Fr. Paul Robinson 2019 vs. Pope St. Pius X
Mar 11, 2019 15:47:59 GMT
Post by Admin on Mar 11, 2019 15:47:59 GMT
The Angelus - January 2019
Editor’s Note: The following is an interview with Fr. Paul Robinson concerning his recent book, The Realist’s Guide to Religion and Science.
Indeed, it has. And while I did not write the book for that purpose, I did anticipate that it might make some waves.
Why do you object to YEC? Isn’t that the safest of positions?
On the contrary, I find it to be quite dangerous. It runs straight into theological, philosophical, and scientific problems.
Well, it all starts with the assumptions that the adherents of YEC make. The first assumption is that of “biblicism,” namely, the idea that the Bible is authoritative over all other sources of knowledge, including science, reason, and especially the Catholic Church. Based on this assumption, they conclude that Genesis is meant to teach truths about all areas of knowledge, including science.
Like what evidence?
Absolutely. For scientists to conclude that the light coming from the stars is really millions of years old, they have to assume a principle called uniformitarianism. This is the idea that the laws of nature are the same throughout the universe (sameness in space) and for the entire history of the universe (sameness in time). Scientists have to make this assumption to even be able to do science, since they are looking for laws of the universe, and the universe cannot have laws without this uniformity.
As I point out in The Realist Guide, this assumption only makes sense if there is a consistent God, outside of the universe, who is able to establish laws for it and make it run consistently. Let atheist scientists take note of the implicit theism of their assumptions.
Couldn’t God have changed the speed of light sometime in the past and so made it that the light only looks old, but is not really old?
But doesn’t the Bible teach him that?
It can…for all the wrong reasons, especially by someone like Martin Luther. You see, he saw reason as an enemy of faith, because his was a faith without reason, a faith held on the basis of presumption, not on the basis of reasonableness. This was why Luther attacked reason with his typical vehemence. He thought that God shared his own hatred of reason. Thus, he claimed that God purposely reveals things in the Bible that are against reason, so that humans will learn not to trust their reason. Through revelation, believers learn to abandon their reason for the glory of God.
Yes. If God put all knowledge in the Bible, then He needs to teach humans not to look for knowledge in other areas. He has them think they have learned something from the world around them, then He steps in with a revelation from the Bible to say, “No, that is only a trick of your mind. If I was consistent, your inference would be true. But I have not run the universe consistently, so that you will learn not to trust reason and instead will trust the Bible alone.”
Yes, they did, but they did not have telescopes and so did not have solid scientific evidence indicating that the universe is ancient. Since their science was primitive, Pope Leo XIII instructs us in Providentissimus Deus that we do not have to follow the Fathers in physical matters, where they sometimes erred. We only have to follow them in matters of faith and morals.
Besides, the Fathers did not have the biblicist mentality that sets Scripture against reason and all other forms of knowledge. Thus, we can expect that they would have been willing to accept evidence for an old universe, if the science of their day was able to find that evidence.
But Catholics have to believe that God created Adam and Eve directly. Wouldn’t this entail the same conflict between faith and reason?
Not at all, for two reasons. The first is that Adam and Eve are just two individual persons, not the whole universe. Even if God created them with the appearance of having passed through childhood, when they had not, this would not spell the end of science. When God creates the universe in a fully formed state, with the appearance of being old, or when God periodically changes the laws of the universe, then we have a problem.
You mentioned two other problems with the YEC position.
Yes, a philosophical problem and a scientific problem, both deriving from Protestant theology. What we must realize is that the idea of a God who is consistent in the running of the universe and one who is not consistent are two very different ideas of God. The inconsistent God is more willful than reasonable. He is what is called a “voluntarist” God, a God who does not have to be reasonable in His activity.
The Reformers’ dislike of reason and the Reformers’ corresponding desire that revelation be the only source of human knowledge made them see God in this way. For them, not only must we expect God to be arbitrary, we must see that He needs to be arbitrary. Only then will the universe be unintelligible to reason.
