Why Modernist Vagabonds Idolize Science

“On the one hand, routine calling itself tradition; on the other, novelty calling itself truth. The former no more stands for faith than the latter authentically for science.”

So wrote the then priest Alfred Loisy in his diary after taking a course in Sacred Scripture at the Institut Catholique (Paris) in March of 1882. [1] He had been ordained as a priest not three years prior, and over the next twenty-six years he became known as the principal purveyor for Catholic Modernism, a movement of ideas to reform the Church to the modern world by fundamentally rejecting Divine Revelation as objective, dogmatic, immutable Truth.

Loisy was excommunicated in 1908 after the 1907 syllabus of errors, Lamentabili sane exitu, was issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office which formally condemned sixty-five modernist propositions concerning biblical exegesis, revelation, the sacraments, the interpretation of dogma, the divinity of Christ, and the authority of the Church. [2] Much of the condemned statements were taken from Loisy’s writings, to which Loisy replied promptly in two syllabi of his own. [3]

Within a few months of Lamentabili, Pope Pius X also promulgated an encyclical, Pascendi doninici gregis, which presented a fuller explanation of this “synthesis of all heresies” called Modernism. [4] The Modernist reasoning reduces truth to something that resides in the individual consciousness as sentiment or experience, something subjective, so Divine Truth is reduced to whatever an individual believes God is telling him. [5] From this rejection of objective truth crawled all the rest of the errors because if Divine Revelation can be doubted as objectively true, then the ecclesiastical authority of the Church can be rejected. [6]

Once all knowledge is shaken from its foundations, new mazes of conjectures and hypotheses can be invented. [7] That single false assertion is responsible for the perceived separation of science and faith whereby science is limited to the external, physical, visible world, as the objective form of truth, and faith is relegated to individual, internal sentiments. [8] The two, therefore, become necessarily unconnected, “strangers to each other.” [9]

In theology, as in science and every other area of research, the Modernists called for an unbounded freedom of thought, a “freedom from interference by those who have been given authority in human institutions.” [10] They called for “presuppositionless” investigation as the only way a “conscientious researcher from a logical and historical point of view” could obtain “truthfulness.” [11]

But is the demand for unlimited freedom in science reasonable and just? Or does it lead to a consequent demand for unfounded permissiveness and even rebellion? [12]

Pope Pius X elaborated further that since “man does not suffer a dualism to exist in him” the believer who wants to reconcile faith with science under Modernist thought will be left to deal with the observable world as the only thing knowable, leaving “unknowable” faith subjected to science. [13] That subjection leads to the error that “the Church has no right to pass judgment on the assertions of the human sciences.” [14] If the Church does not comply, the Modernists accuse that she is hostile to progress. [15] Catholicism, marginalized in the Modernist mind, would then be able to reconcile itself with science only if it is “transformed into a non-dogmatic Christianity” that evolves with the times. [16]

The Modernist understanding of scientific methodology then holds that whatever can be known by scientific study cannot ascend beyond its confines, and study of the natural world therefore has “no right and no power” to recognize God’s existence. [17] Whatever can be known by faith cannot be known by science. [18] God can never be the direct object of science, and with God utterly excluded, science becomes atheistic, and the Modernists completely “invert the parts.” [19]

But ultimately, such “freethinking” leaves a man ignorant.

Perfection does not come from wide boundaries; societies do not function without rules of propriety; man knows that good judgment depends on following the rules of logic. [20] God gave man free will as a means to reach necessary ends, but within his own mind man knows he is bound to truth just as in nature all things are reliably, predictably, unrelentingly bound to physical laws. If liberty over-steps its bounds, then the search for truth leads to evil because after the exclusion of God, human nature must seek something to worship and whatever it is, it will be a false idol. [21]

The Catholic understanding of scientific methodology, however, does not subject faith to science because in reality there is no unlimited freedom anywhere in the world and faith guides science towards truth. [22] The Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius from the First Vatican Council in 1870 articulated: “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” [23] This is repeated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. [24]

Faith is based on Divine Revelation, and science is based on Creation, both originate in God – The Objective Truth. [25] All methodical research performed in a “truly scientific manner” will follow moral laws and will not conflict with faith. [26] To admit less freedom in the pursuit of knowledge is to actually admit more knowledge because the authority to which assent is given is to the highest eternal Truth and infinite Wisdom. [27] The Catholic scientist is grateful to his Creator for revealed truths.

