into wisdom, sure and
final goal of all true knowing, be freed of every hindrance by the
intercession of the one who, in giving birth to the Truth and
treasuring it in her heart, has shared it forever with all the world.
Given in Rome, at Saint Peter's, on 14 September, the Feast of the
Triumph of the Cross, in the year 1998, the twentieth of my
Pontificate.
JOHN PAUL II
1 In my first Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis, I wrote: “We have
become sharers in this mission of the prophet Christ, and in virtue of
that mission we together with him are serving divine truth in the
Church. Being responsible for that truth also means loving it and
seeking the most exact understanding of it, in order to bring it closer
to ourselves and others in all its saving power, its splendour and its
profundity joined with simplicity”: No. 19: AAS 71 (1979), 306.
2 Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the
Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 16.
3 Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium, 25.
4 No. 4: AAS 85 (1993), 1136.
5 Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine
Revelation Dei Verbum, 2.
6 Cf. Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith Dei Filius, III: DS
3008.
7 Ibid., IV: DS 3015; quoted also in Second Vatican Ecumenical Council,
Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et
Spes, 59.
8 Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum, 2.
9 Apostolic Letter Tertio Millennio Adveniente (10 November 1994), 10:
AAS 87 (1995), 11.
10 No. 4.
11 No. 8.
12 No. 22.
13 Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on
Divine Revelation Dei Verbum, 4.
14 Ibid., 5.
15 The First Vatican Council, to which the quotation above refers,
teaches that the obedience of faith requires the engagement of the
intellect and the will: “Since human beings are totally dependent on
God as their creator and Lord, and created reason is completely subject
to uncreated truth, we are obliged to yield through faith to God the
revealer full submission of intellect and will” (Dogmatic Constitution
on the Catholic Faith Dei Filius, III: DS 3008).
16 Sequence for the Solemnity of the Body and Blood of the Lord.
17 Pensées, 789 (ed. L. Brunschvicg).
18 Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the
Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 22.
19 Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on
Divine Revelation Dei Verbum, 2.
20 Proemium and Nos. 1, 15: PL 158, 223-224; 226; 235.
21 De Vera Religione, XXXIX, 72: CCL 32, 234.
22 “ Ut te semper desiderando quaererent et inveniendo quiescerent”:
Missale Romanum.
23 Aristotle, Metaphysics, I, 1.
24 Confessions, X, 23, 33: CCL 27, 173.
25 No. 34: AAS 85 (1993), 1161.
26 Cf. John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Salvifici Doloris (11 February
1984), 9: AAS 76 (1984), 209-210.
27 Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration on the Relations
of the Church with Non-Christian Religions, Nostra Aetate, 2.
28 This is a theme which I have long pursued and which I have addressed
on a number of occasions. “ 'What is man and of what use is he? What is
good in him and what is evil?' ( Sir 18:8)... These are questions in
every human heart, as the poetic genius of every time and every people
has shown, posing again and again—almost as the prophetic voice of
humanity—the serious question which makes human beings truly what they
are. They are questions which express the urgency of finding a reason
for existence, in every moment, at life's most important and decisive
times as well as more ordinary times. These questions show the deep
reasonableness of human existence, since they summon human intelligence
and will to search freely for a solution which can reveal the full
meaning of life. These enquiries, therefore, are the highest expression
of human nature; which is why the answer to them is the gauge of the
depth of his engagement with his own existence. In particular, when the
why of things is explored in full harmony with the search for the
ultimate answer, then human reason reaches its zenith and opens to the
religious impulse. The religious impulse is the highest expression of
the human person, because it is the highpoint of his rational nature.
It springs from the profound human aspiration for the truth and it is
the basis of the human being's free and personal search for the
divine”: General Audience (19 October 1983), 1-2: Insegnamenti VI, 2
(1983), 814-815.
