jJjJ.',l,'il,j,l,',l.',l,l,l,',l,l,l.l.».l.l.l.l.l.l.l,l.!,l.l,l.l,l.l,l.l,l.l.l.l.l.l.l.l.T.I.I.I.I...I,M,M,l.l,Mrl.!,

YALE UNIVERSITY
Xibrarg of the ©foinitg School
GIFT OF
Douglas qigde JWarintosh
DWIGHT PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY
DWIGHT PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY AND
PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION

MODERNISM

BOOKS
PtTBLIBHED

BY PAUL SABATIER
bt CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS

Life of St.
Modernism

Francis

of Assisi

 $2.50

MODERNISM

THE JOWETT LECTURES, 1908

BY

PAUL SABATIER

AUTHOR OF " THE LIFE OF ST FRANCIS OF ASSISI

Translated by C. A. Miles
With a Preface, Notes and Appendices

NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
r9°9 st^p&XY

of

o£

YALE WVINTrY SCHOOL

A

s*

Jfi

aven

CoS

CONTENTS
PAGK
Introduction ..... 7
Lecture I. ..... 49
Lecture II. . . . . .91
Lecture HI. ..... 135
Appendices —
1. Encyclical Pieni V Animo . . 181
II. Petition from a Group of French
Catholics .... 197
IH. Syllabus Lamentabili Sane Exitu . 217
IV. Encyclical Pascendi . . . 231
Index ...... 347

NOTE
The translation of the Syllabus Lamentabili is reprinted from
The Tablet, by kind permission of the Editor. The translation
of the Encyclical Pascendi is the official version originally pub
lished in The Tablet, and subsequently issued, with modifica
tions, by Messrs Burns & Oates.

INTRODUCTION
In the following pages are reproduced three lectures
delivered in London, at the invitation of the " Jowett
Lectures " Committee, during February and March
1908. A month later M. Loisy's fourth little orange-
coloured book appeared — Quelques Lettres sur des
Questions Actuelles et sur des Ev/nements Re'cents*
The thoughts and questionings revealed in it were
so hke those which had called forth my lectures, the
answers given to those questionings were so similar
to my own, although far better and far more authori
tative, that at first I made up my mind to publish
nothing. On further consideration, however, it
occurred to me that what I had thought to be
modesty might after all be something quite different.
* Published by the author at Ceffonds, near Montier en Der (Haute
Marne). 295 pp. M. Loisy's three other little orange books are :
I. L' Evangile etPEglise. (4th Edition) 1908. 280 + xxxivpp.
2. Autour d'un Petit Livre. 300+xxxvipp.
3. Simples Riflexions sur le Dlcret du Saint Office Lamentabili
sane Exitu et sur V Encycliquc Fascendi Dominici Gregis.
377 PP 7

8 INTRODUCTION
Because on my poor patch of moorland I can never
produce crops to compete with my neighbour's,
ought I to remain with arms folded? The other
day I arranged some broom around a plantation of
young cedars, to shelter them from the wind ; after
wards, when the broom gave out, I made use of
common brushwood. In a few months' time this
broom and brushwood will be but dry sticks, un
noticed and yet still useful. Well, I myself should
like to do for Loisy somewhat the same service as
these humble plants are doing for the cedars of La
Maisonnette. The famous exegete's last book seems to me the
simplest and most effective answer that can be given
to the questions about Modernism which are being
asked on all sides. The movement has produced
works of the first rank in almost every field: on
Biblical criticism, for instance, on church history and
the lives of the saints, on dogmatics and religious
philosophy, and on social questions; but all these
have dealt with special and limited subjects, and
Modernism has been known to the world chiefly by
books.

INTRODUCTION 9
That was not enough ; people wanted to know the
authors, to come into personal, living touch with
them, to be with them not only when they were teach
ing, lecturing, speaking, but also during their long
hours of thought and meditation and preparation,
their hours of work and prayer, their hours of joy and
, , their hours of suffering. It is just this personal touch
that, with rare precision and absolute sincerity, Loisy
gives us in his last book.
Which of us, in reading the history of great intel
lectual and moral crises, has not longed to have been
the contemporary and associate of the men who
initiated and produced them? Well, Quelques
Lettres admits us to the intimate society of one of
the apostles of Modernism and helps us to under
stand the influence which this humble priest —
" ce petit pritre de Hen de tout " — living in an out-of-
the-way village in Champagne, is exercising over the
whole Christian world, an influence which he himself
is the last to realise. When, after some generations,
the time comes to write the history of the moral and
religious renewal which will characterise the early
twentieth century, it is in this book that its origin
and programme will have to be studied.

10 INTRODUCTION
From it too, it may be, our descendants will learn
what a marvellous instrument the language of their
ancestors was. Flexibility, lucidity, conciseness and
good taste, these are qualities to which our best authors
have accustomed us, but there are others which
we find in M. Loisy in an eminent and even unique
degree — propriety or rather sincerity of expression,
discreetness of style, and a certain urbanity which
passes from the writer's personality into his work.
M. Loisy thus continues one of the finest traditions
of our language and our national character. It is
much to be wished that in this respect also he should
have many followers. Among our writers of the day
there are some who with wild enthusiasm proclaim
themselves nationalists, for whom everything in the
past of France is perfection. Would not these men
do well to begin by displaying in their own work the
tact, the moderation, the reserve, the whole group of
qualities which show an author's respect for his
readers, and which form one of the most original
characteristics of the great periods in our literature ?
From this point of view we in France are still far
from giving Loisy his rightful place. The critics
who day by day distribute their laurels seem

INTRODUCTION ii
to fight shy of him. They are often heard to groan
over the blindness of foreign nations in confusing
our contemporary Hterature with the books with
which our railway and street bookstalls are stocked.
We cannot be too grateful to them for thus warning
the public of its mistake. Would it not, how
ever, be better still if they were to give to works
like Loisy's, which mark an epoch in the history of
the French mind, the place that belongs to them?
Loisy's work * is of importance not only because
* The persecutions of which M. Loisy has been the victim have had
one result among others — they have given him the time he needed
for the writing of his books. It is plain that, if he had remained
professor at the Catholic Institute in Paris, the preparation of his
lectures and his duties as a member of the professorial body would
have absorbed the greater part of his time ; we should then certainly
not have had from him the series of little orange books which have
brought him into sympathetic touch with the general public.
I cannot here attempt to give even a brief bibliography of the
Reviews to which he has contributed. The following is merely a
chronological list of his chief volumes. (The little orange-coloured
books have been mentioned in an earlier note).
Histoire du Canon de PAncien Testament (1890).
Histoire du Canon du tfouveau Testament (1891).
Histoire Critique du Texte et des Versions de PAncien Testament
(1892-1893). 2 vols.
Le Livre dejob ( 1892).
Les Mythes Babylonions et les Premiers Chapitres de la Genise (1901)
La Religion d/sraet (1901). Etudes Evanglliques (1902).
Etudes Bibliques (1903). Le Quatrieme Evangile (1903),
Les Evangiles Synoptiques (1907 and 1908). 2 vols.
The intensity of M. Loisy's scientific output will be noted. It has

12 INTRODUCTION
it is so fine in itself but also because of its profound
influence on the intellectual evolution of our genera-
ation. A genuine product of the French genius, it
contains seeds of thought which have found among
us a soil ready for them and have germinated
there. Why then this silence, or rather this reticence?
Why do our greatest critics so obstinately refuse to
see what a cheering symptom the success of
Modernism is? Are they not aware that in Paris,
in the very Quartier Latin, Loisy's books are selling
faster than the novels of the day? Is not that
a sign of the times to be noted with some
satisfaction? Nor is the great scholar's influence over studious
young men bounded by the frontiers of France. M.
Pierre de Quirielle has told us, in one of his most

been rendered possible by the inflexible regularity with which he
works, and by the retired life he has led in his hermitage at Gamay,
and of late at Ceffonds.
It is a strange thing that certain ecclesiastics are, quite rightly, full of
admiration for St Bonaventura, who was once taken by surprise while
washing dishes in the kitchen of his convent, and yet find something
laughable in the sight of M. Loisy attending to his poultry with more
intelligence and success than his neighbours the farmers. Two scenes
so closely alike should surely be equally edifying.

INTRODUCTION 13
brilliant articles,* with what ardent sympathy the
Rector of an Italian seminary questioned him about
this heretic. He would find the same interest in
Germany — even among men whose opinions M.
Loisy combats — and in England on the part of pre
lates who follow his work at once with anxiety and
with admiration. Last February I saw on an
* In the Journal des Debats for February 24, 1908.
As I have mentioned the name of this journal, I cannot help
saying with how much interest those who concern themselves with
religious affairs are following both M. de Quirielle's articles and the
Roman letters which bear the signature of "M. P." These studies
are written with a knowledge and a conscientiousness which are very
rarely given to the treatment of questions so delicate. I am all the more
glad to be able to speak so highly of them, as it is impossible not to
note a strangely weak-kneed attitude on the part of many European
papers in regard to Roman affairs.
There is at the Vatican a certain Mgr. Benigni, who has rapidly and
unexpectedly attained a unique position through the skill with which
he has organised the Holy See's relations with the Press. I will not,
as some do, accuse him of having bought, for cash down, the corre
spondents of certain London and Paris papers, for I am enough of a
Roman to know that though on the banks of the Tiber pretty nearly
everything is sold, good care is taken never to buy anything. But
here is a less gross and withal more effective means of ensuring the
docility of journalists, and that is to withhold communiquis.
Mgr. Benigni is not so simple as those governments which daily
supply the whole Press with one and the same bulletin. He takes the
trouble to give what he writes a different shade, according as it is
destined for Madrid, New York or — Geneva.
This coercion of a certain number of organs of public opinion by
the agents of the Holy See is quite one of the darkest sides of Pius
X.'s pontificate. The astonishing part played by La Corrispondenza

14 INTRODUCTION
Anglican bishop's table Loisy's Commentary on the
Synoptics and his Study of the Fourth Gospel. " It
is years," said the bishop to me, " since any scientific
work has interested me so profoundly. I have read
the preface to the Synoptics twice, and I get on very
slowly, for I am full of admiration, and also of
perplexity. I am an old man, and many questions
are here presented in so novel a way that I am quite
baffled by it all. But my heart divines what my
intellect cannot grasp — Loisy has a noble mind, and
above all he is a true son of the Church. He does
not think himself omniscient or infallible. Where he
is wrong he must be shown his mistakes. Our
Roman brethren are preparing to excommunicate
him, but excommunication is no argument. Loisy
has evidently arrived at his views honestly and invol-

Romana, which faithfully reflects the reading and the views, ideas,
hopes, anger, hatred, alarm, arrogance and stupidity of a power which
claims to speak in the name of God Himself, is not the least irony of
Pius X. 's reign. Public opinion is for the moment engaged elsewhere,
and many of those who throw stones at the Vatican may well seem to
it to have few qualifications for posing as apostles of an ideal morality.
But it may well be that when the day comes for Mgr. Benigni and
Mgr. Montagnini to receive the cardinal's hat, there will be an irresistible
movement against a camarilla whose reign will be regarded not only
as a scandal but as one of the most incredible facts in the ecclesi
astical history of the last few centuries.

INTRODUCTION 15
untarily, while in fact actually desiring to reach
opposite views. To cut him off from the communion
of the faithful is a confession of weakness, not to say
unbelief. Believe me, in saying this I am not
thinking only of Pius X., but also of the Eastern
Church, and especially of the Church of England,
which has its own crisis, its own troubles and diffi
culties. Here too we are threatened with a mechani
cal or materialistic view of the Church, which leads
people to beheve that to persecute error and to
love truth are the same thing." At this point our
conversation, which I have given as faithfully as I
can remember it, was interrupted. I thought it
worth relating because it seemed to me a typical
example of the penetrative power of Loisy's thought.*
The mysterious influence he gains over those who
^re willing to take a few steps in his company will be
best understood by the readers of Quelques Lettres.
* At the Pan- Anglican Congress one of the most prominent of the
English prelates, Dr Talbot, Bishop of Southwark, spoke some
memorable words, which are summarised as follows by The Guardian
(June 24, 1908, p. 1078): "The Bishop of Southwark admitted
that modern criticism had greatly helped him in dealing with difficulties
found in the Old Testament, and helped him also the better to love
and preach the Old Testament"

16 INTRODUCTION
In his other books we see the exegete, the savant,
the thinker;' in this one we see the man. It has all
the interest of a volume of memoirs, the realism of a
book of confessions, and the historical value of a
collection of documents.
In the choice of the letters to appear in this
selection the author was guided by one anxiety —
to avoid everything that could serve as a pretext for
measures of persecution, or arouse mere idle curiosity.
His desire was to tell not only the truth but the
whole truth, and he has included pages which would
certainly not have appeared if he had sought to
draw a flattering portrait of himself or to provide
materials for his legend. In saying this I have my
mind particularly on the letters addressed to M.
Auguste Roussel, to the unspeakable Dom Chamard,
and to Canon Henri Debout, laureat of the Acadf
Francaise and Cure of the Sacre Coeur at Calais.
In some of the letters we seem to hear the thun
of a just indignation; others show a rather haughty
compassion ; they all enthral us and carry us away.
We applaud, but the next moment we are seized with
pity for the victims. We feel they h? < 2 not entered
the arena quite of their own accord ; t> / remind us

INTRODUCTION 17
of those wretched Spanish mules which the bull in his
fury rips up without their knowing why.
Undoubtedly the proceedings of the clerical Press,
which with superb insolence poses as the appointed
guardian of orthodoxy, are even more vulgar and
offensive than those which disgrace a section of the
pohtical Press. The fact that a priest, the Abbe"
Gamier, editor of the Peuple Francais, could write
an article* accusing M. Loisy of having sold himself
to a Jew and a Protestant — he was careful not to
name them, for fear of legal proceedings being taken,
but they were clearly pointed out by their initials —
is a painful symptom of the state of moral degrada
tion reached by papers before which our bishops
tremble and which the Pope loads with benedic
tions. When we remember that these accusations
¦reared, over the signature of the ediLor-in-chief,
; the head of the front page, and caUed forth no
rtest from the subscribers to the paper, nor, what
id more, from the other editors, who most of them
know both M. Loisy and the Protestant and the Jew
in question, : we cannot form a high opinion of the
public whiefcreads this sort of literature, or of those
"•' la the number for September 19, 1907.

i8 INTRODUCTION
who cater for it, in spite of their pretensions to being
the saviours of divine morality in the country.
Loisy, however, knows his strength; he is now
victorious enough not to waste his time in correcting
the mistakes — intentional or merely stupid — of
the bonne presse.
M. Auguste Roussel with his Univers and his
Vcritz Franqaise, Canon Debout with his laurels and
diplomas, Dom Chamard with his bravadoes, will
have been forgotten long ago when Quelques Lettres
is still read; and our descendants, seeing these
champions of orthodoxy only through the medium
of Loisy's letters, will be in danger of forming an
exaggerated and even an unjust idea of them.
The Modernists have introduced into philosophy
and dogmatics the idea of relativity; in my opinion
they ought also to apply this conception in their
estimates of men. To refrain from judging and con
sequently condemning our opponents perfect saintli-
ness is not necessary; it is enough to use a little
observation and good sense. A tree can only bring
forth its own fruit.
A man who disregards the most elementary rules
of good faith, who supports grave charges by quota-

INTRODUCTION 19
tions which he either misinterprets or altogether
invents, who, when his error is pointed out to him, not
only does not desist but tries to silence all contra
diction, and will see and hear nothing ; such a man,
though to us he seems on so low an intellectual and
moral level, may be at other times, and when other
questions are concerned, a model of delicacy and
kindness and devotion.
John Huss was able to divine the saintliness of the
poor woman who threw a faggot into his fire of
martyrdom. In our time there are still many people
whose mentality is like that of this simple person.
Let us study them with the sympathetic interest of a
scientist examining the last representatives of a
species that is becoming extinct. These organisms
of a past epoch, which are to-day being slowly but
inexorably eliminated by Nature, exhibit peculiarities
that will richly repay our observation.
Men like Pius X., Mgr. Turinaz or Pere Fontaine,
are neither to be pitied nor blamed; they are what
they are, and even what they ought to be. Their
inborn incapacity to understand what we say is a
fact ; we must note it as a fact, and not only not be
angry at it, but profit by it and learn from it ; for,

20 INTRODUCTION
vast, ingenuous and exuberant as it is, it may
help us to realise how slowly the human mind
evolves and how necessary it is to allow it plenty
of time.
We do not get angry with a peasant because he
can see nothing in a painting by Rembrandt, and finds
it ugly, grotesque or coarse. Should we accuse him
of bad faith if he were incapable of correctly describ
ing the attitude or expression of the persons repre
sented? After a little reflection we may well feel
that our own view of the picture is but httle better
than his, and that to our descendants it will one day
seem quite as defective.
There is need of patience, above all, in dealing
with images which for some men embody ideas
that are the best part of their moral and religious
life. In this respect Loisy may be instanced as a
model. He has in him nothing of the iconoclast:
for twenty years he had left certain papers to mis
understand his ideas, distort his clearest words, and
quite overlook the very real sacrifices that he has
often made in deference to discipline.
I can see that it was impossible for him to keep
silence, but I regret nevertheless that he should have

INTRODUCTION 21
entered into discussions with those who cannot
understand him.
All this shuffling, these tricks and artifices, these
mutilated, falsified, and even fabricated quotations,
seem from our point of view to form a method of
unintelligent lying; they are really somethmg quite
different on the part of our opponents — they are the
involuntary result of fear, the irresponsible strategy
of people who have lost their heads.
I hope these reservations will be forgiven me;
they are the only ones I have to make with regard
to Loisy's work. One reads and re-reads it with
increasing deliberation and ever-fresh delight. The
impatience which the illustrious scholar shows
towards certain unimportant opponents only strikes
one because it interrupts the serenity — or rather the
security — of the faith manifested in the book. God
is patient because He is eternal. The Modernist,
too, ought to be patient, because he feels himself a
moment in this eternity, and, as it were, a member of
it — no passive and inert element, but a moment and a
member which, by its willing service, is in a sense
the realisation of that eternity. Human language

22 INTRODUCTION
can express these realities but feebly, but perhaps it
is better to express them badly than not at all.
The fundamental impression one gets from reading
Quelques Lettres is that the author has reached a
higher stage of religious development, not because
he has discovered a few new truths in the realm of
science or exegesis, but because in him the soul of
Catholicism has grown broader and stronger, has
embraced a wider horizon and become more truly
Cathohc. I know that this will greatly astonish those — if they
ever read my books — who picture Loisy as a sort of
Satan who has taken the destruction of the Bible as
his mission.
Criticism has never destroyed anything; it is true
that in unskilful hands it has occasionally seemed like
a sort of inverted dogmatics, but it is precisely under
Loisy's treatment that it is found to be constructive
and edifying, that it gives us the history of religious
endeavour throughout the ages, and shows us the
way in which rude and clumsy attempts have been
the necessary prelude to and preparation for the
noblest advances of the human conscience. There
is a certain rationalist idealism which gladly

INTRODUCTION 23
accepts the chief conquests of humanity, but is
unwilling to see how long a path was traversed
before they could be attained. Criticism, on the
contrary, shows us that we cannot understand the
one without the other, that to know the fruit we
must study the tree.
This sense of catholicity, of union with the whole
past and of responsibility towards the future, is
given us in an extraordinary degree by Loisy's last
work. One is forced to think that those who accuse
him of having adopted Protestant views must have
been struck with blindness.
Read, for instance, the letter to a student of
theology at Geneva, and you will see what missionary
effort will become when those engaged in it have
attained to a full consciousness of the laws of life,
and have realised that it is their duty to respect those
laws and to assist Nature in spiritual matters, just
as the doctor assists her in another field. In this
letter the author speaks with a simplicity and modera
tion which are in no way studied or calculated. He
knows that if his correspondent has reached a
certain degree of rehgious development he will un
derstand; and that, if he has not reached it, it would

24 INTRODUCTION
be unwise, premature, and even culpable, to disturb
him and to seek to hasten his evolution from
outside. Sometimes a brooding hen thinks she hears, before
the time, her chicks knocking at the door of their
prison. All in a fever, she tries to answer them dis
creetly ; she fears lest she should be mistaken, and
feels that it is not for her to hasten the solemn
moment. Just like this is Loisy's delicate considera
tion for others ; in no sense is it a tactical manoeuvre.
It comes from his faith ; he knows that the essential
thing is not to have reached some particular point,
but to be at work, to be on the move.
By a purely scientific route he has arrived where
many will be surprised to find him — at an intensely
mystical conception of the Church. How poor,
how external, how formal appears that unity of the
Church which the Holy See is maintaining by dint
of disciplinary measures when compared with the
real, free unity in which the thought of this alleged
heretic moves!
Pius X. believes that unity is saved when he
receives the expression of the unanimous submission
of the episcopate. That may be unity, but it is the

INTRODUCTION 25
unity of enforced homage, if not the unity of men
who are one only in their discouragement, faint
heartedness and fear. It is not merely a lying unity,
it is a blasphemy against the true unity. Do but
compare the grandiloquent and obsequious letters
of these regiments of bishops with the pages where
Loisy tells of his experience, his actual sense of com
munion with an eternal body to which at first he
belonged involuntarily, but of which he becomes each
day a more wiUing and resolute member. You
will soon see to which side posterity will turn for a
witness to the faith of the early twentieth century.
The strength of his position and the Modernists'
is that their scientific honesty, far from leading them
to a bare negation of religion, brings them, on the
contrary, to firm scientific ground on which religious
thought can develop with a vigour, serenity, inde
pendence and boldness such as the world has never
seen. Many people think that these new teachers, like
prudent folk, are making concessions on scientific
ground; that they are opportunists who are bowing
to circumstances. Those who think this are as grossly

26 INTRODUCTION
mistaken as those who regard them as Protestants
in disguise. This equivocal attitude — when a person
affirms as a member of a Church what he denies as a
savant, or merely as a man — is no doubt very common ;
it dates from long before our time; and it makes it
fatally easy to accuse believers of duplicity and
hypocrisy. But this is in no degree the attitude of
the Modernists. On the contrary, their great char
acteristic is a complete inner harmony. For them
science illuminates faith, and if it makes faith less
mysterious to them, on the other hand it shows them
how strong and firrnly-rooted faith is.
Let us take a definite instance. The problem of
the Fourth Gospel is one of the most debated ques
tions of the present day. A certain school of
orthodoxy, whose deliberations are conducted with
closed doors, declares that its author is St John the
Apostle, and that its narratives are to be taken in a
strictly historical sense. On the other hand there
is a certain school of rationalism which, after show
ing that the document has merely a symbolical
meaning, comes to the conclusion that it is valueless.
WiU the Modernist take a middle course and accept
theoretically the rationalist view, while continuing

INTRODUCTION 27
to use the document in the orthodox way? No, he
escapes from the dilemma by a conception more
scientific than that of the rationahst: " The Gospel
and Christian tradition are not merely old memories
which we are free to consult or let go at will ; they are
religious experiences which are somehow continued in
our own experience, and I will venture to say that we
could never succeed in entirely rooting them out of
ourselves, even if we could banish them from our
recollection." *
Never has a writer noted more happily the error of
those who, under pretext of exalting the sacred books,
make them documents of superhuman origin, and,
on the other hand, the error of those who, having
proved that there is nothing absolute about them,
refuse to see their immense value as formative
elements of our thought and our moral hfe.
Anti-religious rationalism and orthodox intel-
lectualism — they are more opposed in appearance
than reality — both start from the same idea of the
absolute. Modernism moves on a very different
plane — the plane of reahty, of life, of experience;
the Modernist has no more need to believe his
* Quelques Lettres, p. 42.

28 INTRODUCTION
Church to be metaphysically infaUible in order to be
faithful to her than he has to believe his parents to
be impeccable or omniscient in order to love and
obey them. It is indeed true that mankind's great
witnesses to the religious life seem to him much
closer to us common men, but if they appear less
majestic they become more real, and a truer view is
gained of them. ?
The Modernist has a sense of the life of the Church
in our day, and he enters vigorously into it. He does
not in the least share the Protestant idea — an idea
which from Protestantism has everywhere filtered
through into Catholicism — that revelation ceased
with the composition of the sacred books, that the
great epochs of religious thought are closed, and that
aU we have now to do is to live on the interest of our
spiritual heritage.
On the contrary, the idea — so eminently Catholic,
and also scientific — of the continuity of life, of our
solidarity with both the past and the future, in
spires M. Loisy to such a degree as to transcend the
limits of science and pass into the realm of mysticism
and poetry. The work of this typical Frenchman,
born in the region which was the cradle of Gothic

INTRODUCTION 29
architecture, makes one think of those great thir
teenth century cathedrals which are the noblest
expression of Christian art, because in them aU is
coherent, harmonious, at one.
There are certain pages of Loisy's which should
be read in some old cathedral at the hour when the
evening shadows faU, when the details vanish and
blend together in the majesty of the whole, and one
can guess at, rather than see, the faithful who linger
to meditate or pray; when the buUding itself seems
wrapped in contemplation, vibrating in mysterious
union with aU Nature in her homage to the setting
sun. A great peace, a sense of calm and forgiveness,
seems to descend from the vaults and pervade aU
things; the memory of the past comes with more
freedom and intensity than at common times, it
enfolds and takes possession of one. It is the hour
of Compline. Up there in the choir voices ascend
— voices of boys, voices of old men; in and with
them we seem to be living again through aU the
sorrows, the hopes, the faith of the past, and this past
is lending us its voice that we may go further, rise
higher than it has done. After the httle chUd that
stiU lives in each of us has been luUed and calmed by

30 INTRODUCTION
the chant of the In Manus, the Salve Regina comes
at last with its passionate strains, now bursting into
joy, now turning to a wail, to lead us to the threshold
of those templa serena whither the savant, the artist,
the poet and the mystic come by different ways, to
meet in communion as beneficent as it is unexpected.
Yes, it is indeed in one of these cathedrals, the
expression of the faith, not the orthodoxy, of a
whole people, that the pages should be read in which
Loisy replies to a professor who is also a priest.
"The question," he writes, "which lies at the
bottom of the religious problem to-day is not whether
the Pope is infallible, or whether there are errors in
the Bible, or even whether Christ is God, or
whether a revelation exists — aU these problems
are either obsolete or have changed their meaning,
and they all depend upon the one great problem — but
whether the universe is inert matter, empty, deaf,
souUess, pitiless; whether man's conscience finds in
it no echo truer and more real than itself. There is
no rational proof one way or the other which can be
said to be irresistible. . . . The act by which we affirm
our trust in the moral worth of the universe, in the
moral purpose of being, is in itself necessarily an act

INTRODUCTION 31
of faith. It is none the less a supremely reasonable
act, not only because it is supported by probabilities
which militate against the negative thesis of materi
alistic atheism, but because the very act by which we
affirm God's reality (there is no question for the
moment of defining Him) affirms our own reality,
brings us into equuibrium, completes us, adapts us to
life, is an experience of the truth contained in itself.
. . . That is what I say to myself, and it does not
he within my power to say more to you or to speak
in clearer or more persuasive terms. Like you I
stand before this great eternal waU. I put questions
to it, and in my own answers to myself I believe that,
unconscious though it seems, it speaks to me or in me.
For, after aU, I am a stone in this wall, ccelestis urbs
Jerusalem ; in a certain sense it is all within me, as I
am all within it ; it must be alive like myself, it is no
stone waU but a living building; in me it suffers, in
and with it I shall have peace."
In me the Church suffers, in and with her I shall
have peace ! Have the ties which bind the new genera
tion of Catholics to the rest of the Church ever been
described with more simplicity, more emotion, more of
the truth which comes from vital experience ? Rome,

32 INTRODUCTION
hke Jerusalem of old, kiUs the prophets and stones
them that are sent unto her, yet, with aU her errors,
her weaknesses, her crimes, it is she who has given us
a vision of peace and unity which is more than a pro
mise — a sort of foretaste of possession.
We must not confound the Church with Rome,
nor Rome with the Curia; and yet even Rome,
however feeble her head may be, however some of
her organs of transmission may be unfit for their
task, claims our respect because of the anxieties by
which she is tormented. She is suffering in Loisy,
in TyrreU, in all those young Modernists who, though
they have no right to spare her this pain, are never
theless in duty bound to feel what is passing and to
understand their old Mother.
" In me she suffers ; in and with her I shall have
peace! " These words will remain the truest ex
pression of what the representatives of the new
school feel towards the Church. Adapting St Paul's
triumphant words, they may say that they are more
than conquerors and are persuaded that nothing can
separate them from her.
/ It is this experience of increased religious life which

INTRODUCTION 33
is the essential characteristic of the Modernist move
ment. Modernism is breaking up the religious soil
in a way which, though not generally noticed, is even
more important than its work in the scientific field.
Loisy knows but a very small number of his disciples,
and he has no idea of their quality. If the walls of
the seminaries could speak they would tell of many
young men whom he has saved from inteUectual
scepticism and from materialism in worship; of
many who were on the way to become priests by
accident and mechanicaUy, and who, coming into
touch with him through his books, have learnt to
find a new meaning in the word " truth," and
know now that truth must be sought for, must be
purchased hke the wise virgins' oil.
It is not only the most intelligent seminarists who
become Modernists; it is also the most sincere,
active and manly of them, for those who are con
sumed with ambition enter the dark paths of hypocrisy
and delation.
But the caU of the Modernists has stirred and
awakened many consciences quite outside ecclesi
astical circles and institutions. It is impossible to
describe the force that radiates from thejroung lay-

34 INTRODUCTION
men who have attained a clear vision of a renewed
Catholicism. Sometimes, without knowing it, they
purify the faith and life of those with whom they
come into contact.
Last year one of them, threatened with the greater
excommunication, felt that he must seek in the
sacraments the strength he needed to bear the
impending blow. One June morning he knocked at
the door of a convent — as famous as it is modest —
in Central Italy, and asked for a confessor. For a
moment the lay brother who kept the door was over
come by astonishment. Each year, it is true, he was
accustomed to see thousands of peasants pass into
the little sanctuary, but as far as his memory went
back he had never known un signore come to con
fession. He hesitated an instant, examined the
stranger with a fixed gaze that was at once offensive
and farmliar, then, thinking he had found the answer
to the question he had mentally put to himself, he
drew his hands from the bucket in which he was
washing lettuce and wiped them vigorously. "Yes,
yes," he said, " I understand. I wiU call the
Warden." The Superior's astonishment was not less than the

INTRODUCTION 35
lay brother's had been. Wondering what this visit
might betoken, he took his seat in the confessional.
The coUoquy was short; already the priest was
lifting his hand to bless and absolve the penitent,
when the latter stopped him. " My confession
would be incomplete," he said, " if I did not tell you
my name. It is  , and if you have read certain
newspapers you wiU know that I am threatened with
excommunication." The monk nearly leapt from his
seat; he cast on his penitent a look of compassion
and admiration. " I thank you for your frankness,"
he said. " To-morrow you may be excommunicate,
but I have no right to treat you as such to-day. I
wiU pray for you ; do you too pray for me — many,
many prayers! "
The next moment, his face radiant with joy, he
began with his own hands to prepare the altar; then
he celebrated Mass. Who can say what passed
between the two men at the moment of Communion,
when tears fined the priest's eyes and his counten
ance became transfigured with emotion? They
themselves no doubt could not teU us, but it is
certain that the good Father owes to a young lay
man, under suspicion and all but cast" out of the

36 INTRODUCTION
Church, the most luminous day in aU his priestly
life.

There is something exceptional and unique about
this example; but I thought it right to give it,
because it shows how intense is the religious life of
the apostles of Modernism, and shows also the
mysterious but very natural ways in which it pene
trates from place to place. I do not know whether
that Father Superior is now a Modernist, but I am
sure that in his convent the novices read whatever
they wish, and especially the Reviews which are most
solemnly prohibited.
It is this note of piety combined with freedom,
of love for the Church at the moment when in certain
respects the author is at war with her hierarchy,
which makes Quelques Lettres so strikingly original a
book. In it we not only see the man, the savant, the
Catholic, we meet at every turn the cure', the priest
who has charge of souls, a great part of whose day is
spent in visiting his parishioners.
My use of the term cure' wiU perhaps surprise the
reader. StiU more, perhaps, wiU it surprise M.
Loisy himself ; he little knows what a vocation he has

INTRODUCTION 37
for the active ministry. Yet I cannot give up a
word which corresponds to such a living reality. In
the letters we see, above aU, the author's relations
with his parish. It is not, indeed, much like an official
parish ; the cure does not wear the stole, the distinc
tive mark of his office, but in his heart there is the
sign of election par excellence — he feels that he owes
himself to his flock. His zeal has no relation to the
parishioner's rank; he hastens to the side of those
who have most need of him — the lonely, the erring,
the weak.
He lingers in the homes of the poor, the publicans,
the heretics ; and some of his letters, perhaps the most
important of them, are addressed to ordinary
priests, to seminarists, to a Protestant student, even
to men of but poor repute, with whom Loisy has no
personal sympathy. It is enough for him that they
have expressed a desire to hear from him ; he feels
himself bound to answer them, obliged to give them
his attention.
Some of his opponents have scornfuUy observed
that he has not succeeded in founding a school. He
has done something greater and better, he has
founded a family which has spread its roots aU over

38 INTRODUCTION
the world. Loisy's sons do not imagine that they
will do honour to their spiritual father by mechanic
ally repeating the conclusions he has reached ; they
have found in his teaching a starting-point, a method
— he has shown them their bearings.
Those who regard him as a savant anxious to secure
the acceptance of certain theses as final results,
merely show that they cannot understand the simplest
and plainest words, and he is fully justified in calling
the Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis a " solemn
slander." * That is aU it is, not only because Loisy,
and Tyrrell, and the Rinnovamento, and Dr ScheU,
have never posed as Doctors of the Church, but also
because its author has described the men whom he
wished to discredit in words so vulgar as to be more
hke the language one hears in a sacristy frequented by
bad company than like the pronouncements of an
authority that desires to be respected even by those
whom it is forced to condemn.
Evidently Pius X. is better acquainted with Mgr.
Montagnini, Cardinal Merry del Val and Mgr.
Benigni than with the men he has condemned. He
conceives the Modernists in terms of the anti-
* Quelques Lettres, p. 232.

INTRODUCTION 39
Modernists. He imagines that people join the
Modernists much as they join a definite political
party or enter the Academy of Ecclesiastical Nobles.
You need not join, and if you have joined you can
leave, you have but to pass out through the door.
In his simphcity he cannot understand how anyone
can refuse to oblige him.
This is not the state of mind of Pius X. alone.
One is astonished to note that it is also that of a large
section of the hierarchy and the clergy, and that these
gentlemen seem not to have the least idea that in
certain matters submission is impossible, or possible
only by lying and perjury.*
Their calm persistence in demanding such sub
mission is distressing at first, and at length becomes
tragic. However carefuUy, for instance, the Ponti
fical Commission on Biblical Studies may have been
purged of aU the scientific intellect it contained, it is
hard to understand how the members who remain in
it can believe that a man is able to affirm or deny at
wiU that a given book of the Bible is the work of the
author to whom tradition assigns it.
* This is one of the ideas to which Loisy in his correspondence is
most often obliged to return.

40 INTRODUCTION
The Church, whose duty was to give to our civilisa
tion a spirit of truth, of scientific exactitude and
humility, and of manly sincerity, has fallen into the
hands of a government which does all it can to stifle
this spirit and ends by counselling us to commit acts
which would dishonour us in our own eyes. In time
to come, when the events of to-day are seen in their
true proportions, ecclesiastical authority wiU be
found to have brought about its own ruin by its
obstinacy in regarding pure lies as the most
meritorious of religious actions.
Those who have so low an opinion of Loisy as to
think that he could 'teach to-morrow from his
professorial chair the opposite of what he has taught
hitherto, are not insulting the famous scholar; they
are only throwing a painful light on their own
mentality. It is singularly pleasant and refreshing to turn
from the pages of the Encyclical which describe the
supposed intrigues of the Modernists and their vulgar
attempts to favour those who " embark on their
vessel," to the letters of Loisy to Baron Friederich
von Hiigel. What sincerity there is between these

INTRODUCTION 41
two friends, what mutual respect, what freedom of
judgment! In reading these pages I could not help
thinking that much as Loisy must have suffered at
seeing his former friends abandon him, fearful lest
they should ruin their career, he has, on the other
hand, been privileged to know, more than many of
his contemporaries, more above aU than Pope or car
dinals, what power and virtue there are in a friendship
which is just the union of two souls journeying to the
same goal, piu ampia luce e piu profondo amore.
Since the letters published by M. Loisy have
revealed to all the world how important is Baron
von Hiigel's place in the religious crisis of our time,
there is no reason why I should not, in my turn, tell
of the veneration, the glad and ardent affection with
which every Modernist in Europe and America
regards him. Though he is well known in the
scientific world through his vigorous works on
Biblical exegesis, the general public may be said to
be ignorant of the influence — certainly involuntary
and largely unconscious — which he is exercising over
present-day Catholic thought.
There are, in various parts of the world, certain
intelligent and broad-minded bishops, who consider

42 INTRODUCTION
that they are entitled to caU themselves good
Roman Catholics without being obliged to think
that the ideal of the Church wiU be best attained
by substituting for the episcopate a system of
phonographs to repeat in every place the words
put by divine revelation day by day into the
mouth of the Vicar of Jesus Christ. The Modernists
know that they can count upon the warm sympathy
of these prelates, and they are deeply grateful for
the marks of this sympathy which are shown them
from time to time. It is a comforting thought to
them that even in the hierarchy there is a minority
which follows their progress, gives them its encourage
ment, and desires the strengthening and the triumph
of their cause. But the more they rejoice at this
the more anxious they are not to create difficulties
for this minority, not to give cause for intrigues and
delations which could only result in depriving the
Church of some of her most enlightened and devoted
men. It is for this reason and by the very logic of
events that Baron von Hiigel has become, so to
speak, the lay bishop of the Modernists.
If they could ever think of choosing a leader their
thoughts would certainly turn to him first of all, for

INTRODUCTION 43
whUe he has grappled with aU the problems which
preoccupy them— Biblical criticism, the philosophy
of rehgion, social questions — he has been able to
co - ordinate and harmonise the results of these
labours, and the outcome has been in his case not
a negative criticism of the past but a glorious taking
possession of both past and present.*
AU the world over there are priests who feel for
this humble-minded layman an unspeakable affection
and a gratitude which they often do not venture
to express. Not only has he encouraged and
enlightened them; he has shown them, above all,
that Modernism of the freest type may lead to an
intensity of rehgious life which is unknown to those
who oppose and persecute it.
In September 1907 a number of priests and laymen
who have in various ways influenced the movement
of ideas in the Cathohc Church, met together for
three days in the Tyrolese Alps to exchange ideas,
* One of his last works, The Papal Commission and the Pentateuch,
by Professor C. A. Briggs of New York and Baron von Hiigel, is an
excellent example of his power of setting forth in all its aspects a
difficult and complex question, and of answering it with equal tact
and firmness. This short volume is one of those manifestations of
Modernism of which ecclesiastical authority has not seen the import
ance.