It makes one gravitate towards a false philosophical position called “nominalism.” Nominalism denies the existence of natures or essences outside the mind. An essence is a distinct way of existing, like dogness or catness. It indicates a nature that belongs to a certain class of individuals that all exist in the same way. All of the concepts in our minds are essences. This is why there have to be essences really existing outside of our mind for our ideas to tell us anything about reality.
Well, if God were to give essences to things, it would be because He has ideas in His own mind, certain patterns according to which He creates things. And if He has ideas according to which He creates, then His will must conform to His intellect in creating. William of Occam and the Reformers two centuries later did not want there to be any restriction on God’s will. Thus, they held that God does not give essences to things.
The result is that humans must conclude that the concepts they form from reality are not actually true of reality. We have again a terrible blow to reason, but the Reformers were more than content to strike such a blow—it saved them from seeing the irrationality of their rebellion against God and His Church.
I explained above how uniformitarianism is a necessary assumption to do science and how YEC attacks that assumption. Allow me to provide an example of how this destroys science.
Consider the work of Newton. The apple (supposedly) plunked down on his head and set him thinking about gravity. His insight was that the law of gravity working on Earth also applies in outer space, for the heavenly bodies. This enabled him to describe the motion of the planets around the sun using the same laws that we observe on Earth. In other words, the entire success of his three laws for planetary motion depended on the assumption that the laws of nature on Earth are the same as the laws of nature in heaven, that they are uniform throughout the whole universe.
Yes. That example shows how the historical sciences rely on the laws of nature being consistent throughout time, as well as space. Looking into a telescope is like looking at the history of the universe in the trails of light coming from galaxies. The history is true, however, only if the laws for light have remained the same throughout time.
The light from the Large Magellanic Cloud that I can see here in Australia, for instance, would seem to be 163,000 years old. If God changed the speed of light, however, in 2,000 BC, my calculations would only be valid for the last 4,000 years. The same would hold true for any other calculations I would make about other galaxies. It would be the death of astronomy.
Which eventuality, I take it, you are not fond of?
Indeed, no. My entire book after all (not just chapter 7!) is about maintaining a proper harmony between religion and science, between faith and reason. This has always been the Catholic spirit. St. Augustine famously says that we must show the world that there is nothing in our sacred books that conflicts with reason. Catholics hold that reason is a precious gift from God and that He wants us to use it for His glory, not destroy it for His glory.
Yes, certainly. But, in the end, my opposition to YEC dates from my seminary formation, where I was taught why Catholic exegetes reject YEC, under the guidance of the Church. God willing, I was also given a Catholic intellectual balance in Scriptural matters which, in turn, I hope I communicate to my own students.
An explanation of how the Catholic Middle Ages gave birth to modern science, why the Allah of the Muslims is also a voluntarist God, an in-depth criticism of atheistic science, including Darwinian evolution, and much more! The book also has a website with a blog, therealistguide.com. There, readers can find many resources related to the book.
I would think things would have to start with purchasing a copy from Angelus Press! Then, after having some familiarity with the book, a favorable reader could assist the book’s cause by writing a positive review on Amazon, rating the book on Goodreads, purchasing copies for friends and family, and sending possible reviewers my way. It’s a good cause!
Interview with Fr. Paul Robinson, SSPX
Editor’s Note: The following is an interview with Fr. Paul Robinson concerning his recent book, The Realist’s Guide to Religion and Science.
Father, it has now been nine months since the publication of your book, and it seems to have stirred up some controversy!
Indeed, it has. And while I did not write the book for that purpose, I did anticipate that it might make some waves.
What has the controversy centered on?
Really, something that is a small part of the entire work, namely, the contents of chapter 7 (there are 11 chapters all up). In that chapter, I voice some strong objections to Young Earth Creationism (YEC) and point out that Catholics are free to embrace the Big Bang Theory, if they wish.
On the contrary, I find it to be quite dangerous. It runs straight into theological, philosophical, and scientific problems.
How so?
