ENCYCLICAL  OF THE HOLY FATHER PIUS XII
 HUMANI GENERIS

PIUS PP. XII LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE
HUMANI GENERIS*

TO OUR VENERABLE BRETHREN, PATRIARCHS, PRIMATES, ARCHBISHOPS, BISHIOPS, AND OTHER LOCAL ORDINARIES ENJOYING PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE HOLY SEE 

AD VENERABILES FRATRES PATRIARCHAS, PRIMATES, ARCHIEPISCOPOS,  EPISCOPOS ALIOSQUE LOCORUM ORDINARIOS, PACEM ET COMMUNIONEM  CUM APOSTOLICA SEDE HABENTES

CONCERNING SOME FALSE OPINIONS THREATENING TO UNDERMINE THE FOUNDATIONS OF CATHOLIC DOCTRINE

DE NONNULLIS FALSIS OPINIONIBUS, QUAE CATHOLICAE DOCTRINAE FUNDAMENTA SUBRUERE MINANTUR.

 January 16, 1948: A.A.S., vol. XL, pp. 45-48

Venerable Brethren, Greetings and Apostolic Benediction

Venerabiles Fratres salutem et Apostolicam Benedictionem

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.

Humani generis in rebus religiosis ac moralibus discordia et aberratio a veritate probis omnibus, imprimisque fide libus sincerisque Ecclesiae filiis, vehementissimi doloris fons et causa semper fuere, praesertim vero hodie, cum ipsa culturae christianae principia undique offensa cernimus.

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.

Haud mirum quidem est huiusmodi discordiam et aberrationem extra ovile Christi semper viguisse. Nam licet humana ratio, simpliciter loquendo, veram et certam cognitionem unius Dei personalis, mundum providentia sua tuentis ac gubernantis, necnon naturalis legis a Creatore nostris animis inditae, suis naturalibus viribus ac lumine assequi revera possit, nihilominus non pauca obstant quominus eadem ratio hac sua nativa facul tate efficaciter fructuoseque utatur. Quae enim ad Deum pertinent et ad rationes spectant, quae inter homines Deumque intercedunt, veritates sunt rerum sensibilium ordinem omnino transcendentes, quae, cum in vitae actionem inducuntur eamque informant, sui devotionem suique abnegationem postulant. Humanus autem intellectus in talibus veritatibus acquirendis difficultate laborat tum ob sensuum imaginationisque impulsum, tum ob pravas cupiditates ex peccato originali ortas. Quo fit ut homines in rebus huiusmodi libenter sibi suadeant esse falsa vel saltem dubia, quae ipsi nolint esse vera.

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]

Quapropter divina « revelatio » moraliter necessaria dicenda est, ut ea, quae in rebus religionis et morum rationi per se impervia non sunt, in praesenti quoque humani generis condicione, ab omnibus expedite, firma certitudine et nullo admixto errore cognosci possint (Conc. Vat. D. B. 1876, Const. De Fide cath. cap. 2, De revelatione).

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.

Quin immo mens humana difficultates interdum pati potest etiam in certo iudicio « credibilitatis » efformando circa catholicam fidem, quamvis tam multa ac mira signa externa divinitus disposita sint quibus vel solo naturali rationis lumine divina christianae religionis origo certo probari possit. Homo enim sive praeiudicatis ductus opinionibus, sive cupidinibus ac mala voluntate instigatus, non modo externorum signorum evidentiae, quae prostat, sed etiam supernis afflatibus, quos Deus in animos ingerit nostros, renuere ac resistere potest.

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.

Cuicumque eos circumspicienti, qui extra ovile Christi sunt, haud difficulter patebunt praecipuae quas viri docti non pauci ingressi sunt viae. Etenim sunt qui evolutionis, ut aiunt, systema, nondum invicte probatum in ipso disciplinarum naturalium ambitu, absque prudentia ac discretione admissum ad omnium rerum originem pertinere contendant, atque audacter indulgeant opinationi monisticae ac pantheisticae mundi universi continuae evolutioni obnoxii. Qua quidem opinatione fautores communismi libenter fruuntur ut suum « materialismum dialecticum » efficacius propugnent et evehant, omni notione theistica ex animis avulsa.

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.

Huiusmodi evolutionis commenta, quibus omne, quod absolutum, firmum, immutabile est, repudiatur, viam straverunt novae aberranti philosophiae, quae cum « idealismo », « immanentismo » ac « pragmatismo » contendens « exsistentialismi » nomen nacta est, utpote quae, immutabilibus rerum es sentiis posthabitis, de singulorum « exsistentia » tantum sollicita sit.

07_HISTORICISM

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.