44 INTRODUCTION
counsels and hopes. Friederich von Hiigel was
present, but with his accustomed humUity he re
mained a listener merely and kept himself in the
background. On the morning of their departure,
however, he gathered the friends together in his own
room and addressed them in words so simple and yet
so burning that those who were privUeged to hear
have treasured them up in their memory. For
them it was one of those rare moments when life
seems transfigured but stiU real, when men become
conscious of the mysterious forces within and yet
above and beyond themselves.
The priest who, in a low voice fuU of emotion, told
me a few months later about this scene, added that
aU those present had been reminded of St Paul's fare
weU to the elders of the Ephesian Church.
In face of facts of this kind one may weU think that
the anti-Modernists are quite unaware how nobly
religious these men are. Do they not show as much
blindness in regard to them as is shown in regard
to Catholics by those excessively simple anticlericals
who honestly believe that religion is nothing but a
system of ridiculous beliefs skUfuUy kept up by the
priests in order to exploit human stupidity?

INTRODUCTION 45
The meeting of which I have spoken was watched
by the spies of orthodoxy. A few days later the
papers which imperiously dictate to ecclesiastical
authority, published names and perfidiously in
quired whether such and such a Protestant had not
been present. In this way they were able, without
actuaUy stating what was untrue, to inspire their
ingenuous readers with the conviction that secret
meetings had been going on between the Modernists
and the Protestaats. Not less sad is their utter
fanure to understand, even vaguely, what these men
are working for — these men whom they know
personaUy and are forced to respect though they
regard them as antagonists. The only thing that
struck them — if I may be forgiven for saying so —
was the fact that the Abbe Romolo Murri was
wearing a frock-coat !
Many representatives of orthodoxy are at a loss to
understand the success of Modernism ; they can find
no other charge to bring against it than that which
dying Paganism flung at advancing Christianity —
the Christians were accused of atheism, the Modern
ists are charged with unbelief and agnosticism. But
the real reason why they multiply so fast is that

46 INTRODUCTION
they have life within them : " they feel themselves
called upon to substitute for a system of education
based on maledictions, restrictions and insincerity,
an education open to the light and air, to life in
its fulness — good tidings of great joy, a proclama
tion of peace and love to aU." (Nova et Vetera,
vol ii. p. 14).
Orthodoxy may treat them as rebels, but it is
their right and their duty to beseech her to make
serious inquiry and see whether the charge does not
rather apply to herself. She it is who rebels against
those signs of the times which she so completely
misunderstands, who processions in front of modern
civilisation with her images and statuary as though
she imagined that she could and ought to exorcise
it. It was the Church which gave birth to the sublime
idea of catholicity, but she must have courage to lift
up her eyes and see that she is realising it less and
less, that the people and the peoples are abandoning
her more and more — not because they have no ideals
but because her ideals are no longer living or effective.
To say frankly and simply, as Loisy does, to those
who govern the Church, how impossible it is to carry

INTRODUCTION 47
out their orders, is no more disloyalty to the Church
than it is disloyalty to one's country to refuse to
obey the orders of a general who is ignorant of the
real position of the troops. The Holy See wiU no
more save the Church by excommunicating the
Modernists than such a general would save his army
by shooting the men who are courageous enough to
warn him of his errors.

MODERNISM

When I received the Jowett Committee's flattering
invitation to come and speak to you, I accepted it at
once and with enthusiasm. Yet, believe me, I was
keenly conscious of the difficulty and anxiety of the
task with which I had been honoured; I felt I was
undertaking a heavy responsibility, first of aU towards
my audience, in coming to discourse to you on a
question so complex and so burning, and then
towards those of whom I have to speak, since my
appreciations wiU be those of a spectator, deeply
interested indeed and most friendly, but one who
is far from possessing the inteUectual training,
the youthful energy, and the spiritual fervour which
are needed to speak of them with competence and
authority. What decided me at once was the thought that we
were to be gathered together in memory and in
some sense under the protection of the famous
r> 49

50 MODERNISM
Master of Balliol : that distinguished teacher, whose
whole life was filled with the endeavour to open the
doors of his heart and the windows of his intellect
towards new and ever vaster horizons, would have
liked the subject we are to discuss. He would have
liked, I am sure, the spirit of humility and warm
sympathy in which I shaU try to treat it. Since
Jowett's chief preoccupation was to discourage dog
matism and to encourage thought, he would not only
have felt curiosity as to the outburst of life which has
lately taken place in the Roman Catholic Church, and
has been baptised with the very unsuitable name of
Modernism, but he would have felt that between
himself and it there was a profound, though perhaps
distant and mysterious harmony.
My aim then, as you have already guessed, I hope,
is not to pronounce a final judgment on Modernism
and anti-Modernism, but to turn your attention in
that direction, to counsel you not to let yourselves
be absorbed in the cares of your own churches, and to
show you that close by us there is about to begin,
nay, there has already begun, a struggle — intellectual,
moral and religious — of rare beauty and immense
fruitfulness.

MODERNISM 51
To get a clear view of it, to understand the relative
position of the combatants and gain the right, if not
to enlist in one of the two armies, at least to send up
prayers with a good conscience for the one side or the
other, we need to make a courageous effort to struggle
against the stream not only of the ideas which
surround us, but of our own ideas and our habitual
judgments. There again, you see, we shaU be
guided by that characteristic method of Jowett's
which won him for nearly fifty years an influ
ence that is easier to feel than to analyse and
define. You wiU now understand how deep is the gratitude
which I have to express to your Committee, and my
emotion at the thought of undertaking in your
company a study of so dehcate a nature. In appear
ance we shall be discussing men who live far away
from us. But you wiU soon perceive that in reahty
the struggle between Modernism and anti-Modernism
wiU rapidly extend to your own churches and chapels.
If we wiU but look within ourselves we shaU see
that it exists within us, that in our own hearts and
inteUects there are a Modernist and an anti-
Modernist at war.

52 MODERNISM
We have already traveUed far from the ecclesi
astical events in France which lately attracted so
much attention. Everyone is beginning to see that
the crisis of the Separation was only an episode, a
detail, an accident, compared to the formidable inner
crisis with which the Roman Church is labouring,
not only in France, but in Italy, England, Germany,
in aU countries in the world.
The Separation of Church and State was hardly
more than a political fact. Its importance was the
importance of a symptom. It constituted a defeat,
not for the Roman Church considered as a spiritual
society, but for the government of the Church, for
the Vatican, in short; since that government had
mobilised aU its forces, material and spiritual, to pre
vent the passing of the law.
AU the world over loud and rash prayers were sent
up, to put God under the necessity, so to speak, of
manifesting His power. New devotions were in
vented to touch the Virgin's heart, to force the hands
of the old saints. New saints even were canonised,
but without result; the heavens remained dumb.
Dumb, too, was the Catholic nation of France; in
vain did Rome issue pressing BuUs; it received them

MODERNISM 53
with but wandering attention, or even with scorn.
It was only religious politics — all that — of no concern
to its conscience, its religion, or its faith. Sufficient
attention, perhaps, has hardly been paid to this fact,
especiaUy outside France.
France is not a nation of atheists, materialists or
sceptics; after a little discreet questioning one sees
that it is a characteristic of her personahty to be pre
occupied with ideals ; Frenchmen wish to go to Mass,
to a real, traditional Mass, said by a priest in com
munion with his bishop and the Holy Apostolic See ;
but what they absolutely wiU not have is the con
tinual profanation of that Mass by politics. What
they detest above aU is the turning of their village
church and sacristy into electioneering centres.
If, at the outset of the great discussions about the
Separation, Rome had said, as the majority of the
episcopate desired : "As a matter of theory and
tradition the Church prefers the union ; but, since in
America there is Separation, and Catholicism fares
no worse there than elsewhere, we leave the question
free and open ; " if the bishops had been seen taking
part in the debate like ordinary citizens, seeking to
make their views prevaU by friendly and courteous

54 MODERNISM
discussion, respecting everybody's ideas, and even
everybody's prejudices, things would have gone very
differently. The Separation would have taken place, but it
would have come about calmly, peacefuUy, tran-
quiUy. There would have been neither victors nor
vanquished. Now, unhappily, there have been
victors and vanquished — victors who are not saints,
and vanquished men with whom it is difficult to
feel sympathy ; who are even doing all they can to
bring upon themselves new and more irreparable
defeats. One sees them constantly strutting about on plat
forms, seeking to attract the crowd by a display of
heated nationalism ; they are patriots by profession ;
and yet when closely scrutinised they are soon seen
to be precisely the men who bring about national
dissolution and disunion. At the outset and in
advance they discredit every movement which is not
of their own starting, every man who is not their
creature; they cry "Union, union," but in their
mouths these words mean merely this : " We accept
your help if you wiU obey us — and obey us, not only
when we give you orders out loud, but when we

MODERNISM 55
speak in a whisper, and even when we say out
loud the opposite of what we mean you to under
stand." Such is the conduct of those who turned
the Separation into a great battle, hoping that they
would win.
You wiU forgive me these reflections, I hope. I
shaU soon show you how they are connected with our
subject. But I had another reason for dwelling on
this matter for a moment, and that is that these
Frenchmen take a singular pleasure in circulating in
foreign lands ideas hostile to their fellow-countrymen
and the government of their country. How often do
I meet people who, thanks to these men's efforts,
are convinced that a sort of religious terrorism pre-
vaUs in our country, that the churches are closed and
the priests forced to be in hiding! If it were not so
sad one might find much piquancy in the spectacle
provided by these Paladins of patriotism when some
cloud rises on their country's horizon. How keen they
are to exaggerate it, in the iU-disguised hope that, at
the time of some violent crisis, they wiU have a
chance of playing what, in their picturesque language,
they caU " the last cast " — le grand coup !
This " last cast " is the establishment of the

56 MODERNISM
reign of the Sacred Heart* — the reign of God,
say those who are rather more old-fashioned;
but this reign of the Sacred Heart or reign of
God has but a purely verbal relationship to
that Kingdom of God with which the Gospels are
concerned. At ordinary times and inside the country such a
party is not very dangerous, for everyone knows it;
it is only to be feared in moments of crisis ; abroad it
is always to be feared. It is this party which, during
the debates on the Separation, succeeded in obscuring
the simplest things, in drowning international opinion
in floods of news in which the main facts disappeared,
and picturesque details, cleverly exploited, absorbed
the attention.
The dominant fact in the whole crisis is that our

* A "reign of Mary "has also been invented for us, and the most
serious of the Catholic papers open their columns, as the 15th of
August draws near, to an " Act of Homage to the Immaculate Heart
of Mary, Queen of France " (see e^. the Univers for August 9, 1 908),
in which, under colour of celebrating the Feast of the Assumption,
Catholic electors are invited to crowd the churches for the serment au
drapeau. I am convinced that many good Catholics, who would have
been present at Mass on the Feast of the Assumption to celebrate a
traditional festival, will refrain from attending, lest their presence
should be regarded as a sign of their adhesion to the political ideas of
Vice- Admiral de Cuverville.

MODERNISM 57
seventy-four bishops, having met together in plenary
assembly on May 30, 1906, accepted, by fifty-six
votes against eighteen, the scheme of Mgr. Fulbert-
Petit, Archbishop of Besancon, which aUowed sub
mission to the law,* and that Pope Pius X. took no
account whatever of this resolution. The wording of
the Encyclical Gravissimo of August 10, 1906, did not
constitute a lie; it was something worse, it was a
deliberate and studied equivocation. It did not
state the reverse of the truth, but it gave it to be

* Three resolutions were put to the vote at the first plenary assembly
of the bishops, which lasted three days (May 30- June 1). By the first
resolution, which was passed with acclamation, and dealt with the
general principle, it was decided to send to the Sovereign Pontiff an
address prepared by Cardinal Lecot, Archbishop of Bordeaux. (There
were only two dissentient votes. The text of this document will be
found in the Osservatore Romano for August 13, 1906.) The bishops
thought they were acting very cleverly in giving in this grandiloquent
document a striking mark of their union with the Holy See, and they
hoped that Rome would be well satisfied with this manifestation and
enter at last into their preoccupations.
Secondly, by forty-eight votes against twenty-six, in secret ballot,
they decided in principle that there was reason to seek for a modus
vivendi which should allow of the formation of associations at once
legal and canonical.
Finally, by fifty-six against eighteen, they adopted the scheme
proposed by Mgr. Fulbert-Petit. On an attentive reading of this
Archbishop's letter, dated April 11, 1907, and published in the Croix
for June 12 (!), it will be seen that, without going into precise details,
it confirms the foregoing in essentials.

58 MODERNISM
understood.* Indeed, all those who know the facts
only through this document are persuaded that the
French episcopate not merely submitted to the
theoretical condemnation of the Law which had
already been pronounced by the Pope, but begged
* Here is the text : " After having condemned, as was Our duty,
this iniquitous law, We have examined with greatest care whether
the articles of the said law would leave Us any means of organising
religious life in France in such a way as to safeguard from injury
the sacred principles on which Holy Church reposes. To this end it
appeared good to Us both to take the council of the assembled
episcopate and to prescribe for your general assembly the points
which ought to be the principal objects of your deliberations. And
now, knowing your views as well as those of several cardinals,
and after having maturely reflected and implored by the most
fervent prayers the Father of Lights, We see that We ought
to confirm fully by Our Apostolic authority the almost unanimous
decision of your assembly.
"It is for this reason that, with reference to the associations for
public worship as the law establishes them, We decree that it is
absolutely impossible for them to be formed without a violation
of the sacred rights pertaining to the very life of the Church.
" Putting aside, therefore, these associations which the knowledge
of Our duty forbids us to approve, it might appear opportune to
examine whether it is lawful to make trial in their place of some
other sort of associations at once legal and canonical, and thus to
preserve the Catholics of France from the grave complications which
menace them. Of a certainty nothing so engrosses and distresses
Us as these eventualities ; and would to Heaven that We had some
hope of being able, without infringing the rights of God, to make
this essay, and thus to deliver Our well-beloved sons from the fear
of such manifold and such great trials.
" But as this hope fails Us while the law remains what it is, We
declare that it is not permissible to try this other kind of association

MODERNISM 59
for its final condemnation. This is precisely the
reverse of the truth.*
Rome directed everything; but since, in spite of
as long as it is not established in a sure and legal manner that
the Divine Constitution of the Church, the immutable rights of the
Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops, as well as their authority over
the necessary property of the Church and particularly over the
sacred edifices, shall be irrevocably placed in the said associations
in full security. To desire the contrary is impossible for Us,
without betraying the sanctity of Our office and bringing about
the ruin of the Church of France." (Translation published in The
Tablet.) * The Osservatore Romano, the official journal of the Holy See,
published in its issue for August 13, 1906, the address drawn up by
Cardinal Lecot in the name of the episcopate, and the next day,
April 14, gave the text of the Bull Gravissimo. The Press all over
the world saw a relation of cause and effect between the two
documents, and thought that the Holy See, in condemning all
coming to terms with the new law, was but echoing the wishes of
the French episcopate.
How can the Holy See fail to understand that this publication of
one document only out of three, the other two being obviously of
greater importance, constitutes an audacious breach of the most
elementary principles of honesty : Quidquid latet apparebit, nil
inullum remanebit.
The French bishops thought that if they showed themselves docile
Rome would allow them a certain amount of initiative ; they hoped
at least to be permitted to make their voices heard in a consultative
capacity. They were mistaken.
A second plenary assembly took place on September 4-7, 1906,
and a third on January 15-17, 1907. The fourth was in preparation
the following summer, when I announced in the Times (August 12,
1907) that the Pope had decided to summon no more general
meetings of the episcopate. It is now plain that my information
was drawn from a reliable source.

60 MODERNISM
the powerful means at her disposal, she still feared
decisions which would not fit in with her views, she
demanded of the bishops absolute secrecy.
Facts of this kind are much more important than
even the passing of the Law of Separation. The Law
of Separation separated nothing at all; the name
given to it is anything but a fitting one ; in reality it
was nothing more than a settlement of accounts
between a ward and her guardian. Such transactions
are always delicate matters and require not only
scrupulous uprightness, but uncommon competence
in matters of accountancy ; they require, too, much
tact, much openness, much good feeling. In this
instance the guardian was not perfect, but the ward
did all she could to impede his operations. She did
not succeed.
The settlement may have been fair or unfair,
but it has been made once for ah, and the loud
complaints of the ward no longer affect anyone.
The only result of her obstruction is that on the
top of the settlement about temporalities there has
taken place a separation which she did not expect,
and for which she bears the whole responsibility; a
separation between the Curia and the Catholic con-

MODERNISM 61
science. The Curia commands and the Cathohcs of
France obey, but, apart from a group of noisy
politicians, the Catholics of France — I mean those
who serve God and do not make Him serve their
own interests — obey with saddened, discouraged, and
often even scandahsed hearts. The Government
of their country has wounded them in their interests,
their traditions and their habits, but the Apostohc
See has wounded them in the deepest depths of their
conscience. And authority has known nothing, understood
nothing of this. She has not even heard the voices
of anguish which have risen here and there from the
fold.* The supreme Pastor seems to have noticed
nothing at aU. The men who surround him and speak
in his name have said : " Those are the voices of the
wolves which prowl round the sheepfold." What
blindness, what cynicism!
It is here that the great moral drama of the
Separation hes, and not in detaUs, episodes and
changing political measures! This drama has been
* See in particular the Supplique dun Groupe de Catholiques
Francais au Pape Pie X. Paris, 1906. This document is as
remarkable for the purity of its form as for the beauty of its
substance. As it is now difficult to procure I give it as an Appendix.

62 MODERNISM
going on, always the same, for three years. When the
French episcopate, assembled in the haUs of a castle
bearing the prophetic name of " La Muette," tried to
make one more advance to the country, with the olive
branch in their hands, Pius X. agreed; but he caused
the bishops' peaceable declaration to be preceded by
a preamble which destroyed its effect beforehand
and turned it into a warlike ultimatum.
When the Montagnini papers were published, the
organs of the Curia made a deafening racket with
their protests against the means by which the French
Government had obtained them. But is it not
strange that, having made their protest, they did not
think of examining the papers and saying what feel
ings they inspired? Astonishment and disgust are
the right words to use here. No honest man would
keep in his service a footman of the type of this cor
respondent of His Holiness's Secretary of State.
Somersaults and flourishes of trumpets alter noth
ing. The French Government has been threatened
with the publication of the whole dossier. By aU
means let it be done, and if the French Government
has waUowed in the mire let it be swept away by the
pubhc scorn. Let them publish everything. TiU

MODERNISM 63
then we have a right to think that these threats
are only a bold attempt to mislead public opinion.
Mgr. Montagnini has neither been censured nor
repudiated. When a priest is led by his studies to
hold new views of the date or authorship of certain
books of the Bible, authority fulminates against him,
condemns, suspends, excommunicates him ; but when
the very representative of authority uses for years
methods of espionage and delation which would
provoke the contempt of a public schoolboy, it is aU
accepted as normal and legitimate.*
I said just now that the Separation of Church and
State in France had but slight importance compared
with the crisis of Modernism; this is precisely the
case, and I must add that the two are not related as
cause and effect. Nevertheless there is rather more
than a pure and simple coincidence or concomitance. .
The repeated efforts of the French episcopate after
* All the Montagnini papers that have appeared in the various Paris
newspapers have been carefully collected and published in a volume
with the title of Les Fiches Pontificates de Mgr. Montagnini (236 + xiv
pp. Paris : Librairie Nourry). The copious notes which accompany
most of the documents show plainly that the material has been
collected by an expert — by an ecclesiastic, undoubtedly, and one well
versed in the affairs of the higher clergy in Rome and Paris.

64 MODERNISM
a conciliatory policy had no point of contact with
Modernism, they were the perfectly natural result of
the bishops' own reflections. Again, the obstinate
determination of Rome to efface every evidence and
every trace of these attempts at conciliation did not
create Modernism, nor at first even favour its growth.
Modernism is in no way a reaction against the
peremptory orders of Pius X. ; but it would be foohsh
not to see the indirect influence which his decisions
have had upon the crisis, and henceforward we may
welcome him as an incomparable though involuntary
helper of the new ideas.
Modernism! I have a right to be proud, for, if
Pius X. has given it its name, it was I who, a long time
back, and in London, announced the birth of this
splendid movement, and sought to draw attention to
it.* I seem still to hear the echoes of the laughter
which I provoked in the Press that speaks in the name
of the Holy See. The most moderate papers said
that I had taken my wishes for realities and was
attributing importance to facts that had none, or even
that I was trying, by talking about a movement
* In lectures delivered in the Jerusalem Chamber of Westminster
Abbey and in Kensington Town Hall in 1902.

MODERNISM 65
that did not exist, to create one. And now, in the
SyUabus Lamentabili of July 3, 1907, and especiaUy
in the Encyclical Pascendi of September 8, Pius X.
has devoted to the new movement the two most
important documents (so far) of his pontificate.
Yet, if I were to give the term "Modernist " the
same meaning as the Holy Father does, my lectures
would soon be done, for there is not in the land of the
living a monster of the type he .describes. Or, if you
prefer, I wiU say, to be quite exact, that I have never
met one, though for long years I have been a constant
frequenter of churches, sacristies and monasteries.
He is a nightmare creature with the voice of a
lamb, the tail of a fox, the jaw of a wolf, and the
wings of a seraph. What makes him particularly
dangerous is that, though he is a compound of ail
errors, you can accuse him of no vice — he is neither
drunken, nor lewd, nor slothful.
But if the Pope is mistaken in his description of the
Modernists it does not at aU follow that those whose
portrait he draws have no existence; it merely
follows that the portrait is a bad one. In writing the
Bull Pius X. was aiming at men who really existed in
flesh and blood, and, though the name " Modernist "

66 MODERNISM
is quite unsatisfactory, we may use it for the sake of
convenience, since those on whom the Pope has his
eye and those of whom I wish to speak are the very
same men.
Why has he not given their names? If we asked
those in high places the reason for this sUence, they
would answer that it was due to pity. If authority
had any thought of pity, it might have shown it far
more effectually in other ways — for example, by not
forcing old priests to choose between retracting ideas
at which they had involuntarily arrived and being
thrown on the streets to die of hunger.
As a matter of fact ecclesiastical authority has been
greatly embarrassed by the formidable length of the
lists of suspects already received at the Curia. The
denounced Modernists are legion, and there has been
a fear of creating a sort of inteUectual panic among
the masses of a flock which, though generaUy very
submissive, wouldnot, if once frightened and scattered,
be easy to bring back to the fold.
A last reason for not giving the names was that, in
spite of the shortness of its memory, ecclesiastical
authority knows that many of those whom it has
persecuted have afterwards been canonised.

MODERNISM 67
I wUl give you some names, but I wiU give you very
few, and wiU confine myself to those that are foremost
in the thoughts of Pius X. They will be the names
of those against whom rigorous measures have
already been taken. At the risk of failing to convey
to you the wide extent of the movement I wiU avoid
naming those who are watched by the Holy See's
police. It is no good letting my lectures serve as
indictments for the Index or the Holy Roman and
Universal Inquisition.
There are among the clergy, among the bishops,
and I might almost say in the bosom of the Sacred
CoUege itself, souls in anguish and distress. Day
after day, hour after hour, these priests and prelates
ask themselves if they shaU raise their voices and
proclaim aloud to the supreme authority, before aU
men, what they have already so often murmured
low to it — namely, that though Rome is the centre of
the Church she is not the Church, that authority
has its own province, that the Kingdom of Christ is
not of this world, that the very term " Pontifical
pohcy " shows a forgetting of the ideal, an illusion,
a f aU. . . . They would like to prostrate themselves
at the Pope's feet, to teU him of their love and also of

68 MODERNISM
the pain and fear through which they are passing.
. . . But they know that Pius X., who did not
understand Fogazzaro, would not understand them.
And then when they think of all the wrong conclusions
which would be drawn from their action, of the joy it
would give to the other side — to those poor deformed
intellectuals who think they possess the truth because
they always say, or think they say, the opposite of
what the Church says — they feel themselves held
back. Many there are who have no understanding of
this hesitation, this trouble of mind, who see nothing
in it but laziness, cowardice, opportunism. That
is a great mistake. The Church is the traditional
home. Life in it has become very difficult, almost
insupportable, and yet the true courage is to remain
there; the heroic course is to endure the reign of
terror and suspicion which prevails. A band of
hirelings have succeeded in getting round the father
of the family, and have built up between him and his
most devoted children an impassable wall. It is a
duty to remain there, for the day will inevitably
come when the father will be abandoned by the
hirelings, and will recall those for whom to-day he

MODERNISM 69
has nothing but angry looks and words of male
diction.
It is this state of feeling that I should like to explain
to you in my lectures, so that you may understand,
admire and love it. Modernism is in no degree con
tained in an intellectual proposition ; it is not a system
or a new synthesis, it is an orientation. It is more
than a vital or strenuous effort, for an effort implies
an act of conscious will, and the movement is,
in its origin, a thing essentially natural and unforced.
It is a welling-up of sap, of life, of which one is
conscious, but which nothing could have brought
about if the time had not been fulfilled. / Of this
movement, so wide, so complex, so profound, I wish
to give you a consciousness rather than a know
ledge. In its origin, its beginnings, its soul, it is
essentially a Roman Catholic movement, but one
can see from certain sympathetic thrillings that
religious bodies which believed themselves for
ever separated from Rome and quite without
contact with her, still share her life. The wine
of Algeria, carried thousands of miles away,
ferments mysteriously when the vine from which
its grapes have been gathered is in flower. Some-

70 MODERNISM
thing of the same kind takes place in the realm of
ideas. You will now understand how difficult it is to find
a fit name for this movement. That of " Modernism "
is no better and no worse than others, so long as it is
quite understood to be a chance, accidental name,
hit upon in an emergency, perhaps even a name of
angry abuse. It has been adopted by Pius X., who
took it from the Jesuit Fathers in Rome, with the
obvious purpose of throwing discredit on tendencies
of thought of which he understood neither the rich
ness nor the depth. It is worth just about as much
as the word " papist," which is thrown at the heads
of Catholics by adversaries who are more anxious to
caricature than to understand them.
The term " Liberahsm "is no better, for while it
suggests one of the most obvious results of the
present orientation, it tends to conceal what is new
and deep in it. " Liberalism " has been used too
long to designate men who were Catholics in a more
superficial way than their co-religionists, while the
Modernists on the contrary are Catholics in a deeper
way. Besides, "Liberalism" seems to_sj[ggestan
easy-going attitude, sometimes a rather sceptical

MODERNISM 71
or opportunist one, with regard to dogma. For
example, there is an American Liberal Catholicism
which takes its colour from its surroundings. A
New York priest is quite different in his ways
from a Roman, a Neapolitan or a Milanese, but these
differences mean very little because they have no
deep root.
The great public, which sees things from a distance
and in the lump, is inclined to class together the liberal
priest, who does not take his ministry quite seriously,
and the priest who, having penetrated to the depths
of the Church's life, gains in that intense communion
a power which no obstacles can stop, a vision which
looks beyond them aU. They are both free, but for
very different reasons and with opposite results.
The word " Modernism " gives quite an excessive
importance to one feature of the new movement.
It is indeed true that the men of whom we speak are
! modern, not only because they are alive to-day but
\ \ because they are not afraid of their contemporaries
and do not form a black spot in the midst of them.
We feel, and they themselves feel, that they are men
of their own time and nation with more power than
others. But the term " Modernists " is intended

72 MODERNISM
to insinuate that they are paying court to the
present generation, that they are preparing to sign
concordats with it, not to say capitulations. I will
not discuss whether there is more harm in signing a
concordat with the people of the twentieth century
than in signing one with Napoleon I. or any other
potentate; I will content myself with affirming
that there is no attempt of the kind — absolutely none
— on the part of those of whom I speak.
Not long ago they were called " Loisyists." That
name has been dropped, chiefly to avoid giving the
Abbe Loisy the halo of a heresiarch. It is quite
true that Loisy is one of the most representative men
in the crisis, one of those through whom the new
tendencies have taken definite shape; but he has
always been regarded by himself and by his friends
and disciples, as a spectator of the movement and not
as its creator and head. It has no creator or
head, or if there is one it is the spirit which, after
having spoken of old through the patriarchs and
prophets, spoke afterwards through Jesus Christ and
the Church.
The Modernists, then, are not neo-Catholics, nor
even reformers who, having before their eyes the

MODERNISM 73
model of an ideal and perfect Church, would like to
bring their own Church into conformity with this
pattern; they accept aU the Church's past without
exception, for the very good reason that the past is
past and it is not our place to judge it. They accept
it in the same spirit in which we accept our country's
past. Can you imagine a man who, before admitting
his citizenship, could think it necessary to study and
judge aU the past? We instinctively feel that our
country need not be perfect to he loved and served ; it
is sacred, not as a metaphysical dogma or an unreal
phantom, but because it is continually creating new
duties for us. It is continually changing, and yet it
is eternal, for we cannot imagine in the past a society
so embryonic as not to have created some duties for
its members. And though our efforts to foresee
the future may show us our country transfigured,
they still show us a society in which social duty,
far from disappearing, wiU have gained new
vigour. If we would give the Modernists their true name
we must call them purely and simply Catholics. They
are Catholics indeed in the fullest sense, in the
rehgious, philosophical and historical meaning of the

74 MODERNISM
word. They are Catholics, because for them religious
thought is not a part or a detaU of their life : it is at
once its atmosphere and its soul. They are Cathohcs,
because, without having need of a complete and final
philosophy, they feel themselves isolated neither in
time nor space ; they are links in an immense tradition
and it lies with them to be living, conscious, wiUing
links. They are Catholics, because, though they
feel themselves but a drop of water in the ocean, they
are certain that this drop of water has its value, its
mission. By itself it is less than naught, but if,
knowing its nothingness, it accepts the duty of service
and enters into the harmony of creation, it has
renounced itself and found itself, it has lost its life
and found it again.
You will teU me, perhaps, that there is nothing
specifically Catholic in aU this, that Protestants may
pass through similar experiences. There is obviously
no rule without an exception, and the barriers which
divide the different churches are in ruins almost
everywhere, and nobody thinks of rebuUding them.
In Protestantism there are many Catholic souls, and
in Catholicism many Protestant souls, but all these
inconsistencies do not alter the fact that there is a

MODERNISM 75
difference of tendency between the Catholic mentality
and the Protestant.
Whatever may be the denomination or school to
which a Protestant belongs, his mentality is individu
alistic. He feels, indeed, the pressure of his time and
surroundings, but he reduces it to a minimum ; his
passion for independence tends to make him an
isolated unit. If he comes to understand the necessity
for combination he will understand it with his inteUect
rather than his heart; he will be inclined to make
it an instrument of commerce, if not an instrument
of war. His private house is always finer than the
temple or church where he meets his brethren.
For the Catholic, on the contrary, the church where
he meets his brethren is his true home, his real centre,
his focus. In Calabria, in the villages destroyed by
the earthquakes two years ago, almost aU the
churches were rebuilt in a few months. I wiU admit
that there may have been some superstition at work,
but superstition could have done nothing if beneath
it there had not been a deep instinct that in isola
tion from his feUows man is incomplete.
You see how mistaken is the opinion of those who
regard Modernism as a Protestant infiltration. The

76 MODERNISM
controversialists who have invented the word have
also invented the thing. Once I considered them
very clever and thought they had sent forth this cry
somewhat after the manner of a man who wants to
get rid of a dog, and runs after it saying that it is mad.
Now I am tempted to judge differently, and to think
that the Jesuit Fathers, who for fifteen years have
gone on repeating and amplifying the infiltration
theory, have been merely naive. They have thought
of the Protestant just as in my viUage the shepherd
girls think of the wolf, though they have never seen
one, simply because on winter evenings their grand
mothers have made them frightened of him.
One thing is certain, and that is that L'Evangile el
VEglise, the one book of all M. Loisy's writings which is
considered by anti-Modernists to be the charter of the
new movement, is a thorough-going refutation of Dr
Harnack and Dean Auguste Sabatier. I am well
aware that in certain circles it has been insinuated
that this is a literary fiction, and that in reahty the
author's intention was to elude the vigilance of the
guardians of orthodoxy by pretending to attack
Protestantism, while his only wish was to serve its
cause and prepare the way for it. I shall not

MODERNISM 77
insult you or the Abbe Loisy by examining such
charges.
In certain Paris churches, it is true, discussions
are held with as little sincerity as this. I have
myself attended one at S. Germain I'Auxerrois. A
debate is announced, and on the appointed day you
see one of the parish clergy ascend the pulpit, while
on a platform facing him stands a sort of accomplice,
who plays the part of Devil's Advocate. The Devil's
Advocate, need I add, always allows himself to be
miserably beaten by the representative of God, and
retires, laying down his arms. I do not think a single
one of M. Loisy's readers can have believed the ending
of UEvangile et Eglise to be a denouement of this kind.
On the contrary, thousands and thousandsof Catholics
have felt immense gratitude to the man who has in
some sort put them on their feet again, who, taking
Protestantism as expounded by one of its most
authorised representatives, has shown the profound
opposition between it and the true Catholic orienta
tion. Viewed from this height and with this calmness
Catholicism is no longer a religion, it is religion itself;
not a religion which was final and absolute yesterday,
or ought to be so to-morrow, but a living and eternal

78 MODERNISM
religion, which has no beginning and wiU have no
end, which, always the same and eternaUy new, wiU
graduaUy draw all men to itself, and wiU sow in their
hearts seeds which each generation wiU pay back
with ever fairer and more nourishing harvests.
If it were merely a matter of the study or exegesis
of the books of the Bible, the question of Protestant
influence would be debatable. Loisy hardly gives one
the impression of a populariser who excels in ex
ploiting other people's work ; and it would have to be
pointed out also that at the very moment when
Protestant science seems to be, if not checked for the
time being, at any rate pausing to take stock of itself,
Catholic science is producing one masterpiece of
erudition and synthesis after another. Questions of
mutual influence are matters of estimates, and no
one can hope to decide them finally. The republic
of letters is no empty name. He who takes up
exegetical work on any question, however limited
in scope, has much difficulty, even with the best
intentions in the world, in seeing where his personal
contribution begins and where his debt ends to
earlier works or to the inteUectual atmosphere which
surrounds him. Biblical studies, however, are but one

MODERNISM 79
field of action of the new movement. The most that
can be said is that its influence has been more
visible there than elsewhere, just as the coming of
spring is announced by the blossoming almond tree,
and yet the almond blossom is but a faint indication
of the hfe that is returning. Modernism is a spiritual
spring which penetrates, vivifies and rejuvenates all
things. However, to consider exegesis only, it may be said
that between Protestant and Modernist exegesis there
is a profound difference. Without intending or even
suspecting it, the Protestant exegete — at any rate
as we have commonly known him so far — while
doubtless he does not actually start with the con
clusions to be reached already in his mind, has some
thing in his inteUectual habits which impoverishes
the sense of the text he is studying. He proceeds to
examine his author, and very often his examination
resembles that of a judge who, instead of letting the
witness speak, puts questions to him which, by the
very way they are put, tend to alter his testimony.
In face of any product of the past the Protestant,
with his doctrinaire turn of mind, puts this question to
himself: Is it true or false, good or bad? You know.

