|
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. |
|