29 “[Galileo] declared explicitly that the two truths, of faith and of
science, can never contradict each other, 'Sacred Scripture and the
natural world proceeding equally from the divine Word, the first as
dictated by the Holy Spirit, the second as a very faithful executor of
the commands of God', as he wrote in his letter to Father Benedetto
Castelli on 21 December 1613. The Second Vatican Council says the same
thing, even adopting similar language in its teaching: 'Methodical
research, in all realms of knowledge, if it respects... moral norms,
will never be genuinely opposed to faith: the reality of the world and
of faith have their origin in the same God' ( Gaudium et Spes, 36).
Galileo sensed in his scientific research the presence of the Creator
who, stirring in the depths of his spirit, stimulated him, anticipating
and assisting his intuitions”: John Paul II, Address to the Pontifical
Academy of Sciences (10 November 1979): Insegnamenti, II, 2 (1979),
1111-1112.
30 Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on
Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, 4.
31 Origen, Contra Celsum, 3, 55: SC 136, 130.
32 Dialogue with Trypho, 8, 1: PG 6, 492.
33 Stromata I, 18, 90, 1: SC 30, 115.
34 Cf. ibid., I, 16, 80, 5: SC 30, 108.
35 Cf. ibid., I, 5, 28, 1: SC 30, 65.
36 Ibid., VI, 7, 55, 1-2: PG 9, 277.
37 Ibid., I, 20, 100, 1: SC 30, 124.
38 Saint Augustine, Confessions, VI, 5, 7: CCL 27, 77-78.
39 Cf. ibid., VII, 9, 13-14: CCL 27, 101-102.
40 De Praescriptione Haereticorum, VII, 9: SC 46, 98: “ Quid ergo
Athenis et Hierosolymis? Quid academiae et ecclesiae?”.
41 Cf. Congregation for Catholic Education, Instruction on the Study of
the Fathers of the Church in Priestly Formation (10 November 1989), 25:
AAS 82 (1990), 617-618.
42 Saint Anselm, Proslogion, 1: PL 158, 226.
43 Idem, Monologion, 64: PL 158, 210.
44 Cf. Summa contra Gentiles, I, 7.
45 Cf. Summa Theologiae, I, 1, 8 ad 2: “ cum enim gratia non tollat
naturam sed perficiat”.
46 Cf. John Paul II, Address to the Participants at the IX
International Thomistic Congress (29 September 1990): Insegnamenti,
XIII, 2 (1990), 770-771.
47 Apostolic Letter Lumen Ecclesiae (20 November 1974), 8: AAS 66
(1974), 680.
48 Cf. I, 1, 6: “ Praeterea, haec doctrina per studium acquiritur.
Sapientia autem per infusionem habetur, unde inter septem dona Spiritus
Sancti connumeratur”.
49 Ibid., II-II, 45, 1 ad 2; cf. also II-II, 45, 2.
50 Ibid., I-II, 109, 1 ad 1, which echoes the well known phrase of the
Ambrosiaster, In Prima Cor 12:3: PL 17, 258.
51 Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Æterni Patris (4 August 1879): ASS 11
(1878-79), 109.
52 Paul VI, Apostolic Letter Lumen Ecclesiae (20 November 1974), 8: AAS
66 (1974), 683.
53 Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis (4 March 1979), 15: AAS 71
(1979), 286.
54 Cf. Pius XII, Encyclical Letter Humani Generis (12 August 1950): AAS
42 (1950), 566.
55 Cf. First Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the
Church of Christ Pastor Aeternus: DS 3070; Second Vatican Ecumenical
Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium, 25 c.
56 Cf. Synod of Constantinople, DS 403.
57 Cf. Council of Toledo I, DS 205; Council of Braga I, DS 459-460;
Sixtus V, Bull Coeli et Terrae Creator (5 January 1586): Bullarium
Romanum 4/4, Rome 1747, 176-179; Urban VIII, Inscrutabilis Iudiciorum
(1 April 1631): Bullarium Romanum 6/1, Rome 1758, 268-270.
58 Cf. Ecumenical Council of Vienne, Decree Fidei Catholicae, DS 902;
Fifth Lateran Ecumenical Council, Bull Apostoli Regiminis, DS 1440.