80 MODERNISM
for example, how Luther spoke of the Epistle of St
James as " an epistle of straw." Now the Modernist
has not this judicial instrument in his brain, these
compasses always ready for use. A fact is a fact.
For a certain school of theology the Epistle of James
is an epistle of straw, but it is only an epistle of straw
for that particular school. It is not that, nor the
opposite, for the historian. For him it is a product of
the Church's life, and must be provided with the
means to give its witness freely. It must speak, not
we. The Modernist, then, looks at the past and strives
to see it in all its complexity. This, it is true,
has always been the attitude of the pure savant ;
the Modernist introduces a new element — he is
conscious of belonging to the past; he does not
consider himself a chance spectator; he feels the life
which flows through all things, the past stui hves in
him. It is because of this sense of intimate union
with the past that Modernist exegesis has an entirely
original aspect when compared with Protestant
exegesis. It is true, however, that in certain quarters there
are infiltrations, or rather reverberations, of Pro-

MODERNISM 81
testantism, but it is at Rome that I find them, and in
the acts of official authority. Protestantism, by
exalting individualism and independence more and
more, has graduaUy led authority to lose sight of its
true nature. By a process of reaction authority has
come to confound anti-Protestantism with Catholic
ism ; and I am bound to say that in this matter its
practice is no better than its theory. For Rome the
good bishop is the anti-Modernist bishop. In the
literature of nearly every country in the world there
is found the figure of the priest who is not very inteUi
gent, but makes up for his inteUectual defects by his
goodness and benevolence — the priest who blesses.
Pius X. is on his way to create another type — the
priest who curses.
Some months ago Frenchmen were asking with
astonishment whatever could have led the Pope to
make a cardinal of Mgr. Andrieu, Bishop of Mar
seilles, one of the least known and most obscure of
our prelates. No long search was needed: Mgr.
Andrieu, preaching in his cathedral on Christmas
Day, 1906, had managed to extract from the hymn
of the angels at Bethlehem a declaration of war against
the principles of democracy, and had contrasted them

82 MODERNISM
with the principles of the Gospel. Yet more, this
anti-democratic bishop is also the bitter foe of his
torical learning. It would be impossible now to find
in France, or in aU Europe, a single studious priest who
would maintain that the Gospel was preached at
MarseiUes by Lazarus, the dead man raised at
Bethany ; at Tarascon by St Martha ; at Aix by St
Mary Magdalene. That these graceful stories are
purely legendary has been superabundantly proved
by savants as much favoured by authority as Mgr.
Duchesne, as little iconoclastic as those Brussels
Jesuits, the celebrated BoUandist Fathers. This
general agreement on a purely historical question
would have made an impression upon anyone else.
Upon Mgr. Andrieu it made none. His absolute
intransigence, in not merely knowing nothing of
democracy and scientific study but in excommuni
cating them, seemed to Pius X. to make him excep
tionally eligible. At the last Consistory it was re
warded, consecrated, exalted, by the bestowal of the
red hat.
You see, do you not, how by way of antithesis to
Protestantism, and in order to preserve itself from
the influence of modern ideas, a section of the Church,

MODERNISM 83
the section which at present governs her, shuts itself
up in isolation, surrounds itself with intrenchments
and fortifications, and, losing its character of
catholicity, becomes a sect.
Instead of panic-stricken old men who, in spite of all
the warnings they receive, never cease to invite battles
which they always lose, Modernism shows us young
men who advance calmly and courageously to face
life — the whole of life. They need no elaborate code
to tell them what they owe to the past ; they know
that they are sons of their fathers, grandsons of their
grandfathers, great-grandsons of their great-grand
fathers; they feel that, though this short tradition
includes very diverse elements, they are its offspring
and nothing can alter the fact that they are its off
spring. They feel that true filial respect does not
he in mechanically repeating their fathers' ideas
but in continuing them, thinking and living them out
again. The treasure of religious tradition is not a
deposit which we have to give back intact, it is a
living seed which should bear fruit in our hands.
When a son, after having listened affectionately to
his father's teaching and assimilated it, puts it to the
test, and arrives at the conviction that his duty is to

84 MODERNISM
correct it in certain respects, how great is his joy if
on coming back to the old fireside he sees that his
father, far from being pained, foUows him with looks
of blessing in this step forward! Is not that a
singularly beautiful spectacle?
I was saying just now that Modernism was neither
a party nor a school, but an orientation. It would
be a singularly delicate task to point out char
acteristic signs by which its adherents could be
recognised, so different are they from one another.
By the side of the Bibhcal scholar, the historian, the
savant, there is the democrat pure and simple; by
the side of the poet there is the humble, hard-working
priest ; by the side of the bishop the mere seminarist.
Yet, in spite of aU these differences of position, of
interests, of vocation, they recognise one another.
There is no hst drawn up, no badge or watchword,
and yet they know each other by instinct, draw
together, and become one heart and one soul. You
know the beautiful passage in the Fioretti which teUs
how S. Louis, King of France, came to the little
convent at Monte Ripido. No one had recognised
him ; he entered Brother GUes's ceU, sat down close
to him, and remained there for two hours without a

MODERNISM 85
word being spoken. They understood one another,
and in that sUent converse said more than aU the
speech in the world could have expressed.
Something of this sort is true of the Modernists.
They recognise each other without ever having met.
They have no need to agree about theses, for there is a
deeper and more living harmony between them.
They curse no man; they curse nothing; they hope
aU things.
Jesus in His Gospel has left us an immortal
portrait of the anti-Modernist — the man who is rich
in self-esteem, who counts himself to have attained,
who goes up to the Temple at the hour of prayer
and thanks God that he is not as other men are. He
has left us also a portrait of the ideal Modernist in the
words in which He described His own mission. Like
the Modernists of to-day He was charged by the
ecclesiastical authority of His time with being a
revolutionary, a destroyer, a rebel, and yet He had
declared, not only by His words but by His deeds,
that He was not come to abohsh the Law and the
Prophets but to fulfil them.
One often meets Protestants who ask the Modernists,
" Who are you? What is your doctrine? Make an

86 MODERNISM
attempt to systematise your thought and to answer
the questions we are going to put to you." Such
inquiries prove that those who make them have
failed to get outside themselves or to understand the
new orientation. The Gospels show us many such
scenes taking place around Jesus, and describe them
thus : " Then drew near the Pharisees to tempt
Him." Let us try not to be like the Pharisees.
Other people come and say to the Modernists:
" You proclaim yourselves Catholics, and doubtless
you are sincere in doing so; but Catholicism is a
religion of authority, and lo! authority rejects,
repudiates, expels you." The objection looks formid
able, and has often been brought forward of late, and
yet it is childish after all. When the government of a
country regards a group of citizens unfavourably,
are they ipso facto a group of bad citizens ? Are they
not often the salt of their country and its one hope
for the future ? Has England, that land of freedom,
which opens its gates so wide to exiles of aU nations,
ever thought of telling them that they must become
naturalised and abandon their country of origin?
The idea has never occurred to her ; she knows well
enough that banishment doubles a man's love for his

MODERNISM 87
country. Authority may exile the Modernists; it
will never be able to separate them from the soul of
the Church, or prevent them from being attached to
her by bonds of love which no human government
can break.
Solidarity, love, communion — these are the words
which rise oftenest to one's lips when one tries to
understand the character of the new movement.
The J\Iodernists are. quite resolved to conform to the
endjjtf. they can, to all the Church's laws. (You ]
know that monastic rules foresee cases where the <
superior orders something which is contrary to con- ' i
science and where it is the duty of the inferior to refuse ;
obedience.) But their obedience is not the formal
compliance of a lawyer, nor the dumb servility of a
mercenary or a slave; it is the obedience of sons, a
close, living union with the Church, a sharing in her
movement and activity. In one word, Modernism
is an awakening. Had it occurred amid Protestant,
--'  - \
surroundings, it would have taken the form of in- !
dividual conversions and regenerations, but occurring \
amid Catholic surroundings it has taken the form of
an intense need for communion — communion with the i
past by exegetical and historical study, communion

88 MODERNISM
with the present by a new apologetic and by demo
cratic endeavour, and communion with the future
which men are striving to prepare. It is an unex
pected current of mysticism, passing over our age
and giving unspeakable fervour and power to those
who drink of it.
On July 7, 1907, the day of the Garibaldi com
memoration, I was in Florence. The people's enthusi
asm was at its height, the whole city was thriUed
with a common emotion of patriotic piety. Three
buildings only, in the very heart of the city, made a
discord in this symphony of enthusiasm. The
Archbishop's palace, the glittering cathedral of Santa
Maria del Fiore, and the Baptistery, these houses
of God built of old by the people and for the people,
remained silent, jealously closed, bereft of aU decora
tion. All through the day the splendid dome seemed
to say to the city's rejoicing: " What have I to do
with thee? I know thee not."
The people wished to mark their sense of this
abstention and this antithesis. Towards evening
they defiled through the city in hundreds of com
panies. They decided Chat on passing the cathedral

MODERNISM 89
and the Archbishop's palace they would return silence
for sUence, disdain for disdain. On reaching the
piazza the singing and the music ceased; in front of
the palace flags and banners were sUently lowered,
the points towards the ground, in token of repro
bation. I shaU never forget the spectacle — the Church no
longer understanding the people whom she had
brought up, and the people wounded by their mother
and their teacher in their deepest instincts, in their
patriotic religion.
The march past was almost at an end, when aU at
once, up at the top of the blind and mute archi-
episcopal residence, a little window suddenly opened.
A head appeared, a hand waved a flag — the tri-
coloured flag of free and united Italy — and in the
great sUence, which was increased by the people's
astonishment, a cry feU, " Evviva Vltalia ! " — " Long
live Italy! "
Suddenly it resounded, a cry of pain, of anguish, of
triumph. In the twinkling of an eye the Garibaldian
procession had halted, flags and banners were raised
again. A tremendous cheer rang out, and in the eyes
of many of these men, who a moment before had

90 MODERNISM
been angry and bitter, there glistened tears of joy,
the pure and holy joy of life finding life where it
could no longer expect it.
Is not that the same scene in miniature which
Modernism shows us on a vaster stage ? Those who
govern the Roman Church pout at modern civilisa
tion. They care nothing for our scientific interests,
and just as little for our people's aspirations. But
see ! in Rome itself and at the Vatican, in London as
in Paris, in Milan as in Munich, at Louvain as at
Fribourg, from the depths of palaces, convents,
seminaries, universities, voices have called. Life
still palpitates where all seemed so dead. We
will acclaim it as the Garibaldians did at Florence,
and return to our work with one more joy and hope
and love.

II

In the foregoing lecture I tried to describe the
character of the Catholic renaissance itself, to show
you how it is a crisis of organic and harmonious
growth, an inner elaboration as natural and mar-
veUous as that of a plant which expands and blossoms.
To-day I should like to enter into some less general
details and to name some of the men who are being
tracked down by Rome without respite and without
pity. In Rome it is actually regretted that the
CouncU of Ten and the Spanish Inquisition are no
more ! *
* This assertion is too grave to pass without documentary evidence.
Here is the text in its integrity and its crudity. In the Corrispondema
Romana (as to this interesting organ see Introduction, page 13) of
September 18, 1907, the following may be read :
" We have ascertained the dominant note of the first comments that
have been made in non-Catholic journals and circles with regard to the
Encyclical Pascendi.
" The supreme importance, theoretical and practical, of the pontifical
document, is universally admitted, not to speak of the excellence of its
conception and exposition in its doctrinal part. As to the disciplinary
precautions of the practical part, there is a desire, in the said journals
91

92 MODERNISM
I will not speak to you about the English Modern
ists, although some of them are of the very first
rank; I wiU not speak about them for two very
good reasons : first, because you ought to know them
much better than I do ; second, because one only is
known to Rome. He, it is true, is worth many
others; he is Father George TyrreU, late of the
Society of Jesus.
Has England then escaped the taint of Modernism?
I regret that I must disturb the peace of the good
Pius X. a little more, by teUing him that the reports he
receives from the English episcopate are, like all
official documents, unduly optimistic. The Holy
Father is told that all is going well because it gratifies
him, and it is pleasanter to send him good news, and
also because a bishop likes to keep the management
of his own diocese. The Catholic bishops of Great
and circles, to find in them a terrorism recalling the names of the
Spanish Inquisition and the Council of Ten.
"We have asked in the most competent ecclesiastical circles for an
opinion of this criticism, and the reply may be summed up thus : ' The
names, so much abused, of the Spanish Inquisition and the Council of
Ten, may impress the ignorant, but not those who know how much the
Inquisition contributed to keep Spain always and completely Catholic,
and how much of the power and longevity of her Republic Venice owed
to the Council of Ten ; so that the recalling of these two abused
memories is, in our case, if ever, a justification and a good augury. ' "

MODERNISM 93
Britain feel what an uncontroUable rising of public
opinion there would be over here against Rome the
day she treated your country as she has treated
Cathohc France and Italy.
Great Britain has produced two of the most
influential forerunners of Continental Modernism —
Dr Caird and Cardinal Newman. Dr Caird has
acted on the Modernists from without. He has
drawn their attention to problems into which, but for
him, they would never have inquired; it is through
him especiaUy, and through Auguste Sabatier and
Professor Rudolf Eucken, that they have learnt to
know Protestantism. To this fact, no doubt, the
serenity of their discussions is due. These are
on so high a plane that often the anti-Modernist
does not understand them, and takes for a sur
render what comes, on the contrary, from the
Modernist's consciousness of the security of his
position.* Cardinal Newman has acted on the Modernists from
within ; it is in his company that they have set out
to study the hfe of dogma, the hfe of the Church, and
* See page 23 above in regard to M. Loisy's letter to a student of the
Faculty of Theology at Geneva.

94 MODERNISM
the most delicate and complex questions of personal
autonomy and of obedience. It has been noisUy
| affirmed of late that the Encyclical Pascendi did not
| touch the celebrated Cardinal under whose protec
tion the innovators imprudently placed themselves.
\ That the Bull was not aimed at Newman I am quite
sure, for the very good reason that its editors did not
I know Newman. That his ideas are not touched by
; its condemnations let those say who wiU and who
'can. It wiU always be possible to cite a large number of
expressions both for and against. Thought so rich,
so penetrating as Newman's, cannot easily be shut up
in the narrow doctrinaire cage of the theologians
whom Pius X. honours with his confidence. Pius X.
1 and Newman ! What a contrast, what a distance
f between them ! Do not think that I wish to insinuate
,' that if Newman had been living he would have set
himself up against the Sovereign Pontiff. What he
j would have done I do not know. Probably the idea
' of revolt would not even have occurred to him. On
; reading the long exposition in the Bull he would, no
I doubt, have passed through a veritable moral agony.
; What I do know is that, on reaching the last pages,

MODERNISM 95
those which have more claim than the others to the
paternity of Pius X., when he had seen the Head of
his Church, the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Jesus
Christ, putting his sole trust for the Church's future
in measures of repression and suffocation, and
organising an inteUectual police narrower, more
suspicious, more tyrannical than any of which history
has preserved the memory, a deeper red than that
of his Cardinal's robe would have mounted to his
face. However this may be, ecclesiastical authority has
proclaimed that it did not aim at Newman, and you
know what exceUent reasons we have to take its
word. It has not aimed at him, but this does not
mean that it debars itself from aiming at him when
it perceives his presence, or rather his ideas and
influence. Please remember this: If, as I hope it will, the
pontificate of Pius X. lasts long enough for the
methods of terrorism and inquisition to be carried to
their furthest consequences, and if I have the pleasure
of meeting you again in ten years' time, we shall see
whether Newman's orthodoxy has been protected
from condemnation by Rome. Under the pontificate

96 MODERNISM
of Pius X. it is easy to be a prophet.* One needs no
celestial revelations ; it is enough to open one's eyes
and foUow the proceedings of His^olmessjs^miliars.
The task is an easy one, for they are neithernumerous
nor very active. For some time past they have been
warning the pontifical bookseUers in Rome not to let
themselves be carried away by the fashion, and not to
be always giving prominence to Newman's books or
to books about him. To the students and seminarists
* In the Preface, dated March 14, 1906, to the second edition of my
A propos de la Siparation des Eglises et de PEtat (216 + lxxxiv pp.), I
foresaw it as inevitable (see pp. liii-lx), under the pontificate of Pius X. ,
that people would outbid one another in orthodoxy, and that the
irreproachably orthodox of one day would become the heretics of
the next.
The zealous Press which keeps guard round the Vatican is not only
denouncing the two most important journals in the Peninsula — the
Milan Unione and the Bologna Avvenire — but it is now making for the
Civilta Cattolica, the celebrated Jesuit organ !
The Unita Cattolica (see its number for July 5, 1908) has been
joined by La Riscossa, La Difesa and Le Armonie della Fede in
attacking the Review which has hitherto been considered the bulwark
of sound doctrine.
The papers I have just named do not represent ten thousand sub
scribers in all— and their readers are yet fewer — but what matters it if
they have Pius X. on their side ? Now this it is impossible to doubt :
jt was the Pope himself who reorganised the Unita when it was about
to expire, and who begged the Abb& Paolo Tommaso de Toth to leave
Montefalco and go to Florence to take up its editorship. In France,
not only are the Catholics most favoured by Leo XIII. being vilified 
M. Fonsegrive (" Yves le Querdec"), for instance — but all those also

MODERNISM 97
it is insinuated that certain of his books have not
perhaps been sufficiently purged of every trace of
Protestantism,, that he was a great writer but a very
poor theologian. The name of " Newmanist " has
even been put into circulation. That is a grave sign,
for in the mouths of those who use it the word is no
compliment ; a Newmanist is on the downward slope
to Modernism. He wUl not stop in his course ; nor,
believe me, will the heresy-hunters.
There are many Newmanists in England, and even
many Modernists pure and simple. They do not
conceal themselves, but they are most effectually
protected by the providential ignorance of foreign
languages which prevaUs in the Roman Congregations.
who have not found grace in the sight of the secret committees for
religious action, i.e. for political reaction. The Abbe Garnier's igno
minious accusations against M. Loisy (see Introduction, p. 17) have not
been enough to win him grace in the sight of the "ultras," and at the
time when I write (August 12, 1908) his name has just disappeared
from the title-page of the Peuple Francais.
My forecasts of two years ago are being fulfilled more exactly than I
could have wished ; the Revue du Clergi" Francais is being furiously
attacked — for instance, by Father Portalie (Etudes for August 5, 1908).
But lo ! this poor Jesuit himself feels by no means safe. He guesses
that there are Zelanti lying in ambush in the shade, ready to jump at
his throat. "We are," he declares (p. 351), "passing through a
phase of unreasonable distrust on the part of Catholics towards students
who wish and are able to combine the faith in its integrity with
scientific progress."
G

98 MODERNISM
The Pope's police has a double likeness to that of
the Grand Turk — it is terribly severe and comicaUy
incapable. TyrreU's chief works were translated into
¦French and Italian before any one at the Curia
troubled about him. If he had been prudent enough
to write only big books of a somewhat forbidding
aspect, he would still be in his Jesuit convent, engaged
in bringing back Protestants to the lap of Holy
Mother Church.
Unfortunately for him he wrote a httle pamphlet,
the Letter to a Professor of Anthropology* which, in an
Italian translation, was spread about in the semin
aries over there. It caught the eye of a journalist,
who wrote of it, and it was thus that, towards the end
of December 1906, the watchful guardians of
authority learned of both the existence and the
heresies of Father TyrreU.
You know what foUowed. For a moment there
was cause for fear that, attracted by this discovery,
the Holy See would organise a Modernist hunt in
England, but it was so much occupied in France and
Italy that it prudently forbore. Probably there is
only a postponement. Quite lately the offices of the
* " A Much-Abused Letter." London : Longmans, Green & Co. 1906.

MODERNISM 99
Curia have been opened — not without a protest from
the staff, who have hitherto been Romans exclusively
— to one of your fellow-countrymen, the Rev. D.
BidweU. Henceforth there wUl be a watchman
there, with a special eye on your country. Let us
hope he wUl perform his duties well ; one always likes
people who do their work weU. He will have no
sinecure. Most English Catholics have no idea
what the ecclesiastical pohce is hke when organised
as it is in Italy and France. It wUl be good for them
to have a foretaste of it.
Those of you who have traveUed in Italy know the
Giornale a" 'Italia, the chief Conservative organ in the
Peninsula. For some weeks past a large number of
the Italian bishops have prohibited it in their
dioceses. Any priest who reads it is ipso facto sus
pended; he contracts a stain which renders him
unfit to perform any ministerial act. Now what, do
you think, was the offence of the Giornale d' Italia ?
It was that it took its business of supplying informa
tion seriously, and thought that, since Modernism
existed, as an intellectual, moral and religious
current in the country, attention ought to be drawn
to it. It was not enough that its columns were

ioo MODERNISM
opened liberally to the other side. In the proceed
ings which ecclesiastical authority is taking against
Modernism, the defendant is not aUowed to speak.
I do not know what the Giornale d 'Italia wUl do in
face of this crusade and of the number of people who
will be forced to give up their subscriptions. I do
not know whether it wiU follow the example of a
Parisian journal, the Figaro, which at the beginning
of a tragic crisis in French life and politics was clear
sighted enough, but which, alarmed by its rapid loss
of subscribers, turned tail. I do know, however, that
sooner or later public opinion wiU rise against a power
that caUs itself spiritual, and yet has recourse to
such means of imposing silence.
A few months ago I was reading in one of your
newspapers some letters from feUow-countrymen of
yours who, when travelling in Italy last year, had
been surprised at the outburst of anti-clericalism which
had occurred in most parts of the Peninsula. I have
no sort of sympathy with spiteful methods, but do
you think these movements could have succeeded if
the lower classes had not been profoundly disturbed
at the thought of what would happen to a country
under such a reign of terror and constraint as

MODERNISM 101
Pius X. dreams of? Anticlerical barbarism is a
very ugly thing, but at least it does not profane
the names of God and Christ; and then, too, it
does not come into the world spontaneously; it is
the legitimate offspring of clerical tyranny. Let
those of you who think the words " clerical tyranny "
an empty phrase, a bogie to frighten people, read
the Encychcal Pascendi quietly through to the end,
and imagine good, gentle Pius X. putting the finish
ing touches to the last part — the only part, as we
shall see later, at which he really worked.
At the beginning of his pontificate, someone who
saw both his personal virtues and his fundamental
inability to understand, even vaguely, any new idea,
said that this pope might well be the Louis XVI. of
the Papacy. The saying has so far proved true. I
certainly hope Pius X. wiU not be martyred, but that
is not the point. Through him the old notion of
authority, based upon a divine, unverifiable and
quite mechanical revelation, is giving way for ever,
just as with Louis XVI. the notion of the divine right
of kings gave way so completely that not even the
princes of the house of Bourbon would now think of
reviving it. Among the legitimate representatives

^

102 MODERNISM
of fallen dynasties there are stiU some, perhaps, who
dream of reascending the throne of their ancestors,
but their only hope, you may be sure, is to get them
selves recognised by the people.
In 1793 there were many who thought that the end
of the kingship was the end of France, the end of
national unity. In reahty it was only the birth-throes
of a new order of things. The king's subjects had
become citizens; the unity of the country, far from
being broken, was being realised, was gaining a new,
profound and living meaning; a great people was
becoming conscious of itself and attaining its majority.
Completely analogous is the crisis through which
the Church is passing. Among the subjects of the
Holy See, as among its enemies, there are many who
imagine that the defeat of Pius X. wiU be the end of
aU things — the end of faith, the end of unity, the end
of aU religion — that it wiU inaugurate the reign of
fierce, materialistic anarchy. No doubt there wiU
be much suffering, many tears, unspeakable lacera
tions, but these wounds wiU not be unto death. The
present crisis wiU not kiU the Church, it wiU transform
her; the Cathohc of to-morrow wiU be no longer a
subject but a citizen.

MODERNISM 103
We have travelled far from the English Modernists.
I said I would tell you nothing about them. We
must leave the trouble of discovering them to the
pontifical police, and ere long we shall be free to
smile at its clumsiness and its mistakes. I can tell you,
however, that the Continental Modernists know how
much they owe to their Enghsh brethren. How
often, in hours of anguish, when the pioneers of the
new ideas in Italy and France have been subjected to
the pesterings and subtle persecutions of an authority
which thinks all things permitted to it because it
sincerely believes itself to be carrying out God's
commands — how often, I say, has the cheering voice
of some English friend come to encourage them, to
make them feel once more that no power in the world
can separate them from the Church of Christ ! From
that Church many wUl be excommunicated who say
" Lord, Lord," many who prophesy, many who
work miracles, many who exercise authority; in it
wiU be seated many poor men, many excommunicated
ones — people from the east and the west and the north
and the south whom no one looked to see.
May my greetings, and the thanks of those whose
mouths are closed, reach aU the brave folk, scattered

104 MODERNISM
over the soil of Great Britain, who have, sought at
critical moments to send words of life and love and
light to hearts in distress ! The near future wiU show
them that they have not worked in vain.
I will not speak about the German Modernists
either, because at the moment when the Encyclical
was penned there was no Modernism in Germany. I
mean to say that Pius X. had no idea that it could
exist there. It seemed to him that this " pest " — the
word is not mine, but his — could only exist in
countries poisoned by the Declaration of the Rights
of Man. With what pious emotion did he not speak
of Germany and repeat the words : Germania doceat !
He did not indeed actually talk of " Holy Prussia,"
but, when speaking of the Centre,* his voice grew
soft and affectionate, and, speaking of William II. ,
he said : " Our holy Emperor of Germany." Certainly
he is ready enough to canonise when crowned heads
are concerned.
Who knows what dreams haunted his imagination
when obliging courtiers suggested visions of William
II. taking vengeance on France for her insults to the
* The Catholic party in German politics.— (Translator.)

MODERNISM 105
Holy See, and of the country of Luther restoring the
principle of authority in all its fulness! If he had
apocalyptic visions of this kind his awakening must
have been singularly bitter. In most of the German
universities the last pontifical manifestoes have
produced a scandal. Professors of high rank and
distinguished titles have spoken out, with cutting
satire or crushing force.
One of them, Mgr. Ehrhard, Domestic Prelate to
His Holiness and Professor Ordinarius in the Uni
versity of Strassburg, where he holds the Catholic
chair of Church History, has published in the Inter
nationale Wochenschrift a much-discussed article,
expressing his opinion not only of the Encyclical but
of the orientation which authority is trying to give
to the Church. He recognises in the Risposta dei
Modernisti — a reply to the Encyclical by a number of
Italian Modernists — " an event which, not excepting
the Jansenist troubles, is without a parallel in the
whole history of modern Catholicism." *
A few days later he published a note which seems to
* Internationale Wochenschrift fur Wissenschaft, Kunst und
Tecknik, January 18, 1908. "We are in danger," he wrote, "of
seeing every door opened to arbitrary decisions. . . . We are placed
in such a position as to be unable to refute effectively the objection

106 MODERNISM
be modelled upon the reply which Loisy, when caUed
upon to renounce his errors, sent to the Archbishop
raised by our colleagues in the Universities, namely, that the Encyclical
prohibits all historical and critical methods.
"How shall we be able to justify to our colleagues measures so
incompatible with the very idea of an University professorship, with the
moral conscience and personal dignity of professors and students,
measures whose tendency will be to promote delation among students,
and which put professors of theology under the intellectual guardian
ship of their pupils ?
"If the Encyclical had distinguished between the syntheses of
modern philosophy and the ' methods * ( Wege) of that philosophy, it
would not have put us into this false and compromising position.
Since these methods are not the creation of a few individual thinkers,
but the natural outcome of the whole previous development of the
human mind, theology cannot reject them without committing a sin
against the Holy Spirit. For, as we must never weary of proclaiming,
scholastic philosophy and theology have not settled, everv_qiiestion ;
scholasticism, like Gothic art, is the product of an epoch. Doubtless
the theological systematisation of that epoch marks a conquest within
the Christian Church, but it must be added that it no more exhausted
the content of dogmatic tradition than it created it.
"An ostrich-like policy in theology does not and cannot abolish the
fact that, even for the Catholic theologian, there is a Biblical question,
a question of apologetics, a question about the history of dogmas, and
that each of these gives rise to a number of others.
" How can these questions — which call imperiously for a solution —
find that solution in the philosophy and theology of an epoch in which
they had not arisen? It may also be said that the great scholastic
system of St Thomas could never have been formed if there had been
then, as there is to-day, a council of vigilance in every diocese.
"And now, what is the true cause of the existing crisis, a crisis
which has not been created, but merely revealed to the world by recent
events, and which may be called a Kullurkampf in the very bosom of
the Catholic Church?"

MODERNISM 107
of Paris. In it he teUs of his astonishment at the
commotion raised by his article, of his regret that
erroneous ideas have been attributed to him, and
lastly, of his firm intention to remain in the Church's
communion. How comes it that this declaration
which, when made by Loisy, was regarded as quite
insufiicient and even contumacious, has, now that
it comes from the pen of Mgr. Ehrhard, been
loudly announced as a retractation? Has Rome two
different systems of weights and measures, or does
ecclesiastical authority already perceive the necessity
for using its repressive methods with a little discretion ?
Dr Schnitzer, Cathohc Professor Ordinarius of the
History of Dogma in the University of Munich, has
spoken even more sharply than Mgr. Ehrhard.
Listen to this passage:
" The condemnation of Modernism could only
cause surprise in circles where people do not, or wiU
not, know the Roman Curia. Not only optimistic
Cathohcs of the stamp of ScheU, but many Protes
tants also, love to depict an ideal Rome, entrusted
with a sublime mission of higher culture, an incompar
able shelter of thought and Christian life and
brotherly love. They extol her enthusiastically.

io8. MODERNISM
Then, all at once, they run up against the Rome of
the Encyclical, and are profoundly miserable at
finding her so different from the Rome they have
dreamt of in their lonely studies."
Further on he writes :
" The aim of the University is to study and to
teach men to study. The aim of the Church is to
hand on a tradition, to repeat what she has learned.
The Summa of St Thomas is a sublime work which
can never be equaUed, much less surpassed ; and no
new books, no new treatises upon, or researches into
theological questions, however learned they may be,
can ever do more than repeat what St Thomas has
already said much better long ago. . . . AU that is
good in our modern books is not new, and what
is new is not good." *
* Internationale Wochenschrift, February I, 1908. These events
have been much talked of in all the German Universities, and in
spite of the efforts of the Munich Apostolic Nuncio and the Berlin
Government, it may be predicted that the movement will not be
stayed in its course. Not only are the writings of German Modernists
read with avidity, but foreign Modernist books are being trans
lated with remarkable keenness. The firm of Diederichs at Jena
has just published a whole series of volumes, the first being the
Programme of the Italian Modernists, and the second the Reply of
the French Modernists to Pius X.
It is impossible to relate here in detail the affair of the German
League against the Index. This episode is by no means closed.

MODERNISM 109
Dr Schnitzer has published neither retraction nor
declaration. In order to show him, perhaps, that
Rome is not embarrassed by what he has said about
the servitude of the bishops, Pius X. has gone over
the head of the Archbishop of Munich, suspended Dr
Schnitzer a divinis, and forbidden him the sacraments.
You see how the new movement is growing and
Here in a few lines is what happened. The famous Corrispondenza
Romana, which had only been in existence six weeks, published on
July 7, 1907, a number of unusually large dimensions (24 pp.) entitled
Una Lega Segreta Internazionale contro PIndice c per la Cultura.
Rivelazioni Documentate. On that day people were astonished to
see that that mysterious agency, the Corrispondenza, which no one
had hitherto taken seriously, was able, when occasion demanded, to
draw upon the Vatican's most secret dossiers. The most distinguished
of German Catholics, and, most important of all, Baron von Hertling,
were mentioned as being implicated in a vast secret society with
ramifications all over the world. The documents reproduced were
accompanied by misleading notes intended to give a wrong idea of
their meaning.
This publication produced a sort of stupor among the elite of
Catholic Germany, which was still further increased during the next
few days (especially on July 16), when the publication of Two Secret
Protocols of the Episcopal Court at Wiirzburg — Revelations Supported
by Documents, made things look very much as if the Corrispondenza
Romana had its offices in the room of His Holiness's Cardinal
Secretary of State.
The alleged Minister conspirators have never been anything but
open, and as a reply to all the attacks made on them, they have
just published a handsome volume, filled with documentary evidence,
and entitled Indexbewegung und Kulturgesellschaft (Bonn, 1908.
208 + x pp. ), by Dr A. ten Hompel, in.collaboration with Justizrath H.
Hellraeth and Professor J. Plassmann, all of Munsler.

no MODERNISM
spreading its branches everywhere. Faithful
Belgium is very far from having escaped it, and
devout Switzerland has welcomed Modernist ideas
with her usual hospitality. Spain has hardly
troubled the Holy See, no more has Portugal, and yet
in Lisbon alone there are at least three priests
imbued with the new ideas.
I cannot then think of introducing you to aU the
men who have ploughed so deeply in the field of
rehgion. What I can do is to imagine myself in
Rome, follow the eyes of the Sovereign Pontiff, and
show you rapidly against whom in particular he has
thought fit to proceed with such severity.
A few preliminary remarks are indispensable. At
the Vatican a distinction must be made between the
Pope and the central government of the Church. The
latter may be caUed Offices of the Curia or Sacred
Roman Congregations — whatever the name may be
it denotes the exceedingly complicated machinery of
the centralised government in Rome. The popes
change, the offices remain, and it is the latter practic
ally which insure the continuity of effort that is so
striking in the Roman Church. The Pope, omnipotent
though he be, is limited on every side by the bureau-

MODERNISM in
cracy which in theory does nothing but transmit his
utterances.
, Pius X. is perhaps the most obstinate pope, the
I least capable of being influenced, that Rome has
known for a century. He performs his office as
infaUible pope with a sincerity, a simplicity and a
conviction which have something touching about
them, and make him personaUy a very sympathetic
figure. If he feels his weakness, he is, one might say,
reassured by that weakness, by his conviction that
in him God has chosen the most imperfect of instru
ments in order to manifest His power and make His
glory shine forth. He puts himself, therefore, in
God's hands, without perceiving that he is taking
for divine inspiration the purely personal and
individual views which come from his complete
l seclusion, inteUectual, political, moral and religious.
; Never perhaps has there been seen in so lofty
a position a like absence of aU hesitation, a
mind so completely impervious. It is not easy to
picture a mentality of this sort in our age, when one
sees so many men who are without character and
consistency, who have no personality. Pius X. has
none either, but he has fiUed up the void, once for

112 MODERNISM
aU,by a complete acceptance of the purely mechanical
and external teaching which he,„xecjeiY^d__at_the
seminaries of Castelfranco and Treviso.
He was too timid to cast his eyes beyond the waUs
of these institutions for narrowing the inteUect, and
since then he has been too upright to succumb to
the disease which makes a section of the Italian
clergy so repugnant — to treat the ecclesiastical
vocation as a career and to faU into scepticism.
I tell you all this in answer to the question so often
asked as to the influences which are acting on the
Pope. It is difficult to persuade people that he is
not led by the Jesuits, for instance. Undoubtedly a
certain number of members of the famous Society
have access to his presence at stated times, but
one might say as much of various Capuchins, who
are certainly not the natural or traditional friends of
the Jesuits. One might say as much of sundry
Assumptionists, or even of sundry Benedictines, and
above all of a group of Monsignori and secular priests
of a hardly credible type, into whose past Pius X.
has forgotten to inquire, to whom he has entrusted
the whole management of the ecclesiastical police,
and who henceforth consider themselves — rightly, no

MODERNISM 113
doubt — to be the most important instrument of
authority and unity. OfficiaUy they do not form
part of any of the Sacred Congregations, but they see
to their supplies and set them all in motion. They are
nothing, and yet everything. It is not then because
Father BiUot is a Jesuit, or Father Pie de Langogne
and Cardinal Vives are Capuchins, that they are in
special favour with the Pope; he has chosen them
because he has found in them men with the same
desires and the same ideals as his own.
I do not by this mean in the very least to deny the
great influence of certain orders and certain persons ;
I am merely showing you how Pius X. can testify to
himself that he is not being led, but, on the contrary,
directing everything. At the present moment the
bishops are as if they were not, and even the part
played by the cardinals is becoming more and more
unimportant. Nevertheless, the weight of tradition
acts upon the Pontiff, and even goes so far as to
transform the pontifical documents, or, at any rate,
give them a very different character from what
they would have if Pius X. were their sole author.
The Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis is some
thing like a lake through which a river flows. With-
H

114 MODERNISM
out any special effort of the eye the river water can
be distinguished, and, though one may not be able to
separate it sharply from that of the lake, it is still
possible not to confuse the two. Do not think I am
giving myself up to risky and subjective criticism.
Roman Catholic papers of the most authoritative,
conservative and anti-Modernist type have been good
enough to make a remark which I had already made
myself, but which I was very glad to have confirmed
by them. They have seen that the third and last part,
dealing with the ways and means to check Modernism,
and with the punishments to be inflicted on the
guilty, is the part which evidently comes most
directly from Pius X.
So then, by the very admission of the anti-
Modernist press, the Encyclical is not homogeneous ;
it is like an edifice which at a distance has a perfect
unity, but at close quarters shows itself to have been
built by several architects. Now it is the last pages
of the Bull, those which have made the students of the
Germanic College at Rome christen it I'encyclica
ferox, that are most particularly the work of Pius
X., the good, the gentle, the humble. The implied
contradiction is entirely on the surface; those who

MODERNISM 115
have lived in contact with the men of the Middle Ages,
and know how calmly an inquisitor, who in his cell
was as one of God's own lambs, could turn into a
pitiless executioner when sitting as a member of
the terrible tribunal, wiU easily understand these
apparent anomalies.
Please do not mistake my present intention ; I am
no special pleader. I am not putting myself at
the point of view of that group of the faithful
— it is, in truth, a very smaU one — who, every
time Pius X. speaks, exhaust themselves in their
search for new formulas of submission,* and make the
* "Pius X.," said the Croix, in its leading article on September 17,
1907, "seems to us to resemble today, in some fashion, the radiant
Christ in Raphael's immortal ' Transfiguration ' in the Vatican. High
above the thick cloud in which the world's conflict goes on, he sheds on
the Church the marvellous radiance of supernatural light. " The Abbe"
Delfour described the Encyclical as "prodigious," and M. Dimier
declared that it made one's heart leap with enthusiasm.
On September 19 the Croix again devoted its first article to the
Encyclical, and ended with these words : " Thanks to God, thanks to
the Pope, there has been more light in the intellectual and spiritual
world since the 8th of September." A month later (October 19) its
contributor, M. Cyr, defined the Encyclical as " a new ray added to
the sun of truth which enlightens the Catholic world. "
On October 25 the Armonie della Fede gave the note for the official
effusions in a phrase which made an excellent watchword, and was soon
echoed by all the clerical piess of Italy : " / Modernisti non iono piu "—
"The Modernists are no more "
We have not had to wait long to see how much these fireworks

116 MODERNISM
Bark of Peter seem less like a vessel in which one's
chief thought is of hard work, than like a gondola
which is always gliding through the same water, and
round which a few singers perform their evolutions,
with a show of Venetian lanterns and an accompani
ment of mandolines. Nor am I putting myself at the
opposite point of view — the point of view of certain
Catholics who, every time Pius X. speaks, split hairs
and quibble and ask themselves whether the Pope
has spoken ex cathedra or not — whether he has
spoken as a man or as an infallible teacher. I
quite understand this attitude and how much
piety towards the Church it reveals. I merely
say that we will not adopt it. We wiU take up a
strictly historical point of view from which to study
the origin of the famous Encyclical.
To anyone who knows the Pope and his lack of
and illuminations were worth, or with how much sincerity they were
engaged in. I give further on an extract from the same Armonie della
Fede, admitting, on November 10, the tragic isolation of Pius X.,
abandoned by his troops, who no longer understand his orders, or
perhaps do not wish to understand them (see below, p. 145). Quite
lately, too, one of the most prominent Jesuits, Pere Portali6, admitted
"the impression of alarm, of suspicion, of confusion which showed
itself in Catholic circles after the publication of the Encyclical."
(Eludes Religieuses [des Pires de la cie. de Jesus], August 5, 1908,
P- 35°' )

MODERNISM 117
culture and his ignorance as regards the present move
ment of ideas in the very bosom of Catholicism, it is
quite plain that he is not the author of the exposi
tion of Modernism which forms two-thirds of the En
cyclical. The picture is biassed, partisan, one-sided,
cruel, but it presupposes an amount of reading
which the successor of St Peter has certainly never
accomplished.* Let me say once more, we are not concerned with
a legal question — whether by giving these pages his
* The papers most bound, I will not say to the Holy See but to
the present tendency of the Holy See, fully realised that it was im
possible to attribute the paternity of the document purely and simply
to Pius X. They therefore admitted provisionally that it was the
result of collaboration. Soon, however, legend resumed its rights, and
the story of the marvellous origin of the Encyclical took shape.
It is interesting to follow this double current in the same papers.
If, for instance, you take up the Paris Croix — which welcomed the
Bull more warmly than any other newspaper in Europe — you will see
that in its issue for November 14 it reproduces without hesitation the
Memento's information that " the pontifical document is due almost
entirely to the thought and the pen of Mgr. Sajrji, Secretary of the
Briefs," and in its issue for November 21 it relates in a long article how
the Encyclical was composed.
Nevertheless M. Cyr, one of its chief contributors, speaking at the
Congress of the "bonne presse," began his account with the following
words : " A few weeks ago the whole Christian world was profoundly
moved by a solemn event. In the depths of the residence where he is
kept a prisoner by the most nefarious combinazione of modern times,
an old man knelt before his bronze crucifix for long hours of prayer and
meditation ; then, after having put himself in God's hands, in Domino,

n8 MODERNISM
authority he has made them his own ; we are engaged
in a historical inquiry. Its importance is that it
will lead us to see how the Modernists aimed at in the
first part of the Encyclical are not those at whom
Pius X. would have aimed.
, For him the prince of Modernism is the Abb6
;' Murri, the celebrated leader of the Christian Demo-
i cratic movement in Italy. The Encyclical, on the
\ other hand, is aimed chiefly and in the first place at
', the Abbe Loisy.
The latter is certainly not unknown to the Pope;
it was even said, a few years ago, that the Pope was
having the most important pages of UEvangile et
I'Eglise translated and read to him ; but the Abbe
Loisy has never come before him except in the
distant half-light in which seminarists view aU the
heretics — Arius, Eutyches, Nestorius, aU those
monsters of pride whom the Church has struck with
he wrote a few pages in Latin, which in twenty-four hours were carried
by electricity and steam to every corner of the civilised world.''
Would it not be indiscreet, after words of such ardent admiration, to
sound a calmer note and speak of the Encyclical from the point of
view of literary form ? The Pope's infallibility has never been said to
cover the language of his Bulls ; that is just as well, for it would be
decidedly compromised this time. The official translations are by no
means faithful, and in the French translation, for instance, the style is
not only odd, but full of faulty renderings.