Accedit falsus quidam « historicismus », qui solis humanae vitae eventibus inhaerens, cuiusvis veritatis legisque absolutae fundamenta subvertit, cum ad res philosophicas tum ad christiana etiam dogmata quod attinet.

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.

In hac tanta opinionum confusione aliquid solaminis Nobis affert eos cernere, qui a « rationalismi » placitis, quibus olim in stituti erant, hodie non raro ad veritatis divinitus patefactae haustus redire cupiunt, ac verbum Dei in Sacra Scriptura asser vatum agnoscere ac profiteri, utpote disciplinae sacrae fundamentum. At simul dolendum est haud paucos istorum, quo firmius verbo Dei adhaereant, eo magis humanam rationem adimere, et quo libentius Dei revelantis auctoritatem extollant, eo acrius Ecclesiae Magisterium aspernari, a Christo Domino institutum, ut veritates divinitus revelatas custodiat atque interpretetur. Quod quidem non solum Sacris Litteris aperte contradicit, sed ex ipsa rerum experientia falsum manifestatur. Saepe enim ipsi a vera Ecclesia dissidentes de sua ipsorum in rebus dogmaticis discordia palam conqueruntur, ita ut Magisterii vivi necessitatem fateantur inviti.

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.

Iamvero theologis ac pholosophis catholicis, quibus grave incumbit munus divinam humanamque veritatem tuendi animis que inserendi hominum, has opinationes plus minusve e recto itinere aberrantes neque ignorare neque neglegere licet. Quin immo ipsi easdem opinationes perspectas habeant oportet, tum quia morbi non apte curantur nisi rite praecogniti fuerint, tum quia nonnumquam in falsis ipsis commentis aliquid veritatis latet, tum denique quia eadem animum provocant ad quasdam veritates, sive philosophicas sive theologicas, sollertius perscrutandas ac perpendendas.

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.

Quodsi philosophi ac theologi nostri ex hisce doctrinis, caute perspectis, tantummodo huiuscemodi fructum colligere eniterentur, nulla adesset ratio cur Ecclesiae Magisterium interloqueretur. Attamen, quamvis Nobis compertum sit catholicos doctores ab illis erroribus generatim cavere, constat tamen non deesse hodie, quemadmodum apostolicis temporibus, qui rebus novis plus aequo studentes, ac vel etiam metuentes ne earum rerum, quas progredientis aetatis scientia invexerit, ignari habeantur, sacri Magisterii moderationi se subducere contendant ideoque in eo versentur periculo ne sensim sine sensu ab ipsa veritate divinitus revelata discedant aliosque secum in errorem inducant.

11_False_Irenicism

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.

Immo et aliud obversatur periculum idque eo gravius, quo virtutis est specie magis obtectum. Plures enim sunt, qui humani generis discordiam ac mentium confusionem deplorantes, imprudenti animorum studio permoti, impetu quodam moventur atque impenso desiderio flagrant infringendi saepta, quibus probi honestique viri invicem disiunguntur, « irenismum » talem amplectentes ut, quaestionibus missis quae homines separant, non modo respiciant ad irruentem atheismum communibus viribus propulsandum, sed etiam ad opposita in rebus quoque dogmaticis reconcilianda. Et quemadmodum olim fuerunt, qui rogarent num translaticia Ecclesiae apologetica ratio obstaculum constitueret potius quam auxilium ad animos Christo lucrandos, ita hodie non desunt qui eo usque procedere audeant ut serio quaestionem moveant num theologia eiusque methodus, quales in scholis ecclesiastica approbante auctoritate vigent, non modo perficiendae, verum etiam omnino reformandae sint, ut regnum Christi quocumque terrarum, inter homines cuiusvis culturae vel cuiusvis opinionis religiosae efficacius propagetur.

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.

Quodsi iidem ad nihil aliud intenderent quam ad disciplinam ecclesiasticam eiusque methodum hodiernis condicionibus ac necessitatibus, nova quadam inducta ratione, aptius accommodandas, nulla fere esset causa timendi; at vero imprudenti aestuantes « irenismo », nonnulli veluti obices ad fraternam unitatem restaurandam ea putare videntur, quae ipsis legibus ac principiis a Christo datis innituntur itemque institutis ab eo conditis, vel quae munimina ac fulcimina exstant integritatis fidei, quibus collapsis, omnia uniuntur quidem, sed solummodo in ruinam.

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.