59 Cf. Theses a Ludovico Eugenio Bautain iussu sui Episcopi subscriptae
(8 September 1840), DS 2751-2756; Theses a Ludovico Eugenio Bautain ex
mandato S. Cong. Episcoporum et Religiosorum subscriptae (26 April
1844), DS 2765-2769.
60 Cf. Sacred Congregation of the Index, Decree Theses contra
Traditionalismum Augustini Bonnetty (11 June 1855), DS 2811-2814.
61 Cf. Pius IX, Brief Eximiam Tuam (15 June 1857), DS 2828-2831; Brief
Gravissimas Inter (11 December 1862), DS 2850-2861.
62 Cf. Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, Decree Errores
Ontologistarum (18 September 1861), DS 2841-2847.
63 Cf. First Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the
Catholic Faith Dei Filius, II: DS 3004; and Canon 2, 1: DS 3026.
64 Ibid., IV: DS 3015, cited in Second Vatican Ecumenical Council,
Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et
Spes, 59.
65 First Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the
Catholic Faith Dei Filius, IV: DS 3017.
66 Cf. Encyclical Letter Pascendi Dominici Gregis (8 September 1907):
ASS 40 (1907), 596-597.
67 Cf. Pius XI, Encyclical Letter Divini Redemptoris (19 March 1937):
AAS 29 (1937), 65-106.
68 Encyclical Letter Humani Generis (12 August 1950): AAS 42 (1950),
562-563.
69 Ibid., loc. cit., 563-564.
70 Cf. John Paul II, Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus (28 June
1988), Arts. 48-49: AAS 80 (1988), 873; Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith, Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian
Donum Veritatis (24 May 1990), 18: AAS 82 (1990), 1558.
71 Cf. Instruction on Certain Aspects of the “Theology of Liberation”
Libertatis Nuntius (6 August 1984), VII-X: AAS 76 (1984), 890-903.
72 In language as clear as it is authoritative, the First Vatican
Council condemned this error, affirming on the one hand that “as
regards this faith..., the Catholic Church professes that it is a
supernatural virtue by means of which, under divine inspiration and
with the help of grace, we believe to be true the things revealed by
God, not because of the intrinsic truth of the things perceived by the
natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God himself,
who reveals them and who can neither deceive nor be deceived”: Dogmatic
Constitution Dei Filius, III: DS 3008, and Canon 3, 2: DS 3032. On the
other hand, the Council declared that reason is never “able to
penetrate [these mysteries] as it does the truths which are its proper
object”: ibid., IV: DS 3016. It then drew a practical conclusion: “The
Christian faithful not only have no right to defend as legitimate
scientific conclusions opinions which are contrary to the doctrine of
the faith, particularly if condemned by the Church, but they are
strictly obliged to regard them as errors which have no more than a
fraudulent semblance of truth”: ibid., IV: DS 3018.
73 Cf. Nos. 9-10.
74 Ibid., 10.
75 Ibid., 21.
76 Cf. ibid., 10.
77 Cf. Encyclical Letter Humani Generis (12 August 1950): AAS 42
(1950), 565-567; 571-573.
78 Cf. Encyclical Letter Æterni Patris (4 August 1879): ASS 11
(1878-1879), 97-115.
79 Ibid., loc. cit., 109.
80 Cf. Nos. 14-15.
81 Cf. ibid., 20-21.
82 Ibid., 22; cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis (4
March 1979), 8: AAS 71 (1979), 271-272.
83 Decree on Priestly Formation Optatam Totius, 15.
84 Cf. Apostolic Constitution Sapientia Christiana (15 April 1979),
Arts. 79-80: AAS 71 (1979), 495-496; Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation
Pastores Dabo Vobis (25 March 1992), 52: AAS 84 (1992), 750-751. Cf.
also various remarks on the philosophy of Saint Thomas: Address to the
International Pontifical Athenaeum “Angelicum” (17 November 1979):
Insegnamenti II, 2 (1979), 1177-1189; Address to the Participants of
the Eighth International Thomistic Congress (13 September 1980):
Insegnamenti III, 2 (1980), 604-615; Address to the Participants at the
International Congress of the Saint Thomas Society on the Doctrine of
the Soul in Saint Thomas (4 January 1986): Insegnamenti IX, 1 (1986),
18-24. Also the Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education, Ratio
Fundamentalis Institutionis Sacerdotalis (6 January 1970), 70-75: AAS
62 (1970), 366-368; Decree Sacra Theologia (20 January 1972): AAS 64
(1972), 583-586.
