C4/{ic/lc Chu^A . ( *9*9-ns* : * sidrs HUMANI GENERIS ENCYCLICAL LETTER OF POPE PIUS XII Concerning Some False Opinions Which Threaten to Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrine Issued August 12, 1950 National Catholic Welfare Conference 1312 MASSACHUSETTS AYE., N. W. WASHINGTON 5, D. C. Outline (page 20) prepared by the Rev. Joseph C. Fenton, S.T.D., Editor, American Ecclesiastical Review, and Associate Profes- sor of Theology, The Catholic University of America. Index, page 24. Press of RANSDELL INC. Washington, D. C. Encyclical Letter of His Holiness Pope Pius Xn TO OUR VENERABLE BRETHREN, PATRIARCHS, PRIMATES, ARCHBISHOPS, BISHOPS AND OTHER LOCAL ORDINARIES ENJOYING PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE HOLY SEE CONCERNING SOME FALSE OPINIONS WHICH THREATEN TO UNDERMINE THE FOUNDA- TIONS OF CATHOLIC DOCTRINE VENERABLE BRETHREN, GREETINGS AND APOSTOLIC BENEDICTION! 1. 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 prin- ciples 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 fruit- ful 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 in- fluence practical life. Now the human intellect, in gaining the knowledge of such truths is hampered both by the activ- ity of the senses and the imagination, and by evil passions arising from original sin. Hence men easily persuade them- 3 selves 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 con- sidered 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 men readily with a firm certainty and with freedom from all error. 1 4. Furthermore the human intelligence sometimes experi- ences 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 principal trends that not a few learned men are following. Sortie 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 evolu- tion. 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 1 Cone. Vatic. D.B., 1876, Const. Be Fide cath., cap. 2, De revelatione. 4 value only to the events of man’s life, overthrows the foun- dation 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 Teach- ing 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 5 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 seri- ous 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 advo- cate 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 require- ments, 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 6 proclaimed by others more audacious, causing scandal to many, especially among the young clergy and to the detri- ment of ecclesiastical authority. Though they are usually more cautious in their published works, they express them- selves 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 termi- nology 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 this 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 dis- torted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but alto- gether necessary, that theology should substitute new con- cepts 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 7 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 rela- tivism, 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 under- standing 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, ex- pressed 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 phi- losophy, tenets which, like the flowers of the field, are in existence today and die tomorrow; this is supreme impru- dence 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 8 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 the- ology. 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 pre- venting 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 pre- served, guarded and interpreted, still the duty that is in- cumbent 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 from error. It is true that Popes generally leave theo- logians 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 dis- cussion, no longer now admit of discussion. 2 C.I.C., can. 1324; cfr. Cone. Vat., D.B., 1820, Const. De Fide cath., cap. 4, De Fide et ratione, post canones. - 9 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 gen- erally 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 pur- posely 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 same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer consid- ered 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 can- not 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 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 im- mortal 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, 3 Luke, X, 16. 4 Pius IX, Inter gravissimas, 28 oct., 1870, Acta, vol. I, p. 260. 