Well, it all starts with the assumptions that the adherents of YEC make. The first assumption is that of “biblicism,” namely, the idea that the Bible is authoritative over all other sources of knowledge, including science, reason, and especially the Catholic Church. Based on this assumption, they conclude that Genesis is meant to teach truths about all areas of knowledge, including science.
Then, they proceed to read Genesis as teaching that the universe must be 6,000 years old. Since this, in their minds, is the inspired sense of Scripture, it cannot be wrong, regardless of whatever evidence might counter that idea.
Lamentabili Sane - Encyclical of Pope St. Pius X - Syllabus Condemning the Errors of Modernists
... Lest they [the errors of the modernists] captivate the faithful's minds and corrupt the purity of their faith, His Holiness, Pius X, by Divine Providence, Pope, has decided that the chief errors should be noted and condemned by the Office of this Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition. Therefore, after a very diligent investigation and consultation with the Reverend Consultors, the Most Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinals, the General Inquisitors in matters of faith and morals have judged the following propositions to be condemned and proscribed. In fact, by this general decree, they are condemned and proscribed.
2. The Church's interpretation of the Sacred Books is by no means to be rejected; nevertheless, it is subject to the more accurate judgment and correction of the exegetes.
64. Scientific progress demands that the concepts of Christian doctrine concerning God, creation, revelation, the Person of the Incarnate Word, and Redemption be re-adjusted.
Such as, for instance, the entire body of evidence brought to us by our high-powered telescopes. They show that the light coming to us from distant stars and galaxies is millions of years old, not thousands of years old.
Pascendi Dominici Gregis - Encyclical of Pope St. Pius X - On the Doctrine of the Modernists
Paragraph 17.
Thus [for the Modernists] it is evident that science is to be entirely independent of faith, while on the other hand, and notwithstanding that they are supposed to be strangers to each other, faith is made subject to science. All this, Venerable Brethren, is in formal opposition to the teachings of Our predecessor, Pius IX, where he lays it down that: “In matters of religion it is the duty of philosophy not to command but to serve, not to prescribe what is to be believed, but to embrace what is to be believed with reasonable obedience, not to scrutinize the depths of the mysteries of God, but to venerate them devoutly and humbly.”9
The Modernists completely invert the parts, and of them may be applied the words which another of Our predecessors Gregory IX, addressed to some theologians of his time: “Some among you, puffed up like bladders with the spirit of vanity strive by profane novelties to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers, twisting the meaning of the sacred text…to the philosophical teaching of the rationalists, not for the profit of their hearer but to make a show of science…these men, led away by various and strange doctrines, turn the head into the tail and force the queen to serve the handmaid.”10
But isn’t that based on some assumptions?
Absolutely. For scientists to conclude that the light coming from the stars is really millions of years old, they have to assume a principle called uniformitarianism. This is the idea that the laws of nature are the same throughout the universe (sameness in space) and for the entire history of the universe (sameness in time). Scientists have to make this assumption to even be able to do science, since they are looking for laws of the universe, and the universe cannot have laws without this uniformity.
As I point out in The Realist Guide, this assumption only makes sense if there is a consistent God, outside of the universe, who is able to establish laws for it and make it run consistently. Let atheist scientists take note of the implicit theism of their assumptions.
Couldn’t God have changed the speed of light sometime in the past and so made it that the light only looks old, but is not really old?
Of course He could. And this question of yours brings me to the second assumption of YEC adherents. Because the universe appears old and this contradicts their interpretation of the Bible, they refuse the principle of uniformitarianism. They claim that God periodically changes the laws of nature and this is the reason why, for example, the light from distant galaxies looks old, but is not actually old. The laws for light now are not the same as they were in the past.
Why do you find this problematic?
I have three problems with this. The first problem is a theological one. A God who periodically changes the laws of His own universe is one who wants to prevent humans from investigating it using their reason. The modern scientist, for instance, makes measurements of distant light, assumes uniformitarianism is true, performs certain mathematical calculations, and then reasons that the light is a certain age. But, in actual fact, his conclusion is false, if God has periodically reconfigured the universe. If such is the case, there is no way for the scientist to use natural reason to discover the age of the light.