Novae huiusmodi opiniones, sive improbando novitatis desiderio, sive laudabili causa moveantur, non semper eodem gradu, eadem claritate iisdemque terminis proponuntur, nec semper unanimo auctorum consensu; quae enim hodie a quibusdam, cautelis nonnullis ac distinctionibus adhibitis, magis tecte docentur, cras ab aliis audacioribus palam atque immoderate proponentur, non sine multorum offensione, praesertim iunioris cleri, nec sine ecclesiasticae auctoritatis detrimento. Quodsi cautius agi solet in libris publice editis, iam liberius disseritur in libellis privatim communicatis et in acroasibus coetibusque. Nec tantum inter sodales utriusque cleri et in sacris seminariis institutis que religiosis tales opiniones divulgantur, sed etiam inter laicos, inter eos praesertim, qui iuvent uti instituendae operam navant.

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.

Quod autem ad theologiam spectat, quorumdam consilium est dogmatum significationem quam maxime extenuare; ipsum que dogma a loquendi ratione in Ecclesia iamdiu recepta et a philosophicis notionibus penes catholicos doctores vigentibus liberare, ut in catholica exponenda doctrina ad Sacrae Scripturae sanctorumque Patrum dicendi modum redeatur. Spem ipsi fovent fore ut dogma elementis denudatum, quae extrinsecus a divina revelatione esse dicunt, fructuose comparetur cum eorum opinionibus dogmaticis, qui ab Ecclesiae unitate seiuncti sint, utque hac via pedetemptim perveniatur ad assimilanda sibi invicem dogma catholicum et placita dissidentium.

15_History_of_Dogmas

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.

Addunt etiam historiam dogmatum consistere in reddendis variis sibique succedentibus formis, quas veritas revelata induerit, secundum diversas doctrinas et opinationes quae saeculorum decursu ortae fuerint.

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.

Patet autem ex iis, quae diximus, huiusmodi molimina non tantum ducere ad « relativismum » dogmaticum, quem vocant, sed illum iam reapse continere; cui quidem despectus doctrinae communiter traditae eorumque vocabulorum, quibus eadem significatur, satis superque favet. Nemo sane est qui non videat huiusmodi notionum vocabula cum in scholis tum ab ipsius Ecclesiae Magisterio adhibita, perfici et perpoliri posse; ac notum praeterea est Ecclesiarn in iisdem vocibus adhibendis non semper constantem fuisse. Liquet etiam Ecclesiam non cuilibet systemati philosophico, brevi temporis spatio vigenti, devinciri posse : sed ea quae communi consensu a catholicis doctoribus composita per plura saecula fuere ad aliquam dogmatis intellegentiam attingendam, tam caduco fundamento procul dubio non nituntur. Nituntur enim principiis ac notionibus ex vera rerum creatarum cognitione deductis; in quibus quidem deducendis cognitionibus humanae menti veritas divinitus revelata quasi stella, per Ecclesiam illuxit. Quare mirum non est aliquas huiusmodi notiones a Conciliis Oecumenicis non solum adhibitas, sed etiam sancitas esse, ita ut ab eis discedere nefas sit.

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.

Quapropter neglegere, vel reicere, vel suo valore privare tot ac tanta, quae pluries saeculari labore a viris non communis ingenii ac sanctitatis, invigilante sacro Magisterio, nec sine Sancti Spiritus lumine et ductu, ad accuratius in dies fidei veritates exprimendas mente concepta, expressa ac perpolita sunt, ut eorumdem in locum coniecturales notiones sufficiantur ac quaedam fluxae ac vagae novae philosophiae dictiones, quae ut flos agri hodie sunt et cras decident, non modo summa est imprudentia, verum etiam ipsum dogma facit quasi arundinem vento agitatam. Despectus autem vocabulorum ac notionum quibus theologi scholastici uti solent, sponte ducit ad enervandam theologiam, ut aiunt speculativam, quam, cum, ratione theologica innitatur, vera certitudine carere existimant.

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.

Utique, proh dolor, rerum novarum studiosi a scholasticae theologiae contemptu ad neglegendum, ac vel etiam ad despiciendum facile transeunt ipsum Magisterium Ecclesiae, quod theologiam illam sua auctoritate tantopere comprobat. Hoc enim Magisterium ab ipsis tamquam progressionis sufflamen ac scientiae obex exhibetur; ab acatholicis vero quibusdam iam veluti iniustum frenum consideratur quo excultiores aliqui theologi a disciplina sua innovanda detineantur. Et quamquam hoc sacrum Magisterium, in rebus fidei et morum, cuilibet theologo proxima et universalis veritatis norma esse debet, utpote cui Christus Dominus totum depositum fidei — Sacras nempe Litteras ac divinam «traditionem» - et  custodiendum et tuendum et interpretandum concredidit, attamen officium, quo fideles tenentur illos quoque fugere errores, qui ad haeresim plus minusve accedant, ideoque « etiam constitutiones et decreta servare, quibus pravae huiusmodi opiniones a Sancta Sede proscriptae et prohibitae sunt » (C. I. C. can. 1324; cfr. Conc. Vat. D. B. 1820, Const. De Fide cath. cap. 4, De fide et ratione, post canones), nonnunquam ita ignoratur ac si non habeatur. Quae in Romanorum Pontificum Encyclicis Litteris de indole et constitutione Ecclesiae exponuntur, a quibusdam consulto neglegi solent, ea quidem de causa ut praevaleat notio quaedam vaga, quam ex antiquis Patribus, praesertim graecis, haustam esse profitentur. Pontifices enim, ut ipsi dictitant, de his quae inter theologos disputantur iudicare nolunt, itaque ad pristinos fontes redeundum est et ex antiquorum scriptis recentiora Magisterii constitutiones ac decreta explicanda sunt.