10 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 con- demned, 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 lit- eral 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 the Old Testament, which today in the Church is a sealed book, would finally be thrown open to all the faith- ful. By this method, they say, all difficulties vanish, diffi- culties 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 predeces- sors of happy memory, Leo XIII in his Encyclical “Providentissimus,” and Benedict XV in the Encyclical “Spiritus Paraclitus,” as also by Ourselves in the Encyclical “Divino Affiante Spiritu.” 25. It is not surprising that novelties of this kind have already borne their deadly fruit in almost all branches of 11 theology. It is now doubted that human reason, without divine revelation and the help of divine grace, can, by argu- ments drawn from the created universe, prove the existence of a personal God ; it is denied that the world had a begin- ning ; 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. Dis- regarding the Council of Trent, some pervert the very con- cept 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 pres- ence 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. I 27. Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained I in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on I 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 5 Cfr. Cone. Vat., Const. De Fide cath., cap. 1, De Deo rerum omnium 6 Cfr. Litt. Enc. Mystici Corporis Christi, A.A.S., vol. XXXV, p. 193 sq. 12 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 Chris- tian 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 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 ac- cepted 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 conveni- ent 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 7 Cfr. Cone. Vat., D.B., 1796. 13 truth the sincere human mind is able to find, certainly can- not 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 theo- logian, embrace eagerly and lightly whatever novelty hap- pens 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 phi- losophy “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 for 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 shame- lessly 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 prepa- ration 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 mod- 8 C.I.C., can. 1366, 2. » A.A.S., vol. XXXVIII, 1946, p. 387. 14 ern culture. They allege, finally, that our perennial phi- losophy 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 phi- losophy, 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 dispo- sitions of soul for perceiving and embracing moral and re- ligious 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. 10 Cfr. S. Thom., Summa Theol., II-II, quaest. 1, art. 4 ad 3 et quaest. 45, art. 2, in c. 15 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 neces- sities 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 docu- ments 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 16 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 unfavor- able 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 authen- tically 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 de- mands 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 em- brace that opinion which maintains either that 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 in 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 Testa- ment. 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 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; Cone. Trid., sess. V, can. 1-4. 17 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 deter- mined 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 prin- cipal 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 su- perior to the ancient profane writers. 40. Truly, we are aware that the majority of Catholic doc- tors, the fruit of whose studies is being gathered in universi- ties, in seminaries and in the colleges of religious, are far removed from those errors which today, whether through a desire of 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 considera- tion before God, that We may not be wanting in Our sacred duty, We charge the Bishops and the Superiors General of 13 January 16, 1948: A.A.S., vol. XL, pp. 45-48. 18 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 reverence and submission which in their unceasing labor they must profess towards 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 “eirenism,” that the dissident and erring can hap- pily 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. 