Well, that is precisely the claim of YEC, that all knowledge comes from the Bible and thus that the Bible is meant to teach us science. For them, our senses and reason tell us that the universe is old, while the Bible tells us that the universe is young. Thus, we are meant to reject reason for revelation. In other words, the YEC position sets up an either-or situation for the believer: you either take reason or revelation, but you cannot accept both.
Pascendi Dominici Gregis - Encyclical of Pope St. Pius X - On the Doctrine of the Modernists
Paragraph 18.
... [Modernists,] acting on the principle that science in no way depends upon faith, they feel no especial horror in treading in the footsteps of Luther and are wont to display a manifold contempt for Catholic doctrines, for the Holy Fathers, for the Ecumenical Councils, for the ecclesiastical magisterium; and should they be taken to task for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty. Lastly, maintaining the theory that faith must be subject to science, they continuously and openly rebuke the Church on the ground that she resolutely refuses to submit and accommodate her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy.
And you say this creates a theological problem?
Yes, because it makes God out to be something of a tyrant. He creates humans in His own likeness by giving them a rational soul. Then, they use their reason to discover fascinating facts about the universe He created. But God steps in, revealing to them that what their reason found is false, because He made a world that only appears old, but is not actually old.Can’t such a choice be justified on the part of God?
It can…for all the wrong reasons, especially by someone like Martin Luther. You see, he saw reason as an enemy of faith, because his was a faith without reason, a faith held on the basis of presumption, not on the basis of reasonableness. This was why Luther attacked reason with his typical vehemence. He thought that God shared his own hatred of reason. Thus, he claimed that God purposely reveals things in the Bible that are against reason, so that humans will learn not to trust their reason. Through revelation, believers learn to abandon their reason for the glory of God.
Does this view also line up with sola Scriptura and biblicism?
Yes. If God put all knowledge in the Bible, then He needs to teach humans not to look for knowledge in other areas. He has them think they have learned something from the world around them, then He steps in with a revelation from the Bible to say, “No, that is only a trick of your mind. If I was consistent, your inference would be true. But I have not run the universe consistently, so that you will learn not to trust reason and instead will trust the Bible alone.”
For me, this is not a fatherly God, but an overbearing God, one who gives a gift (reason) for the purpose of taking it away. I blame much of the modern world’s theophobia on this Protestant idea of God.
Pascendi Dominici Gregis - Encyclical of Pope St. Pius X - On the Doctrine of the Modernists
Paragraph 3. ...
Further, none is more skillful, none more astute than they [the modernists], in the employment of a thousand noxious devices; for they play the double part of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error; and as audacity is their chief characteristic, there is no conclusion of any kind from which they shrink or which they do not thrust forward with pertinacity and assurance.
Paragraph 35. ...
The Modernist apologists, then, enter the arena, proclaiming to the rationalists that, though they are defending religion, they have no intention of employing the data of the sacred books or the histories in current use in the Church, and written upon the old lines, but real history composed on modern principles and according to the modern method.
I think I understand what you are saying. But I am not following how that theology follows from a young universe. Didn’t the Fathers all agree that the universe was young?
Yes, they did, but they did not have telescopes and so did not have solid scientific evidence indicating that the universe is ancient. Since their science was primitive, Pope Leo XIII instructs us in Providentissimus Deus that we do not have to follow the Fathers in physical matters, where they sometimes erred. We only have to follow them in matters of faith and morals.
Besides, the Fathers did not have the biblicist mentality that sets Scripture against reason and all other forms of knowledge. Thus, we can expect that they would have been willing to accept evidence for an old universe, if the science of their day was able to find that evidence.
Pascendi Dominici Gregis - Encyclical of Pope St. Pius X - On the Doctrine of the Modernists
Paragraph 42.