85 Cf. Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium
et Spes, 57; 62.
86 Cf. ibid., 44.
87 Cf. Fifth Lateran Ecumenical Council, Bull Apostolici Regimini
Sollicitudo, Session VIII: Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta, 1991,
605-606.
88 Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on
Divine Revelation Dei Verbum, 10.
89 Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, 5, 3 ad 2.
90 “The search for the conditions in which man on his own initiative
asks the first basic questions about the meaning of life, the purpose
he wishes to give it and what awaits him after death constitutes the
necessary preamble to fundamental theology, so that today too, faith
can fully show the way to reason in a sincere search for the truth”:
John Paul II, Letter to Participants in the International Congress of
Fundamental Theology on the 125th Anniversary of “Dei Filius” (30
September 1995), 4: L'Osservatore Romano, 3 October 1995, 8.
91 Ibid.
92 Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the
Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 15; Decree on the Church's
Missionary Activity Ad Gentes, 22.
93 Saint Thomas Aquinas, De Caelo, 1, 22.
94 Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the
Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 53-59.
95 Saint Augustine, De Praedestinatione Sanctorum, 2, 5: PL 44, 963.
96 Idem, De Fide, Spe et Caritate, 7: CCL 64, 61.
97 Cf. Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, Symbolum, Definitio: DS 302.
98 Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis (4 March
1979), 15: AAS 71 (1979), 286-289.
99 Cf., for example, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, 16, 1;
Saint Bonaventure, Coll. In Hex., 3, 8, 1.
100 Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et
Spes, 15.
101 Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (6 August
1993), 57-61: AAS 85 (1993), 1179-1182.
102 Cf. First Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the
Catholic Faith Dei Filius, IV: DS 3016.
103 Cf. Fourth Lateran Ecumenical Council, De Errore Abbatis Ioachim,
II: DS 806.
104 Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on
Divine Revelation Dei Verbum, 24; Decree on Priestly Formation Optatam
Totius, 16.
105 Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (25 March
1995), 69: AAS 87 (1995), 481.
106 In the same sense I commented in my first Encyclical Letter on the
expression in the Gospel of Saint John, “You will know the truth, and
the truth will set you free” (8:32): “These words contain both a
fundamental requirement and a warning: the requirement of an honest
relationship with regard to truth as a condition for authentic freedom,
and the warning to avoid every kind of illusory freedom, every
superficial unilateral freedom, every freedom that fails to enter into
the whole truth about man and the world. Today also, even after two
thousand years, we see Christ as the one who brings man freedom based
on truth, frees man from what curtails, diminishes and as it were
breaks off this freedom at its root, in man's soul, his heart and his
conscience”: Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis (4 March 1979), 12:
AAS 71 (1979), 280-281.
107 Address at the Opening of the Council (11 October 1962): AAS 54 (
1962), 792.
108 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on the
Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian Donum Veritatis (24 May 1990),
7-8: AAS 82 (1990), 1552-1553.
109 In the Encyclical Letter Dominum et Vivificantem, commenting on Jn
16:12-13, I wrote: “Jesus presents the Comforter, the Spirit of truth,
as the one who 'will teach' and 'bring to remembrance', as the one who
'will bear witness' to him. Now he says: 'he will guide you into all
the truth'. This 'guiding into all the truth', referring to what the
Apostles 'cannot bear now', is necessarily connected with Christ's
self-emptying through his Passion and Death on the Cross, which, when
he spoke these words, was just about to happen. Later however it
becomes clear hat this 'guiding into all the truth' is connected not
only with the scandalum Crucis, but also with everything that Christ
'did and taught' ( Acts 1:1). For the mysterium Christi taken as a
whole demands faith, since it is faith that adequately introduces man
into the reality of the revealed mystery. The 'guiding into all the
truth' is therefore achieved in faith and through faith: and this is
the work of the Spirit of truth and the result of his action in man.