MODERNISM 119
her thunder, and whose remains she preserves care
fully in the glass bottles of her museum of horrors
for the instruction of future generations.
The Abbe Muni, on the other hand, is a rebel in
flesh and blood with whom he has measured swords
and been wounded to the quick, by whose piercing
gaze he feels himself followed, and with whom he
must wage a duel to the death, so to speak.* The
readers of the Encyclical Pascendi have been as
tonished at its violence, but it would have been far
more violent still, had it been entirely drawn up by
the Pope. You have just seen, in fact, that the
harshest part is that which had the Pope for its
author. But there is more to be said ; the first part,
drawn up by the Pope, is extant. He was so anxious
to be understood that he wrote it in Italian, and its
name is the Encyclical Pieni V Animo of July 28,
1906. Put it at the head of the third part of the Bull
* I here allude to a fact which belongs to the time when the
future Pius X. was still Patriarch of Venice. He thought it his
duty to forbid the priests of his diocese to read the Abb£ Murri's
newspapers, and he added to the prohibition the basest insinuations
as to the personal character of the democratic priest. The latter
was at the time the guest of Cardinal Manara, Archbishop of Ancona,
whose advice he asked. He then wrote the Patriarch of Venice an
intensely indignant letter, dated from the archiepiscopal palace at
Ancona. To-day Pius X. is avenging Cardinal Sarto.

120 MODERNISM
Pascendi, and you will see that they are one in their
inspiration and also in their wrath.
Pieni V Animo is directed entirely against the Abbe
Murri and his accomplices. He is not mentioned by
name, for fear of too startling a violation of tradition,
but a finger is pointed at him. He is the man who
inhabits that house down there at Torrette.*
The encyclicals both deserve the name of encyclica
ferox, but the fiercer of the two is Pieni I' Animo.
In the Bull Pascendi the authors have been forced to
recognise that the Modernists commend themselves
by their virtues. (If this is not exactly reckoned to
them as a crime they are at least reproached with it
as an inconsistency.) Pius X., however, sees things
very differently. The partisan of the new ideas is by
definition a maleficent being who has every fault and
every vice.
" A poisoned atmosphere," he says, " is largely
corrupting men's minds in our time, and its deadly
effects are those which St Jude the Apostle has
* A little place on the Adriatic coast between Ancona and
Falconara, where the celebrated Abbe was then residing. At the
command of Pius X. he has now returned to his original diocese
(Fermo), where he lives in retirement with his uncle, the parish
priest of Gualdo di Macerata. This place is seven hours distant by
diligence from Tolentino Station (in the Marches).

MODERNISM 121
already described: 'These men, indeed, defile
their flesh, despise dominions, and speak evil of
dignities.'* Besides the most degrading corruption
of morals they have an open scorn for aU authority
and for those who exercise it."
Such are the terrible words which Pius X. has
dared to apply to a generation of young Italian
priests with whom he ought to be acquainted.
The originahty of Murri and the Lega Democratica
Nazionale is that they have aimed straight at a
double renovation: a pohtical renovation and a
moral and religious one. Having themselves come,
by the way of democratic ideas, to be no longer
afraid of the people, and then to be no longer afraid
of science, they have founded numerous groups aU
over Italy, directed more or less openly by the most
devoted section of the clergy, and several of the
bishops regard them with sympathy. A fact which
has passed unnoticed, but is none the less important,
is that the Lega Democratica Nazionale, which until
now has been essentiaUy a men's movement, has had
* Hi carnem quidem maculant, dominationem autem spernunt,
majestatem autem blasphemant, — Jude 8.

122 MODERNISM
so deep an influence that the women have desired to
take part in it. " Women's Sections " have been
founded in various regions — a thing no one would
have thought of a few years ago — and these have
sprung up quite naturally.* This development, quite
unforeseen and unplanned, is very significant when
one thinks of the state of effacement in which women
are kept by tradition in Italy.!
Another group which maintains the most cordial
relations with the Lega Democratica Nazionale is
that of the young men in MUan who bring out the
Rinnovamento, a Review which was founded a little
more than a year ago and keeps up a high standard of
* From the 24th to the 30th of April 1908 there was held in
Rome the "First Congress of the Women of Italy," which was
much talked of all over the Peninsula. On the other hand, it must
be said that foreign countries (or their Press at any rate) have not
fully appreciated the importance of these meetings for discussion.
Their importance comes, in the first place, from the fact that women
of all classes of society met together with a desire for work and
effort and progress in common. The most opposite tendencies of
thought were represented ; and, thanks to mutual goodwill on all
sides, the discussions were serious and fruitful, without anyone being
obliged to sacrifice aught of her convictions. The part played in
this important gathering by the members and friends of the Lega
Democratica Nazionale was one of the causes of its success.
t The women's groups have as their centre a Segretariato Femminile
at 37 Via della Zecca, Turin, under the direction of Signora Luisa
Giulio-Benso.

MODERNISM 123
exceUence, even as compared with the four or five
most important periodicals in Europe from the intel
lectual point of view.
It is difficult for foreigners to form a full idea of
the deep influence of Murri and his disciples, because
their activities are scattered over a wide area and
show themselves in a number of publications and
lectures and efforts of very various kinds, and these
have not so much one centre as several. The
Milanese group, on the other hand, while it has
friends and ramifications in every country, has far
more unity. It has had the good fortune and the
enviable distinction of having for its godfather
Antonio Fogazzaro. The godchild, as you have
already seen, is proving itself worthy of such a god
father. I do not think I shall be wrong in going
further and saying that the founding of the Rinnova-
mento, and the formation of an intelligent and
sympathetic public for it, is a very cheering sign of
the inteUectual and moral vitality of Italy. I should
not like to disturb the modesty of these young men,
but I do not see why I should not confess that I feel
more than sympathy for them, that I feel respect and
admiration. To see a number of men definitely form

124 MODERNISM
themselves into a group, after long years of calm pre
paration by intellectual effort and that other kind of
effort which is called prayer, after having listened to all
the voices that have been calling their country to a
new and more virile life — voices of bishops, voices of
philosophers and poets and savants, voices of reform
ing monks, and also voices from the people, in revolt
against clerical materialism and the unspeakable
poverty of doctrinaire anti-clericalism; to see these
men, after spending the novitiate of their apostleship
in the midst of the world's life, come forth before their
countrymen, deaf to the anathemas of the right and
the raillery of the left, is a spectacle which would
have real beauty anywhere, but which when it occurs
in a Latin country becomes a notable event.*
Ecclesiastical authority has taken proceedings
against them, and we have had another very sugges
tive spectacle. These men, if they had sinned against
morality and degraded their youth with vice, could
have gained the fuUest absolution. Having com
mitted the crime of wishing to work hard and honestly
tell their wants and preoccupations to him who calls
* II Rinnovamento, 15 Via Bigli, Milan. The subscription rate is
16 francs a year. The numbers appear bi-monthly, and contain
200 pages.

MODERNISM 125
himself father par excellence, and to open their souls
to him, they have been not only refused a hearing,
but cynically excommunicated.
The decree issued against them gives one reason
only : they are accused of having behaved as though
they were Doctors of the Church, of having been so
intolerably conceited as to try to teach their masters.
Had they done so the harm would not perhaps have
been very great, and I know parents who do not
throw their children out of window every time they
think they know better than father and mother. But
this is a question of facts. AU the numbers of the
Rinnovamento are on sale and can be bought. I do
not think you wiU find in any of the articles the
intolerable conceit which has so raised the ire of the
Holy See.
The Rinnovamento group is composed essentially
of laymen; on the other hand, the group in Rome
which inspires Nova et Vetera, a monthly publication
started after the Encyclical — this proves that the
latter has kiUed nothing and stopped nothing — is
composed chiefly of ecclesiastics.* Though prohibited
* Nova et Vetera, a fortnightly review. 13 fr. 50 a year. Offices:
10 Via della Scrofa, Rome. Any work relating to the Modernist
movement in Italy may be obtained by application to the manage!

126 MODERNISM
under the severest penalties by the Cardinal Vicar,
this Review continues to appear, and has just devoted
a whole number to a study and analysis of the Abbe
Loisy's latest works. It is issued by the Societa
Internazionale Scientifico-Religiosa, which had
already published the Reply of the Modernists,
recently translated into English.* Many of you wUl
have read this work, with the important preface by
the Rev. A. L. LiUey, and, guided by the sym
pathetic vicar of St Mary's, Paddington, wiU have

He will send free of charge, if requested, the regulations of the Societa
Internazionale Scientifico-Religiosa.
In the first column of the Croix for September 17, 1907, the follow
ing appeared in heavy type : " The Encyclical on the errors of the
Modernists is announced and summarised by the whole Press. Among
the Catholic papers there is no discordant note. The ardour with
which the most decidedly anti-clerical papers take the part of the
Modernists against the Pope is a fresh condemnation of the Modernists
in the eyes of Catholics."
In these lines the famous journal merely showed its ardent desire
that affairs should take this course ; as a matter of fact things were
quite otherwise, and among those who were sincere in applauding the
Bull the mouthpiece of the Vatican might have distinguished two
clearly marked groups — the clerical politicians and the militant anti-
clericals. * // Programma dei Modernisti. Risposta alP Encyclica di Pio X.
Pascendi Dominici Gregis. Rome, 1908. 238 pp. The Programme
of Modernism, translated by Father Tyrrell, with an Introduction by
A. L. Lilley, Vicar of St Mary's, Paddington Green. London:
T. Fisher Unwin. 290 + xxivpp.

MODERNISM 127
been able to see its exceptional value. A material
detail, the mention of which has been omitted, I
beheve, in the English edition, but which is valuable
as a sign of the awakening of interest in religious
questions in Italy, is that the Risposta dei Modernisti,
an anonymous work and therefore without any name
to recommend it to the crowd, a work which not
only requires serious study, but is in parts difficult
reading, was sold out in a fortnight.
What I have been telling you will by no means give
you an idea of the full extent of the Modernist move
ment in Italy ; to do that I should have to call your
attention to a whole crowd of other publications,
which are in different degrees the outcome of the new
orientation — the Vita Religiosa, the Rassegna Nazion
ale, the Pagine Buone, the Savonarola, the Battaglic
d'Oggi, the Liberta — I give their names haphazard,
and of course without the least attempt at classi
fication. These are the men and the publications that are the
first objects of Pius X.'s pursuit. Don Romolo
Murri seems to him more culpable and more formid- #'
able than Loisy, TyrreU and the rest, not only because

128 MODERNISM
he knows him, but because Murri is guilty of a heresy
worse than all others, the heresy of not worshipping
the present political and social order like a fetish.*
It is the same with the young men in MUan. He
knows them. First as bishop, then as patriarch, he
distributed to them medals, sweetmeats, benedictions,
aU those little favours which Italian clergy bestow so
willingly and so lavishly. When he was made Pope
he hoped to see them become good, obedient httle
boys, who would ask the Church to support the exist
ing social order and would do her homage in return.
Thus the resistance he has met with seems to him
not merely an ecclesiastical but a pohtical matter,
and this makes him stiU more anxious. He sees
every foundation overturned, every authority
despised, and it is for this reason that he, the Pontiff
of the Roman Church, has quite naturaUy found a

* The condemnation of the Abbe Dabry and the Abbe1 Naudet,
who were ordered, by a decree of the Inquisition, dated February 13,
1908, to cease forthwith the publication of the Vie Catholique and the
Justice Sociale, made a profound impression in France. It was indeed
a startling proof — since the two priests had never concerned themselves
with questions of dogma and were supported by their bishops, who
vouched for their orthodoxy — that henceforth Rome considered Leo
XIII.'s efforts a mistake, and would no longer permit her priests to
be anti-Conservatives in politics.

MODERNISM 129
friend and ally in that Lutheran Protestant, His
Majesty the Emperor WiUiam II.
However much the theologians whom the Pope
gathered round him to draw up the condemnation
of Modernism, might desire to enter into his
ideas, they could not attain to such a degree of
ineffable simplicity. Though quite as little disposed
as he was to favour democracy and the rights of man,
they had had too much theological training not to see
that the real question lay on a higher plane.
Besides, most of these theologians were not
Italians; neither Father BiUot, nor Father Jansens,
nor Father Wrenz, nor Father Fleming, nor Father
Pie de Langogne are of that race. They had probably
no inclination to plunge into the reading of the
innumerable productions of Murri, who seemed to
them a popular champion rather than a real theo
logian. The large place occupied by Murri in the
Pope's thoughts appeared to them a sort of optical
iUusion. There were even some who felt a little
out of humour. Custom had made them tolerate an
Itahan Pope, but that the leader of the Modernist
heresy should be an Italian was disagreeable to them.
That was too great an honour for Italy!

130 MODERNISM
If they did not know Murri they knew Loisy
thoroughly. The word " know " is here a way of
speaking ; I mean that they had read and re-read his
two little books, and had felt themselves face to face
with a singularly formidable antagonist. Thus it is
that the place occupied by Murri in the Encyclical
Pieni V Animo is occupied by Loisy in the Encychcal
Pascendi and the SyUabus Lamentabili.
You now see how the most absolute power there
has ever been on earth, at the very moment when it is
exercised by a Pontiff who beheves in his own infalli-
bUity without a shade of hesitation, is dependent on
invisible and irresponsible coUaborators. The Pope
has the fuUest power, but his freedom is quite
limited, and you have just seen some of the influences
which have in fact suppressed this freedom in the case
of one of his most solemn acts.
It has been calculated that, of the sixty-five pro
positions condemned by the SyUabus, Loisy has
furnished nearly fifty. The space he occupies in the
Encyclical is hardly less. Together with him a
certain number of other Modernists have been aimed
at in a haphazard way, either because the editors were
ashamed to be so little in the swim of the movement

MODERNISM 131
as a whole, or because they wanted to have the
pleasure of warning such and such a one that thence
forward the avenging eye of authority would be upon
him. In the Bull Pieni V Animo, as in the SyUabus
Lamentabili and the Encyclical Pascendi, the men
aimed at represent principles, and what comes out
everywhere is the conflict between Religion and
Science. Pius X., himself committing the sin
with which he reproaches his victims so bitterly,
starts from the a priori assumption that Science ought
to be the handmaid of Faith. The Modernists have
no thought either of maintaining this thesis or of
defending its opposite. They observe the facts, and
very soon perceive that in the Middle Ages Religion
protected, sheltered and saved Science. During
that period the Church very naturaUy took up an
attitude of command towards the guest whom she
harboured. Later on, however, Science, after having
long shown aU the gratitude she owed, after having
made herself smaU and humble before her hostess,
and rendered her aU the services in her power,
became graduaUy aware of a change in her senti
ments. Having grown strong and robust, she

132 MODERNISM
became conscious that thoughts of independence
were springing up in her heart.
Relations of this kind, lasting for centuries, leave
traces which cannot be removed in one generation.
The day has come when fuU explanations are de
manded. The Church has reproached Science with
ingratitude, and then offered to take her back into
favour on condition that she should return to the
old relations which made the one a benefactress and
put the other under an obligation. Science has refused
to listen to such language. She is even inclined to
think that the services rendered her in the old days
were not altogether disinterested.
That is how matters stand, and at the present
moment the crisis is at an acute stage. But, as the
Italian proverb says, " Time is a good feUow." The
Modernists have arrived, and I beheve they are
going to arrange everything. See what will happen,
what is already a preparing. Science is not an entity ;
she is represented by men, men who are often very
young and perhaps have not always shown the Church
the attentions and devotion which her clergy love so
well. But they are decent folk and very good-
hearted at bottom. Unless I am very much mistaken

MODERNISM 133
they are about to render distinguished service to the
Church and to prove their gratitude to her. In the
Middle Ages the Church saved Science; in the
twentieth century Science will save the Church.
What else, indeed, are aU the new movements of
thought and study in relation to religious questions,
the chairs of religious history which are being founded
on aU sides, but an exphcit acknowledgment of the
importance of religious phenomena? How can
Churches which feel themselves founded on a rock
find any cause for trembling? How can they fail to
see the opportunity that is offered them to show
before aU men their titles to nobUity ?
I am well aware that people say that the study of
religious history is conducted in a spirit of opposition
to the Church. What does that matter ? Can all the
effort in the world succeed in suppressing anything
that exists? Let us admit the justice of the com
plaint, the result wiU be aU the more striking. Some
representatives of the Churches cry out that Faith is
on her trial; but ought not Faith to be glad? Even
if she were offered the choice of her judges would
she not refuse and say : " I am sure of myself. What
have I to fear? "

134 MODERNISM
It is possible that a few misguided folk may
occasionally have sought out some master of science
and whispered in his ear, " Come, curse me this
people! " But even if there were any savants so
devoid of the scientific spirit as to start out with such
intentions, could men who reaUy believe be troubled
or afraid? Have they not read those pages in the
Holy Book which teU how Balak sought to suborn
Balaam: " Come, I pray thee, curse me this people,
for they are too mighty for me ; peradventure I shaU
prevail, that we may smite them, and that I may
drive them out of the land ; for I wot that he whom
thou blessest is blessed, and he whom thou cursest is
cursed." But when Balaam has come to the hill-top he
cannot curse him whom the Lord hath blessed, and
a power he knows not puts blessings on his lips :
" How goodly are thy tents, O Jacob,
And thy tabernacles, O Israel !
As the valleys are they spread forth,
As gardens by the river's side ! "
Numbers xxiv. 5, 6.

Ill
In the foregoing lectures I have tried to show you that
the new orientation is in no way destructive, but that,
abandoning the purely metaphysical point of view
and the dialectic method which has hitherto been
foUowed by aU the theologies and aU the anti-
theologies, it thereby transforms our inteUectual,
rehgious and moral activity.
Take, for example, the question of questions, that
of authority. You know that the plulosophy of the
Middle Ages reasoned pretty much as foUows: In
order to have the right to command and be obeyed
it is necessary to be the supreme truth: therefore
the Church, since she commands, is the supreme
truth. The Reformers came, and, without letting them
selves be stopped by the perfectly clear fact that
the Church existed before the Bible, and not the
reverse, they set up the authority of the Bible against
that of the Church, and almost immediately were
.135

136 MODERNISM
foUowed by pure rationalism, which, stiU starting
from the same premises, set up human reason against
both the Church and the Bible.
The mediseval phUosopher has not the least sus
picion that the Church is a living organism; the
Protestant is driven to desperate expedients because
he does not see that the unity of the Bible is a
unity not of substance and essence, but of develop
ment and life ; the rationalist is obliged to speak as if
the reason of a cannibal and the reason of his fellow-
countrymen were one and the same. These three
systems are equally erroneous because they are con
tradicted by the facts.
It is not the capricious thought of one man or one
period which has given them birth and caused them
to endure; it is that they were necessary at a par
ticular moment. They are, so to speak, shelters, at
once indispensable and provisional, which mankind
in its march towards the heights has been forced to
build for itself, for refuge and self-recoUection and
renewal of strength.
The vast majority of men are obliged to confound
law with a code. They cannot, if they are to
reverence it, bring themselves to the idea of a law

MODERNISM 137
which is not absolute, but advances by slow and
painful steps. At a low stage of development men
are obedient only to force, but little by little behind
brute force there opens out the idea of moral force ;
the tyrant himself puts his tyranny under the pro
tection of a power greater than himself ; it is by God
that he has been invested with authority. Mankind
does not stop there, however, and graduaUy the time
comes when, in order to reverence the law, it has no
need to beheve it to have descended from Sinai, and
when the law binds us, even where it cannot compel,
simply because it answers to our best selves.
Who can deny that these are three stages through
which mankind has reaUy passed, through which
each of us must in some fashion pass in the course of
his life!
We are met by authority at our birth, in our
cradle. Hardly have we stammered out our first
words when already it no longer forces itself upon us,
but seeks to win our assent, becomes affectionately
persuasive, and desires rather to call forth an echo in
our chUdish conscience than to make itself feared
and obtain definite results.
A child is not a machine designed to perform

138 MODERNISM
this or that action, he is a soul, an individuality ; the
purpose of education is not to make him give forth
our note, but his own; not to make him repeat
eternaUy the same words, but to provide him with an
inheritance which he wiU increase ; to guide him into
a path along which we shaU keep him company for
a few days or a few hours more, and along which he
wiU then speed in his turn, ever further, ever higher.
Whence comes this authority? Is it absolute? Is
it transcendent ? All these are questions which used
to be raised once, but which nobody thinks about
now. Formerly authority gave a father power of
life and death over his chUdren. To-day this seems
to us monstrous ; and what was provided for by law
a few centuries ago would now be the most abomin
able of crimes. Yet there has been no revolution:
our civUisation is still in great measure founded on
Roman law. There has been an evolution, and,
mark you well, morals have been in advance of laws.
To-day parents understand quite clearly that they
exist for their children, and not their chUdren for
them. That insignificant little being is not yours,
you are his.
Just so is it with religious authority. It takes us

MODERNISM 139
at our cradle, and caUs us its chUdren, and such we
are in reahty, since we owe to it the language by
which we express our deepest emotions and our
highest aspirations; but this language is not an end,
it is only a.means, an instrument, a " making ready,"
to use a printer's term.
The Church is not the end, she is the mother, the
educator — a mother who is the more worthy of our
love the more she forgets herself. She rejoices to
see her chUdren bear her name and take after her.
She rejoices above all to learn that they have
discovered horizons which she had not so much as
suspected. Such is, if I am not mistaken, the point of view
of Modernism as regards authority. The disputes
between Protestants and Cathohcs who set up the
Bible against the Church, or the Church against the
Bible, have merely a historical interest for it. They
seem to it as strange as theconductof a son who should
set up his father's authority against his mother's;
Modernism accepts both, together, conjointly, in a
spirit of liberty and life. Far from abolishing them,
it makes them more inward things.
You may think, perhaps, that this is an excel-

140 MODERNISM
lent arrangement in words or on paper, but that
in everyday reality domestic authority, like religious
authority, is represented by human beings under
whose rule life is not so easy as under that of abstrac
tions. I do not deny it ; it is obvious that a clear vision
of the purpose of education is as rare in the Church as
in the famUy. There are fathers, and even mothers,
who are monsters, and sometimes religious authority
is represented by incapable or unworthy people, or
by old men who do not know what they are doing.
If authority wishes to be respected it must of course
show itself worthy of respect, and not make morbid
attempts to encroach upon a territory that is not its
own. It is not easy to fix limits, but which of you
would think it right that a ploughman, whose son had
become an engineer, should attempt to guide him in
his scientific calculations under the pretext of
paternal authority? We have lately been delighted
to see the President of the French Repubhc give the
place of honour to his old mother, a humble, white-
capped peasant; we have been especiaUy delighted
to hear his voice vibrate with love and gratitude and
admiration ; but what should we have thought if that
humble peasant, instead of enjoying ah these things

MODERNISM 141
and pondering them in her heart, had forgotten her
part as mother and had claimed to give the statesman
orders or directions?
Mistakes of this kind have been known to history ;
she is witnessing one at this moment when she sees
the Church forget her part and claim to dictate to
her chUdren what they are to think in phUosophy, in
history, nay, even in natural science.
I shall be told that scientific opinion is a very
unsteady, a very changeable thing, subject to a thou
sand mistakes. Nothing can be truer. A child of
fifteen has always much less knowledge than his
father, but he has more knowledge and better about
certain subjects. Parents of average inteUigence
feel this ; must we think that the Church wiU not end
by understanding it too, that she wiU choose to go on
imposing the foolish decisions of the Roman Con
gregations, made up of men who think they know
without having learnt? The Church has already
understood, for we must not let ourselves be deceived
by words, which is precisely the mistake I made just
now in letting myself be drawn into caUing that
the Church which is only her government. Pius X.,
with or without the offices of the Curia, is no more

142 MODERNISM
the Church than Louis XIV. was the State, or than
the Clemenceau ministry is France.
The Church in reality is the society formed by
those who claim fellowship with the Christ, and,
above aU, she is the stUl vaster society of those who,
unconsciously and without knowing His blessed
name, live in His spirit and continue His work.
" Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold;
them also I must bring, and they shall hear My
voice ; and there shaU be one fold, and one shepherd."
It is not the Church, but the present government
of the Church, which has faUed so completely to
understand the crisis of authority. That govern
ment has seen only a revolt which a few violent
measures would suffice to stifle in what is the
normal, legitimate and inevitable outcome of the
evolution of the conscience of our time.
The notion of authority has been transformed in
the family ; in the school, where the Magister dixit
has given place to the method which uses traditional
ideas to stimulate the individual mind; and in the
State, where the subject has become a citizen. It wUl
be transformed in the realm of religion also, and there
too it wiU become a more inward matter. No longer

MODERNISM 143
wiU there be on one side omniscience and on the other
absolute ignorance; on one side tyranny and on the
other servitude ; there wiU be on the one side under
standing and on the other obedience — the obedience
of a being who feels his weakness and his need of
guidance, but has already a glimpse of vaster horizons,
who hears the mysterious sigh of creation in travail
and wishes to do his part as a good husbandman,
to give forth his note in the harmony of the worlds.
Let us be patient. What the Church's govern
ment does not understand to-day it will understand
to-morrow. Neither Pius X., nor Cardinal Merry del
Val, nor Mgr. Benigni, nor Their Eminences the
Cardinals of the Biblical Commission, who take no
account of the labours of the Consultori,* are eternal.
j- * The Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies, which has
| recently given such strange judgments in regard to the Pentateuch,
\ the Fourth Gospel and the Book of Isaiah, is made up of Cardinals
! Rampolla, Satolli, Merry del Val, Segna, and Vives y Tuto. These
distinguished personages, who are quite strangers to Biblical studies,
are the only members with a voice ; their votes alone determined
the answers which so much astonished the learned world. There
are indeed by their side, or rather below them, fifty consultori,
who are, in some degree at any rate, conversant with the questions ;
but no attention is paid to their opinion if it conflicts with the
Cardinals' views. The decisions of the Commission are of great
importance as a. precise indication of tfce scientific and intellectual
level of the Curia Romana.

144 MODERNISM
Do not misunderstand my words ; I wish aU these
personages as long a life as possible, and I should
hke with all my heart to prostrate myself at their
feet and repeat efficaciously the prayer of the old
liturgies — Ad multos annos! Yes, I wish them
a long hfe; may no obstacle come from without
to check the expansion of the system or prevent its
fruits from reaching fuU maturity! The Modernists
have no better collaborators.
Martyrs are not made with impunity. The
Cathohc conscience — not only the conscience of the
people but the conscience of the hierarchy — is no
longer with the supreme authority. Please under
stand me. There is no thought of breaking with
authority, but people regret its measures, are
wounded by them, nay, even scandalised. What
must a spiritual authority be when it does not even
occur to it that the sword is not enough, that it ought
to carry a light in the other hand, were that light but
a modest lantern !
What must a spiritual authority be which does not
even dream of getting its decrees ratified by the
conscience of its members! Hence the immense
disaffection which has invaded the Church, and is

MODERNISM 145
acknowledged even in the columns of the journals
which most faithfuUy interpret the Pontiff's
ideas. The foUowing, for instance, may be read in
the Armonie della Fede for November 10, 1907:
" It is an undeniable fact that many, yes, many
priests give no heed whatever to Modernism, this
synthesis of aU the heresies which has penetrated to
the very heart of the Church, this latent apostasy
which so much preoccupies the mind of Pius X., these
errors which have shpped into all branches of
ecclesiastical discipline, and go so far as even to
undermine the whole system of dogma. It is an
undeniable fact that even to-day most of these men
stand in front of the Encychcal with an air of astonish
ment, as though they did not understand it, or as
though they were taxing their brains to find in it
some idea which would help them to see their
position and understand the utUity of the document.
The result is that the pontifical act loses its efficacy.
The Pope is left almost alone in the battle, like a general
who advances too far ahead against the enemy, and
is abandoned by his men, who no longer hear his
orders, or do not, or perhaps will not, understand
them."

146 MODERNISM
This state of mind in the flock cannot tail to react
upon those who lead it. The day is perhaps not far
off when the Catholics of the whole world wUl feel
astonishment that a Church which is universal should
be practicaUy ruled by a government exclusively
Italian and Roman. Already, on ail sides, Catholics
who are not even Modernists are raising the question
of authority, not in order to repudiate authority but
in order to obey it the better. WUl they do it an
injury by choosing to obey in the light rather than in
darkness ? by trusting themselves to its guidance,
but striving to see whither it is leading them?
At the bottom of Modernism there is, you see, not
a more or less studied plan to get rid of excrescences
— such as there has been in aU attempts at reform —
but an effort to arrive at an idea of the Church which
shall be closer to life and truer in practice. Among
contemporary peoples the idea of the fatherland is
growing purer, wider, more intense, more ideal.
The same evolution is taking place in the idea of
the Church.
For a Modernist, to believe what the Church believes
is, indeed, to repeat the old creeds, to join one's voice
to the chanting of the community, but it is more

MODERNISM 147
besides; above all, it is to live with the hfe of the
Church — the life of a society which in the midst of
time thinks of eternity, which wiU not let itself be
crushed by the cares of the present time, but feels its
strength and fecundity. It is neither to despise
tradition nor to canonise it ; but to draw from it, as a
plant draws from a generous soil, elements which
seem quite inferior — to assimUate and elaborate
them, and bear new fruit. For the Modernist, to be
a Catholic is not to have the ideas of one man, of one
period, of one school, it is to vibrate in unison with
the thought of aU the ages, to understand its sequence,
its evolution, its stages, its hfe ; to see how paganism
was the necessary prelude to the worship of Jehovah,
how this was the preface to the visions of the pro
phets, how the seers of Israel were the forerunners
of Him who was meek and lowly in heart, and
who left behind Him some of those very ideas
which inspire the programme of Modernism —
" Think not that I am come to destroy the law
or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but
to fulfil."
The Gospels have preserved for us another saying
of His, which has lain there like a seed that has not

148 MODERNISM
yet germinated — we have not yet realised its fuU
meaning and significance : " The Sabbath was made
for man, and not man for the Sabbath." All the reli
gious institutions of the past, that is to say, are good,
on condition that we grasp their spirit and direction.
They are to be venerated on condition that they be
means of expansion, of uphfting, of emancipation,
and not cages to imprison us or centres of hatred
towards everyone who does not think as we do. The
Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the
Sabbath; the Church was made for man, and not
man for the Church.
" But," say the official theologians, " you insinuate
that Christ Himself f eU into the heresy of relativism,
of evolutionary ideas." I insinuate nothing, I simply
affirm that these words are in the Gospels. I affirm
that Jesus and His apostles never ceased to frequent
the synagogues, and that, when driven out, they
returned to them again. Was that an opportunist
way of acting, a ruse? Who would dare to fling
this insult at them? They had a right to claim
that they were more Jewish than the Jews, and
to feel, in spite of aU appearances, interdicts,
excommunications, that they themselves were the

MODERNISM 149
true servants of the Law, the successors of the
prophets. But see, the Holy Office returns with its decree,
and the theologians advance, brandishing the Bull.
They close round Him who has proclaimed that the
Church was made for man : " Master, what thinkest
Thou of immanence and transcendence, of the
relative and the absolute? " And I seem to behold
the Master depart, answering them not, or, it may be,
murmuring : " Father, forgive them, for they know
not what they say."
That feeling of love which gives the Modernist a
sense that he is a son of the Church, a servant of
authority, and also that he has a son's liberty, guides
his whole life, aU his work, aU his thought. He wiU
study the Bible like a pure savant, and he will study
it better, even from the scientific point of view,
because he regards it as his own book, his famUy
history, the book through which he gradually becomes
conscious of himself, of his moral being. It wUl
not even occur to him to be afraid of criticism, for
his certainty of the Bible's worth is a fact of experi
ence, beyond and above criticism.
In his study of the Bible he wiU show himself very

150 MODERNISM
different from the orthodox Protestant who, under
a pretext of reverence for the divine book, persuades
himself that ail its parts are on a level, that aU alike
are oracles. Not less does he differ from the rational
istic Protestant who takes and leaves, approves and
disapproves, without seeing that by thus separating
the wood from the bark, what edifies from what
gives offence, he ends by making a selection which
each newcomer wUl reduce stiU further, and which
has the fundamental defect pf being artificial and
lifeless. The Modernist, on the contrary, rises from
words to things; to him nothing appears isolated or
static ; he introduces at all points the idea of soli
darity and life.
What the consequences of such a point of view are
you can see in relation to dogma. At the opposite
pole to that conservatism which regards a dogma as a
metaphysical definition, something like the theorems
of a sort of religious geometry, Modernism regards it
as a kind of organism which is very hard to foUow in
its beginning and during its period of gestation,
something which lives, develops, grows, and throws
out branches. At a certain period in its life a dogma
may have become so enticing, so much in harmony

MODERNISM 151
with the needs of the time, so noble and so fruitful,
that men have forgotten its humble origin, its infancy
and its cradle. The Modernist rejoices to contem
plate it at such moments, but when the evil days
come, and it looks aged and wrinkled, he does not
despise it, for he knows that though the forms of
dogma grow old and may even seem to die, they
do so only to rise again, transfigured, the moment
after. I wish that at this point I could teU you at length
of the work of M. Edouard Le Roy, who has raised the
question of dogma in such a way as to compel the
whole Cathohc world to listen to his voice, discuss
his ideas, and enter into his preoccupations. The
publication of his volume, Dogme et Critique,
marks a date in religious history. The thought
of the eminent Professor is at once so rich and so
sober, so cautious and so penetrating, that I cannot
content myself with a summary, but must confine
myself to referring you to the book. You must read
and re-read it if you would understand the life that
is palpitating in our generation. It is a book of
faith and love, in which there is not a line but helps
us to a better understanding and love of the past, or

152 MODERNISM
gives us inteUectual and moral strength to make
ready the future.
Modernism is not a philosophy, but none the less
'there is a Modernist phUosophy which consists in
studying the facts of rehgion by the method of
observation.* Modernism is not a pohtical creed,
and yet there is a Modernist attitude in politics.
Whfle their adversaries rejoice — I am speaking for
France only — at what they caU the crimes of the
Government, and hope that out of weariness and
fear the people wiU take refuge in the Church's
arms, the Modernists mistrust such triumphs,
and desire a conversion which shall be the work
of God in man and not the work of fear, which
shaU be a moral act of the whole nation, entered
into with a fuU understanding of its meaning, and
not the adhesion of a poor, fainting, crazy organism.
Thus, on whatever side we look, we see the charac
teristic feature of Modernism to be such a sense of life
as is only to be found elsewhere, in so high a degree, in
the parables of Jesus. But Modernism has not only
the sense of hfe, it has also the possession of it. The
• Loisy's Autour dun Petit Livre, p. 157.