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.

Quae etsi fortasse scite dicta videntur, attamen fallacia non carent. Verum namque est generatim Pontifices theologis libertatem concedere in iis quae inter melioris notae doctores vario sensu disputentur : at historia docet, plura quae prius liberae disceptationi subiecta fuerint, postea nullam iam disceptationem pati posse.

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.

Neque putandum est, ea quae in Encyclicis Litteris proponuntur, assensum per se non postulare, cum in iis Pontifices supremam sui Magisterii potestatem non exerceant. Magisterio enim ordinario haec docentur, de quo illud etiam valet: « Qui vos audit, me audit » (Luc. 10, 16); ac plerumque quae in Encyclicis Litteris proponuntur et inculcantur, iam aliunde ad doctrinam catholicam pertinent. Quodsi Summi Pontifices in actis suis de re hactenus controversa data opera sententiam ferunt, omnibus patet rem illam, secundum mentem ac voluntatem eorumdem Pontificum, quaestionem liberae inter theologos disceptationis iam haberi non posse.

21_SOURCES of REVELATION versus MERELY HISTORICAL SCIENCE

 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.”

Quod quidem depositum nec singulis christifidelibus nec ipsis theologis divinus Redemptor concredidit authentice interpretandum, sed soli Ecclesiae Magisterio. Si autem hoc suum munus Ecclesia exercet, sicut saeculorum decursu saepe numero factum est, sive ordinario sive extraordinario eiusdem muneris exercitio, patet omnino falsam esse methodum, qua ex obscuris clara explicentur, quin immo contrarium omnes sequi ordinem necesse esse. Quare Decessor Noster imm. mem. Pius IX, docens nobilissimum theologiae munus illud esse, quod ostendat quomodo ab Ecclesia definita doctrina contineatur in fontibus, non absque gravi causa illa addidit verba: « eo ipso sensu, quo ab Ecclesia definita est ».

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.

Ut autem ad novas, quas supra attigimus, opinationes redeamus, plura etiam a nonnullis proponuntur vel mentibus instillantur in detrimentum divinae auctoritatis Sacrae Scripturae. Etenim sensum definitionis Concilii Vaticani de Deo Sacrae Scripturae auctore audacter quidam pervertunt; atque sententiam, iam pluries reprobatam, renovant, secundum quam Sacrarum Litterarum immunitas errorum ad ea solummodo, quae de Deo ac de rebus moralibus et religiosis traduntur, pertineat. Immo perperam loquuntur de sensu humano Sacrorum Librorum sub quo sensus eorum divinus lateat, quem solum infallibilem declarant. In Sacra Scriptura interpretanda nullam haberi volunt rationem analogiae fidei ac « traditionis », Ecclesiae; ita ut Sanctorum Patrum et sacri Magisterii doctrina quasi ad trutinam Sacrae Scripturae, ratione mere humana ab exegetis explicatae, sit revocanda, potius quam eadem Sacra Scriptura exponenda sit ad mentem Ecclesiae, quae a Christo Domino totius depositi veritatis divinitus revelatae custos ac interpres constituta est.

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.

Ac praeterea sensus litteralis Sacrae Scripturae eiusque ex positio a tot tantisque exegetis, vigilante Ecclesia, elaborata, ex commenticiis eorum placitis, novae cedere debent exegesi, quam symbolicam ac spiritualem appellant ; et qua Sacra Biblia Veteris Testamenti, quae hodie in Ecclesia tamquam fons clausus lateant, tandem aliquando omnibus aperiantur. Hac ratione asseverant difficultates omnes evanescere, quibus ii tantummodo praepediantur, qui sensui litterali Scripturarum adhaereant.

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.”

Quae quidem omnia quam aliena sint a principiis ac normis hermeneuticis a Decessoribus Nostris fel. rec. Leone XIII in Encyclicis Litteris Providentissimus, et a Benedicto XV in Enc. Litt. Spiritus Paraclitus, itemque a Nobis ipsis in Enc. Litt. Divino afflante Spiritu rite statutis nemo est qui non videat.

