|
Given by His
Holiness Pope Pius XII
August 12, 1950
Venerable
Brethren,
Greetings and Apostolic Benediction
Disagreement and error among men on moral and religious matters have
always been a cause of profound sorrow to all good men, but above all
to the true and loyal sons of the Church, especially today, when we see
the principles of Christian culture being attacked on all sides.
2. It is not surprising that such discord and error should always have
existed outside the fold of Christ. For though, absolutely speaking,
human reason by its own natural force and light can arrive at a true
and certain knowledge of the one personal God, Who by His providence
watches over and governs the world, and also of the natural law, which
the Creator has written in our hearts, still there are not a few
obstacles to prevent reason from making efficient and fruitful use of
its natural ability. The truths that have to do with God and the
relations between God and men, completely surpass the sensible order
and demand self-surrender and self-abnegation in order to be put into
practice and to influence practical life. Now the human intellect, in
gaining the knowledge of such truths is hampered both by the activity
of the senses and the imagination, and by evil passions arising from
original sin. Hence men easily persuade themselves in such matters that
what they do not wish to believe is false or at least doubtful.
3. It is for this reason that divine revelation must be considered
morally necessary so that those religious and moral truths which are
not of their nature beyond the reach of reason in the present condition
of the human race, may be known by all mean readily with a firm
certainty and with freedom from all error.[1]
4. Furthermore the human intelligence sometimes experiences
difficulties in forming a judgment about the credibility of the
Catholic faith, notwithstanding the many wonderful external signs God
has given, which are sufficient to prove with certitude by the natural
light of reason alone the divine origin of the Christian religion. For
man can, whether from prejudice or passion or bad faith, refuse and
resist not only the evidence of the external proofs that are available,
but also the impulses of actual grace.
5. If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold,
he will easily discover the principle trends that not a few learned men
are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution,
which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences,
explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic
and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution.
Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of
men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the
more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.
6. Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is
absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous
philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has
assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with
existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their
immutable essences.
7. There is also a certain historicism, which attributing value only to
the events of man's life, overthrows the foundation of all truth and
absolute law, both on the level of philosophical speculations and
especially to Christian dogmas.
8. In all this confusion of opinion it is some consolation to Us to see
former adherents of rationalism today frequently desiring to return to
the fountain of divinely communicated truth, and to acknowledge and
profess the word of God as contained in Sacred Scripture as the
foundation of religious teaching. But at the same time it is a matter
of regret that not a few of these, the more firmly they accept the word
of God, so much the more do they diminish the value of human reason,
and the more they exalt the authority of God the Revealer, the more
severely do they spurn the teaching office of the Church, which has
been instituted by Christ, Our Lord, to preserve and interpret divine
revelation. This attitude is not only plainly at variance with Holy
Scripture, but is shown to be false by experience also. For often those
who disagree with the true Church complain openly of their disagreement
in matters of dogma and thus unwillingly bear witness to the necessity
of a living Teaching Authority.
9. Now Catholic theologians and philosophers, whose grave duty it is to
defend natural and supernatural truth and instill it in the hearts of
men, cannot afford to ignore or neglect these more or less erroneous
opinions. Rather they must come to understand these same theories well,
both because diseases are not properly treated unless they are rightly
diagnosed, and because sometimes even in these false theories a certain
amount of truth is contained, and, finally, because these theories
provoke more subtle discussion and evaluation of philosophical and
theological truths.
10. If philosophers and theologians strive only to derive such profit
from the careful examination of these doctrines, there would be no
reason for any intervention by the Teaching Authority of the Church.
However, although We know that Catholic teachers generally avoid these
errors, it is apparent, however, that some today, as in apostolic
times, desirous of novelty, and fearing to be considered ignorant of
recent scientific findings, try to withdraw themselves from the sacred
Teaching Authority and are accordingly in danger of gradually departing
from revealed truth and of drawing others along with them into error.