MODERNISM 153
offspring of the past, it feels itself also the parent
of the future.
Its activity and its hfe are transformed by this
consciousness, even down to mere detaUs of worship
and liturgical use. For it a whole crowd of questions
which distress other people do not even present them
selves. The idea, for instance, of going back to the
beginnings of the Church, and reconstructing the scene
of the Last Supper, would seem to a Modernist as
naive as if a grown man were to make impossible
attempts to become a chUd again. The idea of
seeking for the period at which Christianity received
its most perfect expression would seem to him the
dream of an archaeologist arranging a historical
exhibition. Once more, let me repeat, the Modernist Catholic
destroys nothing and gives up nothing ; he accepts
everything and makes it live. The Mass, the present
centre of worship, does not become for him an anti
quarian rite, like those Buddhist ceremonies some
times performed in our great capitals for the delecta
tion of a sceptical and blase public ; it remains what
it is, or rather it gains new significance and new
life. The sighs of the ages have passed into it,

154 MODERNISM
the first dim struggles of awakening rehgious
thought have left their traces there in the mysterious
figure of Melchizedek; the memory of the Jewish
Passover pervades it, in wondrous harmony with the
memory of the Upper Room. The Christian Pass
over is born, a feast of love and communion, whose
end is not only to nourish our life from day to day
but to give us strength to face the toU of the morrow
— a feast from which the disciple rises, uttering no
mere passive Fiat, but going forth to his work and to
his labour. " I go, Lord, to help forward, as much
as in me lies, the realisation of Thy kingdom." It is
a banquet of those who find full satisfaction neither
in the past nor the present, but know that they are
going forth to their agony, to the great struggle —
" Arise, let us go hence."
The development which began thousands of years
before did not cease with the Christ. St Paul turns
the gaze of his communicants eagerly towards the
future : "As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this
cup, ye do shew the Lord's death tiU He come "
(i Cor. xi. 26). A generation passes and the perspec
tive is enlarged. The Didache puts on the lips of the
Christians of its time one of the most beautiful

MODERNISM 155
prayers the human soul has ever lisped, a hymn of
thanksgiving in which the Church becomes conscious
of her catholicity, of her oneness not only with her
members but with aU Nature; in which she feels
herself very weak and very imperfect, but feels also
the infinite power which the consciousness of her
vocation gives her.
" As this bread that is broken was scattered upon
the mountains, and gathered together, and became
one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the
ends of the earth into Thy kingdom. . . . Re
member, Lord, Thy Church, to dehver her from aU
evil, and to perfect her in Thy love, and gather
together from the four winds her that is sanctified into
Thy kingdom which Thou didst prepare for her." *
Then come the Middle Ages, the time of great
dogmatic definitions ; the cult of the Holy Sacrament,
the cathedrals and processions — expressions, aU these,
of thought which stammers in its utterance and yet
grows clearer and clearer. And when at last the
Modernist priest reaches the present time, you can
understand what emotion must fiU him when he sees
afar off the great masses who have never heard of
* Dr Bigg's translation.

156 MODERNISM
Christ or the Church, when he sees them turning
towards those ideas of union, of sohdarity, of
peace, of labour, and of hberty which have found
their completest expression in the Eucharistic
Feast. For such a priest the Mass is anything but a mere
rite, an empty form, a ceremonial turning to the east ;
it gives breadth and purpose to his life, and is at once
its historic and its symbohc expression. His whole
existence, one might say, is but a translation into
deeds of the aspirations which the liturgy puts on the
lips of the celebrant at the most solemn moment of
the Consecration of the Eucharist. Communicantes
murmurs the priest, in a low, low voice, like words of
love which a man speaks to his betrothed and hardly
articulates, because he feels their weakness. J/
When the Modernist reaches these heights who
can separate him from the Church? What can cause
him fear or even embarrassment? Authority and
unity, dogma, forms of worship, the Papacy, these
are far from being obstacles for him, they are
supports. They are the Vetera, the " things old," to
which he wiU add the nova, the " things new " —
nova not merely logical or dialectical or fanciful,

MODERNISM 157
but nova which have sprung from the Vetera, and
have blossomed upon their stem.
Modernism, you see, is not in the least an inteUec
tual synthesis which is fixed and unalterable; stiU
less is it an ephemeral sect or combination. It has
been born everywhere at the same moment, and
involuntarily, the only way in which a living being
can be born. It has neither sought to flee from
science nor to make an aUy of her, nor yet has it
ignored her. It has had no searchings of heart about
her, any more than the right hand could dream of
quarreUing with the left, or the intellect of entering
into a conflict with the heart.
Modernism is a great reconciler, and, for those who
view it from without, its most characteristic feature,
perhaps, is that it is a messenger of peace. It does
not bring about reconcihations by demanding of
both parties concessions and sacrifices which im
poverish each; it reconciles them without thinking
about it, or studying how to do it, without acting as
a judge; by strengthening both and giving to each
that fuU and complete possession of himself which
leaves no opening for jealousy or rivalry.

158 MODERNISM
Having reconciled science and faith, Modernism
is now not far from coming to terms with free-
thought. I seem at this point to hear the cries of joy
with which in certain quarters these words will be
received; they wiU be taken as an admission of the
identity of Modernism with unbelief, and I shaU be
credited with the very opposite of my real meaning.
What matter! Those who read these hnes even in
order to refute me, wUl be already on the road to
Modernism, for but one way is open to them, if they
do not wish to be drawn along, and that is to see and
hear nothing.
When I speak of " free thought " it goes without
saying that I am using the term in its etymological
sense, that I am speaking of free thought in which
there is at once thought and freedom, not of men or
groups of men who confound free thought with anti-
religious dogmatism. I am not speaking of people
who, having been so unfortunate as to see only the
maladies of religion, commit spiritual suicide in order
to escape them.
Though there are free-thinkers of this sort, and
very noisy ones, I am careful not to forget that
there are others who are eminently religious, who are

MODERNISM 159
irreligious out of rehgion. I know that some of
these — some of the most distinguished of them —
on reading the works of TyrreU and Loisy, have been
filled with emotion at the thought that the day was
about to come when the old Church would enlarge
the place of her tent and cry, " Peace, peace, to
him that is far off, and to him that is near."
These sentiments have not remained merely
private and personal, they have been manifested
outwardly. Both in Italy and in France some of
the most influential leaders of free-thought have
pubhcly repudiated aU connection with anti-religious
propaganda. The names of Arturo Graf and Vander-
velde, of SeaUles and Deherme, caU up the idea of
free-thought which reaUy deserves the name. These
preoccupations have even given rise to a new title —
" rehgious free-thought." The movement is no
longer a mere pious wish, it has become a reality, and
aU through this winter gatherings have been held in
Paris at which free-thinkers as representative as
Buisson, Pecaut and SeaUles, and Christians as weU-
known as Pere Hyacinthe Loyson, Charles Wagner
and Wilfred Monod, have met together and spoken in
succession.

160 MODERNISM
People who are opposed to these meetings between
Christians and free-thinkers wiU no doubt inform me
that no Roman Catholic priests are to be found there.
I am able to say that there have been some there,
and I may add that the reason why they are there no
longer is that they have been expressly forbidden to
go. What argument can be drawn from this physical
and enforced absence, when in mind, heart and
wiU Roman priests are there, sitting side by side with
the men just named? Need I say that in these meet
ings there is no question of sacrificing anything what
soever of one's own thought ? Men go there in that
spirit of faith and love which forced to the lips of a
forerunner of Modernism, Pere Lacordaire, these
noble words : " I care not to convince my opponents
of error, I aspire to be united with them in a higher
truth." It will be said that before setting out to convert
the world the Modernists ought to agree among
themselves, and that there is far from being a com
plete unity of thought among those who are recog
nised as the most unquestionable representatives of
Modernism. No, there is no unity of thought; not
only do I confirm this, but I am glad to do so. I

MODERNISM 161
would advise those who are tempted to regard these
diversities as an indication of death to read the New
Testament, if only in a superficial way, and to see
whether in the earliest Christian communities there
were not quite as great diversities, and whether ques
tions of principle, even, were not at stake.
Modernism is already virtuaUy victorious. But
why should we speak of victors and vanquished?
Perhaps at the approach of winter you have wandered
in the forest and noticed certain plane trees whose
leaves seemed not to be able to f aU. Little by little the
other trees are stripped bare; at the least breeze
their leaves ghde, sUent and melancholy, to the
earth. For these planes, on the contrary, the wind
must blow with violence, and then in a few minutes
the tree loses a third or half of its leafage. To carry
off what remains a fresh storm is needed, and lo!
when January comes, at the end of the stripped
branches a few large leaves which have stood out
against the blasts, may stiU be seen to wave.
The spring comes, the sap rises; near the ground
the tree puts forth shoots, and up there the old leaves
stiU remain. What do they think of aU that is
happening down there in the trunk, what do they

162 MODERNISM
think of the buds? The days of their youth are so
far away, and since then so many storms have beat
upon them that they no longer understand. And
yet, see, a strange trembling comes upon them. The
evening breeze rocks and enfolds them: "It is
bringing me a royal mantle," thinks the old and
venerable leaf. " Have I not triumphantly resisted
aU the storms, have I not seen aU my sisters pass
away? " Alas! the royal mantle was but a shroud,
and, in its turn, the leaf which has stood out so long
glides silently to the earth.
Is it not true that something analogous takes place
in the world of institutions and ideas? Modernism
is as sure of the future as the sap which rises in the
tree, and aU the forces hurled against it wiU be as
ineffectual as an army sent out against the spring.
Or rather it would be truer to say that its persecution
by ecclesiastical authority has rendered Modernism
an inestimable service, by keeping off sceptics and
casual visitors and dilettanti.
Pius X. wiU not stop half-way. We shaU see
him make mistakes not only as to the origin and
aims of the new movement, but as to its most obvious
and characteristic facts. We shah see the authority

MODERNISM 163
which claims to search into the secret things of God,
incapable of making accurate quotations, attributing
to its children the very opposite of their real thought,
the very opposite of what they have said in the
clearest possible way.
It is not for me to judge the metaphysical bases of
the BuU Pascendi, but since it professes to give a
faithful portrait of Modernism I have a right to say
that this portrait not only alters the physiognomy of
those condemned by the BuU, but completely dis
torts it.
It is not true that the Modernists start with an
a priori assumption and that their exegesis is the
chUd of their phUosophy. The Abb6 Loisy, hke the
Abbe Murri, and hke many others whom I might
name, but wiU not, for prudence' sake — priests and
laymen, rehgious and prelates — started with a
patient study of the texts. Even those who are
specialists in philosophy, hke Blondel, Laberthon
niere, Fonsegrive and Le Roy, have not started with
an a -priori but with observation of the facts of re
hgion. It is not true that Modernism springs from
ignorance of scholastic philosophy, for its leaders
were brought up on scholasticism, and such men as

164 MODERNISM
TyrreU and Murri were not so long ago singled out
for special notice by the foremost scholastics of the
present day.
The failure of authority to understand Loisy is a
graver fact than the condemnation of Galileo. To
compare his book, VEvangile et I'Eglise, with the
Syllabus Lamentabili and the Encyclical Pascendi, is
a task which does not demand more than average
capacity, and one cannot help seeing that no one has
done so much as he to shake the position of those
who put forward doctrine as if it were history and
have not the least understanding of the latter.*
Is it necessary after this to dweU at length on the
measures which Pius X. is taking, on the police
organisation of which he dreams, an organisation
more compact and more implacable than the Inquisi
tion? Is it necessary to remind you of aU those
mysterious and secret tribunals, in whose hands the
reputation and the fate of bishops, as weU as of mere
priests, will be ? What are we to think of the blind
ness of the men who to-day are making a gigantic
and useless struggle against the most elementary
liberties, and to-morrow, when the great fight over
* See Autour dun Petit Livre, pp. 18, 19.

MODERNISM 165
higher education in France begins, will suddenly
become the champions of freedom?
But I must teU you aU I think, and say a word
about the stiU greater crosses which Modernists have
to bear. I wiU teU you of them, not in order to make
your hearts sweU with rage, but in order to show you
how much virility these poor Modernists — of whom
the Pope draws so sinister a portrait — need to keep
them from despair.
Not only are inquisitors — sometimes official, more
often officious — sent to visit them, but the authorities
are only too glad when some doubtful character gets
up in front of their door, or as they pass along the
street, to insult them with the most preposterous
charges. I pity Pius X. when I see the sort of people
he has acceptedas interpreters of the Encyclical, people
for whose actions he bears the responsibility, since he
has granted them his imprimatur and sends them his
felicitations and benedictions. It is sadly instructive
to see what gross productions have received in a few
hours the necessary permission for publication, while
the works of men like Pere Lagrange and Pere Rose
have for years been waiting for a permission that
never comes. Would you like a specimen? I take

166 MODERNISM
it haphazard from a pamphlet by Mgr. Matone,
printed in Rome at the Pontifical Press of the Institute
of Pius IX., and entitled : Un po di coerenza. Saggio
di logica e di religione modernista.*
Please excuse me if I do not translate it ; it would
be hard to find equivalents for some of these words in
the phraseology of polite society. This prelate, after
lamenting that there are no longer any gaUeys to
which these murderers of souls, the Modernists, can
be sent, asks himself who these men are. Here is his
answer (page 20) :
" E una razza invereconda, che si dUetta deU'
inganno e deUa calunnia; una razza di degenerati,
di ambiziosi senza fede; senza vero ingegno, senza
seri studi, senza decoro, che da qualche tempo si e
data ad attaccare la religione degli avi nostri, la
Chiesa, il Romano Pontefice, con accanimento di
bestie lerce ed affamate, con brigantesca ferocia, con
cretinismo ereditario, deUa razza abbietta dei
persecutori deUa Chiesa. Questi vigliacchi che si
dUettano del turpiloquio, appreso nelle putride
cloache deU' eresia, sono resi piu arditi daUa nostra
* The work contains 120 pages, and the passage quoted is on p. 20.

MODERNISM 167
prudenza, daUa nostra longanimita, dal nostro
sUenzio." Further on, speaking of the open letter of a group
of priests to Pius X., he continues (page 21):
" In quel libeUo la miseria del concetto, la degener-
azione dei sentimenti religiosi, la diarrea di
spropositi teologici, la volgarita deUe espressioni
arroganti, fa riscontro aUa forma involuta del
mattoide, agh errori ripugnanti, aUe calunnie stupidi
e volgari. . . . (23). E dopo U SiUabo pareva che i
farabutti dovessero acquietarsi o almeno tacere. Ma
per questi mattoidi in cui U disordine del pensiero, la
lacrimevole ignoranza e pari aU' abbiettezza deU'
animo gonfio nuUa e piu sacro."
That is the sort of hterature which has sprung up
round the Encychcal. Do not think this an isolated
example, there are many others; from the big
book by Father Gioachino Ambrosini, S.J.,* in
which, under the title of Occultism and Modernism,
insinuations are made against the latter which
resemble very closely those made by the Pagan
priests against Christianity in its infancy, to the book
" Occultismo e Modcmismo (368 + xxiv pp).

168 MODERNISM
of the Abbe Hector Deho, or that of a French priest,
the Abbe Emmanuel Barbier, on Democracy and
Modernism, a work which a bishop advised me to
read a few weeks ago. " Read that," he wrote, " it
is a masterpiece of Jesuitical delation."
These strange apologists, who, under pretence of
serving God, arouse the vilest passions and are not
above making equivocal accusations, and because
they cannot overthrow or get rid of an enemy, do
their best at any rate to soU his reputation ; these
strange personages had begun their wretched work in
the latter years of Leo XIIL, and slyly, as the poor old
man's hfe ebbed away, they came nearer and nearer
and drew their circle round authority. Yet they never
dared to claim in loud tones that Pontiff's protection
for their wares. The official incorporation of these
recruits was to be the work of Pius X.'s pontificate.
For him also was reserved the glory of bestowing his
patronage on a whole series of illustrated papers from
which you would instinctively turn your eyes away.
The founding of the satirical paper, II Mulo — The
Mule, which started under the friendly eye of the Holy
See, with subscriptions coUected from aU parts of
Cathohc Italy, is an event which has doubtless passed

MODERNISM 169
unnoticed in England, but which teUs us a great deal
about the mentality of the anti-Modernist clergy.
There are clergy who think that by patronising this
literature of the pavement and the gutter they wiU
reach the people.
To gain an idea of the depths to which they de
scend, you should read, if you have the courage, a
pamphlet by Father Ilario Rinieri — another Jesuit —
which has been highly commended by the famous
Civilta Cattolica. This production, dated " Easter
Day," has the appearance of a book of devotions;
it has a handsome cream-coloured cover, and every
page has a red border, like those in prayer-books
intended for dainty hands. Its title is Le Amazzoni
del Cattolicismo Puro — " The Amazons of Pure
Catholicism." You must read its pages if you would
learn how low a priest who has just consecrated the
pure Host, the Immaculate Host, the holy bread, can
descend in attacking a woman whom he knows to be
defenceless. The campaign of the Jesuits against Signorina
Antonietta Giacomelli, who has devoted her hfe to
showing the Italian people what the ordinances of
rehgion mean, will remain one of the saddest chapters

170 MODERNISM
in the history of Pius X.'s pontificate. She thought,
very nobly, that the time had come to teach the
people what the Mass reaUy is, to show them that the
Church's rites are not empty forms but expressions
of life, which ought at once to enrich our life and be
themselves enriched with our new emotions. Vali
antly did she set to work. She wrote three stories,
which not only attracted attention in Italy, but
aroused interest abroad when translated into French
under the auspices of M. Georges Goyau, a Catholic
whom Leo XIIL had honoured with his friendship.
All this was not enough to stay the Jesuit. No
weapons are too bad for him who wishes to stop the
mouth of a woman who is foolish enough to think
for herself.
I said in an earlier lecture that there were
Modernists in England; there are also anti-
Modernists. NaturaUy they do not attain such
perfection as the Italian and Roman anti-Modernists.
In England books like those I have mentioned
would ruin an author's reputation for ever. Yet
perhaps your anti-Modernists wiU soon be jealous
of the hardly enviable laurels of their Continental
brethren. At any rate attempts wUl certainly be

MODERNISM 171
made to rouse them to a holy emulation. The
Osservatore Romano, the paper which the Holy See
honours with its official communications, knows little
of England, but recently it reproduced, with the full
meed of praise which so fine a piece of literature
deserved, a letter from the Reverend Father Vaughan,
which letter, it appears, was read by its author from
the pulpit of Westminster Cathedral.*
It is addressed to a student in the north of England
and begins thus : " Dear Friend, — You ask me what
is ' Modernism,' and what I think of it ? I wiU
answer your question in the Socratic method, by
asking you another. What is appendicitis, and
what do you think of it ? "
According to the Reverend Father, however, there
is a difference between appendicitis and Modernism —
the latter is by far the more pernicious, it is a canker.
History does not relate what the student thought
of the letter. If, after reading it, he did not know
more than he did before, he must obviously have
been a bad character. I have never bought an
autograph, but I would gladly give something for
* I take this information from the Paris Croix for December 22,
1907, where the letter is translated. According to the Croix it was
published in the Standard fox December 16, 1907.

172 MODERNISM
this one, and present it to a museum, so that
two or three centuries hence people may know
what kind of apologetics delighted the foes of
Modernism. Pius X. has given ignorance, pride and curiosity as
the explanation of Modernism. People very near
him have assigned still less complex causes to it:
in Rome, the gold of Jews and freemasons; in
France, the gold of Protestants and Englishmen.
Yes, among the anti-Modernists who are capable of
writing and of editing newspapers, there are many
who are convinced that their feUow-Cathohcs are
stupid enough to let themselves be led astray by intri
guers, and despicable enough to let themselves be
bought. According to them the present movement is
the result of an international conspiracy.
I do not know the views of Pius X. on this par
ticular point, but I am sure that among the bishops
there are many who feel a blush of shame mounting to
their cheeks. One need not be a Modernist to be
ashamed of a Montagnini, ashamed of delation,
ashamed of this spiteful Press and of this camorra
who have practicaUy substituted themselves for the
person of the Pontiff and are clamorously forcing

MODERNISM 173
their will upon the Church. To be ashamed of them
it is enough to be an honest man.
War has been declared against the Modernists;
they wiU not waste time in replying. If they had
been theologians they might and ought to have
attacked the canonicity of Pius X.'s election. For
this purpose it would have been enough to show that
the famous Veto, the Exclusive, pronounced by
Cardinal Puzyna, and caUed by M. Eugene Veuillot,*
" the Emperor of Austria's outrage on the conclave
and his attempt to limit the action of the Holy
Ghost," did in fact impair the liberty of the conclave,
and that since an election which is not free is not
canonical, it foUows that the election of Pius X.
was not canonical, t But happily the Modernists are
not theologians, and the idea of seeking lawyers'
quarrels with authority does not even occur to them.
They accept authority as it stands, and see in the
* In the Univers, August 23, 1903.
t When the famous article entitled The Last Days of Leo XIII. and
the Conclave of 1903, by " A Witness,'' appeared in the Revue des Deux
Mondes (March 1904), an important Catholic paper was naive enough
to adopt the following reasoning : " What is related in this article
cannot be true, for if it were true the pontifical election would not have
been free and consequently we should not have a canonically-elected
Pope. But we have a canonically-elected Pope, therefore what is
related in the Revue is incorrect.

174 MODERNISM
errors it commits with regard to themselves a proof
not that they must abolish it or withdraw their
aUegiance, but that they must bring it to view its
mission in a different spirit.
What a noble spectacle is afforded by these men
who, with a little diplomacy and manipulation, might
have attained the highest positions in the hierarchy,
and do not even perceive what they are giving up ; who
go into exile, and endure loneliness, treated coldly by
some, basely by others ! Under a clever opportunist
pope like Leo XIIL Modernism would graduaUy
have gained a position in the pontifical courts, it
would have had its cardinals. Under Pius X. it wiU
have its martyrs. Long live Pius X. !
Knowing what efforts the Church has always had
to make as the forerunner of civilisation, conscious
that her part is one of continual toU, the Modernists
offer themselves as valiant labourers, to plough,
through a soil that has grown peculiarly hard, the
furrow that is needed to-day. They do not claim to
b ' the whole Church ; it is enough for them to be of
the Church, to be her pioneers. Their splendid
breadth of mind (the Rinnovamento, for instance,
calls in the aid of Eucken and Caird and Briggs) is

MODERNISM 175
not mere tolerance, or the result of a process of
reasoning, as in the case of the Coenobium,* or of
scepticism, as in the case of certain publishers' enter
prises and certain magazine "inquiries"; it is the
sense that "aU is ours and we are all men's," the
spirit of youth and faith, the spirit of the Gospel.
" AU is ours and we are aU men's ! We shall conquer,
not by drying up men's souls, or setting their faculties
at war, but by raising them to the level of their
best selves, by bringing them to completion." Such
is their belief.
To a generation entangled in materialism, in a
hand-to-mouth existence, in empty and feverish
agitation, in an unbridled race after sensations, and
yet possessing a soul, Modernism comes to teU the
great eternal secret of the worth of sacrifice, the
secret of that expansion of the whole moral being
which St Francis called perfect joy.
It is high time for me to make an end, but I cannot
do so without thanking you for the kind attention you
have given me. I thank you not only in my own
* An independent Italian review of religion and philosophy.
(Translator. )

176 MODERNISM
name but in the name of those of whom I have spoken.
I have had no mission, no authority, to speak to you
of the Modernists, and they wiU be perfectly entitled
to disown me.
If we think over what has been said in these three
lectures we shaU see that two ideas run through
them, continuaUy returning, always present, even
when not expressed. These two ideas are logically
contradictory. The first is that the Modernist
orientation is something so new and profound as to
transform completely not religious life only, but
inteUectual hfe also, and that the Modernist's whole
existence is ordered upon principles different from
those upon which men have hitherto lived. Yet at
the same time I told you that the Modernists were the
legitimate and obedient sons of the Cathohc, Apostolic
and Roman Church. Is that not a formidable
contradiction? Has not the thought occurred to
some of you — " These Modernists are double-faced
folk. When they are dealing with authority they
feign to be humble and obedient, and protest their
attachment ; when they are before the public which
is hostile to the Church they outdo it in the fervour

MODERNISM 177
with which they sweU the chorus of revolutionary
demands. They do not stop at the limits fixed by
orthodox Protestantism ; they pass, without seeming
to be aware of it, over the last vestiges which liberal
Protestantism has suffered to remain."
Yes, it is true that in appearance the triumph of
Modernism wiU be the triumph of contradiction and
iUogicality, but what does that prove except that
the laws of hfe have not much to do with our poor
ideas of formal logic?
Yes, there is something in the Church which is
about to die, and there is also something about to be
born, or rather there is something which is already
dead and yet survives, rather hke those petals of
cherry-blossom which one occasionally finds clinging
to the fruit.
The idea of the unlimited progress of religious
institutions, of hfe succeeding death, was profoundly
grasped by the architects of the great mediaeval
cathedrals. Go and gaze at one of them, seeking not
only for artistic or picturesque impressions, but for
the idea underlying the buUding, its secret, or rather
the soul of the men who built it.
In the main facade, on either side of the great portal,
M

178 MODERNISM
standing out prominently to your gaze, you wiU see
two great statues. One represents a queen with
uncertain gait; her eyes are blindfolded, her crown
is slipping from her head, her sceptre is falling from
her hands, her book of laws lies on the ground; per
chance she may still have time to take refuge in some
corner and utter a few broken words of command,
but virtually she is already dead. Opposite her is
another queen, who needs no diadem to show her
royalty, so plainly is authority expressed in her
bearing; she advances with eyes fixed on us and a
pastoral staff for her sceptre ; she needs no code of
law, because she is herself a living word. This
queen, so fuU of life, who comes much less to govern
than to be the voice of a free people and to make them
truly one, is — you knowit as weU as I do — the Church.
The other queen with the veU over her eyes is the
Synagogue. The first words our old cathedrals say to us are
these : " The one has slain the other " — the Church has
slain the Synagogue. And yet, if you will look closer
and examine the arches and all the sacred personages
who people the porch, you wiU soon perceive that the
unity which exists in the Bible between the Old

MODERNISM 179
Testament and the New is to be found here also.
Here you may see patriarchs, prophets, evangelists,
fathers of the Church, all meditating over one parch
ment roU which has no break of continuity, of which
neither the beginning nor the end is visible. The
one has not slain the other but issued from it.
Even so there is to-day a Christian Synagogue
which wiU perish, that Synagogue which, so far as in
it lies, has made the Church a political and anti-
scientific society, a religious sect. The Modernist
cathedral of to-morrow may weU bear on its pediment
a memorial of this lamentable error. But this Syna
gogue is not the Church. The Modernists are about
to unfurl some further pages of the mysterious roU.
Let us rejoice that we live in days when the clamour
of materialism cannot drown men's care for the things
of the moral life, and when across the whole world
we seem to feel the flow of unutterable thoughts and
desires, of aspirations after unknown realities.*

* While these three lectures were being given in London there was
published a reply to the Encyclical Pascendi by a group of French
Modernists. It is entitled Lendemains d Encyclique, by ' ' Catholici,"
and contains 125 +x pages. It is issued by E. Nourry, 14 Rue Notre
Dame de Lorette, Paris, from whom all the Modernist literature in the
French language may be obtained.

180 MODERNISM
I can only refer my readers to its fine and moving pages. The main
divisions are as follows : —
I. Pius X.'s Modernism and the Modernists.
II. The Causes of Modernism : those which the Pope does and
does not mention.
III. The Persecution of Modernists : what it will and will
not effect.
IV. The Inevitable Conflict : History and Dogma.
V. The Encyclical and the Future of Catholicism.
The harmonious structure of this summary reflects the admirable
arrangement of the book itself.
The contest between Modernists and anti-Modernists is a singularly
unequal one, for if it is true that the Holy Ghost Himself, according to
the Book of Wisdom, ' ' makes eloquent the tongues of infants " —
linguas infantium facit disertas — it is plain that the divine outpouring
has descended with a marked preference for the champions of the new
ideas.

APPENDIX 1
ENCYCLICAL LETTER
(Pieni I'Animo)
To Our Venerable Brethren, the Archbishops and
Bishops of Italy
PIUS X., POPE
Venerable Brethren, Greeting and
Apostolic Benediction
Having Our mind fuU of salutary fear, because We
shah one day have to give the strictest account to
the Prince of Pastors, Jesus Christ, of the flock He
has committed to Our care, We pass our days in
continual anxiety to preserve the faithful, as much as
is possible, from the pernicious diseases with which
human society is at present afflicted. We regard,
therefore, as addressed to us the words of the Prophet,
" Clama, ne cesses, quasi tuba exalta vocem tuam " ["Cry
aloud, cease not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet "]
(Isaiah Iviii. i); and we do not faU, now by word of
181

182 MODERNISM
mouth, now by letters, to warn, to entreat, to rebuke ;
arousing, above all, the zeal of Our Brethren in the
episcopate, so that each may display the greatest
vigilance over that portion of the flock of which the
Holy Ghost has made him overseer.
The motive which impels Us to raise Our voice
once again is of the gravest importance. We have to
summon the whole attention of your minds and the
whole energy of your pastoral ministry to check a
disorder the disastrous effects of which are already
being felt ; and, if it is not plucked up with a strong
hand by its deepest roots, consequences stUl more
fatal wiU be felt as the years go on.
We have, indeed, under Our eyes, the letters of not
a few of you, Venerable Brethren; letters fuU of
sadness and distress, deploring the spirit of insub
ordination anrl independence which is manifesting
itself here and there among the clergy.
Alas ! a poisoned atmosphere is largely corrupting
men's minds in our time, and its deadly effects are
those which St Jude the Apostle has already de
scribed : "Hi carnem quidem maculant, dominationem
autem spernunt, majestatem autem blasphemant"
f" These men, indeed, defile their flesh, despise

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 183
dominions, and speak evil of dignities"] (Jude viii.)
Besides the most degrading corruption of morals
they have an open scorn for ah authority and for those
who exercise it. But that such a spirit should pene
trate even into the sanctuary and infect those to whom
the words of Ecclesiasticus ought most exactly to
apply, " Natio illorum, obedientia et dilectio " [" Their
generation is obedience and love "] (Ecclesiasticus
iii. 1), is a thing which fills our mind with infinite
grief. And it is, above aU, among the young priests
that this baneful spirit is working havoc, spreading
among them new and reprehensible theories as to
the very nature of obedience. And what is graver
still, although in order to obtain in good time new
recruits for the growing band of the rebels, a more or
less secret propaganda of such teachings is being
made among the young men who, in the shelter of
the seminaries, are preparing for the priesthood.
Thus, Venerable Brethren, We feel it Our duty to
make an appeal to your consciences, in order that,
laying aside aU hesitation, you may with vigorous
mind and with equal constancy give your attention
to the extermination of this bad seed, so fruitful of
the most fatal consequences. Remember always

184 MODERNISM
that the Holy Ghost has appointed you to rule. Re
member the precept of St Paul to Titus, " Argue cum
omni imperio. Nemo te contemnat " [" Rebuke with
all authority. Let no man despise thee "] (Tit. ii. 15).
Demand strictly from priests and clerics that obedi
ence which, whUe absolutely obligatory upon aU the
faithful, constitutes for priests a principal part of
their sacred duty.
In order, therefore, to prevent in advance the
multiplication of these stubborn spirits, it is of great
importance to remember always the Apostle's high ad
monition to Timothy: "Manus cito nemini imposueris "
[" Lay hands suddenly on no man "] (1 Tim. v. 22).
It is, indeed, the facility of admission to Holy Orders
which naturaUy opens the way to a " multiplication
of people " in the sanctuary, and afterwards does
" not increase the joy." We know that there are
towns and dioceses where, far from there being cause
to complain of a scarcity of clergy, the number of
priests much exceeds the needs of the faithful. What
motive can there be, Venerable Brethren, to render so
frequent the laying-on of hands? If the scarcity of
clergy can never be a sufficient reason for haste in so
grave a matter, there is no excuse, where the supply

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 185
of clergy exceeds the need of them, for any lack of the
greatest circumspection and the utmost strictness in
the choice of those who are to be called to the honour
of the priesthood. Not even the insistence of the
aspirants can lessen the offence of such facUity
The priesthood, instituted by Jesus Christ for the
eternal salvation of souls, is assured' y no human
profession or office, to which whosoever wUl, and for
whatsoever reason, has a right freely to dedicate
himself. Let the bishops therefore proceed, not
according to the desires or claims of the aspirants,
but, as the Council of Trent commands, according to
the needs of the dioceses. So proceeding, they wUl
be able to choose those only who are truly suitable,
rejecting those who show inclinations opposed to the
sacerdotal caUing, and especiaUy disobedience to
discipline, and its parent, inteUectual pride.
In order that there may not be wanting young men
showing fitness to be raised to the sacred ministry,
We must insist once more, and more strongly, Vener
able Brethren, upon what We have already several
times enjoined: that is upon the obligation which
lies upon you, a grave one in the sight of God, to be
vigUant and to promote with aU care the due conduct.

186 MODERNISM
of your seminaries. Your priests wiU be what vou
have made them by education. Very weighty is the
letter, dated December 8, 1902, which Our most wise
Predecessor addressed to you on this point, as a kind
of testament at the end of his long pontificate. We
have nothing new to add to it ; We wiU only recall to
your memory the precepts contained in it, and We
enjoin earnestly the putting into execution, at the
earliest possible moment, of Our orders, issued
through the Sacred Congregation of the Bishops and
Regulars, as to the concentration of the seminaries,
especially for philosophical and theological studies,
to the end that the great advantage springing from
the separation of the little seminaries from the great
may thus be obtained, and also the other advantage,
not a less one, in respect of the necessary instruction
of the clergy.
Let a proper spirit be jealously maintained in the
seminaries, and let their purpose remain exclusively
to prepare young men, not for civil careers, but for the
lofty mission of ministers of Christ. Let the study
of Philosophy, Theology and the aUied sciences, and
especiaUy of Holy Scripture, be carried on, holding
f^gtto the Pontifical orders, and to the study of St

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 187
Thomas, so often enjoined by Our venerated Pre
decessor, and by Us in Our Apostolic Letters of
January 23, 1904. Let the bishops exercise the most
scrupulous vigUance over the masters and their
doctrines, recalling to their duty those who may
have run_ after dangerous novelties, and relentlessly
removing from the office of teacher aU those who do
not profit by the admonitions they have received.
Let not young clerics be permitted to frequent
the public universities, except for very weighty
reasons and with the greatest precautions on the
part of the bishops. Let the pupils in the seminaries
be entirely prevented from taking any part whatso
ever in external agitations; and, to this end, We
forbid them to read newspapers and periodicals,
with the exception of some one periodical of sound
principles which the Bishop may judge convenient
to_be studied by the pupUs. , Let the disciplinary
arrangements be maintained with ever greater vigour
and vigilance.
Finally, let not there be wanting in each seminary a
spiritual director, a man of no ordinary prudence and
experienced in the ways of Christian perfection, who,
with unwearying dUigence, may cultivate in the

188 MODERNISM
young men that firm piety which is the primary
foundation of the priestly life. If these rules, Vener
able Brethren, are conscientiously and constantly
followed by you, you may be confident of seeing a
body of clergy grow up around you who wiU be your
joy and crown.
But the disorder of insubordination and independ-
ence, which We have thus far deplored, goes much
further in the case of some of the young clergy, and
the mischief jKroughtby it is far greater,. For there
are not wanting those who are so possessed by this
reprobate spirit that, abusing the sacred ministry of
preaching, they openly make themselves, to the
destruction and scandal of the faithful, its champions
and apostles.
As early as July 31, 1894, Our Predecessor, through
the Sacred Congregation of the Bishops and Regulars,
caUed the attention of Ordinaries to this grave
matter. The orders and rules given in that pontifical
document We now confirm and renew, and We lay
them upon the conscience of the bishops, lest in them
the words of Nahum the prophet should be fulfilled:
" Dormitaverunt pastores tui " [" Thy shepherds
have slumbered "] (Nahum iii. 18).