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]

Ac mirum non est huiusmodi novitates, ad omnes fere theologiae partes quod attinet, iam venenosos peperisse fructus. In dubium revocatur humanam rationem, absque divinae « revelationis » divinaeque gratiae auxilio, argumentis ex creatis rebus deductis demonstrare posse Deum personalem exsistere; negatur mundum initium habuisse, atque contenditur creationem mundi necessariam esse, cum ex necessaria liberalitate divini amoris procedat ; aeterna et infallibilis liberarum actionum hominum praescientia Deo item denegatur; quae quidem Vaticani Concilii declarationibus adversantur (cfr. Conc. Vat. Const. De Fide cath. cap. De Deo rerum omnium creatore).

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.

Quaestio etiam a nonnullis agitur num Angeli creaturae personales sint; numque materia a spiritu essentialiter differat. Alii veram « gratuitatem » ordinis supernaturalis corrumpunt, cum autument Deum entia intellectu praedita condere non posse, quin eadem ad beatificam visionem ordinet et vocet. Nec satis; nam peccati originalis notio, definitionibus tridentinis posthabitis, pervertitur, unaque simul peccati in universum, prout est Dei offensa, itemque satisfactionis a Christo pro nobis exhibitae. Nec desunt qui contendant transubstantiationis doctrinam, utpote antiquata notione philosophica substantiae innixam, ita emendandam esse ut realis Christi praesentia in Ss. Eucharistia ad quemdam symbolismum reducatur, quatenus consecratae species, nonnisi signa efficacia sint spiritualis praesentiae Christi eiusque intimae coniunctionis cum fidelibus membris in Corpore Mystico.

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.

Quidam censent se non devinciri doctrina paucis ante annis in Encyclicis Nostris Litteris exposita, ac fontibus « revelationis » innixa, quae quidem docet corpus Christi mysticum et Ecclesiam Catholicam Romanam unum idemque esse (cfr. Litt. Enc. Mystici Corporis Christi, A. A. S. vol. XXXV, p. 193 sq.). Aliqui necessitatem pertinendi ad veram Ecclesiam, ut sempiterna attingatur salus, ad vanam formulam reducunt. Alii denique rationali indoli « credibilitatis » fidei christianae iniuriam inferunt.

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.

Haec et alia id genus iam serpere constat inter nonnullos filios Nostros, quos incautum animarum studium vel falsi nominis scientia decipiunt, quibusque maerenti animo et notissimas veritates repetere cogimur et manifestos errores errorisque pericula non sine anxitudine indicare.

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.

In comperto est quanti Ecclesia humanam rationem faciat, quod pertinet ad exsistentiam unius Dei personalis certo demonstrandam, itemque ad ipsius christianae fidei fundamenta signis divinis invicte comprobanda; parique modo ad legem, quam Creator animis hominum indidit, rite exprimendam; ac denique ad aliquam mysteriorum intellegentiam assequendam eamque fructuosissimam (cfr. Conc. Vat. D. B. 1796). Hoc tamen munus ratio tum solum apte ac tuto absolvere poterit, cum debito modo exculta fuerit; nempe cum fuerit sana illa philosophia imbuta, quae veluti patrimonium iamdudum exstat a superioribus christianis aetatibus traditum, atque adeo altioris etiam ordinis auctoritatem habet, quia ipsum Magisterium Ecclesiae, eius principia ac praecipua asserta, a viris magni ingenii paulatim patefacta ac definita, ad ipsius divinae « revelationis » trutinam vocavit. Quae quidem philosophia in Ecclesia agnita ac recepta, et verum sincerumque cognitionis humanae valorem tuetur, et metaphysica inconcussa principia — rationis nempe sufficientis, causalitatis et finalitatis — ac demum certae et immutabilis veritatis assecutionem.

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.

In hac philosophia plura sane exponuntur, quibus res fidei et morum neque directe nec indirecte attinguntur, quaeque propterea Ecclesia liberae peritorum disceptationi permittit; at quoad alia plura, praesertim quoad principia assertaque praecipua, quae supra memoravimus, eadem libertas non viget. Etiam in huiusmodi essentialibus quaestionibus, philosophiam quidem aptiore ac ditiore veste induere licet, efficacioribus dictionibus communire, quibusdam scholarum adminiculis minus aptis exuere, sanis quoque quibusdam elementis progredientis humanae lucubrationis caute locupletare; numquam tamen eam subvertere fas est, vel falsis principiis contaminare, vel quasi magnum quidem, sed obsoletum existimare monumentum. Non enim veritas omnisque eius philosophica declaratio in dies mutari possunt, cum potissimum agatur de principiis humanae menti per se notis, vel de sententiis illis, quae tum saeculorum sapientia, tum etiam divinae « revelationis » consensu ac fulcimine innituntur. Quidquid veri mens humana, sincere quaerens, invenire poterit, iam acquisitae veritati profecto adversari nequit; siquidem Deus, summa Veritas, humanum intellectum condidit atque regit, non ut rite acquisitis cotidie nova opponat, sed ut, remotis erroribus qui forte irrepserint, verum vero superstruat eodem ordine ac compagine quibus ipsa rerum natura, ex qua verum hauritur, constituta cernitur. Quapropter christianus, sive philosophus, sive theologus, non festinanter ac leviter amplectatur quidquid novi in dies excogitatum fuerit, sed summa sedulitate id perpendat ac iusta in trutina ponat, ne adeptam veritatem amittat, vel corrumpat, gravi profecto cum ipsius fidei discrimine ac detrimento.