With disciplined but child-like humility and perseverance “being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself” he knows more of the important truths than vagabond free-thinkers. [28] Man is given dominion over Creation, and science and technology are resources that serve man and the good of society; but alone they cannot disclose anything about the meaning of existence. [29] There must be guiding principles in the pursuit of knowledge and research must conform to the plan and will of God. [30] The Catholic scientist is guided by the metaphysical principle that God is the Author of all truth, Creator of all things. Every experiment is designed under this principle, every set of data is interpreted under this principle, and every new hypothesis is formulated under this principle.

In 2010 Pope Benedict XVI gave an opening address to participants in the Plenary Session of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences “The Scientific Legacy of the 20th Century” noting the major achievements of modern science. [31] He explained how such rapid progress has led to two extreme characterizations. Because science has advanced so fast, many have come to view science as the way to answer all questions of our existence and hopes, and others have come to fear it as a means by which we will destroy ourselves. The first group has lost faith in God, the second in man; and neither extreme is correct. [32]

Science should remain a “patient yet passionate search for truth about the cosmos, about nature and about the constitution of the human being.” [33] There will always be successes and failures in science, but exciting new discoveries lead to better understanding, allowing for the improvement of theories. [34] Science approached this way becomes an “unveiling” of man’s intellectual connection with natural reality. As generations progress, so too will science. [35]

In the twentieth century man has understood his place in the cosmos better, at both the grand and the infinitesimal scales. In science the common denominator for all experimentation is that it is a systematic method of observing nature. Because it is not always possible to directly observe nature at these scales, an even stronger impetus to be aware of a metaphysical guiding principle thus results.

The Church is convinced that science benefits from man’s spiritual dimension and his acknowledgement that there is a world independent of him, with inherent logic, and also a world that he does not fully understand. [36] “Scientists do not create the world.” [37] Rather, they learn about it, try to imitate it, and follow its laws. In this way the scientist, a human being, is observing a constant – a logos – that he has not created. [38] Science, then, necessarily leads him to admit the existence of God, “All-Powerful Reason,” which sustains the world. That is where science and religion meet.

“As a result, science becomes a place of dialogue, a meeting between man and nature and, potentially, even between man and his Creator.” – Pope Benedict XVI [39]

Modernism sought to change the Catholic Church to accommodate the modern world by the complete emancipation of science (and every field of investigation) from ecclesiastical authority never to be held in check by tribunals or papal definitions. [40] To many observers today it may seem like that goal was reached. After all, one has only to point to the agnostic Stephen Jay Gould’s “Non-Overlapping Magisteria” description of science and religion to show that sects within the scientific community still promote unbridled freedom of thought sans religion. [41] But the Church, who sees the world as a united whole and places a dignity on science as a component of man’s search for truth, rejects such impossible constructs.

There is even a science of faith – theology – to search for a deeper understanding of dogma and its relation to the rest of man’s existence. The ascendency of the Church was the most liberating event in human history and Canon law has stayed ahead of civil law in true leadership of the authentic progress of mankind. The Church has always guided and promoted science, and is still inherently intertwined in scientific endeavors.

Loisy, who never reconciled with the Church, later said in his memoirs that he was more a “pantheist-positivist-humanitarian” than a Christian. [42] To finish his quote that started this essay:

“On the one hand, routine calling itself tradition; on the other, novelty calling itself truth. The former no more stands for faith than the latter authentically for science. These two attitudes are in conflict as to the Bible, and I wonder if anyone in the world can balance the scales between faith and science. If so, he shall be my master…”

It seems Loisy did not see the truth before him, for it is the Church who remains and evermore defends the “ability of human reason to know God” and expresses her “confidence in the possibility of speaking about him to all men and with all men, and therefore of dialogue with other religions, with philosophy and science, as well as with unbelievers and atheists.” [43]

[learn_more caption="End Notes"]