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 189
No man may have a faculty to preach " nisi prius
de vita et scientia et moribus probatus fuerit " ["unless
he has first been tested as to his hfe and knowledge
and morals "] (Cone. Trid. sess. V. c. 2 De reform.).
Priests are not to be authorised to preach outside
their own dioceses without testimonials from their

Bishop. Let the matter of their preaching be that
indicated by the Divine Redeemer when He said:
" Praedicate Evangelium " [" Preach the Gospel "]
(Mark xvi. 15). ... " Docentes eos servare omnia
quaecumque mandavi vobis " [" Teaching them to
observe aU things whatsoever I have commanded
you "] (Matt, xxviii. 20). Or, as the Council of Trent
comments : " Annunciantes eis vitia, quae eos declinare,
et virtutes quae sectari opportet, ut poenam aeternam
evadere et caelestem gloriam consequi valeant " [" De
claring to them the vices which they must avoid and
the virtues which they must pursue, that so they may
escape eternal punishment and obtain celestial
glory "] (Loc. cit.). Therefore let those subjects
which are more suited for journalistic controversy
and academic meetings than for the holy place be
utterly banished from the pulpit ; let moral preaching
be put before lectures, which are, at best, unfruit-

igo MODERNISM
ful; let the clergy speak "non in persuasibilibus
humanae sapientiae verbis, sed in ostensione spiritus
et virtutis " [" not with enticing words of man's
wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of
power "] (i Cor. ii. 4). Therefore the chief source
for preachers should be the Holy Scriptures, undej_-
stood, not according to the private judgments of
minds most often clouded by passions, but accord

ing tothe tradition of the Church, the interpreta
tions of the Holy Fathers and the Councils.
In conformity with these rules, Venerable Brethren,
you must act as judges of those to whom the ministry
of the divine word has been committed by you. And
whensoever you find that ong of them, more careful of
his own interests than of those of Jesus Christ, more
anxious for the world's applause than for the good of
souls, is going astray, do you admonish and correct
him: and if that suffices not, remove him inexorably
from an office of which jie Jias shown himself utterly
unworthy. This vigilance and severity you ought the more to
employ since the ministry of preaching is your
special office and a chief part of your episcopal
functions, and whoever exercises it, besides you,

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 191
exercises it in your name and in your stead ; where
fore you are ever responsible before God for the
manner in which the bread of the divine word is
dispensed to the faithful.
We, to avoid on Our part aU responsibility, intimate
to and enjoin upon aU Ordinaries that they are to
refuse and suspend, after charitable admonitions,
even during a sermon, any preacher whatsoever, be
he of the secular or of. the regular clergy, who shall
not submit himself fuUy to the injunctions of the
aforesaid Instruction issued by the Congregation
of the Bishops and Regulars. Better is it that the
faithful should content themselves with a mere read
homUy, or with exposition of the Catechism by their
parish priest, than that they should have to be
present during sermons which produce more harm
than good.
Another field in which, alas! some Of the young
clergy find occasion and incitement to profess and
defend emancipation from every yoke of lawful
authority is that of the so-caUed " Christian action
among the people." It is not, Venerable Brethren,
that this action is in itself reprehensible or leads by
its very nature to the despising of authority, but

192 MODERNISM
that not a few, misinterpreting its nature, have
voluntarily departed from the rules which were laid
down for its right conduct by Our Predecessor of
immortal memory.
We speak, be it clearly understood, of the Instruc
tion relating to Christian action among the people
which was issued, by order of Leo XIIL, by the
Sacred Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical
Affairs on January 27, 1902, and which was forwarded
to each of you in order that you might see to its
execution in your respective dioceses. This Instruc
tion We also confirm, and with the fulness of Our
power We renew its regulations all and single; as
We likewise confirm and renew aU the others issued
by Ourselves to the same intent in the Motu proprio
of December 18, 1903 : — De populari actione Christiana
moderanda — and in the Circular Letter of Our beloved
son, the Cardinal Secretary of State, dated July 28,
1904. As regards the founding and direction of news
papers and periodicals, the clergy should observe
faithfuUy aU that is prescribed in Article 42 of the
Apostolical Constitution Offlciorum (January 25,
1897) : " ^*'n' e c^ero • • • prohibentur quominus,

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 193
absque praevia Ordinariorum venia, diaria vel folia
periodica moderanda suscipiant " [" Members of the
clergy are forbidden to undertake, without previous
authorisation from the Ordinaries, the direction of
daUy papers or periodical publications."] Likewise,
without the previous consent of the Ordinary, no
member of the clergy may publish writings of any
sort, whether on religious or moral subjects, or of a
moral character, or of a merely technical character.
In the case of the founding of clubs and societies the
statutes and regulations should be first examined and
approved by the Ordinary.
Lectures on Christian action among the people or
on any other subject may not be given by any priest
or cleric without permission of the local Ordinary.
All language which might inspire the people with \
aversion for the upper classes is, and ought to be I
held to be utterly contrary to the true spirit of/
Christian charity. In the same manner in Catholic )
papers aU such speech is to be condemned as.
inspired by an unhealthy love of novelty, derides the
piety of the faithful and points towards " new orienta-
tions of Christian hfe, new directions for the Church,
¦ '11 111 inn *^ '   ' — — ~*m*mm
new aspirations of the modern soul, a new social
N

194 MODERNISM
vocation for the clergy," a new Christian civUisa-
tion and other like things.
«— •  — — )
Priests, especially young priests, although they are
to be praised for going to the people, should neverthe
less proceed in this matter with due respect for and
obedience to authority and the orders of their
ecclesiastical superiors. And when occupying them
selves, in this spirit of subordination, with Christian
action among the people, their noble aim ought to be
this : "To rescue the sons of the people from their
ignorance of spiritual and eternal things, and with
diligence, skill and kindness to lead them to a good
and virtuous life; to strengthen grown men in the
faith by removing prejudices against it, and to give
them courage to practise the Christian life; to pro
mote among the Catholic laity those institutions
which are recognised as truly effectual for the moral
and material amelioration of the multitudes; to
defend, above all, the principles of evangelical justice
and charity in which aU the rights and aU the duties
of civil society are rightly balanced. . . . But let
them remember always that even among the people
the priest should preserve intact his august character
as the minister of God, since he is set over his brethren

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 195
animarum causae [for the good of their souls] (Regul.
Past, of S. Gregory the Great, II. c. 7). Any mode of
dealing with the people to the detriment of priestly
dignity, of ecclesiastical duties and discipline, can
only be severely condemned." (Ep. Encycl., Decem
ber 8, 1902).
For the rest, Venerable Brethren, in order to set an
effectual check upon this overflow of unruly ideas and
this expansion of the spirit of independence, We
absolutely forbid, by virtue of Our authority, from
this day forward, any cleric or priest to give his name
to any society which is not dependent on the bishops.
In a more special way, and by name, We forbid
clerics and priests, under penalty, for clerics of
disqualification for Holy Orders, and for priests of
suspension ipso facto a divinis, to enroU themselves in
the Lega democratica nazionale,, the programme of
which was issued at Rome and Torrette on October
20, 1905, and the statutes of which, without any
author's name, were printed at Bologna in the same
year by the Provisional Commission.
These are the orders which, having regard to the
present condition of the Italian clergy and in a
matter of so great importance, the solicitude of

196 MODERNISM
Our apostolic office demanded of Us. And now,
Venerable Brethren, it only remains for Us to add new
spurs to your zeal, in order that these Our regula
tions and orders may be promptly and fuUy executed
in your dioceses. ForestaU the evU where happUy
it has not yet shown itself, extinguish it promptly
where it is just springing up, and where unhappily
it is already full grown extirpate it energeticaUy and
resolutely. Laying this charge on your consciences,
We pray God that He wiU grant you the prudence
and the strength which you need. And to this end
We bestow upon you from the depths of Our heart
the Apostolic Benediction.
Given at St Peter's, Rome, July 28, 1906, the third
year of Our Pontificate.
PIUS X., POPE.

APPENDIX II
PETITION FROM A GROUP OF FRENCH
CATHOLICS TO POPE PIUS X.
-i^i 
(September, IQQ^}
Holy Father, —
We_are French Cathohcs, deeply attached to our
faith and our worship, but with free mindg and
resolute wills. With the affectionate boldness of
sons addressing their father we venture to set forth
to Your Holiness the grave consequences that would
result from a rejection, pure and simple, of the
religious associations (associations cultuelles). Our
names wUl not appear beneath this letter. It is not
indeed that we object to taking the responsibility of
our step, but, after the reception given three months
ago to the letter of the Academicians and jurists, many
of whom are our friends or coUeagues, after the cam
paign of base insinuations, of clumsy and sometimes
coarse irony, conducted by a certain religious Press
against the men who signed this document — a
document nevertheless most dignified in tone,
deferential in form and inspired by lofty ideals —
197

198 MODERNISM
it seemed best to us to let our remarks speak for
themselves, with no support beyond that of reason
and truth.
It would be puerile and even wrong to seek to
conceal from you, Holy Father, the impression
produced by your recent Encyclical Letter to the
French episcopate.
In enlightened circles, that is, among all those
professors, doctors, barristers, engineers, manufac
turers and merchants who are bound to Catholicism
not only by their baptism but by very definite
religious acts which they perform unhesitatingly at
the chief stages in their life; among the cultivated
and thoughtful middle-classes who are much given
to argument, but whose reasonable opinion always
ends by becoming the opinion of the country, there
has been immense surprise, and profound and painful
disappointment. In families where Catholicism is
most alive, as well as in those where faith is more
lukewarm, everyone's rehgion and patriotism has
suffered a sort of pang. Relations and friends could
not meet without immediately asking one another
if this decision — which seems inspired by principles

PETITION 199
to which we are no longer accustomed — would not
precipitate the country into a veritable civil war —
into what the ancients caUed " inexpiable " war.
It is weU that you should know also, Holy Father,
that if your letter has saddened all good citizens it
has rejoiced, on the other hand, all the fomenters of
violence, hatred and discord who for thirty-five
years have been the irreconcUable and systematic
opponents of the government of the Republic, and
regard every event, at home or abroad, which is
calculated to embarrass this loathed regime, as a
triumph for their cause. To be convinced of this
one need only make a list of the Paris and pro
vincial papers, and collect together the innumerable
articles devoted to the Encyclical. The applause
has come solely from the recognised supporters of
royahsm, imperialism and anti-Semitism. After
having for ten years openly or hypocriticaUy revolted
against the wise directions of your great predecessor,
they are to-day loudly proclaiming their zeal — a
purely verbal one — for religion, because it is the only
means left to them of winning back the simple and
ignorant masses which have deserted their standard.
But the French democracy has too often seen them

200 MODERNISM
at work to be duped by these demonstrations. It
knows that for these incorrigible mischief-makers
religion has never been aught else than a mask to be
thrown aside when the comedy is over.
But, Holy Father, when it sees who applaud you,
this same democracy wiU be led to the conclusion
that in our country the cause of Cathohcism is
definitely bound up with that of aU the defeated
parties. And as France is determined, above all
else (the voting in the elections has shown this more
and more clearly and eloquently), to maintain the
form of government which she has chosen for herself,
at the moment when she is about to enter upon far-
reaching social reforms which are sending a thrill of
hope through her people, so nobly enamoured of
justice and right, is there not fear of her making
religion pay dear for the indiscretion which the
leaders of Catholicism would commit if they once
more cast in their lot with the worst enemies of the
Republic ?
That the Law of Separation must be considered
bad, that it contains mean and unjust provisions in
regard to various persons, that several of its articles
are perfidious attempts upon the liberties which the

PETITION 201
Church requires for the exercise of her ministry — all
this not one of your sons would think of denying
after your solemn condemnation of the Law in the
Encychcal Vehementer. What needed saying in the
name of God and of the supreme interests of which
you are the guardian was said by you on February
n, in very dignified and forcible terms, to which the
whole of Catholic France seems to have subscribed.
But, this question of principal once out of dispute,
truth compels us to recognise that the Law, as it has
left the Chambers, while not entirely purged of all
the vexatious and illogical provisions of the original
draft, does nevertheless offer very real advantages.
These advantages are so important that certain of
our legislators have considered them excessive, and
others, more friendly and in no way partisans, have
declared, on the strength of them, in perfect good
faith, that the Law is genuinely liberal. The most
considerable of these advantages is undoubtedly the
freedom of nomination to ecclesiastical appointments.
But there are others : the gratuitous handing over
of the places of worship for an unlimited period ; the
provisional but renewable possession of the bishops'
palaces, the presbyteries and the seminaries; the

202 MODERNISM
entrusting to the associations cultuelles of the ad
ministration, subject to a purely formal supervision,
of the property, amounting to two hundred million
francs, which forms the existing patrimony oi the
churches in France; and lastly, the pensions and
grants which, limited as they are, at least ensure for
our priests the necessities of life for the time being.
The people wUl never be convinced that a law which
makes such provisions for the benefit of the Church
is a law absolutely hostile to religion. In any case,
those who are most in touch with parliamentary
affairs regard them as the maximum of concessions
that it was possible to obtain from the French
Chambers at the present time.
But, Holy Father, if the true meaning of your
Encyclical is indeed that attributed to it by our
legislators and our journalists, these advantages,
which were not aU contained in the first draft of the
Law but have been extorted at the cost of so much
labour and eloquence by the defenders of liberty,
will be lost in a few months. You cannot be ignorant
of what wiU be the terrible, but none the less certain
and legal situation of the French Church when it
sees with anguish the year 1907 dawn upon it. Our

PETITION 203
fifty thousand cathedrals, churches and chapels wiU
revert to the State or the communes, which will have
the right to dispose of them in course of time as they
please; the bishops and priests, driven forth from
their palaces and presbyteries, will be forced to seek
shelter elsewhere for themselves and their families;
their parochial or diocesan archives, so indispensable
to the normal working of Catholic life, wiU be con
fiscated and wiU f aU into the hands of people who wiU
not have much respect for the secrets they preserve.
At the same time the pensions and grants will
probably be suppressed by way of reprisal, and the
entire maintenance of the clergy wUl faU upon the
faithful; and there are no grounds for thinking that
the latter wiU long be wiUing or able to provide the
forty million francs needed for the support of the
priests, and the further twenty mUlions required for
Church expenses. The seminaries, " great " and
" little," of which the buUdings are for the most part
State property, wiU be closed, the supply of priests
wiU be dried up at its source, and one cannot but
ask what provision there will then be for the serving
of the parishes. Divine service being thus reduced
to a strictly private affair, under the suspicion of the

204 MODERNISM
political authorities, and forbidden to the families of
our seven hundred thousand officials, it is to be ex
pected that in a country like ours, where faith is so
much shaken, where respect for other men is so
powerful, where the State has at its disposal an
almost unhmited power of intimidation, innumerable
defections wiU take place. After a few years, even,
of such a state of things it would be a miracle if the
Catholic Church had not lost the greater part of those
who stiU remain faithful to her. And henceforth we
may regard it as certain that Protestantism, enjoying
the favour of the State by reason of its associations
cultuelles which are even now formed and ready to
start work, wUl quickly gain many positions which
we shall be compelled to abandon, and will graduaUy
threaten to instaU itself in our churches and presby
teries, and, above aU, in the hearts of the faithful.
The prospect of such wide-spread ruin, of moral
and material distress so near and so inevitable,
would not, however, be discouraging to us Christians
if, in this conflict between Your Holiness's decisions
and the legislation of the Republic, there were at stake
one of those questions of dogma or morals on which it
is evident to aU that the Church cannot yield without

PETITION 205
ceasing to be what she has always been and what she
must continue to be if she is to remain the Church of
Jesus Christ.
But we wiU venture to ask you publicly and aloud
what thousands of Catholics are asking each other in
a low voice — whether Catholic dogma is reaUy
endangered by the Separation Law ?
Cathohcs we are, for we stand by your side;
Catholics we shaU continue, even if our country is
torn in two by a fratricidal war, for, whatever happens,
by your side we wUl remain. But, Holy Father, do
not be angry with us because we hve in a land of
clear ideas. Our language, which you do not know,
and our mind, which with its age-long habits of
frankness has not been explained to you, are opposed
to indefinite situations and enigmatic formula;. You
wiU not, we trust, disapprove if we are desirous to
learn the true and valid reasons for this unexpected
non possumus, the grounds of this verdict for which
we were so unprepared, and from which, as you
yourself admit, " so many and great trials " wiU
result. Many voices, not aU of them disinterested, haveJ|
been telling you, very cleverly and for a long time,

206 MODERNISM
that to aUow the establishment of the associations

cultuelles (into which the rehgious element is only
introduced by the Law under a form that, though
doubtless " certain and legal," is implicit and
general) would be to aUow authority to emanate
from the faithful in association and not from the
—  .  -  — —  ~— — — — — —— «i^
hierarchy. You have been fearful lest democratic
government should invade the Church. But on a
sounder view of things the Law, with the guarantees
which the State, whUe it did not enjoin them, did not
forbid the Church to enjoin upon the associations,
does not seem to us to have assigned to the laity a
much more important part, or a very different one,
from that which has long been theirs, namely, to
provide the priests and bishops with the financial
resources which they wUl need to-morrow stiU more
than to-day. And even if their part were to become
a httle more important why should Your Hohness
be alarmed ? Was not that one of the reforms which,
in his spiritual testament, the pious and by no means
revolutionary Cardinal Manning most desired ? Ought
we, then, to regret those glorious and fruitful days
when the faithful, having more voice in the destinies
of the Church, played a far more considerable part

PETITION 207
than will ever be theirs now, in nominating their
priests and bishops?
Must not one or other of these considerations have
impressed the sixty-four bishops of France who
assembled at the end of May to find some way of
reconcUing " the immutable rights of the Roman
Pontiff " with loyalty to our national institutions?
The problem of harmonising the rights of the law and
of the hierarchy was plainly not very difficult, since
two days of dehberation sufficed to settle it very
simply and wisely. For we now know, beyond aU
possibility of doubt, what was said and done. Un-
happUy it was not you, Holy Father, who told us.
The skflfully-prepared text of your Encyclical left
us in danger of ignorance of the truth. To-day we
know that our bishops, in spite of the threats, insults
and subtle instigations of a great party, had, after
invoking the aid of the Holy Ghost and considering
the welfare of France, decided by an important
majority loyaUy to make trial of the Law, and had
accepted unanimously the scheme for associations
fabriciennes, " at once legal and canonical," put
forward by a discreet archbishop. We know also
that Your Holiness has thought fit to give preference,

208 MODERNISM
over these serious and ripe decisions of the whole
episcopate of the greatest of the Catholic churches,
to the resolutions secretly arrived at by a commission
of German, Italian and Spanish prelates, in which
the Church of France was represented by a single
Frenchman only, who was powerless in the midst of
so many others. It is for history to decide who was
responsible. We do not protest in the face of your
supreme authority, but, in sorrow and fear, we cry
out to you, Holy Father: " There is something that
>we do not understand, that the heads of our dioceses
understand no more than we do. In spite of their
official declarations we can divine that their minds,
like those of aU of us, are in a state of disturbance
that nothing can allay."
There must have been something else. We do
not conceal from ourselves the fact that a gratuitous
insult has been offered to Your Holiness by the
elaboration and promulgation, without your assist
ance and without the participation of the Church's
representatives, of this Law inspired by hostility to
religion, a law the real scope of which wiU remain
unknown as long as it has not been tried. This
insult has been as bitter and as mortifying to us as to

PETITION 209
you, since it was intended to mark in the eyes of all
men the decay of Christian belief in the nation.
Doubtless in this land of chivalry, where men worship
honour above aU else, if the Church's government were
like any other government people would have recog
nised that reprisals were justified, and would have
applauded the proud gesture with which you would
have said to those who had insulted you : " You are
a whole nation, a great and mighty nation. You are
strong. I am but an old man, and I stand alone.
But I have to defend the honour of my God, of the
Church and of some two hundred and sixty pontiffs
who have done before me what others wiU do after
me. You wish for war. I accept the invitation."
Yes! But you are other and greater than your
adversaries. You are the Vicar of Jesus Christ.
Your kingdom is a kingdom of peace, of meekness, of
forgiveness. You are the Head of those to whom
Jesus gave the commandment to love not only those
who do good unto them but also those who do them
evU. To those who, not having understood the
Gospel, might reproach you for not hurling your
anathema, you might also reply that a nation is one
through aU its generations and that a moment of iU-
o

210 MODERNISM
humour ought not to efface the memory of twelve
hundred years of splendid devotion, of the generosity
of a people which gave, without counting, its gold, its
love and its life-blood to the successors of St Peter.
When, after enduring fifteen years of Ul-natured and
irritating persecution, Leo XIIL signed a peace with
Germany under Prince Bismarck, and sanctioned a
legislation which was undoubtedly more aggressive
than that of our law-makers, we French Catholics
did not complain that the Pope had shown too much
magnanimity and forgetfulness of injuries, or shown
it too early. Being what we are, we shall never be
able to understand how Pius X. can be less tolerant
towards France than Leo XIIL was generous to
Germany. In the evU days of that terrible year
when France was in her agony, do you remember,
Holy Father, how, if we stood alone and our allies
failed us, that was solely because the head of the
French government refused to the last to abandon
Rome, the city of the Popes, to those who had long
been coveting her, and how if certain regiments
were missing in our first battles it was because the
road was so long from the Papal barracks to the
plains of Alsace ?

PETITION 211
To some people, it is true, your Encyclical seems
not so much a definite and final refusal as an invita
tion to open negotiations and to modify the Law.
Such a step might perhaps have been possible
yesterday, before this great outburst; it would
undoubtedly have been so at the time when the Law
was under discussion, if Your Holiness had authorised
someone to present, in your name, some firm proposals.
Alas! it is out of the question to-day; it is now
either too late or too early. Catholics who are aware
of the pohtical situation have no illusions. You wUl
have learnt from the Press the unanimous, the
perfectly resolute and the perfectly independent
attitude of the principal groups of the democracy.
The most moderate sections have quietly repeated
that aU the citizens of the State, whoever they may
be, must obey the Law, and that the Government
wiU queU aU opposition. The advanced parties,
which are powerful, and whose progress nothing has
yet avaUed to stop, are loudly rejoicing that they will
be able to continue for many years their anti-clerical
agitation — of all policies the easiest and the most
popular. And if some among us had stiU doubts
as to the real opinion of the country at bottom, that

212 MODERNISM
opinion has just made itself heard through the
medium of the conseils g/n/raux. It neither hesi
tates nor discusses. Dread and imperious as the
voice of the peoples, it demands " the fuU and
energetic application " of a law which has been
signally approved by the vote of the nation, a law
which we Catholics ourselves appear to have im
plicitly accepted by at once availing ourselves of
those of its articles which are in our favour. In fine,
Holy Father, if the discussion closed by the vote of
the Chambers were re-opened you may be sure that
any modifications introduced into the text would
but aggravate our position.
It is a solemn and decisive moment. Hencefor
ward events wUl move fast. The violence of the
violent wiU increase and grow fiercer. In company
with the majority of our bishops and the great major
ity of our f eUow-Catholics who are capable of thought,
we are convinced that it is stUl possible to avoid a
battle. If there is a battle, Holy Father, we shaU fight
with you and for you. Permit us, however, to remind
you of the by no means encouraging conditions under
which the struggle wiU take place.
The Catholics who are implicated in the excesses
of a political faction which is more turbulent than

PETITION 213
inteUigent are a minority. Certain scenes that
occurred when the inventories were taken have
shown their wishes and intentions; but the results
of the parliamentary elections which foUowed soon
after have proved how extremely limited is their
influence and how hopelessly poor is their organisa
tion. As for the dark masses of the democracy which are
slowly rising to attack our ancient social institutions,
we are wUling to beheve that they are not whoUy
irreligious; they retain a memory and desire for
a few of the Church's rites; but they do not be
heve; they are moving towards materialism and
atheism. Although our clergy are recruited from
the people, although they do not cease to show the
most entire devotion to it, they are no longer safe
from gross insults. The mere sight of a cassock
irritates the working-man. At the great stages in
life, baptisms, marriages, funerals, the traditional
and hieratic ceremonies, celebrated in a dead
language, are becoming more and more incompre
hensible to him. In the fragments of the Gospel
which he hears read, he can no longer recognise the
sweet and potent voice which has enriched with

214 MODERNISM
divine consolation so many of the poor throughout
the ages.
The attitude of the intellectual world towards the
Church inspires us with other and still more dis
quieting fears. Yawning breaches have been opened
in the ramparts of the Holy City. There are many
deserters. As for those who continue to adhere
without enthusiasm to the teaching of the Church,
why should we conceal from you, Holy Father,
that their perplexity, already great in face of so
many questions that are insoluble or have been most
regrettably settled in defiance of science, has been
much increased by some of your recent decisions?
The strong words of a Catholic who is not affected
by any mania for innovations, and whose counsels
had some weight with your predecessor, must not be
forgotten indefinitely: "When the assembly of the
French bishops has decided what the Church's
attitude is to be in face of the Separation Law, we
shaU ask it to try to teU us, defining them with
both breadth and precision, what means are at the
Church's disposal to resist the onslaught of free
thought. Mere lamentations wiU not suffice, nor
invectives against freemasonry, nor manoeuvres at

PETITION 215
the elections, nor literature and politics generaUy.
Something else must be sought and found."
In raising our voice towards your apostolic throne,
Holy Father, we, who respect vour decisions while we
deplnye them, have been careful to separate ourselves
from those mischief -making Catholics whose bhndness
has led us to the verge of an abyss. History, which
wiU judge between them and us, will denounce their
lack of Christian feeling as much as their lack of
critical sense. But at the same time we have been
careful to distinguish ourselves from those fawning
Cathohcs whose constant flattery and equivocal
sUence is not what one was entitled to expect from
their rehgious conscience and the clear-sightedness
which should accompany their patriotism. We have
been prompted by our love for the Church, of which,
in spite of aU things, there is no more reason to
despair in our land than elsewhere. We have like
wise been prompted by the sacred interests of France,
a country as noble in the present as she has been in
the past. And if it is true that the vote of the
bishops appointed under the Concordat, when con
fronted with a law of their own country, drew from
you that cry which, intended as a reproach, will

216 MODERNISM
remain the highest of eulogies, " They have voted
as Frenchmen ! ", we give you to know, Holy Father,
that the real France, the France which does not plot
and agitate and intrigue, but thinks and toils, was
on that day entirely with her bishops.
The most marveUous daughter of old France,
whom our little chUdren invoke on their knees and
whom you are about to make a saint to be prayed
to in church — Joan of Arc — was moved to tears
when the archangels came down from heaven to teU
her of " the great pity which was in the kingdom of
France." Forgive us, Father of all Christians, for having
ventured to teU you, whUe there is yet time, of the
great pity there is at this moment in the minds of the
rulers of our dioceses and of the best of their flock, in
the minds of our wives, our daughters, our mothers,
in the minds of aU those who realise that Catholicism
is stUl bound up with the destinies of our great
country and of a civUisation which wiU never re
nounce the principles of the French Revolution, but
which traces its origin to a more distant and a higher
source : to the Gospel and the very heart of Christ.
A Group of French Catholics.

APPENDIX III
DECREE OF THE HOLY ROMAN AND
UNIVERSAL INQUISITION.
(Lamentabili Sane Exitu)
Wednesday, July 3, 1907.
With truly lamentable results our age, intolerant
of aU check in its investigations of the ultimate causes
of things, not unfrequently foUows what is new in
such .a way as to reject the legacy, as it were, of the
human race and thus fall into the most grievous
errors. These errors wiU be all the more pernicious
when they affect sacred disciplines, the interpretation
of the Sacred Scripture, the principal mysteries of the
faith. Jt is to be greatly deplored that among
Cathohcs also not a few writers are to be found who,
- «- 1 hi ¦¦ m ' »¦
crossing the boundaries fixed by the Fathers and by
the Church herself, seek out, on the plea of higher
inteUigence and in the name of historical considera
tions, that progress of dogmas which is in reahty the
corruption of the same. "" 217

218 MODERNISM
But lest eirors of this kind, which are beinfl daUv
spread among the faithful, should strike root in their
minds and corrupt the purity of the faith, it has
pleased His Holiness Pius X.. by Divine Providence
Pope, that the chief among them should be noted and
condemned through the office of this^Holy Roman
and Universal Inquisition.
Wherefore after a most diligent investigation, and
after having taken the opinion of the Reverend
Consulters, the Most Eminent and Reverend Lords
Cardinals, the General Inquisitors in matters of faith
and morals, decided that the following propositions
are to be condemned and proscribed, as they are, by
this general Decree, condemned and proscribed:
i. The ecclesiastical law, which prescribes that
books regarding the Divine Scriptures are subject to
previous censorship, does not extend to critical
scholars or students of the scientific exegesis of the
01d_and rN,ew Testament.
2. The Church/s interpretation of the Sacrpd Bonks
is not indeed to be contemned, but it is subject to the
more accurate iudgmenj; and to the correction of the
exegetes. 3. From the ecclesiastical judgments and censures
passed against free and more scientific (cultiorem)

SYLLABUS 219
exegesis, it may be gathered that the faith proposed
by the Church contradicts history and that the
Cathohc dogmas cannot reaUy be reconciled with the
true origins of the Christian religion.
4. The magisterium of the Church, canrmt. even
through dogmatic definitions, determine the genuine
sense of the Sacred Scriptures.
5. Since in the deposit of the faith only revealed
truths are contained, under no respect does it apper
tain to the Church to pass judgment concerning the
assertions of human sciences.
* ¦¦  ¦" " ¦ ...
6. In defining truths the Church learning (discens)
and the Church teaching (docens) coUaborate in such
a way that it only remains for the Church docens to
sanction the opinions of the Church discens.
7. The Church, when it proscribes errors, cannot
exact from the faithful any internal assent by which
the judgments issued by it are embraced.
8. Those who treat as of no weight the condemna
tions passed by the Sacred Congregation of the Index
or by the other Roman Congregations are free from
all blame.
9. Those who beheve that God, is reaUv the author
nf the Sacred Scripture display excessive simplicity
or ignorance.

220 MODERNISM
10. The inspiration of the books of the Old Testa
ment consists in the fact that the Israelite writers
have handed down religious doctrines under a
peculiar aspect, either little or not at aU known to the
GentUes. n. Divine inspiration is not to be so extended to
the whole Sacred Scripture that it renders its parts.
aU and single, immune from aU error.
12. The exegete, if he wishes to apply himself
usefuUy to biblical studies, must first of aU put aside
all preconceived opinions concerning the super
natural origin of the Sacred Scripture, and interpret
it not otherwise than other merely human documents.
13. The Evangelists themselves and the Christians
of the second and third generation arranged (digesser-
unt) artificiaUy the evangehcal parables, and in this
way gave an explanation of the scanty fruit of the
preaching of Christ among the Jews
14. In a great many narrations the Evangelists
reported not so much things that are true as things
which even though false they judged to be more
profitable for their readers.
15. The Gospels until the time the canon was
defined and constituted were increased by additions

SYLLABUS 221
and corrections; hence in them there remained of
the doctrine of Christ only a faint and uncertain
trace. 16. The narrations of John are not properly
history, but the mystical contemplation of the
Gospel; the discourses contained in his Gospel are
theological meditations, devoid of historical truth,
concerning the mystery of salvation.
17 The Fourth Gospel exaggerated miracles not
only that the wonderful might stand out but also
that they might become more suitable for signifying
the work and the glory of the Word Incarnate.
18. John claims for himself the quality of a
witness concerning Christ ; but in reality he is only a
distinguished witness of the Christian life, or of the
hfe of Christ in the Church, at the close of the first
century. 19. Heterodox exegete° havq pvprpggpri the tru*
sense of the Scriptures more faithfully than Catholic
exegetes. 20. Revelation could be nothing but the con
sciousness acquired by man of his relation with God.
21. Revelation, constituting the object of Cathohc
faith, was not completed with the Apostles.

222 MODERNISM
22. The dogmas which the Church gives out as
revealed are not truths which have faUen down from
heaven, but ye an interpretation of rehgious facts,
which the human mind has acquired by laborious
efforts. 23. Opposition may and actuaUy does exist
between the facts which are narrated in Scripture
and the dogmas of the Church which rest on them;
so that the critic may reject as false facts which the
Church holds as most certain.
24. The exegete is not to be blamed for construct
ing premises from which it foUows that the dogmas
are historically false or doubtful, provided he does
not directly deny the dogmas themselves.
25. The assent of faith rests ultimately nn a triads
of probabhities.
26. The dogmas of faith are to be held only accord
ing to their practical sense, that is, as preceptive
norms of conduct, but not as norms of believing.
27. The Divinity of Jesus Christ is not proved from
the Gospels; but is a dogma which the Christian
conscience has derived from the notion of the
Messias. 28. Jesus, whUe He was exercising His ministry,

SYLLABUS 223
did not speak with the object of teaching that He
was the Messias, nor did His miracles tend to prove
this. 29. It is lawful to believe that the Christ of history
is far inferior to the Christ who is the object of
faith. 30. In aU the evangelical texts the name Son of
God is equivalent only to Messias, and does not at aU
signify that Christ is the true and natural Son of God.
31. The doctrine concerning Christ taught by Paul,
John, the Councils of Nicea, Ephesus, and Chalcedon,
is not that which Jesus taught, but that which the
Christian conscience conceived concerning Jesus.
32. It is not possible to reconcile the natural sense
of the Gospel texts with the sense taught by our
theologians concerning the conscience and the infall
ible knowledge of Jesus Christ.
33. It is evident to everybody who is not led by
preconceived opinions that either Jesus professed an
error concerning the immediate Messianic coming, or
that the greater part_of.His_do£trine as_cont ained_ in
the G-ospels is^es^tuie^of^ajrfchentieity.
34. The critic cannot ascribe to Christ a knowledge
circumscribed by no limits except on a hypothesis

224 MODERNISM
which cannot be historically conceived, and which is
repugnant to the moral sense, viz., that Christ as man
had the knowledge of God and yet was unwiUing to
communicate the knowledge of a great many things
to His disciples and to posterity.
35. Christ had not always the consciousness of His
Messianic dignity.
36. The Resurrection of the Saviour is not properly
a fact of the historical order, but a fact of merely
supernatural order neither demonstrated nor demon
strable, which the Christian conscience graduaUy
derived from other facts.
37. Faith in the Resurrection of Christ was in the
beginning not so much in the fact itself of the
Resurrection, as in the immortal hfe of Christ with
God. 38. The doctrine of the expiatory death of Christ is
not Evangelical but Pauline.
39. The opinions concerning the origin of the
sacraments with which the Fathers of Trent were
imbued and which certainly influenced their dogmatic
canons are very different from those which now
rightly obtain among historians who examine into
Christianity.

SYLLABUS 225
40. The sacraments had their origin in the fact that
the Apostles and their successors, swayed and moved
by circumstances and events, interpreted some idea
and intention of Christ.
41. The sacraments are merely intended to bring
before the mind of man the ever-beneficent presence
of the Creator.
42. The Christian community imposed (induxit)
the necessity of baptism, adopting it as a necessary
rite, and adding to it the obligations of the Christian
profession. 43. The practice of conferring baptism on infants
was a disciplinary evolution, which became one of the
causes why the sacrament was divided into two, viz.,
baptism and penance.
44. There is nothing to prove that the rite of the
sacrament of confirmation was employed by the
Apostles: but the formal distinction of the two
sacraments, baptism and confirmation, does not
belong to the history of primitive Christianity.
45. Not everything which Paul narrates concerning
the institution of the Eucharist (1 Cor. xi. 23-25) is to
be taken historically.
46. In the primitive Church the conception of the
p

226 MODERNISM
Christian sinner reconcUed by the authority of the
Church did not exist, but it was only very slowly that
the Church accustomed itself to this conception.
Nay, even after penance was recognised as an in
stitution of the Church, it was not caUed a sacra
ment, for it would be held as an ignominious
sacrament. 47. The words of the Lord: Receive ye the Holy
Ghost ; whose sins ye shall forgive they are forgiven
them, and whose sins ye shall retain they are retained
(John xx. 22, 23) do not at all refer to the sacrament
of penance, whatever the Fathers of Trent may have
been pleased to say.
48. James in his Epistle (w. 14 and 15) did not
intend to promulgate a Sacrament of Christ, but to
commend a pious custom, and if in this custom he
happens to distinguish (cernit) a means of grace, it
is not in that rigorous manner in which it was
received by the theologians who laid down the notion
and the number of the sacraments.
49. The Christian supper graduaUy assuming the
nature of a liturgical action, those who were wont to
preside at the Supper acquired the sacerdotal
character.