31_TEACHING AQUINAS

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]

Quae si bene perspecta fuerint, facile patebit cur Ecclesia exigat ut futuri sacerdotes philosophicis disciplinis instruantur « ad Angelici Doctoris rationem, doctrinam et principia » (C. I. C. can. 1366, 2), quandoquidem plurium saeculorum experientia probe noscit Aquinatis methodum ac rationem sive in tironibus erudiendis, sive in absconditis veritatibus pervestigandis, singulari praestantia eminere; ipsius autem doctrinam cum divina « revelatione » quasi quodam concentu consonare, atque ad fidei fundamenta in tuto collocanda efficacissimam esse, necnon ad sani progressionis fructus utiliter et secure colligendos (Acta Ap. Sedis vol. XXXVIII, 1946, p. 387).

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.

Hac de causa quam maxime deplorandum est, philosophiam in Ecclesia receptam ac agnitam hodie a nonnullis despectui haberi, ita ut antiquata quoad formam, rationalistica, ut aiunt, quoad cogitandi processum, impudenter renuntietur. Dictitant enim hanc nostram philosophiam perperam opinionem tueri merant res, praesertim transcendentes, non aptius exprimi posse, quam disparatis doctrinis, quae sese mutuo compleant, quam vis sibi invicem quodammodo opponantur. Quare philosophiam nostris traditam scholis, cum sua lucida quaestionum descriptione ac solutione, cum accurata sua notionum determinatione clarisque distinctionibus, utilem quidem esse posse concedunt ad propaedeusim scholasticae theologiae, mentibus hominum medii aevi egregie accommodatam ; non tamen praebere philosophandi rationem, quae hodiernae nostrae culturae ac necessitatibus respondeat. Opponunt deinde philosophiam perennem nonnisi philosophiam immutabilium essentiarum esse, dum hodierna mens ad « exsistentiam » sigulorum spectet necesse est et ad vitam semper fluentem. Dum vero hanc philosophiam despiciunt, alias extollunt sive antiquas, sive recentes, sive Orientis, sive Occidentis populorum, ita ut in animos insinuare videantur quamlibet philosophiam vel opinationem, quibusdam additis, si opus fuerit, correctionibus vel complementis, cum dogmate catholico componi posse; quod quidem falsum omnino esse, cum praesertim de commentis illis agatur, quae vel «immanentismum» vocant, vel « idealismum », vel « materialismum » sive historicum, sive dialecticum, ac vel etiam « existentialismum » sive atheismum profitentem, sive saltem valori ratiocinii metaphysici adversantem, catholicus nemo in dubium revocare potest.

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.

Ac denique philosophiae nostris traditae scholis hoc vitio vertunt, eam nempe in cognitionis processu ad intellectum unice respicere, neglecto munere voluntatis et affectuum animi. Quod quidem verum non est. Numquam enim christiana philosophia utilitatem negavit et efficacitatem bonarum totius animi dispositionum ad res religiosas ac morales plene cognoscendas et amplectendas; immo semper docuit huiuscemodi dispositionum defectum causam esse posse cur intellectus, cupiditatibus ac mala voluntate affectus, ita obscuretur ut non recte videat. Immo Doctor Communis censet intellectum altiora bona ad ordinem moralem sive naturalem sive supernaturalem pertinentia, aliquo modo percipere posse, quatenus experiatur in animo affectivam quamdam « connaturalitatem » cum eisdem bonis sive naturalem, sive dono gratiae additam (cfr. S. Thom. Summa Theol. 24-2, q. r, art. 4 ad 3 et q. 45, art. 2, in c.); ac liquet quantopere vel suboscura huiusmodi cognitio investigationibus rationis auxilio esse valeat. Attamen aliud est voluntatis affectuum dispositioni vim agnoscere adiuvandi rationem ad certiorem ac firmiorem cognitionem rerum moralium assequendam; aliud vero est, quod isti novatores contendunt; facultatibus nempe appetendi et affectandi vim quamdam intuendi adiudicare, atque hominem, cum non possit rationis discursu cum certitudine discernere quidnam ut verum sit amplectendum, ad voluntatem declinare, qua inter oppositas opiniones ipse libere decernens eligat, cognitione et voluntatis actu incompte permixtis.