11. Another danger is perceived which is all the more serious because
it is more concealed beneath the mask of virtue. There are many who,
deploring disagreement among men and intellectual confusion, through an
imprudent zeal for souls, are urged by a great and ardent desire to do
away with the barrier that divides good and honest men; these advocate
an "eirenism" according to which, by setting aside the questions which
divide men, they aim not only at joining forces to repel the attacks of
atheism, but also at reconciling things opposed to one another in the
field of dogma. And as in former times some questioned whether the
traditional apologetics of the Church did not constitute an obstacle
rather than a help to the winning of souls for Christ, so today some
are presumptive enough to question seriously whether theology and
theological methods, such as with the approval of ecclesiastical
authority are found in our schools, should not only be perfected, but
also completely reformed, in order to promote the more efficacious
propagation of the kingdom of Christ everywhere throughout the world
among men of every culture and religious opinion.
12. Now if these only aimed at adapting ecclesiastical teaching and
methods to modern conditions and requirements, through the introduction
of some new explanations, there would be scarcely any reason for alarm.
But some through enthusiasm for an imprudent "eirenism" seem to
consider as an obstacle to the restoration of fraternal union, things
founded on the laws and principles given by Christ and likewise on
institutions founded by Him, or which are the defense and support of
the integrity of the faith, and the removal of which would bring about
the union of all, but only to their destruction.
13. These new opinions, whether they originate from a reprehensible
desire of novelty or from a laudable motive, are not always advanced in
the same degree, with equal clarity nor in the same terms, nor always
with unanimous agreement of their authors. Theories that today are put
forward rather covertly by some, not without cautions and distinctions,
tomorrow are openly and without moderation proclaimed by others more
audacious, causing scandal to many, especially among the young clergy
and to the detriment of ecclesiastical authority. Though they are
usually more cautious in their published works, they express themselves
more openly in their writings intended for private circulation and in
conferences and lectures. Moreover, these opinions are disseminated not
only among members of the clergy and in seminaries and religious
institutions, but also among the laity, and especially among those who
are engaged in teaching youth.
14. In theology some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas;
and to free dogma itself from terminology long established in the
Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers, to
bring about a return in the explanation of Catholic doctrine to the way
of speaking used in Holy Scripture and by the Fathers of the Church.
They cherish the hope that when dogma is stripped of the elements which
they hold to be extrinsic to divine revelation, it will compare
advantageously with the dogmatic opinions of those who are separated
from the unity of the Church and that in this way they will gradually
arrive at a mutual assimilation of Catholic dogma with the tenets of
the dissidents.
15. Moreover, they assert that when Catholic doctrine has been reduced
to this condition, a way will be found to satisfy modern needs, that
will permit of dogma being expressed also by the concepts of modern
philosophy, whether of immanentism or idealism or existentialism or any
other system. Some more audacious affirm that his can and must be done,
because they hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by
truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable
notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is
necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but
altogether necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in
place of the old ones in keeping with the various philosophies which in
the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should give
human expression to divine truths in various ways which are even
somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say. They add that the
history of dogmas consists in the reporting of the various forms in
which revealed truth has been clothed, forms that have succeeded one
another in accordance with the different teachings and opinions that
have arisen over the course of the centuries.
16. It is evident from what We have already said, that such tentatives
not only lead to what they call dogmatic relativism, but that they
actually contain it. The contempt of doctrine commonly taught and of
the terms in which it is expressed strongly favor it. Everyone is aware
that the terminology employed in the schools and even that used by the
Teaching Authority of the Church itself is capable of being perfected
and polished; and we know also that the Church itself has not always
used the same terms in the same way. It is also manifest that the
Church cannot be bound to every system of philosophy that has existed
for a short space of time. Nevertheless, the things that have been
composed through common effort by Catholic teachers over the course of
the centuries to bring about some understanding of dogma are certainly
not based on any such weak foundation. These things are based on
principles and notions deduced from a true knowledge of created things.
In the process of deducing, this knowledge, like a star, gave
enlightenment to the human mind through the Church. Hence it is not
astonishing that some of these notions have not only been used by the
Oecumenical Councils, but even sanctioned by them, so that it is wrong
to depart from them.