45. Given at Rome, at St. Peter's, August 12, 1950, the twelfth year of Our Pontificate. Pius PP. XII. 19 OUTLINE By Rev. Joseph C. Fenton, S.T.D. Editor, American Ecclesiastical Review. Associate Professor of Theology, The Catholic University of America I. Introduction: Evil of discord and error about religion and morals (1). II. Contemporary false opinions and tendencies (2-39) : A) Errors current outside the Church (2-8) : FACTORS FAVORING SUCH ERRORS (2-4) AND DE- SCRIPTION OF THE ERRORS (5-8) : Difficulties hinder- ing accurate natural knowledge of the true God (2) ; Hence the necessity of revelation for religious and moral truth of the natural order (3) ; Hindrances to a realization of the credibility of the Catholic faith (4) ; Evolution as an expla- nation of the origin of all things (5) ; Existentialist phi- losophy (6) ; Historicism (7) ; Anti-intellectual and anti- ecclesiastical religion (8). B) Errors current among Catholics (9-39) : a) General considerations (9-13) and individual errors (14- 39) : Catholic theologians and philosophers must be cognizant of contemporary erroneous opinions (9) ; Reasons under- lying acceptance of erroneous teachings by some Catholics : Eagerness for novelty; False eirenics; Description and effects (10-12); Methods and manner of expounding con- temporary error (13). b) Individual errors (14-39) : 1. In the field of theology (14-28) : About concepts and terminology employed in dogma and theology (14-17) : DESCRIPTION OF ERRORS (14-15) : Minimiz- ing content of dogma (14) ; Dissociation of tradi- tional concepts and terminology from dogma and theology (14) ; Mysteries of faith can be expressed only in approximative notions (15) ; Theology re- places old concepts by new ones equivalent but still opposed to the old (15) ; History of dogma consists in taking account of various forms in which revealed truth has been clothed by reason of different teachings and opinions that have arisen during the centuries (15). CORRECTION OF ERRORS (16) : These teach- ings contain or lead to dogmatic relativism; Al- though they can be improved, the terms employed in traditional Catholic theology are more than the products of a passing system of thought; Many of them are used and sanctioned by Oecumenical 20 Councils, so that it is wrong to depart from them; JUDGMENT ON THESE ERRORS (17): Su- preme imprudence; Represents dogma as mutable; Weakens speculative theology. Eirrors about the Church*8 magisterium (18-21) : LISTING OF ERRORS (18) ; Teaching Authority considered as an obstacle; Neglect of decrees that condemn teachings with a note less than heresy; Neglect of encyclical’s teaching about nature and constitution of Church in favor of vague notions said to be derived from the Fathers; Popes do not decide issues controverted among theologians. CORRECTION OF THESE ERRORS (19-21): Popes sometimes decide controverted questions (19) ; Encyclicals organs of ordinary magisterium (20) ; When Popes speak out so as to deliver a judgment on matter that has previously been con- troverted, that matter is no longer open to ques- tion (20) ; Interpretation of sources of revelation subject to the magisterium (21). Errors about the authority of the Scriptures (22-24) : LISTING OF ERRORS (22-23): Misinterpreta- tion of dogma that God is the Author of the Scriptures (22) ; Scripture infallible only about God, about morals, and about religion (22) ; Divine sense, which is alone infallible, hidden under a human sense (22) ; Neglect of analogy of the faith and of the Church’s tradition in favor of a merely human exegesis (22) ; Contempt for traditional literal interpretation in favor of symbolism (23) ; CORRECTION OF ERRORS (24) : All of them opposed to the Providentissimus, the Spiritus Paraclitus, and the Divino Afflante Spiritu. Errors resulting from those already listed (25-28) : LISTING OF INDIVIDUAL ERRORS (25-27) : Doubt about the ability of human reason, unaided by revelation and by grace, to demonstrate the existence of a personal God from arguments based on created reality (25) ; Denial that the world had a beginning (25) ; Necessity of creation (25) ; No eternal and infallible foreknowledge of man’s free actions on the part of God (25) ; Doubt about the existence of angels as personal beings (26) ; Doubt that matter differs essentially from spirit (26) ; God could not create intellectual beings without ordering them towards the beatific vision (26) ; Perversion of the notion of original sin (26) ; Perversion of the notion of sin in general (26) ; Perversion of the notion of the satisfaction Our Lord made for us (26) ; Perversion of the notion of the transubstantiation and of the Real Pres- ence (26) ; Men not obligated to accept teaching contained in the Mystici Corporis and founded cn 21 the sources of revelation to the effect that the - Mystical Body is identical with the Roman Catholic Church (27) ; Necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to attain eternal salvation reduced to an empty formula (27) ; Injury to the teaching about the rational character of the credibility of the Christian faith (27). JUDGMENT ON THESE ABERRATIONS (28) : It is a fact that these and other errors are creep- ing in among some Catholics; They are, due to a false zeal for souls and an acceptance of pseudo- scientific teachings, liable to be affected by these errors. 