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.

Nec mirum est novis hisce placitis in discrimen adduci duas philosophicas disciplinas, quae natura sua cum fidei doctrina arcte conectuntur, theodiceam nempe et ethicam; quarum quidem munus esse censent non aliquid certi de Deo aliove ente transcendenti demonstrare, sed ostendere potius ea quae fides doceat de Deo personali ac de eius praeceptis, cum vitae necessitatibus perfecte cohaerere, ideoque omnibus amplectenda esse ut desperatio arceatur atque aeterna attingatur salus. Quae omnia ut Decessorum Nostrorum Leonis XIII et Pii X documentis aperte adversantur, ita cum Concilii Vaticani decretis componi nequeunt. Has quidem a veritate aberrationes deplorare supervacaneum esset, si omnes, etiam in rebus philosophicis, qua par est reverentia ad Magisterium Ecclesiae animum intenderent, cuius profecto est, ex divina institutione, non solum veritatis divinitus revelatae depositum custodire et interpretari, sed ipsis etiam philosophicis disciplinis invigilare, ne quid detrimenti ex placitis non rectis catholica patiantur dogmata.

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.

Reliquum est ut aliquid de quaestionibus dicamus, quae quamvis spectent ad disciplinas, quae « positivae » nuncupari solent, cum christianae tamen fidei veritatibus plus minusve conectantur. Instanter enim non pauci expostulant ut catholica religio earumdem disciplinarum quam plurimum rationem habeat. Quod sane laude dignum est ubi de factis agitur reapse demonstratis; caute tamen accipiendum est ubi potius de « hypothesibus » sit quaestio, etsi aliquo modo humana scientia innixis, quibus doctrina attingitur in Sacris Litteris vel in « traditione » contenta. Quodsi tales coniecturales opiniones doctrinae a Deo revelatae directe vel indirecte adversentur, tum huius modi postulatum nullo modo admitti potest.

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.

Quamobrem Ecclesiae Magisterium non prohibet quominus « evolutionismi » doctrina, quatenus nempe de humani corporis origine inquirit ex iam exsistente ac vivente materia oriundi — animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubet — pro hodierno humanarum disciplinarum et sacrae theologiae statu, investigationibus ac disputationibus peritorum in utroque campo hominum pertractetur ; ita quidem ut rationes utriusque opinionis, faventium nempe, vel obstantium, debita cum gravitate, moderatione ac temperantia perpendantur ac diiudicentur; dummodo omnes parati sint ad Ecclesiae iudicio obtemperandum, cui a Christo munus demandatum est et Sacras Scripturas authentice interpretandi et fidei dogmata tuendi (cfr. Allocut. Pont. ad membra Academiae Scientiarum, 30 novembris 1941: A. A . S . v ol. XXXIII, p. 5o6). Hanc tamen disceptandi libertatem nonnulli temerario ausu transgrediuntur, cum ita sese gerant quasi si ipsa humani corporis origo ex iam exsistente ac vivente materia per indicia hucusque reperta ac per ratiocinia ex iisdem iudiciis deducta, iam certa omnino sit ac demonstrata; atque ex divinae revelationis fontibus nihil habeatur, quod in hac re maximam moderationem et cautelam exigat.

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 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]

Cum vero de alia coniecturali opinione agitur, videlicet de polygenismo, quem vocant, tum Ecclesiae filii eiusmodi libertate minime fruuntur. Non enim christifideles eam sententiam amplecti possunt, quam qui retinent asseverant vel post Adam hisce in terris veros homines exstitisse, qui non ab eodem prouti omnium protoparente, naturali generatione originem duxerint, vel Adam significare multitudinem quamdam protoparentum; cum nequaquam appareat quomodo huiusmodi sententia componi queat cum iis quae fontes revelatae veritatis et acta Magisterii Ecclesiae proponunt de peccato originali quod procedit ex peccato vere commisso ab uno Adamo, quodque generatione in omnes transfusum, inest unicuique proprium (cfr. Rom. 5, 12- 19; Conc. Trid. sess. V, can. 1-4).

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.