Their artifices to delude men’s minds are of two kinds, the first to remove obstacles from their path, the second to devise and apply actively and patiently every resource that can serve their purpose. They recognize that the three chief difficulties which stand in their way are the scholastic method of philosophy, the authority and tradition of the Fathers, and the magisterium of the Church, and on these they wage unrelenting war. Against scholastic philosophy and theology they use the weapons of ridicule and contempt. ...
They exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority. ...
The Modernists pass judgment on the holy Fathers of the Church even as they do upon tradition. With consummate temerity they assure the public that the Fathers, while personally most worthy of all veneration, were entirely ignorant of history and criticism, for which they are only excusable on account of the time in which they lived. Finally, the Modernists try in every way to diminish and weaken the authority of the ecclesiastical magisterium itself by sacrilegiously falsifying its origin, character, and rights, and by freely repeating the calumnies of its adversaries. To the entire band of Modernists may be applied those words which Our predecessor sorrowfully wrote: “To bring contempt and odium on the mystic Spouse of Christ, who is the true light, the children of darkness have been wont to cast in her face before the world a stupid calumny, and perverting the meaning and force of things and words, to depict her as the friend of darkness and ignorance, and the enemy of light, science, and progress.”
Luther did not have telescopes, either.
This is true. But he did have the theology I have described. Though he did not consider the Bible as contradicting reason on the question of the age of the universe, he did consider it contradicting reason in other areas. My claim is that the YEC movement, which has its origin with Protestant fundamentalism, embraces the same theology as Luther. YECers admit that the universe appears old; they just claim that God either directly created a young universe with an old appearance, or that He changed the laws of nature. Either way, they are lining up with Luther’s theology.
Not at all, for two reasons. The first is that Adam and Eve are just two individual persons, not the whole universe. Even if God created them with the appearance of having passed through childhood, when they had not, this would not spell the end of science. When God creates the universe in a fully formed state, with the appearance of being old, or when God periodically changes the laws of the universe, then we have a problem.
Secondly, we may presume, God did not create Adam and Eve with the appearance of having passed through infancy and childhood. Our first parents would have concrete reasons to believe what God was telling them by revelation, namely, that He had created them as adults. They would not have navels, they would not have memories of childhood or adolescence, they would not have memories of their putative parents, there would be no other humans around, and so on.
Pascendi Dominici Gregis - Encyclical of Pope St. Pius X - On the Doctrine of the Modernists
Paragraph 43. And here we have already some of the artifices employed by Modernists to exploit their wares. What efforts do they not make to win new recruits! They seize upon professorships in the seminaries and universities, and gradually make of them chairs of pestilence. In sermons from the pulpit they disseminate their doctrines, although possibly in utterances which are veiled. In congresses they express their teachings more openly. In their social gatherings they introduce them and commend them to others. Under their own names and under pseudonyms they publish numbers of books, newspapers, reviews, and sometimes one and the same writer adopts a variety of pseudonyms to trap the incautious reader into believing in a multitude of Modernist writers. In short, with feverish activity they leave nothing untried in act, speech, and writing. And with what result? We have to deplore the spectacle of many young men, once full of promise and capable of rendering great services to the Church, now gone astray. It is also a subject of grief to Us that many others who, while they certainly do not go so far as the former, have yet been so infected by breathing a poisoned atmosphere, as to think, speak, and write with a degree of laxity which ill becomes a Catholic. They are to be found among the laity, and in the ranks of the clergy, and they are not wanting even in the last place where one might expect to meet them, in religious communities If they treat of biblical questions, it is upon Modernist principles; if they write history, they carefully, and with ill-concealed satisfaction, drag into the light, on the plea of telling the whole truth, everything that appears to cast a stain upon the Church.
So the problem is not really with God creating something fully formed?
Exactly! The problem is God creating something fully formed AND creating it in such a way that it seems to have a long history, when it doesn’t, and then telling us that He created it fully formed. This is the scenario that the Reformers wanted to project on the Christian God, in order to turn Him into a Creator who hates the very gift of reason that He gives man and so finds ways to convince man to distrust reason.