17. Hence to neglect, or to reject,or to devalue so many and such great
resources which have been conceived, expressed and perfected so often
by the age-old work of men endowed with no common talent and holiness,
working under the vigilant supervision of the holy magisterium and with
the light and leadership of the Holy Ghost in order to state the truths
of the faith ever more accurately, to do this so that these things may
be replaced by conjectural notions and by some formless and unstable
tenets of a new philosophy, tenets which, like the flowers of the
field, are in existence today and die tomorrow; this is supreme
imprudence and something that would make dogma itself a reed shaken by
the wind. The contempt for terms and notions habitually used by
scholastic theologians leads of itself to the weakening of what they
call speculative theology, a discipline which these men consider devoid
of true certitude because it is based on theological reasoning.
18. Unfortunately these advocates of novelty easily pass from despising
scholastic theology to the neglect of and even contempt for the
Teaching Authority of the Church itself, which gives such authoritative
approval to scholastic theology. This Teaching Authority is represented
by them as a hindrance to progress and an obstacle in the way of
science. Some non-Catholics consider it as an unjust restraint
preventing some more qualified theologians from reforming their
subject. And although this sacred Office of Teacher in matters of faith
and morals must be the proximate and universal criterion of truth for
all theologians, since to it has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the
whole deposit of faith - Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition - to be
preserved, guarded and interpreted, still the duty that is incumbent on
the faithful to flee also those errors which more or less approach
heresy, and accordingly "to keep also the constitutions and decrees by
which such evil opinions are proscribed and forbidden by the Holy
See,"[2] is sometimes as little known as if it did not exist. What is
expounded in the Encyclical Letters of the Roman Pontiffs concerning
the nature and constitution of the Church, is deliberately and
habitually neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a certain
vague notion which they profess to have found in the ancient Fathers,
especially the Greeks. The Popes, they assert, do not wish to pass
judgment on what is a matter of dispute among theologians, so recourse
must be had to the early sources, and the recent constitutions and
decrees of the Teaching Church must be explained from the writings of
the ancients.
19. Although these things seem well said, still they are not free form
error. It is true that Popes generally leave theologians free in those
matters which are disputed in various ways by men of very high
authority in this field; but history teaches that many matters that
formerly were open to discussion, no longer now admit of discussion.
20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters
does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the
Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority.
For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of
which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and
generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters
already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the
Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on
a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter,
according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer
considered a question open to discussion among theologians.
21. It is also true that theologians must always return to the sources
of divine revelation: for it belongs to them to point out how the
doctrine of the living Teaching Authority is to be found either
explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures and in Tradition.[4]
Besides, each source of divinely revealed doctrine contains so many
rich treasures of truth, that they can really never be exhausted. Hence
it is that theology through the study of its sacred sources remains
ever fresh; on the other hand, speculation which neglects a deeper
search into the deposit of faith, proves sterile, as we know from
experience. But for this reason even positive theology cannot be on a
par with merely historical science. For, together with the sources of
positive theology God has given to His Church a living Teaching
Authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of
faith only obscurely and implicitly. This deposit of faith our Divine
Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the
faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority
of the Church. But if the Church does exercise this function of
teaching, as she often has through the centuries, either in the
ordinary or in the extraordinary way, it is clear how false is a
procedure which would attempt to explain what is clear by means of what
is obscure. Indeed, the very opposite procedure must be used. Hence Our
Predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, teaching that the most noble
office of theology is to show how a doctrine defined by the Church is
contained in the sources of revelation, added these words, and with
very good reason: "in that sense in which it has been defined by the
Church."
22. To return, however, to the new opinions mentioned above, a number
of things are proposed or suggested by some even against the divine
authorship of Sacred Scripture. For some go so far as to pervert the
sense of the Vatican Council's definition that God is the author of
Holy Scripture, and they put forward again the opinion, already often
condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those
parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.
They even wrongly speak of a human sense of the Scriptures, beneath
which a divine sense, which they say is the only infallible meaning,
lies hidden. In interpreting Scripture, they will take no account of
the analogy of faith and the Tradition of the Church. Thus they judge
the doctrine of the Fathers and of the Teaching Church by the norm of
Holy Scripture, interpreted by the purely human reason of exegetes,
instead of explaining Holy Scripture according to the mind of the
Church which Christ Our Lord has appointed guardian and interpreter of
the whole deposit of divinely revealed truth.
23. Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense
of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the
Church's vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new
exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual. By
means of this new exegesis of the Old Testament, which today in the
Church is a sealed book, would finally be thrown open to all the
faithful. By this method, they say, all difficulties vanish,
difficulties which hinder only those who adhere to the literal meaning
of the Scriptures.
24. Everyone sees how foreign all this is to the principles and norms
of interpretation rightly fixed by our predecessors of happy memory,
Leo XIII in his Encyclical "Providentissimus Deus," and Benedict XV in
the Encyclical "Spiritus Paraclitus," as also by Ourselves in the
Encyclical "Divino Afflante Spiritu."
25. It is not surprising that novelties of this kind have already borne
their deadly fruit in almost all branches of theology. It is now
doubted that human reason, without divine revelation and the help of
divine grace, can, by arguments drawn from the created universe, prove
the existence of a personal God; it is denied that the world had a
beginning; it is argued that the creation of the world is necessary,
since it proceeds from the necessary liberality of divine love; it is
denied that God has eternal and infallible foreknowledge of the free
actions of men - all this in contradiction to the decrees of the
Vatican Council.[5]
26. Some also question whether angels are personal beings, and whether
matter and spirit differ essentially. Others destroy the gratuity of
the supernatural order, since God, they say, cannot create intellectual
beings without ordering and calling them to the beatific vision. Nor is
this all. Disregarding the Council of Trent, some pervert the very
concept of original sin, along with the concept of sin in general as an
offense against God, as well as the idea of satisfaction performed for
us by Christ. Some even say that the doctrine of transubstantiation,
based on an antiquated philosophic notion of substance, should be so
modified that the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist be
reduced to a kind of symbolism, whereby the consecrated species would
be merely efficacious signs of the spiritual presence of Christ and of
His intimate union with the faithful members of His Mystical Body.
27. Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our
Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of
Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the
Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.[6] Some reduce to a
meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in
order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable
character of the credibility of Christian faith.
28. These and like errors, it is clear, have crept in among certain of
Our sons who are deceived by imprudent zeal for souls or by false
science. To them We are compelled with grief to repeat once again
truths already well known, and to point out with solicitude clear
errors and dangers of error.
29. It is well known how highly the Church regards human reason, for it
falls to reason to demonstrate with certainty the existence of God,
personal and one; to prove beyond doubt from divine signs the very
foundations of the Christian faith; to express properly the law which
the Creator has imprinted in the hearts of men; and finally to attain
to some notion, indeed a very fruitful notion, of mysteries.[7] But
reason can perform these functions safely and well only when properly
trained, that is, when imbued with that sound philosophy which has long
been, as it were, a patrimony handed down by earlier Christian ages,
and which moreover possesses an authority of an even higher order,
since the Teaching Authority of the Church, in the light of divine
revelation itself, has weighed its fundamental tenets, which have been
elaborated and defined little by little by men of great genius. For
this philosophy, acknowledged and accepted by the Church, safeguards
the genuine validity of human knowledge, the unshakable metaphysical
principles of sufficient reason, causality, and finality, and finally
the mind's ability to attain certain and unchangeable truth.
30. Of course this philosophy deals with much that neither directly nor
indirectly touches faith or morals, and which consequently the Church
leaves to the free discussion of experts. But this does not hold for
many other things, especially those principles and fundamental tenets
to which We have just referred. However, even in these fundamental
questions, we may clothe our philosophy in a more convenient and richer
dress, make it more vigorous with a more effective terminology, divest
it of certain scholastic aids found less useful, prudently enrich it
with the fruits of progress of the human mind. But never may we
overthrow it, or contaminate it with false principles, or regard it as
a great, but obsolete, relic. For truth and its philosophic expression
cannot change from day to day, least of all where there is question of
self-evident principles of the human mind or of those propositions
which are supported by the wisdom of the ages and by divine revelation.
Whatever new truth the sincere human mind is able to find, certainly
cannot be opposed to truth already acquired, since God, the highest
Truth, has created and guides the human intellect, not that it may
daily oppose new truths to rightly established ones, but rather that,
having eliminated errors which may have crept in, it may build truth
upon truth in the same order and structure that exist in reality, the
source of truth. Let no Christian therefore, whether philosopher or
theologian, embrace eagerly and lightly whatever novelty happens to be
thought up from day to day, but rather let him weigh it with
painstaking care and a balanced judgment, lest he lose or corrupt the
truth he already has, with grave danger and damage to his faith.