1. Francesco Turvas. The Condemnation of Alfred Loisy and the Historical Method. (Rome: Ed. di Storia e Letteratura, 1979), page 2.
2. Pope Pius X. Lamentabili sane exitu: Syllabus Condemning the Errors of the Modernists, Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, July 3, 1907.
3. Ceffonds pres-Montier-en-Der. “The Syllabus of Loisy.” The Independent, Volume 64, April 2, 1908, page 807.
4. Pope Pius X. Pascendi doninici gregis: Encyclical of Pope Pius X on the Doctrines of the Modernists, September 8, 1907.
5. Pascendi, number 7.
6. Pascendi, number 3.
7. John Hagen. “Science and the Church.” (1912) The Catholic Encyclopedia. New Advent.
8. Pascendi, numbers 6, 7, 8 and Hagen, “Science and the Church.”
9. Pascendi, number 17.
10. Martin Rumscheidt. Adolf von Harnack: Liberal Theology at its Height. (Glasgow: Collins Publishers, 1989), page 33 and Hagen, “Science and the Church.”
11.  Daniel S. Christopher. Text and Experience: Towards a Cultural Exegesis of the Bible. (Los Angeles, CA: Sheffield Press, 1995), page 326 and John Barton. The Old Testament: Canon, Literature and Theology: collected essays of John Barton. (England: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2007), page 176.
12. Hagen, “Science and the Church.”
13. Pascendi, number 17.
14. Lamentabili, number 5.
15. Lamentabili, number 57.
16. Pascendi, number 17 and Lamentabili, number 65.
17. Pascendi, number 6.
18. Pascendi, number 16.
19. Pascendi, number 6, 17.
20. Hagen, “Science and the Church.”
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid.
23. Vatican Council I. Dogmatic constitution Dei Filius. 1870, number 4.
24. Catechism of the Catholic Church. Vatican, number 159.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid.
27. Hagen, “Science and the Church.”
28. CCC, number 159 and Hagen, “Science and the Church.”
29. CCC, number 2293.
30. CCC, number 2294.
31. Pope Benedict XVI, Opening Address to the Plenary Session of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, The Scientific Legacy of the 20th Century. Vatican. October 28, 2010, page 23, 24.
32. Ibid.
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid.
35. Ibid.
36. Ibid.
37. Ibid.
38. Ibid.
39. Ibid.
40. Arthur Vermeersch. “Modernism.” (1911) The Catholic Encyclopedia. New Advent.
41. Stephen Jay Gould. “Non-Overlapping Magisteria.” Stephen Jay Gould Archive.
42. Bernard Reardon. Liberalism and Tradition: Aspects of Catholic Thought in Nineteenth-Century. (NY: Cambridge University Press, 1975), page 278.
43. CCC, number 39.[/learn_more]

[learn_more caption="Bibliography"]

• Arthur Vermeersch. “Modernism.” (1911) The Catholic Encyclopedia. New Advent.
• Bernard Reardon. Liberalism and Tradition: Aspects of Catholic Thought in Nineteenth-Century. NY: Cambridge University Press, 1975.
• Ceffonds pres-Montier-en-Der. “The Syllabus of Loisy.” The Independent, Volume 64, April 2, 1908.
• Daniel S. Christopher. Text and Experience: Towards a Cultural Exegesis of the Bible. Los Angeles, CA: Sheffield Press, 1995.
• Francesco Turvas. The Condemnation of Alfred Loisy and the Historical Method. Rome: Ed. di Storia e Letteratura, 1979.
• John Barton. The Old Testament: Canon, Literature and Theology: collected essays of John Barton. England: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2007.
• John Hagen. “Science and the Church.” (1912) The Catholic Encyclopedia. New Advent.
• Martin Rumscheidt. Adolf von Harnack: Liberal Theology at its Height. Glasgow: Collins Publishers, 1989.
• Pope Benedict XVI. Opening Address to the Plenary Session of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, The Scientific Legacy of the 20th Century. Vatican. October 28, 2010.
• Pope Pius X. Lamentabili sane exitu: Syllabus Condemning the Errors of the Modernists, Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, July 3, 1907.
• Pope Pius X. Pascendi doninici gregis: Encyclical of Pope Pius X on the Doctrines of the Modernists, September 8, 1907.
• Stephen Jay Gould. “Non-Overlapping Magisteria.” Stephen Jay Gould Archive.
• Vatican. Catechism of the Catholic Church.
• Vatican Council I. Dogmatic constitution Dei Filius. 1870.

*In the interest of absolute completeness in attribution, all numbers are referenced in gratitude to Euclid, all English words sourced from the Unabridged Oxford English Dictionary and all of being, humbly and in exceeding awe, is acknowledged as the will of God.[/learn_more]

Tags: Barton, cosmology, Dei Filius, free-thinker, freedom, Hagen, Lamentabili, Loisy, Modernism, objective truth, Pascendi, Pius X, Pope Benedict, presumptionless, Reardon, Rumscheidt, science, Stephen Jay Gould, theology, tradition, Vermeersch

Category: Church History, Modernism, Theology