Yes, a philosophical problem and a scientific problem, both deriving from Protestant theology. What we must realize is that the idea of a God who is consistent in the running of the universe and one who is not consistent are two very different ideas of God. The inconsistent God is more willful than reasonable. He is what is called a “voluntarist” God, a God who does not have to be reasonable in His activity.
The Reformers’ dislike of reason and the Reformers’ corresponding desire that revelation be the only source of human knowledge made them see God in this way. For them, not only must we expect God to be arbitrary, we must see that He needs to be arbitrary. Only then will the universe be unintelligible to reason.
How does that cause philosophical problems?
It makes one gravitate towards a false philosophical position called “nominalism.” Nominalism denies the existence of natures or essences outside the mind. An essence is a distinct way of existing, like dogness or catness. It indicates a nature that belongs to a certain class of individuals that all exist in the same way. All of the concepts in our minds are essences. This is why there have to be essences really existing outside of our mind for our ideas to tell us anything about reality.
How does this connect with a voluntarist God?
Well, if God were to give essences to things, it would be because He has ideas in His own mind, certain patterns according to which He creates things. And if He has ideas according to which He creates, then His will must conform to His intellect in creating. William of Occam and the Reformers two centuries later did not want there to be any restriction on God’s will. Thus, they held that God does not give essences to things.
The result is that humans must conclude that the concepts they form from reality are not actually true of reality. We have again a terrible blow to reason, but the Reformers were more than content to strike such a blow—it saved them from seeing the irrationality of their rebellion against God and His Church.
What about the scientific problem deriving from YEC?
I explained above how uniformitarianism is a necessary assumption to do science and how YEC attacks that assumption. Allow me to provide an example of how this destroys science.
Consider the work of Newton. The apple (supposedly) plunked down on his head and set him thinking about gravity. His insight was that the law of gravity working on Earth also applies in outer space, for the heavenly bodies. This enabled him to describe the motion of the planets around the sun using the same laws that we observe on Earth. In other words, the entire success of his three laws for planetary motion depended on the assumption that the laws of nature on Earth are the same as the laws of nature in heaven, that they are uniform throughout the whole universe.
You also gave the example of light above.
Yes. That example shows how the historical sciences rely on the laws of nature being consistent throughout time, as well as space. Looking into a telescope is like looking at the history of the universe in the trails of light coming from galaxies. The history is true, however, only if the laws for light have remained the same throughout time.
The light from the Large Magellanic Cloud that I can see here in Australia, for instance, would seem to be 163,000 years old. If God changed the speed of light, however, in 2,000 BC, my calculations would only be valid for the last 4,000 years. The same would hold true for any other calculations I would make about other galaxies. It would be the death of astronomy.
And you are saying that is what the YECers want?
No, I don’t think they want that necessarily, but it is certainly what the Reformers wanted. Regardless, YEC adherents must come to grips with the fact that such is the result of their theology, whether they like it or not. Their position makes religion an enemy of science and reason.
Pascendi Dominici Gregis - Encyclical of Pope St. Pius X - On the Doctrine of the Modernists
Paragraph 17.
Further, although it is contended [by the modernists] that God is the object of faith alone, the statement refers only to the divine reality, not to the idea of God. The latter also is subject to science which, while it philosophizes in what is called the logical order, soars also to the absolute and the ideal. It is therefore the right of philosophy and of science to form its knowledge concerning the idea of God, to direct it in its evolution and to purify it of any extraneous elements which may have entered into it. Hence we have the Modernist axiom that the religious evolution ought to be brought into accord with the moral and intellectual, or as one whom they regard as their leader has expressed it, ought to be subject to it. Finally, man does not suffer a dualism to exist in himself, and the [modernist] believer therefore feels within him an impelling need so to harmonize faith with science that it may never oppose the general conception which science sets forth concerning the universe.