31. If one considers all this well, he will easily see why the Church
demands that future priests be instructed in philosophy "according to
the method, doctrine, and principles of the Angelic Doctor,"[8] since,
as we well know from the experience of centuries, the method of Aquinas
is singularly preeminent both of teaching students and for bringing
truth to light; his doctrine is in harmony with Divine Revelation, and
is most effective both for safeguarding the foundation of the faith and
for reaping, safely and usefully, the fruits of sound progress.[9]
32. How deplorable it is then that this philosophy, received and
honored by the Church, is scorned by some, who shamelessly call it
outmoded in form and rationalistic, as they say, in its method of
thought. They say that this philosophy upholds the erroneous notion
that there can be a metaphysic that is absolutely true; whereas in
fact, they say, reality, especially transcendent reality, cannot better
be expressed than by disparate teachings, which mutually complete each
other, although they are in a way mutually opposed. Our traditional
philosophy, then, with its clear exposition and solution of questions,
its accurate definition of terms, its clear-cut distinctions, can be,
they concede, useful as a preparation for scholastic theology, a
preparation quite in accord with medieval mentality; but this
philosophy hardly offers a method of philosophizing suited to the needs
of our modern culture. They allege, finally, that our perennial
philosophy is only a philosophy of immutable essences, while the
contemporary mind must look to the existence of things and to life,
which is ever in flux. While scorning our philosophy, they extol other
philosophies of all kinds, ancient and modern, oriental and occidental,
by which they seem to imply that any kind of philosophy or theory, with
a few additions and corrections if need be, can be reconciled with
Catholic dogma. No Catholic can doubt how false this is, especially
where there is question of those fictitious theories they call
immanentism, or idealism or materialism, whether historic or dialectic,
or even existentialism, whether atheistic or simply the type that
denies the validity of the reason in the field of metaphysics.
33. Finally, they reproach this philosophy taught in our schools for
regarding only the intellect in the process of cognition, while
neglecting the function of the will and the emotions. This is simply
not true. Never has Christian philosophy denied the usefulness and
efficacy of good dispositions of soul for perceiving and embracing
moral and religious truths. In fact, it has always taught that the lack
of these dispositions of good will can be the reason why the intellect,
influenced by the passions and evil inclinations, can be so obscured
that it cannot see clearly. Indeed St. Thomas holds that the intellect
can in some way perceive higher goods of the moral order, whether
natural or supernatural, inasmuch as it experiences a certain
"connaturality" with these goods, whether this "connaturality" be
purely natural, or the result of grace;[10] and it is clear how much
even this somewhat obscure perception can help the reason in its
investigations. However it is one thing to admit the power of the
dispositions of the will in helping reason to gain a more certain and
firm knowledge of moral truths; it is quite another thing to say, as
these innovators do, indiscriminately mingling cognition and act of
will, that the appetitive and affective faculties have a certain power
of understanding, and that man, since he cannot by using his reason
decide with certainty what is true and is to be accepted, turns to his
will, by which he freely chooses among opposite opinions.
34. It is not surprising that these new opinions endanger the two
philosophical sciences which by their very nature are closely connected
with the doctrine of faith, that is, theodicy and ethics; they hold
that the function of these two sciences is not to prove with certitude
anything about God or any other transcendental being, but rather to
show that the truths which faith teaches about a personal God and about
His precepts, are perfectly consistent with the necessities of life and
are therefore to be accepted by all, in order to avoid despair and to
attain eternal salvation. All these opinions and affirmations are
openly contrary to the documents of Our Predecessors Leo XIII and Pius
X, and cannot be reconciled with the decrees of the Vatican Council. It
would indeed be unnecessary to deplore these aberrations from the
truth, if all, even in the field of philosophy, directed their
attention with the proper reverence to the Teaching Authority of the
Church, which by divine institution has the mission not only to guard
and interpret the deposit of divinely revealed truth, but also to keep
watch over the philosophical sciences themselves, in order that
Catholic dogmas may suffer no harm because of erroneous opinions.
35. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which,
although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more
or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not
a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences
into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy
in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when
there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific
foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in
Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or
indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand
that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.