Quemadmodum autem in biologicis et anthropologicis disciplinis, ita etiam in historicis sunt qui limites et cautelas ab Ecclesia statuta audacter transgrediantur. Ac peculiari modo deploranda est quaedam nimio liberior libros historicos Veteris Testamenti interpretandi ratio, cuius fautores Epistulam haud ita multo ante a Pontificio Consilio de re biblica Archiepiscopo Parisiensi datam ad suam defendendam causam immerito referunt (Die 16 ianuarii 1948: A. A. S. vol. XL. pp. 45-48). Haec enim Epistula aperte monet undecim priora capita Geneseos, quamvis cum historicae compositionis rationibus proprie non conveniant, quibus eximii rerum gestarum scriptores graeci et latini, vel nostrae aetatis periti usi fuerint, nihilominus quodam vero sensu, exegetis amplius investigando ac determinando, ad genus historiae pertinere; eademque capita, oratione simplici ac figurata mentique populi parum exculti accommodata, tum praecipuas veritates referre, quibus aeterna nostra procuranda salus innititur, tum etiam popularem descriptionem originis generis humani populique electi. Si quid autem hagiographi antiqui ex narrationibus popularibus hauserint (quod quidem concedi potest), numquam obliviscendum est eos ita egisse divinae inspirationis afflatu adiutos, quo in seligendis ac diiudicandis documentis illis ab omni errore immunes praemuniebantur.

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.

Quae autem ex popularibus narrationibus in Sacris Litteris recepta sunt, ea cum mythologiis aliisve id genus minime ae quanda sunt, quae magis ex effusa imaginatione procedunt quam ex illo veritatis ac simplicitatis studio, quod in Sacris Libris Veteris etiam Testamenti adeo elucet ut hagiographi nostri antiquos profanos scriptores aperte praecellere dicendi sint.

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.

Novimus quidem plerosque catholicos doctores, quorum studiorum fructus in athenaeis, in sacris seminariis et religiosorum sodalium collegiis impertiuntur, ab iis erroribus alienos esse, qui hodie, sive ob rerum novarum cupidinem, sive etiam ob immoderatum quoddam apostolatus propositum, aperte vel latenter divulgantur. At novimus quoque novas eiusmodi opinationes incautos allicere posse; ideoque principiis obstare malumus, quam inveterato iam morbo medicinam praestare.

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.

Quapropter, re coram Domino mature perpensa ac considerata, ne a sacro Nostro officio deficiamus, Episcopis ac Religiosarum Sodalitatum Moderatoribus, gravissime eorum onerata conscientia, praecipimus, ut quam diligentissime curent, ne in scholis, in coetibus, in scriptis quibuslibet opiniones huiusmodi proferantur, neve clericis vel christifidelibus quovis modo tradantur.

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.

Qui in ecclesiasticis institutis docent, noverint se tuta conscientia munus docendi, sibi concreditum, exercere non posse, nisi doctrinae normas, quas ediximus, religiose accipiant atque ad amussim servent in discipulis instituendis. Debitam reverentiam atque obtemperationem, quam in suo adsiduo labore Ecclesiae Magisterio profiteantur oportet, discipulorum quoque mentibus animisque instillent.

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.

Nitantur utique omni vi omnique contentione ut disciplinas, quas tradunt, provehant; sed caveant etiam ne limites transgrediantur a Nobis statutos ad veritatem fidei ac doctrinae catholicae tuendam. In quaestiones novas, quas hodierna cultura ac progrediens aetas in medium protulerunt, diligentissimam suam conferant pervestigationem, sed ea qua par est prudentia et cautela; nec denique putent, falso « irenismo » indulgentes, ad Ecclesiae sinum dissidentes et errantes feliciter reduci posse, nisi integra veritas in Ecclesia vigens, absque ulla corruptione detractioneque, sincere omnibus tradatur.

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.

Hac spe freti, quam pastoralis vestra sollertia adauget, caelestium munerum auspicem paternaeque benevolentiae Nostrae testem, cum vobis singulis universis, Venerabiles Fratres, tum clero populoque vestro Apostolicam Benedictionem amantissime impertimus.

Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, 12 August 1950, the twelfth year of Our Pontificate.

Datum Romae, apud S. Petrum, die XII mensis Augusti, anno MDCCCCL, Pontificatus Nostri duodecimo.

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.            

LATIN

PIUS PP. XII

*Discorsi e Radiomessaggi di Sua Santità Pio XII, XII,
Dodicesimo anno di Pontificato, 2 marzo 1950 - 1° marzo 1951, pp. 495 - 510
Tipografia Poliglotta Vaticana

 A.A.S., vol. XXXXII (1950), n. 11, pp. 561 - 578.

THE LIFE of ANTONY

 TABLE of CONTENTS

INDICE

THE LIFE of ANTONY

THE LIFE of ANTONY

THE LIFE of ANTONY

THE LIFE of ANTONY
(Chapters 1-7: Antony the young ascetic)

Youth and

Family

 The Mystical Meaning of

Baptismal Vows