Thus it is evident that science is to be entirely independent of faith, while on the other hand, and notwithstanding that they are supposed to be strangers to each other, faith is made subject to science.
Thus it is evident that science is to be entirely independent of faith, while on the other hand, and notwithstanding that they are supposed to be strangers to each other, faith is made subject to science.
Which eventuality, I take it, you are not fond of?
Indeed, no. My entire book after all (not just chapter 7!) is about maintaining a proper harmony between religion and science, between faith and reason. This has always been the Catholic spirit. St. Augustine famously says that we must show the world that there is nothing in our sacred books that conflicts with reason. Catholics hold that reason is a precious gift from God and that He wants us to use it for His glory, not destroy it for His glory.
So it is a respect for reason that pits you against YEC?
Yes, certainly. But, in the end, my opposition to YEC dates from my seminary formation, where I was taught why Catholic exegetes reject YEC, under the guidance of the Church. God willing, I was also given a Catholic intellectual balance in Scriptural matters which, in turn, I hope I communicate to my own students.
What else is in your book?
An explanation of how the Catholic Middle Ages gave birth to modern science, why the Allah of the Muslims is also a voluntarist God, an in-depth criticism of atheistic science, including Darwinian evolution, and much more! The book also has a website with a blog, therealistguide.com. There, readers can find many resources related to the book.
How can people help get word out about the book?
I would think things would have to start with purchasing a copy from Angelus Press! Then, after having some familiarity with the book, a favorable reader could assist the book’s cause by writing a positive review on Amazon, rating the book on Goodreads, purchasing copies for friends and family, and sending possible reviewers my way. It’s a good cause!
Pascendi Dominici Gregis - Encyclical of Pope St. Pius X - On the Doctrine of the Modernists
40. To penetrate still deeper into the meaning of Modernism and to find a suitable remedy for so deep a sore, it behooves Us, Venerable Brethren, to investigate the causes which have engendered it and which foster its growth. That the proximate and immediate cause consists in an error of the mind cannot be open to doubt. We recognize that the remote causes may be reduced to two: curiosity and pride. Curiosity by itself, if not prudently regulated, suffices to account for all errors. Such is the opinion of Our predecessor, Gregory XVI, who wrote:
But it is pride which exercises an incomparably greater sway over the soul to blind it and lead it into error, and pride sits in Modernism as in its own house, finding sustenance everywhere in its doctrines and lurking in its every aspect. It is pride which fills Modernists with that self-assurance by which they consider themselves and pose as the rule for all. It is pride which puffs them up with that vainglory which allows them to regard themselves as the sole possessors of knowledge, and makes them say, elated and inflated with presumption, “We are not as the rest of men,” and which, lest they should seem as other men, leads them to embrace and to devise novelties even of the most absurd kind. It is pride which rouses in them the spirit of disobedience and causes them to demand a compromise between authority and liberty. It is owing to their pride that they seek to be the reformers of others while they forget to reform themselves, and that they are found to be utterly wanting in respect for authority, even for the supreme authority. Truly there is no road which leads so directly and so quickly to Modernism as pride. When a Catholic layman or a priest forgets the precept of the Christian life which obliges us to renounce ourselves if we would follow Christ and neglects to tear pride from his heart, then it is he who most of all is a fully ripe subject for the errors of Modernism. For this reason, Venerable Brethren, it will be your first duty to resist such victims of pride, to employ them only in the lowest and obscurest offices. The higher they try to rise, the lower let them be placed, so that the lowliness of their position may limit their power of causing damage. Examine most carefully your young clerics by yourselves and by the directors of your seminaries, and when you find the spirit of pride among them reject them without compunction from the priesthood. Would to God that this had always been done with the vigilance and constancy which were required!
“A lamentable spectacle is that presented by the aberrations of human reason when it yields to the spirit of novelty, when against the warning of the Apostle it seeks to know beyond what it is meant to know, and when relying too much on itself it thinks it can find the truth outside the Catholic Church wherein truth is found without the slightest shadow of error.”
[Red font emphasis - The Catacombs]