36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not
forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and
sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men
experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of
evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body
as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith
obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However,
this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions,
that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed
and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and
provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church,
to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the
Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some
however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as
if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter
were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been
discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there
were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the
greatest moderation and caution in this question.
37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion,
namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such
liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains
that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not
take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first
parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first
parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be
reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the
documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard
to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an
individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and
is in everyone as his own.[12]
38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in
the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the
limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way
must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical
books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to
defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long
ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical
Studies.[13] This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first
eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming
to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by
competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a
true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by
exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and
metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little
cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our
salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the
human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred
writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be
conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of
divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any
error in selecting and evaluating those documents.
39. Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted
into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with
myths or other such things, which are more the product of an
extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity
which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent
that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior
to the ancient profane writers.
40. Truly, we are aware that the majority of Catholic doctors, the
fruit of whose studies is being gathered in universities, in seminaries
and in the colleges of religious, are far removed from those errors
which today, whether through a desire for novelty or through a certain
immoderate zeal for the apostolate, are being spread either openly or
covertly. But we know also that such new opinions can entice the
incautious; and therefore we prefer to withstand the very beginnings
rather than to administer the medicine after the disease has grown
inveterate.
41. For this reason, after mature reflexion and consideration before
God, that We may not be wanting in Our sacred duty, We charge the
Bishops and the Superiors General of Religious Orders, binding them
most seriously in conscience, to take most diligent care that such
opinions be not advanced in schools, in conferences or in writings of
any kind, and that they be not taught in any manner whatsoever to the
clergy or the faithful.
42. Let the teachers in ecclesiastical institutions be aware that they
cannot with tranquil conscience exercise the office of teaching
entrusted to them, unless in the instruction of their students they
religiously accept and exactly observe the norms which We have
ordained. That due reverend and submission which in their unceasing
labor they must profess toward the Teaching Authority of the Church,
let them instill also into the minds and hearts of their students.
43. Let them strive with every force and effort to further the progress
of the sciences which they teach; but let them also be careful not to
transgress the limits which We have established for the protection of
the truth of Catholic faith and doctrine. With regard to new questions,
which modern culture and progress have brought to the foreground, let
them engage in most careful research, but with the necessary prudence
and caution; finally, let them not think, indulging in a false
"irenism," that the dissident and the erring can happily be brought
back to the bosom of the Church, if the whole truth found in the Church
is not sincerely taught to all without corruption or diminution.
44. Relying on this hope, which will be increased by your pastoral
care, as a pledge of celestial gifts and a sign of Our paternal
benevolence, We impart with all Our heart to each and all of you,
Venerable Brethren, and to your clergy and people the Apostolic
Benediction.
Given at Rome, at St. Peter's, 12 August 1950, the twelfth year of Our
Pontificate.
PIUS XII
1. Conc. Vatic. D.B., 1876, Cont. De Fide cath., cap. 2, De
revelatione.
2. C.I.C., can 1324; cfr. Conc. Vat., D.B., 1820, Cont. De Fide cath.,
cap. 4, De Fide et ratione, post canones.
3. Luke, X, 16
4. Pius IX, Inter gravissimas, 28 oct., 1870, Acta, vol. I, p. 260.
5. Cfr. Conc. Vat., Const. De Fide cath., cap. 1, De Deo rerum omnium
creatore.
6. Cfr. Litt. Enc. Mystici Corporis Christi, A.A.S., vol. XXXV, p. 193
sq.
7. Cfr. Conc. Vat., D.B., 1796.
8. C. I. C. can. 1366, 2.
9. A.A.S., vol. XXXVIII, 1946, p. 387.
10. Cfr. St. Thom., Summa Theol., II-II, quaest. 1, art. 4 ad 3 et
quaest. 45, art. 2, in c.
11. Cfr. Allocut Pont. to the members of the Academy of Science,
November 30, 1941: A.A.S., vol. XXXIII, p. 506.
12. Cfr. Rom., V, 12-19; Conc. Trid., sess, V, can. 1-4.
13. January 16, 1948: A.A.S., vol. XL, pp. 45-48.
|
|