SYLLABUS 227
50. The elders who fiUed the office of watching
over the gatherings of the faithful, were instituted by
the Apostles as priests or bishops to provide for the
necessary ordering (ordinationi) of the increasing
communities, not properly for perpetuating the
Apostohc mission and power.
51. It is not possible that matrimony could have
become a sacrament of the new Law until later in the
Church; for in order that matrimony should be held
as a sacrament it was necessary that a fuU theological
development (explicatio) of the doctrine of grace and
the sacraments should first take place.
52. It was foreign to the mind of Christ to found a
Church as a Society which was to last on the earth
for a long course of centuries; nay, in the mind of
Christ the Kingdom of Heaven together with the end
of the world was about to come immediately.
53. The organic constitution of the Church is not
immutable ; but Christian society hke human society
is subject to perpetual evolution.
54. Dogmas, sacraments, hierarchy, both as re
gards the notion of them and the reality, are but
interpretations and evolutions of the Christian
inteUigence which by external increments have

228 MODERNISM
increased and perfected the little germ latent in
the Gospel.
55. Simon Peter never even, suspected that the
primacy in thp Chiirrh was entrusted to him by
Christ. 56. The Roman Church became the head of
all the Churches not through the ordinance of
Divine Providence but through merely pohtical
conditions. 57. The Church has shown herself to be hostile to
the progress of natural and theological sciences.
58. Trutl^ is not any more immutabje than man
himself, since it is evolved with him, in him, and
through him.
59. Christ did not teach a determinate body
of doctrine applicable to aU times and to aU
men, but rather inaugurated a religious movement
adapted or to be adapted for different times and
places. 60. Christian doctrine in its origin was Judaic,
but through successive evolutions became first
Pauline, then Johannine, and finaUy HeUenic and
universal. 61. It may be said without paradox that there is

SYLLABUS 229
no chapter of Scripture, from the first of Genesis to
the last of the Apocalypse, which contains a doctrine
absolutely identical with that which the Church
teaches on the same matter, and that, therefore,
no chapter in Scripture has the same sense for the
critic and for the theologian.
62. The chief articles of the Apostolic Symbol
had not for the Christians of the first ages the
same sense that they have for the Christians of our
time. 63. The Church shows itself unequal to the task
of efficaciously maintaining evangelical ethics, be
cause it obstinately adheres to immutable doctrines
which cannot be reconcUed with modern progress.
64. The progress of science requires a remodeUing
(ut reformentur) of the conceptions of Christian
doctrine concerning God, Creation, Revelation, the
Person of the Incarnate Word, Redemption.
65. Modern Cathohcism cannot be reconcUed with
true science unless it be transformed into a non-
dogmatic Christianity, that is into a broad and liberal
Protestantism. And on the foUowing Thursday, the fourth day of
the same month and year, an accurate report of aU

230 MODERNISM
this having been made to our Most Holy Lord Pope
Pius X., his Holiness approved and confirmed the
Decree of the Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered
that the propositions above enumerated, aU and
several, be held by aU as condemned and proscribed.
Peter Palombelli,
Notary of the H. R. U. I.

ENCYCLICAL LETTER
(" Pascendi Gregis ")
Of our most Holy Lord, PIUS X., by Divine Providence
Pope, on the Doctrines of the Modernists.
To the Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and other
Local Ordinaries in Peace and Communion with
the Apostolic See.
POPE PIUS X.
Venerable Brethren, Health and the
Apostolic Benediction.
One of the primary obligations assigned by Christ to
the office divinely committed to Us of feeding the
Lord's flock is that of guarding with the greatest
vigilance the deposit of the faith delivered to the
saints, rejecting the profane novelties of words and
the gainsaying of knowledge falsely so called. There
has never been a time when this watchfulness of the
supreme pastor was not necessary to the Catholic
body; for, owing to the efforts of the enemy of the
human race, there have never been lacking " men
231

232 MODERNISM
speaking perverse things " (Acts xx. 30), " vain
talkers and seducers " (Tit. i. 10), " erring and
driving into error " (2 Tim. iii. 13). It must, how
ever, be confessed that these latter days have wit
nessed a notable increase in the number of the
enemies of the Cross of Christ, who, by arts entirely
new and full of deceit, are striving to destroy the
vital energy of the Church, and, as far as in them
lies, utterly to subvert the very Kingdom of Christ.
Wherefore We may no longer keep silence, lest We
should seem to fail in Our most sacred duty, and lest
the kindness that, in the hope of wiser counsels, We
have hitherto shown them, should be set down to lack
of dihgence in the discharge of Our office.

[Gravity of the Situation.] *
That We should act without delay in this matter is
made imperative especially by the fact that the
partisans of error are to be sought not only among
the Church's open enemies ; but, what is to be most
dreaded and deplored, in her very bosom, and are
* These headings in brackets are not in the original, and are
inserted for the convenience of the reader.

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 233
the more mischievous the less they keep in the open.
We aUude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong
to the Catholic laitv. and, what is much more sad,
to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, animated
by a false zeal for the Church, lacking the solid
safeguards of philosophy and theology, nay more,
thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines
taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all
sense of modesty, p.ut themselves forward as re
formers of the Church; and, forming more boldly
into line of attack, assail aU that is most sacred in
the work of Christ, not sparing even the Person of the
Divine Redeemer, Whom, with sacrilegious audacity,
they degrade to the condition of a simple and
ordinary man.
Although they express their astonishment that
We should number them amongst the enemies of the
Church, no one will be reasonably surprised that We
should do so, if, leaving out of account the internal
disposition of the soul, of which God alone is the
Judge, he considers their tenets, their manner of
speech, and their action. Nor indeed would he be
wrong in regarding them as the most pernicious of all
the adversaries of the Church. For, as We have

234 MODERNISM
said, they put into operation their designs for her
undoing, not from without but from within. Hence,
the danger is present almost in the very veins and
heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain
from the very fact that their knowledge of her is
more intimate. Moreover, they lay the axe not to the
branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is,
to the faith and its deepest fibres. And once having
struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to
diffuse poison through the whole tree, so that there
is no part of Catholic truth which they leave un
touched, none that they do not strive to corrupt.
Further, none is more skUful, none more astute than
they, 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. To
this must be added the fact, which indeed is well
calculated to deceive souls, that they lead a life of the
greatest activity, of assiduous and ardent application
to every branch of learning, and that they possess,

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 235
as a rule, a reputation for irreproachable morality.
FinaUy, there is the fact which is all but fatal to the
hope of cure that their very doctrines have given
such a bent to their minds, that they disdain all
authority and brook no restraint; and relying upon
a false conscience, they attempt to ascribe to a love
of truth that which is in reahty the result of pride and
obstinacy. Once indeed We had hopes of recalling them to a
better mind, and to this end We first of all treated
them with kindness as Our children, then with
severity ; and at last We have had recourse, though
with great reluctance, to public reproof. It is known
to you, Venerable Brethren, how unavailing have
been our efforts. For a moment they have bowed
their head, only to lift it more arrogantly than before.
If it were a matter which concerned them alone, We
might perhaps have overlooked it; but the security
of the Catholic name is at stake. Wherefore We
must interrupt a silence which it would be criminal
to prolong, that We may point out to the whole
Church, as they reaUy are, men who are badly
disguised.

236 MODERNISM
[Division of the Encyclical.]
It is one of the cleverest devices of the Modernists
(as they are commonly and rightly called) to present
their doctrines without order and systematic ar
rangement, in a scattered and disjointed manner,
so as to make it appear as if their minds were in doubt
or hesitation, whereas in reahty they are quite fixed
and steadfast. For this reason it will be of advan
tage, Venerable Brethren, to bring their teachings
together here into one group, and to point out their
interconnection, and thus to pass to an examination
of the sources of the errors, and to prescribe re
medies for averting the evil results.

[PART I.: ANALYSIS OF MODERNIST
TEACHING.]
To proceed in an orderly manner in this somewhat
abstruse subject it must first of aU be noted that the
Modernist sustains and includes within himself a
manifold personality; he is a philosopher, a believer,
a theologian, an historian, a critic, an apologist, a

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 237
reformer. These roles must be clearly distin
guished one from another by aU who would ac
curately understand their system and thoroughly
grasp the principles and the outcome of their
doctrines. [Agnosticism its Philosophical Foundation.]
We begin, then, with the philosopher. Modernists
place the foundation of rehgious phUosophy in
that doctrine which is commonly called Agnosticism.
According to this teaching human reason is confined
entirely within the field of Phenomena, that is to
say, to things that appear, and in the manner in
which they appear: it has neither the right nor
the power to overstep these limits. Hence it is
incapable of lifting itself up to God, and of recog
nising His existence, even by means of visible
things. From this it is inferred that God can
never be the direct object of science, and that, as
regards history, He must not be considered as an
historical subject. Given these premises, every
one wiU at once perceive what becomes of Natural
Theology, of the motives of credibility, of external

238 MODERNISM
revelation. The Modernists simply sweep them
entirely aside; they include them in Intellectualism
which they denounce as a system which is ridiculous
and long since defunct. Nor does the fact that
the Church has formally condemned these por
tentous errors exercise the slightest restraint upon
them. Yet the_Vatican CouncU has defined, " If
anyone says that the one true Godj our Creator and
Lord, cannot be known with certainty by the
*—  —  Hill, ,
natural light of human reason by means of the
things that are made, let him be anathema; " *
and also : " If anyone says that it is not possible
or not expedient that man be taught, through
the medium of divine revelation, about God and the
worship to be paid Him, let him be anathema; " f
and finally, " If anyone says that divine revelation
cannot be made credible by external signs, and that
therefore men should be drawn to the faith only
by their personal internal experience or by private
inspiration, let him be anathema." J It may be
asked, in what way do the Modernists contrive to
make the transition from Agnosticism, which is a
* De Revel, can. i. \Jbid., can. 3.
\ De Fide., can. 3.

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 239
state of pure nescience, to scientific and historic
Atheism, which is a doctrine of positive denial;
and consequently, by what legitimate process of
reasoning, they proceed from the fact of ignorance
as to whether God has in fact intervened in the
history of the human race or not, to explain this
history, leaving God out altogether, as if He really
had not intervened. Let him answer who can.
Yet it is a fixed and established principle among
them that both science and history must be atheistic :
and within their boundaries there is room for nothing
but phenomena ; God and all that is divine are
utterly excluded. We shall soon see clearly what,
as a consequence of this most absurd teaching,
must be held touching the most sacred Person of
Christ, and the mysteries of His life and death,
and of His Resurrection and Ascension into
Heaven.

[Vital Immanence.]
However, this Agnosticism is only the negative
part of the system of the Modernists: the positive
part consists in what they call vital_immanence.

240 MODERNISM
Thus they advance from one to the other. Religion,
whether natural or supernatural, must, hke every
other fact, admit of some explanation. But when
natural theology has been destroyed, and the road
to revelation closed by the rejection of the argu
ments of credibihty, and aU external revelation
absolutely denied, it is clear that this explanation
will be sought in vain outside of man himself. It
must, therefore, be looked for in man; and since
religion is a form of hfe, the explanation must
certainly be found in the hfe of man. In this way
is formulated the principle of religious immanence.
Moreover, the first actuation, so to speak, of every
vital phenomenon — and religion, as noted above,
belongs to this category — is due to a certain need or
impulsion; but speaking more particularly of life,
it has its origin in a movement of the heart, which
movement is called a sense. Therefore, as God is
the object of religion, we must conclude that faith,
which is the basis and foundation of all religion,
must consist in a certain interior sense, originating
in a need of the divine. This need of the divine,
which is experienced only in special and favourable
circumstances, cannot, of itself, appertain to the

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 241
domain of consciousness,* but is first latent beneath
consciousness, or, to borrow a term from modern
phUosophy, in the subconsciousness, where also
its root hes hidden and undetected.
It may perhaps be asked how it is that this need
of the divine which man experiences within himself
resolves itself into religion? To this question the
Modernist reply would be as foUows: Science and
history are confined within two boundaries, the one
external, namely, the visible world, the other internal,
which is consciousness. When one or other of these
limits has been reached, there can be no further
progress, for beyond is the unknowable. In presence
of this unknowable, whether it is outside man and
beyond the visible world of nature, or hes hidden
within the subconsciousness, the need of the divine
in a soul which is prone to religion, excites — ac
cording to the principles of Fideism. without any
previous advertence of the mind — a certain special
sense, and this sense possesses, implied within
itself both as its own object and as its intrinsic
* [In the Latin text the word is conscientia, which may be
rendered in English as "conscience" or " consciousness," and
in the present translation it is so used as the context seems to
require. — Translator's note.]
Q

242 MODERNISM
cause, the divine reality itself, and in a way unites
man with God. It is this sense to which Modernists
give the name of faith, and this is what they hold
to be the beginning of religion.
But we have not yet reached the end of their
philosophising, or, to speak more accurately, of
their folly. Modernists find in this sense, not only
/ faith, but in and with faith, as they understand
it, they affirm that there is also to be found revela
tion. For, indeed, what more is needed to constitute
» —
a revelation? Is not that rehgious sense which is
perceptible in the conscience, revelation, or at
least the beginning of revelation? Nay, is it not
God Himself manifesting Himself, indistinctly, it
is true, in this same religious sense, to the soul?
And they add: Since God is both the object and
the cause of faith, this revelation is at the same
time of God and from God, that is to say, God is
both the Revealer and the Revealed.
From this, Venerable Brethren, springs that
most absurd tenet of the Modernists, that every
religion, according to the different aspect under
which it is viewed, must be considered as both
nalvira.1 and supernatural. It is thus that they

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 243
make consciousness and revelation synonymous.
From this they derive the law laid down as the
universal standard, according to which religious
consciousness is to be put on an equal footing with
revelation, and that to it all must submit, even
the supreme authority of the Church, whether in
the capacity of teacher, or in that of legislator in
the province of sacred liturgy or discipline.

[Deformation of Religious History —
the Consequence.]
In aU this process, from which, according to the
Modernists, faith and revelation spring, one point
is to be particularly noted, for it is of capital im
portance on account of the historico-critical corol
laries which they deduce from it. The Unknowable
they speak of does not present itself to faith as
something solitary and isolated ; but on the contrary
in close conjunction with some phenomenon, which,
though it belongs to the realms of science or history,
yet to some extent exceeds their hmits. Such a
phenomenon may be a fact of nature containing
within itself something mysterious; or it may be

244 MODERNISM
a man, whose character, actions and words cannot,
apparently, be reconciled with the ordinary laws
of history. Then faith, attracted by the Unknowable
which is united with the phenomenon, seizes upon
the whole phenomenon, and, as it were, permeates
it with its own hfe. From this two things foUow.
The first is a sort of transfiguration of the phenomenon
by its elevation above its own true conditions, an
elevation by which it becomes more adapted to
clothe itself with the form of the divine character
which faith wiU bestow upon it. The second
consequence is a certain disfiguration — so it may
be caUed — of the same phenomenon, arising from
the fact that faith attributes to it, when stripped
of the circumstances of place and time, character
istics which it does not reaUy possess; and this
takes place especially in the case of the phenomena
of the past, and the more fully in the measure of
their antiquity. From these two principles the
Modernists deduce two laws, which, when united
with a third which they have already derived from
agnosticism, constitute the foundation of historic
criticism. An example may be sought in the
Person of Christ. In the Person of Christ, they

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 245
say, science and history encounter nothing that
is not human. Therefore, in virtue of the first
canon deduced from agnosticism, whatever there
is in His history suggestive of the divine, must be
rejected. Then, according to the second canon,
the historical Person of Christ was transfigured
by faith; therefore everything that raises it above
historical conditions must be removed. Lastly,
the third canon, which lays down that the Person
of Christ has been disfigured by faith, requires
that everything should be excluded, deeds and
words and all else, that is not in strict keeping
with His character, condition, and education, and
with the place and time in which He lived. A
method of reasoning which is passing strange, but
in it we have the Modernist criticism.
It is thus that the religious sense, which through
the agency of vital immanence emerges from the
lurking-places of the subconsciousness, is the germ of
aU rehgion, and the explanation of everything that
has been or ever wiU be in any religion. This sense,
which was at first only rudimentary and almost
formless, under the influence of that mysterious
principle from which it originated, graduaUy matured

246 MODERNISM
with the progress of human hfe, of which, as has been
said, it is a certain form. This, then, is the origin of
all, even of supernatural rehgion. For rehgions are
mere developments of this religious sense. Nor is
the Cathohc religion an exception; it is quite on a
level with the rest; for it was engendered, by the
process of vital immanence, and by no other way,
in the consciousness of Christ, who was a man of the
choicest nature, whose like has never been, nor wiU
be. In hearing these things we shudder indeed at so
great an audacity of assertion and so great a sacri
lege. And yet, Venerable Brethren, these are not
merely the foolish babblings of unbelievers. There
are Catholics, yea, and priests too, who say these
things openly ; and they boast that they are going to
reform the Church by these ravings! The question
is no longer one of the old error which claimed for
human nature a sort of right to the supernatural.
It has gone far beyond that, and has reached the
point when it is affirmed that our most holy religion,
in the man Christ as in us, emanated from nature
spontaneously and of itself. Nothing assuredly could
be more utterly destructive of the whole supernatural
order. For this reason the Vatican Council most

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 247
justly decreed: "If anyone says that man cannot
be raised by God to a knowledge and perfection
which surpasses nature, but that he can and should,
by his own efforts and by a constant development,
attain finally to the possession of aU truth and good,
let him be anathema." *

[The Origin of Dogmas.]
So far, Venerable Brethren, there has been no
mention of the inteUect. It also, according to the
teaching of the Modernists, has its part in the act of
faith. And it is of importance to see how. In that
sense of which We have frequently spoken, since
sense is not knowledge, they say God, indeed, pre
sents Himself to man, but in a manner so confused
and indistinct that He can hardly be perceived by
the behever. It is therefore necessary that a certain
light should be cast upon this sense so that God may
clearly stand out in relief and be set apart from it.
This is the task of the inteUect, whose office it is to
reflect and to analyse; and by means of it, man first
transforms into mental pictures the vital phenomena
* De Revel., can. 3.

248 MODERNISM
which arise within him, and then expresses them in
words. Hence the common saying of Modernists:
that the rehgious man must think his faith. The
mind then, encountering this sense, throws itself upon
it, and works in it after the manner of a painter who
restores to greater clearness the lines of a picture
that have been dimmed with age. The simile is that
of one of the leaders of Modernism. The operation
of the mind in this work is a double one : first, by a
natural and spontaneous act it expresses its concept
in a simple, popular statement; then, on reflection
and deeper consideration, or, as they say, by elaborat
ing its thought, it expresses the idea in secondary
propositions, which are derived from the first, but are
more precise and distinct. These secondary proposi
tions, if they finaUy receive the approval of the
supreme magisterium of the Church, constitute
dogma. We have thus reached one of the principal points
in the Modernists' system, namely, the origin and the
nature of dogma. For they place the origin of dogma
in those primitive and simple formulae, which, under
a certain aspect, are necessary to faith ; for revelation,
to be truly such, requires the clear knowledge of God

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 249
in the consciousness. But dogma itself, they ap
parently hold, strictly consists in the secondary
formula;. To ascertain the nature of dogma, we must first
find the relation which exists between the religious
formulas and the religious sense. This wiU be readily
perceived by anyone who holds that these formulas
have no other purpose than to furnish the believer
with a means of giving to himself an account of his
faith. These formulas therefore stand midway be
tween the believer and his faith; in their relation to
the faith they are the inadequate expression of its
object, and are usually called symbols ; in their rela
tion to the believer they are mere instruments.
[Its Evolution.]
Hence it is quite impossible to maintain that they
absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they
are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so
must be adapted to the rehgious sense in its relation
to man ; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of
truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted
to man in his relation to the religious sense. But

250 MODERNISM
the "object of the religious sense, as something con
tained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of
aspects, of which now one, now another, may present
itself. In like manner he who believes can avail
himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the
formulas which we caU dogma must be subject to
these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change.
Thus_thejway_js open to the intrinsic evolution of
dogma. Here we have an immense structure of
sophisms which ruin and wreck all rehgion. Dogma
is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be
changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modern
ists, and clearly flows from their principles. For
amongst the chief points of their teaching is the
following, which they deduce from the principle of
vital immanence, namely, that religious formulas, if
they are to be really religious and not merely in
tellectual speculations, ought to be living and to live
the life of the religious sense. This is not to be
understood to mean that these formulas, especially
if merely imaginative, were to be invented for the
religious sense. Their origin matters nothing, any
more than their number or quality. What is
necessary is that the religious sense — with some

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 251
modification when needful — should vitally as
similate them. In other words, it is necessary that
the primitive formula be accepted and sanctioned
by the heart ; and similarly the subsequent work from
which are brought forth the secondary formulas must
proceed under the guidance of the heart. Hence it
comes that^ these formulas, in order to be living,
should be, and should remain, adapted to the faith
»_~  — - — ^ —
and to him who believes. Wherefore, if for any
reason this adaptation should cease to exist, they
¦W—l— — I  ¦ ¦¦¦¦ ¦ I ¦¦!¦ l» Ml '¦ ¦¦¦¦¦ ..I I — ¦¦«¦ m
lose their first meaning and accordingly need to be
changed. In view of the fact that the character
and lot of dogmatic formulas are so unstable, it is no
wonder that Modernists should regard them so
lightly and in such open disrespect, and have no
consideration or praise for anything but the religious
sense and for the religious life. In this way, with
consummate audacity, they criticise the Church, as
having strayed from the true path by failing to dis
tinguish between the religious and moral sense of
formulas and their surface meaning, and by clinging
vainly and tenaciously to meaningless formulas, while
religion itself is allowed to go to ruin. " Blind "
they are, and " leaders of the blind " puffed up with

252 MODERNISM
the proud name of science, they have reached that
pitch of folly at which they pervert the eternal con
cept of truth and the true meaning of religion; in
introducing a new system in which " they are seen
to be under the sway of a blind and unchecked
passion for novelty, thinking not at aU of finding
some solid foundation of truth, but despising the
holy and apostolic traditions, they embrace other
and vain, futile, uncertain doctrines, unapproved by
the Church, on which, in the height of their vanity,
they think they can base and maintain truth itself." *

[The Modernist as Believer: Individual
Experience and Religious Certitude.]
Thus far, Venerable Brethren, We have considered
the Modernist as a Philosopher. Now if we proceed
to consider him as a believer, and seek to know how
the believer, according to Modernism, is marked
off from the Philosopher, it must be observed that,
although the Philosopher recognises the reality
of the divine as the object of faith, still this reality
is not to be found by him but in the heart of the
* Gregory XVI., EncycL Singulari Nos, 7 Kal. Jul. 1834.

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 253
believer, as an object of feeling and affirmation,
and therefore confined within the sphere of phe
nomena; but the question as to whether in itself
it exists outside that feeling and affirmation is one
which the Philosopher passes over and neglects.
For the Modernist believer, on the contrary, it is
an established and certain fact that the reality of
the divine does reaUy exist in itself and quite in
dependently of the person who believes in it. If
you ask on what foundation this assertion of the
believer rests, he answers : In the personal experience
of the individual. On this head the Modernists ii,^
differ from the Rationalists only to fall into the
views of the Protestants and pseudo-Mystics. The
following is their manner of stating the question:
In the religious sense one must recognise a kind of
intuition of the heart which puts man in immediate
contact with the reality of God, and infuses such a
persuasion of God's existence and His action both
within and without man as far to exceed any
scientific conviction. They assert, therefore, the
existence of a real experience, and one of a kind tjhat
surpasses all rational experience. If this experience
is denied by some, hke the Rationalists, they say

254 MODERNISM
that this arises from the fact that such persons are
unwilhng to put themselves in the moral state
necessary to produce it. It is this experience which
makes the person who acquires it to be properly
and truly a believer.
How far this position is removed from that of
Catholic teaching! We have already seen how its
fallacies have been condemned by the Vatican
Council. Later on, we shaU see how these errors,
combined with those which we have akeady men
tioned, open wide the way to Atheism. Here it
is well to note at once that, given this doctrine,
of experience united with that of symbolism, every
religion, even that of paganism, must be held to
be true. What is to prevent such experiences from
being found in any rehgion? In fact, that they are
so is maintained by not a few. On what grounds
can Modernists deny the truth of an experience
affirmed by a follower of Islam? WiU they claim
a monopoly of true experiences for Catholics alone?
Indeed, Modernises do not deny, but actually
maintain, some confusedly., others frankly, that
all rpligjons are true. That they cannot feel other
wise is obvious. For on what ground, according

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 255
to their theories, could falsity be predicated of any
religion whatsoever? Certainly it would be either
on account of the falsity of the religious sense or
on account of the falsity of the formula pronounced
by the mind. Now the religious sense, although
it may be more perfect or less perfect, is always
one and the same; and the intellectual formula,
in order to be true, has but to respond to the religious
sense and to the believer, whatever be the inteUectual
capacity of the latter. In the conflict between
different rehgions, the most that Modernists can
maintain is that the Catholic has more truth because
it is more vivid, and that it deserves with more
reason the name of Christian because it corresponds
more fuUy with the origins of Christianity. No
one will find it unreasonable that these consequences
flow from the premises. But what is most amazing
is that there are Catholics and priests, who, We
would fain believe, abhor such enormities, and yet
act as if they fully approved of them. For they
lavish such praise and bestow such public honour
on the teachers of these errors as to convey the
belief that their admiration is not meant merely
for the persons, who are perhaps not devoid of a

256 MODERNISM
certain merit, but rather for the sake of the errors
which these persons openly profess and which they
do aU in their power to propagate.
[Religious Experience and Tradition.]
There is yet another element in this part of their
teaching which is absolutely contrary to Cathohc
truth. For what is Jaid down as to experience is
also apphed with destructive effect to tradition,
which has always been maintained by the Cathohc
Church. Tradition, as understood by the Modern
ists, is a communication with others of an original
experience, through preaching by means of the
intellectual formula. To this formula, in addition
to its representative value, they attribute a species
of suggestive efficacy which acts firstly in the believer
by stimulating the religious sense, should it happen
to have grown sluggish, and by renewing the ex
perience once acquired, and secondly, in those who
do not yet beheve by awakening in them for the
first time the religious sense and producing the
experience. In this way is religious experience spread
abroad among the nations; and not merely among

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 257
contemporaries by preaching, but among future
generations both by books and by oral transmission
from one to another. Sometimes this communica
tion of rehgious experience takes root and thrives,
at other times it withers at once and dies. For
the Modernists, to hve is a proof of truth, since for
them hfe and truth are one and the same thing.
Thus we are once more led to infer that aU existing
rehgions are equaUy true, for otherwise they would
not survive.

[Faith and Science.]
We have proceeded sufficiently far, Venerable
Brethren, to have before us enough, and more
than enough, to enable us to see what are the
relations which Modernists establish between faith
and science — including, as they are wont to do
under that name, history. And in the first place
it is to be held that the object-matter ofthe one is
quite extraneous to and separate from the object-
matter of the other. For faith occupies itself
solely with something which science declares to be
for it unknowable. Hence each has a separate scope

258 MODERNISM
assigned to it: science is entirely concerned with
phenomena, into which faith does not at all enter;
faith, on the contrary, concerns itself with the
divine, which is entirely unknown to science. Thus
it is contended that there can never be any dissension
between faith and science, for if each keeps on its
own ground they can never meet and therefore never
can be in contradiction. And if it be objected
that in the visible world there are some things
which appertain to faith, such as the human life
of Christ, the Modernists reply by denying this.
For though such things come within the category
of phenomena, stiU in as far as they are lived by
faith and in the way already described have been
by faith transfigured and disfigured, they have
been removed from the world of sense and trans
ferred into material for the divine. Hence should
it be further asked whether Christ has wrought
real miracles, and made real prophecies, whether
He rose truly from the dead and ascended into
Heaven, the answer of agnostic science will be in
the negative and the answer of faith in the affirma-
_tii:e — yet there will not be, on that account, any
conflict between them. For it will be denied by

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 259
the philosopher as a philosopher speaking to phil
osophers and considering Christ only in His historical
reality ; and it wiU be affirmed by the behever as
a behever speaking to believers and considering the
life of Christ as lived again by the faith and in the
faith. [Faith Subject to Science.]
It would be a great mistake, nevertheless, to
suppose that, according to these theories, one is
allowed to beheve that faith and science are entirely
independent of each other. On the side of science
that is indeed quite true and correct, but it is quite
otherwise with regard to faith, which is subject to
science, not on one but on three grounds. For in
the first place it must be observed that in every
religious fact, when one takes away the divine
reality and the experience of it which the believer
possesses, everything else, and especially the religious
formulas, belongs to the sphere of phenomena and
therefore falls under the control of science. Let
the behever go out of the world if he will, but so
long as he remains in it, whether he hke it or not,

260 MODERNISM
he cannot escape from the laws, the observation,
the judgments of science and of history. Further,
although it is contended 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 philosophises
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 evolu
tion 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 believer therefore feels
within him an impelling need so to harmonise 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,

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 261
and notwithstanding that they are supposed to be
strangers to each other, faith is made subject to
science. All this, Venerable Brothers, 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 beheved, but to embrace what
is to be beheved with reasonable obedience,
not to scrutinise the depths of the mysteries
of God, but to venerate them devoutly and
humbly." *
The Modernists completely invert the parts, and
to 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 hke 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
* Brief to the Bishop of Wratislau, June 15th, 1857.

262 MODERNISM
head into the tail and force the queen to serve the
handmaid." *

[The Methods of Modernists.]
This wiU appear more clearly to anybody who
studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect
harmony with their teachings. In their writings and
addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate
doctrines which are contrary one to the other, so
that one would be disposed to regard their attitude
as double and doubtful. But this is done deliberately
and advisedly, and the reason of it is to be found in
their opinion as to the mutual separation of science
and faith. Thus in their books one finds some
things which might weU be approved by a Catholic,
but on turning over the page one is confronted by
other things which might weU have been dictated by a
rationalist. When they write history they make no
mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are
in the pulpit they profess it clearly; again, when they
are deahng with history they take no account of the
Fathers and the Councils, but when they catechise
* Ep. ad Magistros theol. Paris, non Jul. 1223 {sic].

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 263
the people, they cite them respectfully. In the
same way they draw their distinctions between
exegesis which is theological and pastoral and
exegesis which is scientific and historical. So,
too, when they treat of philosophy, history,
and criticism, 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 Cathohc 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 hberty. 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 philo
sophy; while they, on their side, having for this
purpose blotted out the old theology, endeavour to
* Prop. 29 damn, a Leone X. Bull, Exsurge Domine 16 maii
1520. Via nobis facta est enervandi auctoritatem Conciliorum,
et libere contradicendi eorum gestis, et iudicandi eorum decreta,
et confldenter confitendi quidquid verum videtur, sive probatum
fuerit, sive reprobalum a guocumque Concilia.

264 MODERNISM
introduce a new theology which shaU support the
aberrations of philosophers.

[The Modernist as Theologian: His Prin
ciples, Immanence and Symbolism.]
At this point, Venerable Brethren, the way is
opened for us to consider the Modernists in the theo
logical arena — a difficult task, yet one that may be
disposed of briefly. It is a question of effecting the
concihation of faith with science, but always by
making the one subject to the other. In this matter
the Modernist theologian takes exactly the same
principles which we have seen employed by the
Modernist philosopher — the principles of immanence
ami syminUjsm — and applies them to the behever.
The process is an extremely simple one. The
philosopher has declared: The principle of faith is
immanent ; the behever has added : This principle
is God ; and the theologian draws the conclusion :
God is immanent in man. Thus we have theological
> immanence. So too, the philosopher regards it as
(certain that the representations of the object of faith
are merely symbolical ; the behever has likewise

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 265
affirmed that the object of faith is God in himself ;
and the theologian proceeds to affirm that: The
representations of the divine reality are symbolical.
And thus we have theological symbolism. These
errors are truly of the gravest kind and the pernicious
character of both will be seen clearly from an ex
amination of their consequences. For, to begin with
symbolism, since symbols are but symbols in regard
to their objects and only instruments in regard to the
believer, it is necessary first of all, according to the
teachings of the Modernists, that the behever do not
lay too much stress on the formula,, as formula, but
avaU himself of it only for the purpose of uniting
himself to the absolute truth which the formula at
once reveals and conceals, that is to say, endeavours
to express but without ever succeeding in doing so.
They would also have the believer make use of the
formulas only in as far as they are helpful to him, for
they are given to be a help and not a hindrance; with
proper regard, however, for the social respect due
to formulas which the public magisterium has deemed
suitable for expressing the common consciousness
until such time as the same magisterium shaU provide
otherwise. Concerning immanence it is not easy to

266 MODERNISM
determine what Modernists precisely mean by it, for
their own opinions on the subject vary. Some under
stand it in the sense that God working in man is
more intimately present in him than man is even in
himself ; and this conception, if properly understood,
is irreproachable. Others hold that the divine action
is one with the action of nature, as the action of the
first cause is one w^th the action of the secondary
cause; and this would destroy the supernatural
( °r°^er- Others, finally, explain it in a way which
savours of pantheism, and this, in truth, is the sense
which best fits in with the rest of their doctrines.
With this principle of immanence is connected
another which may be called the principle of divine
permanence. It differs from the first in much the same
way as the private experience differs from the experi
ence transmitted by tradition. An example iUustrat-
ing what is meant will be found in the Church and the
Sacraments. The Church and the Sacraments, accord
ing to the Modernists, are not to be regarded as having
been instituted by Christ Himself. This is barred by
agnosticism, which recognises in Christ nothing more
than a man whose religious consciousness has been, like
that of all men, formed by degrees ; it is also barred by

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 267
the law of immanence, which rejects what they caU
external application ; it is further barred by the law
of evolution, which requires for the development of the
germs, time and a certain series of circumstances;
it is, finaUy, barred by history, which shows that such
in fact has been the course of things. StiU it is to be
held that both Church and Sacraments have been
founded mediately by Christ. But how? In this
way : All Christian consciences were, they affirm, in a
manner virtually included in the conscience of Christ,
as the plant is included in the seed. But as the
branches hve the life of the seed, so, too, aU Christians
are to be said to live the life of Christ. But the hfe of
Christ, according to faith, is divine, and so, too, is the
life of Christians. And if this life produced, in the
course of ages, both the Church and the Sacraments,
it is quite right to say that their origin is from Christ
and is divine. In the same way they make out that
the Holy Scriptures and the dogmas are divine. And
in this, the Modernist theology may be said to reach
its completion. A slender provision, in truth, but
more than enough for the theologian who professes
that the conclusions of science, whatever they may be,
must always be accepted! No one wiU have any

268 MODERNISM
difficulty in making the application of these theories
to the other points with which We propose to
deal.

[Dogma and the Sacraments.]
Thus far We have touched upon the origin and
nature of faith. But as faith has many branches,
and chief among them the Church, dogma, worship,
devotions, the Books which we caU " Sacred," it
concerns us to know what do the Modernists teach
concerning them. To begin with dogma, We have
already indicated its origin and nature. Dogma is
born of a sort of impulse or necessity by virtue of
which the believer elaborates his thought so as to
render it clearer to his own conscience and that of
others. This elaboration consists entirely in the pro
cess of investigating and refining the primitive
mental formula, not indeed in itself and according to
any logical explanation, but according to circum
stances, or vitally as the Modernists somewhat less in
telligibly describe it. Hence it happens that around
this primitive formula secondary formulas, as we have
already indicated, graduaUy continue to be formed,

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 269
and these subsequently grouped into one body, or
one doctrinal construction, and further sanctioned
by the public magisterium as responding to the
common consciousness, are called dogma. Dogma
is to be carefuUy distinguished from the speculations
of theologians which, although not alive with the
life of dogma, are not without their utility as serving
both to harmonise religion with science and to remove
opposition between them, and to iUumine and defend
religion from without, and it may be even to prepare
the matter for future dogma. Concerning worship
there would not be much to be said, were it not that
under this head are comprised the Sacraments, con
cerning which the Modernist errors are of the most
serious character. For them the Sacraments are the
resultant of a double impulse or need — for, as we have
seen, everything in their system is explained by inner
impulses or necessities . The first need is that of giving
some sensible manifestation to religion; the second
is that of expressing it, which could not be done
without some sensible form and consecrating acts,
and these are called Sacraments. But for the
Modernists, Sacraments are bare symbols or signs,
though not devoid of a certain efficacy — an efficacy,

270 MODERNISM
they teU us, like that of certain phrases vulgarly
described as having caught the popular ear, inasmuch
as they have the power of putting certain leading
ideas into circulation, and of making a marked im
pression upon the mind. What the phrases are to
the ideas, that the Sacraments are to the rehgious
sense, that and nothing more. The Modernists
would express their mind more clearly were they to
affirm that the Sacraments are instituted solely to
foster the faith — but this is condemned by the
Council of Trent : If anyone say that these Sacraments
are instituted solely to foster the faith, let him be
anathema.* [The Holy Scriptures.]
We have already touched upon the nature and origin
of the Sacred Books. According to the principles of
the Modernists they may be rightly described as a
summary of experiences, not indeed of the kind that
may now and again come to anybody, but those
extraordinary and striking experiences which are the
possession of every religion. And this is precisely
* Sess. VII. de Sacramentis in genere, can. 5.