2. In the field of philosophy (29-34) : The teaching under attack; the Church's stand on philosophy (29-31) : The Church’s teaching on the competence of hu- man reason (29) ; On the need and the character- istics of the true philosophy (29) ; What is and what is not subject to dispute in philosophy (30) ; Eternal truths in philosophy not incompatible with progress in this science (30) ; The position and the advantages of St. Thomas’ teaching in phi- losophy (30-31). Listing and discussion of individual errors (32-33) : Rejection of philosophy commonly taught in the Church on the ground that it is obsolete (32) ; On the ground that it is rationalistic, since it teaches that there is an absolute knowledge of metaphysi- cal truth (32) ; Any philosophy can be reconciled or made compatible with Catholic dogma (32) ; Rejection of philosophy commonly taught in the schools on the pretence that it is intellectual- istic (33). Judgment on these errors (34) : Endanger theodicy and ethics; Are opposed to teachings of Leo XIII and Pius X; Stem from neglect of magisterium. 3. Errors stemming from positive sciences (35-39) : General norms (35) ; Listing and discussion of individual points (36-39) : From biology: The formation of the human body from existence and living matter must not be treated as something certainly established in the present condition of scientific thought despite the fact that the Church allows discussion on this point under definite conditions (36) ; From anthro- pology : The theory of polygenism must not be accepted by any Catholic (37) ; From historical science: An excessively free interpretation of Old Testament historical books is reproved (38-39) ; 22 Errors in this field not supported by Biblical Com- mission’s letter to Cardinal Suhard (38) ; The fact that inspired authors incorporated popular stories into their own narratives does not detract from the reality of inspiration (38) ; Inspired writings and ancient mythologies not on same level (39). III. Pastoral Commands and Admonitions (40-43) : A) The situation (40) : Most Catholic teachers not affected ; Some are actually teach- ing these errors openly or covertly; The Holy Father wants to stop these errors at the outset. B) Commands and admonitions (41-43) : A command most gravely binding in conscience to Bishops and to heads of religious communities to take every care to prevent the teaching of these errors in their schools, in con- ferences, in any kind of writings, and to prevent their being spread among the clergy and the people (41) ; A warning to Catholic teachers that they cannot teach with good conscience unless they sincerely receive and obey the standards given in this document (42) ; A command that they should instill into their pupils the same regard for the magisterium which they are obliged to have (42) ; An encouragement to advance the sciences they teach, within the framework of the Church’s doctrine (43); A warning against false eirenics (43). IV. Conclusion and Pontifical Benediction (44-45). 23 INDEX Note: Numbers in the index refer to paragraphs. Ability, natural, 2. Actions, free, 25. Adam, 37. Ancient Fathers, 18. Angelic Doctor, see Thomas Aquinas, St. Angels, 26. Apologetics, of the Church, 11. Atheism, 11. Authority, ecclesiastical, 13. Beatific vision, see Vision, beatific. Benedict XV, Pope (cited), 24. Bible, 22, Bible. Old Testament, 23, 38, 39. Bible. Old Testament, Genesis, 38. Bishops, obliged to warn against er- roneous opinions, 41-43. Causality, 29. Certainty, firm, 3. Christ, real presence of, in the Holy Eucharist, 26. Christian ages, 29. Christian culture, attacked, 1. Christian faith, see Faith, Christian. Church, True, 8, 27 ; teaching office, spurned by some, 8 ; teaching au- thority of, 10, 18, 21, 29, 34, 36, 42 ; unity of, 14 ; constitutions and decrees of, 18; nature and consti- tution, 18 ; guardian of divinely revealed truth, 22 ; mind of, 22 ; teaching, 22; tradition of, 22; de- mands priests be instructed in phi- losophy, 31 ; interprets Sacred Scripture, 36 ; defends dogmas of faith, 36. Cognition, 33. Communists, belief in continual evo- lution, 5. Concepts, philosophical, 14. Confusion, intellectual, 11. Connaturality, 33. Council of Trent, 26. Discord and error, outside the Church, 2. Divine Grace, see Grace, Divine. Divine Redeemer, see Redeemer, Di- vine. Divine Revelation, see Revelation, Divine. “Divino Afflante Spiritu” (encycli- cal)^. Doctors, Catholic, 40. Doctrine, Catholic, 15, 20; explana- tion of, 14. Doctrine, divinely revealed, 21. Dogma, 8, 14, 15, 17 ; differences