Here the Holy Spirit is to be man's supreme guide and the light of the
human spirit”: No. 6: AAS 78 (1986), 815-816.
110 Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on
Divine Revelation Dei Verbum, 13.
111 Cf. Pontifical Biblical Commission, Instruction on the Historical
Truth of the Gospels (21 April 1964): AAS 56 (1964), 713.
112 “It is clear that the Church cannot be tied to any and every
passing philosophical system. Nevertheless, those notions and terms
which have been developed though common effort by Catholic teachers
over the course of the centuries to bring about some understanding of
dogma are certainly not based on any such weak foundation. They are
based on principles and notions deduced from a true knowledge of
created things. In the process of deduction, this knowledge, like a
star, gave enlightenment to the human mind through the Church. Hence it
is not astonishing that some of these notions have not only been
employed by the Ecumenical Councils, but even sanctioned by them, so
that it is wrong to depart from them”: Encyclical Letter Humani Generis
(12 August 1950): AAS 42 (1950), 566-567; cf. International Theological
Commission, Document Interpretationis Problema (October 1989):
Enchiridion Vaticanum 11, 2717-2811.
113 “As for the meaning of dogmatic formulas, this remains ever true
and constant in the Church, even when it is expressed with greater
clarity or more developed. The faithful therefore must shun the
opinion, first, that dogmatic formulas (or some category of them)
cannot signify the truth in a determinate way, but can only offer
changeable approximations to it, which to a certain extent distort or
alter it”: Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
Declaration in Defence of the Catholic Doctrine on the Church Mysterium
Ecclesiae (24 June 1973), 5: AAS 65 (1973), 403.
114 Cf. Congregation of the Holy Office, Decree Lamentabili (3 July
1907), 26: ASS 40 (1907), 473.
115 Cf. John Paul II, Address to the Pontifical Athenaeum “Angelicum”
(17 November 1979), 6: Insegnamenti, II, 2 (1979), 1183-1185.
116 No. 32: AAS 85 (1993), 1159-1160.
117 Cf. John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Catechesi Tradendae (16
October 1979), 30: AAS 71 (1979), 1302-1303; Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the
Theologian Donum Veritatis (24 May 1990), 7: AAS 82 (1990), 1552-1553.
118 Cf. John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Catechesi Tradendae (16
October 1979), 30: AAS 71 (1979), 1302-1303.
119 Cf. ibid., 22, loc. cit., 1295-1296.
120 Cf. ibid., 7, loc. cit., 1282.
121 Cf. ibid., 59, loc. cit., 1325.
122 First Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the
Catholic Faith Dei Filius, IV: DS 3019.
123 “Nobody can make of theology as it were a simple collection of his
own personal ideas, but everybody must be aware of being in close union
with the mission of teaching truth for which the Church is
responsible”: John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis (4
March 1979), 19: AAS 71 (1979), 308.
124 Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration on Religious
Freedom Dignitatis Humanae, 1-3.
125 Cf. Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi (8 December 1975),
20: AAS 68 (1976), 18-19.
126 Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et
Spes, 92.
127 Cf. ibid., 10.
128 Prologus, 4: Opera Omnia, Florence, 1891, vol. V, 296.
129 Cf. Decree on Priestly Formation Optatam Totius, 15.
130 Cf. John Paul II, Apostolic Constitution Sapientia Christiana (15
April 1979), Arts. 67-68: AAS 71 (1979), 491-492.
131 John Paul II, Address to the University of Krakow for the 600th
Anniversary of the Jagiellonian University (8 June 1997), 4:
L'Osservatore Romano, 9-10 June 1997, 12.
132 “ He noera tes pisteos trapeza”: Pseudo-Epiphanius, Homily in
Praise of Holy Mary Mother of God: PG 43, 493.
|
|