in, 11 ; understanding of, 16. Dogma, Catholic, 14, 32, 34. Dogmas, 15; Christian, 7. Dogmatic relativism, 16. “Eirenism,” 11, 12, 43. Emotions, 33. Encyclical letters, see Letters, Ency- clical. Error, immunity from, in relation to the Bible, 22. Ethics, endangered by new opinions, 34. Evil inclinations, see Inclinations, evil. Evolution, 5, 6, 36. Existentialism, 6, 15, 32. Faculties, appetitive and affective, 33. Faith, 21, 31, 34 ; integrity of the, 12 ; mysteries of, 15 ; deposit of, 21. Faith, Catholic, credibility of, 4. Faith, Christian, credibility of, 27 ; foundations of, 29. Faith and morals, 18. Fathers of the Church, 14, 22. Finality, 29. Genesis, see Bible. Old Testament. Genesis. God, author of Holy Scripture, 22 ; existence of, 29; Highest Truth, 30. Grace, Divine, 25. Heresy, 18. Holy Scripture, see Scripture, Holy. Holy See, 18. Human intellect, see Intellect. Human intelligence, see Intelligence. Human knowledge, see Knowledge. Human reason, see Reason. Idealism, 6, 15, 32. Imagination, activity of, 2. Immanentism, 6, 15," 32. Inclinations, evil, 33. Inspiration, divine, resisted, 4. Intellect, 33 ; hampered, 2 ; created and guided by God, 30. Intelligence, difficulty in judgment, 4. Kingdom of Christ, 11. Knowledge, 27 ; true and certain, 2. Leo XIII, pope (cited), 24, 34. Letters, Encyclical, 18, 20. Materialism, 32 ; dialectical, 5. Matter, 26. Matters, moral and religious, 22. Metaphysic, 32. 24 Methods, theological, questioned, 11. Moral order, see Order, moral. Mysteries, 21). Mystical Body, 26, 27. Natural reason, see Reason. Oecumenical Councils, 16. Old Testament, see Bible. Old Tes- tament. Opinion, monistic, 5. Opinion, pantheistic, 5. Opinions, erroneous, 5-9 ; 11 ; 13-17 ; 22-23 ; 25-27 ; 32-35 ; 37. Opinions, new, 13, 22 ; endanger the- odicy and ethics, 34. Order, moral, 33. Order, sensible, 2. Original sin, see Sin, original. Paris, Archbishop of, 38. Passions, 31 ; evil, activity of, 2. Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies, 38. Order, supernatural, 26. Philosophers, 10; Catholic, duty, 9. Philosophy, ancient, 32. Philosophy, modern, 15, 32. Philosophy, Occidental, 32. Philosophy, Oriental, 32. Philosophy, traditional, 32. Pius IX, pope (quoted), 21. Pius X, pope (cited), 34. Polygenism, 37. Pontiffs, Roman, 18. Pontiffs, Supreme, pass judgment on disputed matter, 20. Popes, 18, 19, 20. Pragmatism, 6. Priests, instructed in philosophy, 31. Proofs of Christian religion, refused, 4. “Providentissimus” (encyclical), 24. Race, human, origin of, 38. Rationalism, 8. Reality, 32. Reason, 3, 29; obstacles to, 2; light of, 4 ; value of, diminished by some, 8; regarded highly by the Church, 29; 33. Redeemer, Divine, 21. Relations, between God and man, 2. Religion, Christian, origin of, 4. Revelation, sources of, 21 ; Divine, 8, 14, 21, 25, 29, 30, 31, 36 ; Divine, moral necessity of, 3. Roman Catholic Church, 27. Sacred Books, 39. Sacred Scripture, see Scripture, Sacred. St. Thomas, see Thomas Aquinas, St. Salvation, 27. Science, historical, 21, 38. Sciences, anthropological, 38. Sciences, biological, 38. Sciences, philosophical, 34. Sciences, positive, 35. Scripture, Holy, 8. 14 ; author of, 22; explained according (<» mind <>f 1 1>«* Church, 22, 28. Scripture, Sacred, 8, 18; authorship, 22, 85, 86, 89. Scriptures, divine sense, 22 ; living t eacning ant hority in, 21. Self-abnegation, demanded, 2. Self-surrender, demanded, 2. Senses, activity of, 2. Sin, concept or, 26. Sin, original, 2, 26, 37. Soul, good dispositions of, 33. Souls, created by God, 36. Speculations, philosophical, 7. Spirit, 26. “Spiritus Paraclitus” (encyclical), 24. Superiors General, obliged to warn against erroneous opinions, 41-43. Supernatural order, see Order, super- natural. Supreme Pontiffs, see Pontiffs, Su- preme. Teachers, Catholic, 30. Teachers, ecclesiastical, obliged to warn against erroneous opinions, 41-43. Teaching, ecclesiastical, 12. Theodicy, endangered by new opin- ions, 34. Theologians, 10, 18, 19, 20, 21. Theologians, Catholic, duty, 9. Theology, 15, 21. Theology, positive, 21. Theology, questioned, 11. Theology, Scholastic, 18, 32. Theology, speculative, 17. Theories, false, 9. Thomas Aquinas, St., 31, 33. Tradition, divine, 18. Tradition, living teaching authority in, 21. Transubstantiation, doctrine of, 26. True Church, see Church, True. Truth, 15, 21, 30, 34 ; natural, 9 ; su- pernatural, 9 ; revealed, 10 ; divine- ly revealed, 22; certain and un- changeable, 29. Truths, divine, 15 ; religious and moral, 3, 33. Truths, philosophical, 9. Truths, theological, 9. Union, fraternal, restoration of, 12. Vatican Council, 22, 25, 34. Virtue, 11. Vision, beatific, 26. Will, 33. World, beginning of, denied, 25. Writers, ancient profane, 39. Writers, ancient sacred, 38, 39. 25 NOTES