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 271
what they teach about our books of the Old and New
Testament. But to suit their own theories they
note with remarkable ingenuity that, although ex
perience is something belonging to the present, still
it may draw its material in hke manner from the past
and the future, inasmuch as the believer by memory
lives the past over again after the manner of the
present, and hves the future already by anticipation.
This explains how it is that the historical and apoca
lyptic books are included among the Sacred Writings.
God does indeed speak in these books through the
medium of the behever, but according to Modernist
theology, only by immanence and vital permanence.
We may ask, what then becomes of inspiration?
Inspiration, they reply,, is in nowise distinguished
from that impulse which stimulates the believer to
reveal the faith that is in him by words or writing,
except perhaps by its vehemence. It is something
hke that which happens in poetical inspiration, of
which it has been said: There is a God in us, and
when He stirreth He sets us afire. It is in this sense
that God is said to be the origin of the inspiration
of the Sacred Books. The Modernists moreover
affirm concerning this inspiration, that there is

272 MODERNISM
nothing in the Sacred Books which is devoid of it.
In this respect some might be disposed to consider
them as more orthodox than certain writers in recent
times who somewhat restrict inspiration, as, for
instance, in what have been put forward as so-called
tacit citations. But in aU this we have mere verbal
conjuring. For if we take the Bible, according to the
standards of agnosticism, namely, as a human work,
made by men for men, albeit the theologian is
allowed to proclaim that it is divine by immanence,
what room is there left in it for inspiration? The
Modernists assert a general inspiration of the Sacred
Books, but they admit no inspiration in the Cathohc
sense.

[The Church.]
A wider field for comment is opened when we come
to what the Modernist school has imagined to be the
nature of the Church. They begin with the supposi
tion that the Church has its birth in a double need;
first, the need of the individual believer to com
municate his faith to others, especially if he has had
some original and special experience, and secondly,

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 273
when the faith has become common to many, the
need of the collectivity to form itself into a society
and to guard, promote, and propagate the common
good. What, then, is the Church? It is the product
of the collective conscience, that is to say of the as-
sociation of individual consciences which by virtue
of the principle of vital permanence, depend all on one
first believer, who for Catholics is Christ. Now every
society needs a directing authority to guide its
members towards the common end, to foster
prudently the elements of cohesion, which in a
religious society are doctrine and worship. Hence
the triple authority in the Cathohc Church, dis
ciplinary, dogmatic, liturgical. The nature of this
authority is to be gathered from its origin, and its
rights and duties from its nature. In past times it
was a common error that authority came to the
Church from without, that is to say directly from,
God; and it was then rightly held to be autocratic.
But this conception has now grown obsolete. For in
the same way as the Church is a vital emanation of the
collectivity of consciences, so too authority emanates
vitally from the Church itself. Authority, therefore,
hke the Church, has its origin in the religious con-

274 MODERNISM
science, and, that being so, is subject to it. Should
it disown this dependence it becomes a tyranny.
For we are hving in an age when the sense of liberty
has reached its highest development. In the civil
order the public conscience has introduced popular
government. Now there is in man only one con
science, just as there is only one hfe. It is for the
ecclesiastical authority, therefore, to adopt a demo
cratic form, unless it wishes to provoke and foment
an intestine conflict in the consciences of mankind.
The penalty of refusal is disaster. For it is madness
to think that the sentiment of hberty, as it now
obtains, can recede. Were it forcibly pent up and
held in bonds, the more terrible would be its outburst,
sweeping away at once both Church and rehgion.
Such is the situation in the minds of the Modernists,
and their one great anxiety is, in consequence, to find
a way of conciliation between the authority of the
Church and the hberty of the behevers.
[The Relations between Church and State.]
But it is not only within her own household that
the Church must come to terms. Besides her re-

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 275
lations with those within, she has others with those
who are outside. The Church does not occupy
the world all by herself; there are other societies in
the world, with which she must necessarily have
dealings and contact. The rights and duties of the
Church towards civil societies must, therefore, be
determined, and determined, of course, by her own
nature, that to wit, which the Modernists have
already described to us. The rules to be applied in
this matter are clearly those which have been laid
down for science and faith, though in the latter case
the question turned upon the object, while in the
present case we have one of ends. In the same way,
then, as faith and science are alien to each other by
reason of the diversity of their objects, Church and
State are strangers by reason of the diversity of their
ends, that of the Church being spiritual while that of
the State is temporal. Formerly it was possible to
subordinate the temporal to the spiritual and to
speak of some questions as mixed, conceding to the
Church the position of queen and mistress in all such,
because the Church was then regarded as having been
instituted immediately by God as the author of the
supernatural order. But this doctrine is to-day

276 MODERNISM
repudiated alike by philosophers and historians.
The State must, therefore, be separated from the
Church, and the Catholic from the citizen. Every
Catholic, from the fact that he is also a citizen, has
the right and the duty to work for the common good
in the way he thinks best, without troubling himself
about the authority of the Church, without paying
any heed to its wishes, its counsels, its orders — nay,
even in spite of its rebukes. For the Church to trace
out and prescribe for the citizen any line of action, on
any pretext whatsoever, is to be guilty of an abuse of
authority, against which one is bound to protest with
all one's might. Venerable Brethren, the principles
from which these doctrines spring have been solemnly
condemned by Our Predecessor, Pius VI., in his
Apostolic Constitution Auctorem fidei.*
* Prop. 2. Propositio, quae statuit, potestatem a Deo datam
Ecclesiae ut communicaretur Pastoribus, qui sunt eius ministri
pro salute animarum ; sic intellecta, ut a communitate fidelium
in Pastores derivetur ecclesiastici ministerii ac regiminis
potestas : haeretica. — Prop 3. Insuper, quae statuit Romanum
Pontificem esse caput ministeriale ; sic explicata ut Romanus
Pontifex non a Christo in persona beati Petri, sed ab Ecclesia
potestatem ministerii accipiat, qua velut Petri successor, verus
Christi vicarius ac totius Ecclesiae caput pollet in universa
Ecclesia : haeretica.

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 277

[The Magisterium of the Church.]
But it is hot enough for the Modernist school that
the State should be separated from the Church. For
as faith is to be subordinated to science as far as
phenomenal elements are concerned, so too in_tem-
poral matters the Church must be subject to the
State. This, indeed, Modernists may not yet say
openly, but they are forced by the logic of their
position to admit it. For granted the principle that
in temporal matters the State possesses the sole
power, it will follow that when the believer, not
satisfied with merely internal acts of rehgion, pro
ceeds to external acts — such for instance as the
reception or administration of the Sacraments —
these will fall under the control of the State. What
wiU thenJbecome_of ecclesiastical authority, which
can only be exercised by external acts? Obviously
it wiU be completely under the dominion of the State.
It is this inevitable consequence which urges many
among liberal Protestants to reject all external
worship — nay, aU external religious feUowship, and
leads them to advocate what they caU individual

278 MODERNISM
religion. If the Modernists have not yet openly
proceeded so far, they ask the Church in the mean
while to follow of her own accord in the direction in
which they urge her and to adapt herself to the forms
of the State. Such are their ideas about disciplinary
authority. But much more evil and pernicious are
their opinions on doctrinal and dogmatic authority.
The foUowing is their conception of the magisterium
of the Church : No religious society, they say, can be a
real unit unless the religious conscience of its members
be one, and also the formula which they adopt. But
this double unity requires a kind of common mind
whose office is to find and determine the formula that
corresponds best with the common conscience; and
it must have, moreover, an authority sufficient to
enable it to impose on the community the formula
which has been decided upon. From the combina
tion and, as it were, fusion of these two elements, the
common mind which draws up the formula and the
authority which imposes it, arises, according to the
Modernists, the notion of the ecclesiastical magis
terium. And, as this magisterium springs, in its
last analysis, from the individual consciences and
possesses its mandate of pubhc utility for their

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 279
benefit, it necessarily foUows that the ecclesiastical
magisterium must be dependent upon them, and
should therefore be made to bow to the popular ideals.
To prevent individual consciences, irom expressing
freely .anfLopenly the impulses they feel, to hinder
criticism from urging forward dogma in the path of
its necessary evolution, is not a legitimate use but an
abuse of a power j[iven for the public weal. So too a
due method and measure must be observed in the
exercise of authority. To condemn and prescribe
1a work without the knowledge of the author, without
hearing his explanations, without discussion, is
something approaching to tyranny. And here again
it is a question of finding a way of reconciling the full
rights of authority on the one hand and those of
hberty on the other. In the meantime the proper
course for the Cathohc will be to proclaim publicly
bis profound respect for authority, while never ceasing
to foUow his own judgment. Their general direction
[ for the Church is as follows: that the ecclesiastical
authority, since its end is entirely spiritual, should
i strip itself of that external pomp which adorns it in
the eyes of the public. In this, they forget that while
I religion is for the soul, it is not exclusively for the

280 MODERNISM
soul, and that the honour paid to authority is re-
1 fleeted back on Christ who instituted it.

[The Evolution of Doctrine.]
To conclude this whole question of faith and its
various branches, we have stiU to consider, Venerable
Brethren, what the Modernists have to say about
the development of the one and the other. First
of aU they lay down the general principle that in
a living religion everything is subject to change,
and must in fact be changed. In this way they
pass to what is practicaUy their principal doctrine,
namely, evolution. To the laws of evolution every
thing is subject under penalty of death — dogma,
Church, worship, the Books we revere as sacred,
even faith itself. The enunciation of this principle
wiU not be a matter of surprise to anyone who
bears in mind what the Modernists have had to say
about each of these subjects. Having laid down
this law of evolution, the Modernists themselves
teach us how it operates. And first, with regard
to faith. The primitive form of faith, they tell
us, was rudimentary and common to aU men alike,

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 281
for it had its origin in human nature and human
life. Vital evolution brought with it progress,
not by the accretion of new and purely adventitious
forms from without, but by an increasing perfusion
of the religious sense into the conscience. The
progress was of two kinds : negative, by the elimina
tion of aU extraneous elements, such, for example,
as those derived from the family or nationahty;
and positive, by that intellectual and moral refining
of man, by means of which the idea of the divine
became fuller and clearer, while the religious sense
became more acute. For the progress of faith
the same causes are to be assigned as those which
are adduced above to explain its origin. But to
them must be added those extraordinary men whom
we caU prophets — of whom Christ was the greatest —
both because in their lives and their words there
was something mysterious which faith attributed
to the divinity, and because it fell to their lot to
have new and original experiences fully in harmony
with the rehgious needs of their time. The progress
of dogma is due chiefly to the fact that obstacles
to the faith have to be surmounted, enemies have
to be vanquished, and objections have to be refuted.

282 MODERNISM
Add to this a perpetual striving to penetrate ever
more profoundly into those things which are con
tained in the mysteries of faith. Thus, putting
aside other examples, it is found to have happened
in the case of Christ : in Him that divine something
which faith recognised in Him was slowly and
gradually expanded in such a way that He was at
last held to be God. The chief stimulus of the
evolution of worship consists in the need of accom
modation to the manners and customs of peoples,
as well as the need of availing itself of the value
which certain acts have acquired by usage. Finally,
evolution in the Church itself is fed by the need of
adapting itself to historical conditions and of
harmonising itself with existing forms of society.
Such is their view with regard to each. And here,
before proceeding further, We wish to draw attention
to this whole theory of necessities, or needs, for
beyond aU that we have seen, it is, as it were, the
base and foundation of that famous method which
they describe as historical.
Although evolution is urged on by needs or
necessities, yet, if controlled by these alone, it
would easily overstep the boundaries of tradition,

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 283
and thus, separated from its primitive vital prin
ciple, would make for ruin instead of progress.
Hence, by those who study more closely the ideas
of the Modernists, evolution is described as a
resultant from the conflict of two forces, one of
«i , 1 — , 1 , " ' * — .
them tending towards progress, the other towards
conservation. The conserving force exists in the,
Church and is founa in tradition ; tradition is
•H 1 ' ¦" -
represented by religious authority, and this both
by right and in fact. For by right it is in the very
nature of authority to protect tradition, and, in
fact, since authority, raised as it is above the con
tingencies of life, feels hardly, or not at all, the
spurs of progress. The progressive force, on the
 ... — — -  t m T
contrary, which responds to the inner needs, lies
hi the individual consciences and works in them —
especially in such of them as are in more close
and intimate contact with life. Already we observe,
Venerable Brethren, the introduction of that most
pernicious doctrine which would make of the laity
the factor of progress in the Church. Now it is
by a species of covenant and compromise between
these two forces of conservation and progress, that
is to say between authority and individual con-

284 MODERNISM
sciences, that changes and advances take place.
The individual consciences, or some of them, act
on the collective conscience, which brings pressure
to bear on the depositaries of authority to make
terms and to keep to them.
With all this in mind, one understands how it
is that the Modernists express astonishment when
they are reprimanded or punished. What is imputed
) to them as a fault they regard as a sacred duty.
They understand the needs of consciences better
than anyone else, since they come into closer touch
with them than does the ecclesiastical authority.
Nay, they embody them, so to speak, in them
selves. Hence, for them to speak and to write
publicly is a bounden duty. Let authority rebuke
them if it pleases — they have their own conscience
on their side and an intimate experience which tells
them with certainty that what they deserve is not
blame but praise. Then they reflect that, after all,
there is no progress without a battle and no battle
without its victims; and victims they are willing
to be like the prophets and Christ Himself. They
have no bitterness in their hearts against the author
ity which uses them roughly, for after aU they

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 285
readily admit that it is only doing its duty as
authority. Their sole grief is that it remains
deaf to their warnings, for in this way it impedes
the progress of souls, but the hour wiU most surely
come when further delay wiU be impossible, for if
the laws of evolution may be checked for a while
they cannot be finaUy evaded. And thus they go
(their way, reprimands and condemnations not
withstanding, masking an incredible audacity under
[a mock semblance of humility. While they make
a pretence of bowing their heads, their minds and
hands are more boldly intent than ever on carrying
out their purposes. And this policy they follow
wiUingly and wittingly, both because it is part of
their system that authority is to be stimulated
but not dethroned, and because it is necessary for
them to remain within the ranks of the Church
in order that they may gradually transform the
coUective conscience. And in saying this, they fail
to perceive that they are avowing that the collective
conscience is not with them, and that they have no
right to claim to be its interpreters.
It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the
Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists,

286 MODERNISM
there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable
in the Church. Nor, indeed, are they without
forerunners in their doctrines, for it was of these
that Our Predecessor Pius IX. wrote: "These
enemies of divine revelation extol human progress
to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring
would have it introduced into the Catholic rehgion
as if this religion were not the work of God but of
man, or some kind of philosophical discovery sus
ceptible of perfection by human efforts." * On
the subject of revelation and dogma in particular,
the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new.
We find it condemned in the SyUabus of Pius IX.,
where it is enunciated in these terms : " Divine
revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to
continual and indefinite progress, corresponding
with the progress of human reason ; " f and con
demned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council:
" The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed
has not been proposed to human intelligences to
be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical
system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the
?Encycl. Qui pluribus, 9 Nov. 1846.
t Syll. Prop. 5.

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 287
Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and in
fallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the
sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which
our Holy Mother the Church has once declared,
nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea
or pretext of a more profound comprehension of
the truth." * Nor is the development of our
knowledge, even concerning the faith, barred by
this pronouncement ; on the contrary, it is supported
and maintained. For the same Council continues:
" Let inteUigence and science and wisdom, there
fore, increase and progress abundantly and vigor
ously in individuals and in the mass, in the behever
and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and
the centuries — but only in its own kind, that is,
according to the same dogma, the same sense, the
same acceptation." j
[The Modernist as Historian and Critic]
We have studied the Modernist as philosopher,
believer, and theologian. It now remains for us
* Const Dei Filius, cap. iv.
t Loc. tit.

288 MODERNISM
to consider him as historian, critic, apologist, and
reformer. Some Modernists, devoted to historical studies,
seem to be deeply anxious not to be taken for
philosophers. About phUosophy they profess to
know nothing whatever, and in this they display
remarkable astuteness, for they are particularly
desirous not to be suspected of any prepossession
in favour of philosophical theories which would
lay them open to the charge of not being, as they
caU it, objective. And yet the truth is that their
history and their criticism are saturated with their
philosophy, and that their historico-critical con
clusions are the natural outcome of their philosophical
principles. This wiU be patent to anyone who
reflects. Their three first laws are contained in
those three principles of their philosophy already
dealt with ; the principle of agnosticism, the theorem
of the transfiguration of things by faith, and that
other which may be caUed the principle of dis
figuration. Let us see what consequences flow
from each of these. Agnosticism tells us that history,
like science, deals entirely with phenomena, and
the consequence is that God, and every intervention

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 289
of God in human affairs, is to be relegated to the
domain of faith as belonging to it alone. Where
fore in things where there is combined a double
element, the divine and the human, as, for example,
in Christ, or the Church, or the Sacraments, or the
many other objects of the same kind, a division
and separation must be made and the human ele
ment must be left to history while the divine will
be assigned to faith. Hence we have that dis
tinction, so current among the Modernists, between
the Christ of history and the Christ of faith; the
Church of history and the Church of faith; the
Sacraments of history and the Sacraments of faith,
and so in similar matters. Next we find that the
human element itself, which the historian has to
work on, as it appears in the documents, is to be
considered as having been transfigured by faith,
that is to say, raised above its historical conditions.
It becomes necessary, therefore, to eliminate also
the accretions which faith has added, to relegate
them to faith itself and to the history of faith.
Thus, when treating of Christ, the historian must
set aside all that surpasses man in his natural con
dition, according to what psychology tells us of

290 MODERNISM
him, or according to what we gather from the place
and period of his existence. Finally, they require,
by virtue of the third principle, that even those
things which are not outside the sphere of history
should pass through the sieve, excluding all and
relegating to faith everything which, in their judg
ment, is not in harmony with what they call the
logic of facts or not in character with the persons
of whom they are predicated. Thus, they wiU not
allow that Christ ever uttered those things which
do not seem to be within the capacity of the multi
tudes that listened to Him. Hence they delete
from His real history and transfer to faith all the
allegories found in His discourses. We may per-
adventure inquire on what principle they make
these divisions? Their reply is that they argue
from the character of the man, from his condition
of life, from his education, from the complexus
of the circumstances under which the facts took
place, in short, if We understand them aright, on
a principle which in the last analysis is merely
subjective. Their method is to put themselves into
the position and person of Christ, and then to
attribute to Him what they would have done under

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 291
like circumstances. In this way, absolutely a priori
and acting on philosophical principles which they
hold but which they profess to ignore, they proclaim
that Christ, according to what they caU His real
history, was not God and never did anything divine,
and that as man He did and said only what they,
judging from the time in which He lived, consider
that He ought to have said or done.

[Criticism and its Principles.]
As history takes its conclusions from philosophy,
so too criticism takes its conclusions from history.
The critic, on the data furnished him by the historian,
makes two parts of all his documents. Those that
remain after the triple elimination above described
go to form the real history; the rest is attributed
to the history of the faith or, as it is styled, to
internal history. For the Modernists distinguish
very carefully between these two kinds of history,
and it is to be noted that they oppose the history
of the faith to real history precisely as real. Thus,
as we have already said, we have a twofold Christy
a real Christ, and a Christ, the one of faith, who

292 MODERNISM
never really existed; a Christ who has hved at a
given time and in a given place, and a Christ who
has never hved outside the pious meditations of
the behever — the Christ, for instance, whom we
find in the Gospel of S. John, which, according to
them, is mere meditation from beginning to
end. But the dominion of philosophy over history
does not end here. Given that division, of which
We have spoken, of the documents into two parts,
the philosopher steps in again with his dogma of
vital immanence, and shows how everything in the
history of the Church is to be explained by vital
emanation. And since the cause or condition
of every vital emanation whatsoever is to be found
in some need or want, it foUows that no fact can
be regarded as antecedent to the need which pro
duced it — historicaUy the fact must be posterior
to the need. What, then, does the historian in view
of this principle? He goes over his documents
again, whether they be contained in the Sacred
Books or elsewhere, draws up from them his list
of the particular needs of the Church, whether
relating to dogma, or liturgy, or other matters

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 293
which are found in the Church thus related, and
then he hands his list over to the critic. The critic
takes in hand the documents dealing with the
history of faith and distributes them, period by
period, so that they correspond exactly with the
hst of needs, always guided by the principle that
the narration must follow the facts, as the facts
foUow the needs. It may at times happen that
some parts of the Sacred Scriptures, such as the
Epistles, themselves constitute the fact created
by the need. Even so, the rule holds that the age
of any document can only be determined by the age
in which each need has manifested itself in the
Church. Further, a distinction must be made
between the beginning of a fact and its develop
ment, for what is born in one day requires time
for growth. Hence the critic must once more go
over his documents, ranged as they are through
the different ages, and divide them again into two
parts, separating those that regard the origin of the
facts from those that deal with their development,
and these he must again arrange according to their
periods. Then the philosopher must come in again to enjoin

294 MODERNISM
upon the historian the obligation of following in all
his studies the precepts and laws of evolution. It
is next for the historian to scrutinise his documents
once more, to examine carefully the circumstances
and conditions affecting the Church during the
different periods, the conserving force she has put
forth, the needs both internal and external that
have stimulated her to progress, the obstacles she
has had to encounter, in a word, everything that
helps to determine the manner in which the laws of
evolution have been fulfilled in her. This done,
he finishes his work by drawing up a history of the
development in its broad lines. The critic follows
and fits in the rest of the documents. He sets
himself to write. The history is finished. Now
We ask here: Who is the author of this history?
The historian? The critic? Assuredly neither of
these but the philosopher. From beginning to end
everything in it is a priori, and an apriorism that
reeks of heresy. These men are certainly to be
pitied, of whom the Apostle might well say: They
became vain in their thoughts . . . professing them
selves to be wise they became fools (Rom. i. 21, 22).
At the same time, they excite resentment when

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 295
they accuse the Church of arranging and confusing
the texts after her own fashion, and for the needs
of her cause. In this they are accusing the Church
of something for which their own conscience plainly
reproaches them.

[How the Bible is Dealt With.]
The result of this dismembering of the records,
and this partition of them throughout the centuries,
is naturaUy that the Scriptures can no longer be
attributed to the authors whose names they bear.
The Modernists have no hesitation in affirming
generaUy that these books, and especially the
Pentateuch and the first three Gospels, have been
graduaUy formed from a. primitive brief narration.
by additions, by interpolations of theological or
allegorical interpretations, or parts introduced only
for the purpose of joining different passages together.
This means, to put it briefly and clearly, that in the
Sacred Books we must admit a vital evolution^ spring
ing from and corresponding with the evolution of
faith. The traces of this evolution, they tell us,
are so visible in the books that one might almost

296 MODERNISM
write a history of it. Indeed, this history they
actually do write, and with such an easy assurance
that one might believe them to have seen with their
own eyes the writers at work through the ages
amplifying the Sacred Books. To aid them in this
they call to their assistance that branch of criticism
which they call textual, and labour to show that
such a fact or such a phrase is not in its right place,
adducing other arguments of the same kind. They
seem, in fact, to have constructed for themselves
certain types of narration and discourses, upon
which they base their assured verdict as to whether
a thing is or is not out of place. Let him who can
judge how far they are qualified in this way to
make such distinctions. To hear them descant
of their works on the Sacred Books, in which they
have been able to discover so much that is defective,
one would imagine that before them nobody ever
even turned over the pages of Scripture. The
truth is that a whole multitude of Doctors, far
superior to them in genius, in erudition, in sanctity,
have sifted the Sacred Books in every way, and so
far from finding in them anything blameworthy,
have thanked God more and more heartily the

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 297
more deeply they have gone into them, for His
divine bounty in having vouchsafed to speak thus
to men. Unfortunately, these great Doctors did
not enjoy the same aids to study that are possessed
by the Modernists, for they did not have for their
rule and guide a philosophy borrowed from the
negation of God^ and a criterion which consists of
themselves. We believe, then, that We have set forth with
sufficient clearness the historical method of the
Modernists. The philosopher leads the way, the
historian follows, and then in due order come the
internal and textual critics. And since it is char
acteristic of the primary cause to communicate its
virtue to causes which are secondary, it is quite clear
that the criticism with which we are concerned
is not any kind of criticism, but that which is rightly
called agnostic, immanentist, and evolutionist criticism.
Hence anyone who adopts it and employs it, makes
profession thereby of the errors contained in it,
and places himself in opposition to Catholic teaching.
This being so, it is much a matter for surprise that
it should have found acceptance to such an extent
amongst certain Catholics. Two causes may be

298 MODERNISM
assigned for this : first, the close alliance which the
historians and critics of this school have formed
among themselves independent of aU differences
of nationality or rehgion; second, their boundless
effrontery by which, if one then makes any utter
ance, the others applaud him in chorus, proclaiming
that science has made another step forward, whUe
if an outsider should desire to inspect the new
discovery for himself, they form a coalition against
him. He who denies it is decried as one who is
ignorant, while he who embraces and . defends it
has aU their praise. In this way they entrap not
a few, who, did they but realise what they are
doing, would shrink back with horror. The
1 domineering overbearance of those who teach the
errors, and the thoughtless compliance of the more
shallow minds who assent to them, create a corrupted
atmosphere which penetrates everywhere, and carries
infection with it. But let Us pass to the apologist.
[The Modernist as Apologist.]
The Modernist apologist depends in two ways
on the philosopher. First, indirectly, inasmuch

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 299
as his subject-matter is history — history dictated,
as we have seen, by the philosopher; and, secondly,
directly, inasmuch as he takes both his doctrines
and his conclusions from the philosopher. Hence
that common axiom of the Modernist school that
in the new apologetics controversies in rehgion
must be determined by psychological and historical
research. The Modernist apologists, then, enter
the arena, proclaiming to the rationalists that,
though they are defending rehgion, 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. In aU this they assert that they
are not using an argumentum ad hominem, because
they are really of the opinion that the truth is to
be found only in this kind of history. They feel
that it is not necessary for them to make profession
of their own sincerity in their writings. They are
already known to and praised by the rationahst
as fighting under the same banner, and they not
only plume themselves on these encomiums, which
would only provoke disgust in a real Cathohc, but

300 MODERNISM
use them as a counter compensation to the repri
mands of the Church.
Let us see how the Modernist conducts his apolo
getics^ The aim he sets before himself is to make
one who is still without faith attam that experience
of the Catholic religion which, according to the
system, is the sole basis of faith. There are two
ways open to him, the objective and the subjective.
The first of them starts from agnosticism. It
tends to show that religion, and especially the
Catholic religion, is endowed with such vitality
as to compel every psychologist and historian of
good faith to recognise that its history hides some
element of the unknown. To this end it is necessary
to prove that the Catholic religion, as it exists to
day, is that which was founded by Jesus Christ;
that is to say, that it is nothing else than the pro
gressive development of the germ which He brought
into the world. Hence it is imperative first of aU
to establish what this germ was, and this the
Modernist claims to be able to do by the following
formula: Christ announced the coming of the
kingdom of God, which was to be realised within
a brief lapse of time and of which He was to become

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 301
the Messiah, the divinely-given founder and ruler.
Then it must be shown how this germ, always
) immanent and permanent in the Catholic religion,
yias gone on slowly developing in the course of history,
adapting itself successively to the different circum
stances through which it has passed, borrowing
from them by vital assimilation aU the doctrinal,
cultural, ecclesiastical forms that served its purpose;
whilst, on the other hand, it surmounted all obstacles,
vanquished all enemies, and survived aU assaults
and all combats. Anyone who well and duly con
siders this mass of obstacles, adversaries, attacks,
combats, and the vitality and fecundity which the
Church has shown throughout them aU, must
admit that if the laws of evolution are visible in
her life they fail to explain the whole of her history
— the unknown rises forth from it and presents itself
before us. Thus do they argue, not perceiving
ithat their determination of the primitive germ
is only an a priori assumption of agnostic and
evolutionist philosophy, and that the germ itself
/ has been gratuitously defined so that it may fit in
\ with their contention.
But while they endeavour by this line of reasoning

302 ' MODERNISM
to prove and plead for the Cathohc religion, these
new apologists are more than willing to grant and
to recognise that there are in it many things which
are repulsive. Nay, they admit openly, and with
ill-concealed satisfaction, that they have found
that even its dogma is not exempt from errors and
contradictions. They add also that this is not
only excusable but — curiously enough — that it is
even right and proper. In the Sacred Books there
are many passages referring to science or history
where, according to them, manifest errors are to
be found. But, they say, the subject of these books
is not science or history, but only rehgion and
morals. In them history and science serve only as
a species of covering to enable the religious and
moral experiences wrapped up in them to penetrate
more readily among the masses. The masses
understood science and history as they are expressed
in these books, and it is clear that the expression
of science and history in a more perfect form would
have proved not so much a help as a hindrance.
Moreover, they add, the Sacred Books being essenti
ally religious, are necessarily quick with life. Now
life has its own truth and its own logic — quite

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 303
different from rational truth and rational logic,
belonging as they do to a different order, viz.,
truth of adaptation and of proportion both with
what they caU the medium in which it lives and
with the end for which it fives. Finally, the Modern
ists, losing all sense of control, go so far as to proclaim
as true and legitimate whatever is explained by life.
We, Venerable Brethren, for whom there is but one
and only truth, and who hold that the Sacred Books,
written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, have
God for their author * declare that this is equivalent
to attributing to God Himself the lie of utility or
officious he, and We say with S. Augustine: In an
authority so high, admit but one officious lie, and there
will not remain a single passage of those apparently
difficult to practise or to believe, which on the same most
pernicious rule may not be explained as a lie uttered by
the author wilfully and to serve a purpose.^ And thus
it wiU come about, the holy Doctor continues that
everybody will believe and refuse to believe what he likes
or dislikes in them, namely, the Scriptures. But
the Modernists pursue their way eagerly. They
* Cone. Vat., De Revel., c. 2.
Epist. 28.

304 MODERNISM
grant also that certain arguments adduced in the
Sacred Books in proof of a given doctrine, like those,
for example, which are based on the prophecies, have
no rational foundation to rest on. But they defend
even these as artifices of preaching, which are justified
by life. More than that. They are ready to admit,
nay, to proclaim, that Christ Himself manifestly
erred in determining the time when the coming of the
kingdom of God was to take place ; and they teU us
that we must not be surprised at this since even He
Himsejf was subject to the laws of life! After this
what is to become of the dogmas of the Church? The
dogmas bristle with flagrant contradictions, but what
does it matter since, apart from the fact that vital
logic accepts them, they are not repugnant to sym
bolical truth. Are we not dealing with the infinite,
. and has not the infinite an infinite variety of aspects ?
In short, to maintain and defend these theories,
they do not hesitate to declare that the noblest
homage that can be paid to the Infinite is to make it
the object of contradictory statements! But when
they justify even contradictions, what is it that they
wiU refuse to justify?

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 305

[Subjective Arguments.]
But it is not solely by objective arguments that the
non-believer may be disposed to faith. There are
also those that are subjective, and for this purpose the
Modernist apologists return to the doctrine of im
manence. They endeavour, in fact, to persuade their
non-believer that down in the very depths of his
nature and his life lie hidden the need and the desire
for some religion, and this not a rehgion of any kind,
but the specific rehgion known as Catholicism,, which,
they say, is absolutely postulated by the perfect de
velopment of hfe. And here again We have grave
reason to complain that there are Catholics who, while
rejecting immanence as a doctrine, employ it as a
method of apologetics, and who do this so imprudently
that they seem to admit, not merely a capacity and
a suitability for the supernatural, such as has at all
times been emphasised, within due limits by Catholic
apologists, but that there is in human nature a true
and rigorous need for the supernatural order. Truth
to tell, it is only the moderate Modernists who make
this appeal to an exigency for the Catholic religion.

306 MODERNISM
As for the others, who might be called integralists,
they would show to the non-believer, as hidden in
his being, the very germ which Christ Himself had
in His consciousness, and which He transmitted to
mankind. Such, Venerable Brethren, is a summary
description of the apologetic method of the Modern
ists, in perfect harmony with their doctrines —
methods and doctrines replete with errors, made not
for edification but for destruction, not for the making
of Catholics but for the seduction of those who are
Catholics into heresy ; and tending to the utter sub
version of aU rehgion.
[The Modernist as Reformer.]
It remains for Us now to say a few words about the
Modernist as reformer. From all that has preceded,
it is abundantly clear how great and how eager is the
passion of such men for innovation. In all Catho
licism there is absolutely nothing on which it does
not fasten. They wish philosophy to be reformed,
especially in the ecclesiastical seminaries. They
wkn thp scholastic philosophy to be relegated to the_
history "f philosophy andjto be classed among ob-_

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 307
solete systems, and the young men to be taught
modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to
the times in which we live. They desire the_reform
of theology: rational theology is to have modem
philosophy for its foundation, and positive theology
is to be founded on the history of dogma. As for
history, it must be written and taught only accord
ing to their methods and modern principles. Dogmas
and their evolution, they affirm, are to be harmonised
with science and history. In the Catechism no
dogmas are to be inserted except those that have
been reformed and are within the capacity of the
people. Regarding worship, they say, the number
of external devotions is to be reduced, and steps must
be taken to prevent their further increase, though,
indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are dis
posed to be more indulgent on this head. They cry
out that ecclesiastical government requires to be
reformed in all its branches, but especially in its
disciplinary and dogmatic departments. They insist
that both outwardly and inwardly it must be brought
into harmony with the modern conscience, which
now wholly tends towards democracy; a share in
ecclesiastical government should therefore be given

308 MODERNISM
to the lower ranks of the clergy, and even to the laity,
and authority which is too much concentrated,
should be decentralised. The Roman Congrega
tions, and especially the Index and the Holy Office,
must be likewise modified. The ecclesiastical
authority must alter its line of conduct in the social
and pohtical world; while keeping outside pohtical
organisations, it must adapt itself to them, in order
to penetrate them with its spirit. With regard to
morals, they adopt the principle of the Americanists,
that the active virtues are more important than the
passive, and are to be more encouraged in practice.
They ask that the clergy should return to their
primitive humility and poverty, and that in their
ideas and action they should admit the principles of
Modernism ; and there are some who, gladly listening
to the teaching of their Protestant masters, would
desire the suppression of the celibacy of the clergy.
What is there left in the Church which is not
to be reformed by them and according to their
principles?

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 309
[Modernism the Synthesis of all the
Heresies.]
It may, perhaps, seem to some, Venerable
Brethren, that We have dwelt at too great length on
this exposition of the doctrines of the Modernists. But
it was necessary that We should do so, both in order
to meet their customary charge that We do not 7
understand their ideas, and to show that their system
does not consist in scattered and unconnected
theories, but, as it were, in a closely connected whole,
so that it is not possible to admit one without ad
mitting aU. For this reason, too, We have had to
give to this exposition a somewhat didactic form,
and not to shrink from employing certain unwonted
terms which the Modernists have brought into use.
And now with Our eyes fixed upon the whole system,
no one will be surprised that We should define it to be
the synthesis of all heresies? Undoubtedly, were
anyone to attempt the task of collecting together all
the errors that have been broached against the faith
and to concentrate into one the sap and substance of
them all, he could not succeed in doing so better than
the Modernists have done. Nay, they have gone

310 MODERNISM
farther than this, for, as We have already intimated,
their system means the destruction not of the Catholic
religion alone, but of all religion. Hence the ration
alists are not wanting in their applause, and the most
frank and sincere amongst them congratulate them
selves in having found in the Modernists the most
valuable of all allies.
Let us turn for a moment, Venerable Brethren, to
that most disastrous doctrine of agnosticism. By it
every avenue to God on the side of the intellect is
barred to man, while a better way is supposed to be
opened from the side of a certain sense of the soul and
action. But who does not see how mistaken is such
a contention ? For the sense of the soul is the response
to the action of the thing which the intellect or the
outward senses set before it. Take away the intelli
gence, and man, already inclined to follow the senses,
becomes their slave. Doubly mistaken, from
another point of view, for aU these fantasies of the
religious sense will never be able to destroy common
sense, and common sense tells us that emotion and
everything that leads the heart captive proves a
hindrance instead of a help to the discovery of truth.
We speak of truth in itself — for that other purely

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 3rr
subjective truth the fruit of the internal sense and
action, if it serves its purpose for the play of words,
is of no benefit to the man who wants above all
things to know whether outside himself there is a
God into whose hands he is one day to fall. True, the
Modernists caU in experience to eke out their system,
but what does this experience add to that sense of the
soul? Absolutely nothing beyond a certain intensity
and a proportionate deepening of the conviction of
the reahty of the object. But these two will never
make the sense of the soul into anything but sense,
nor will they alter its nature, which is hable to
deception when the intelligence is not there to guide
it ; on the contrary, they but confirm and strengthen
this nature, for the more intense the sense is the more
it is really sense. And as we are here dealing with
rehgious sense and the experinece involved in it, it is
known to you, Venerable Brethren, how necessary
in such a matter is prudence, and the learning by
which prudence is guided. You know it from your
own dealings with souls, and especially with souls in
whom sentiment predominates; you know it also
from your reading of works of ascetical theology —
works for which the Modernists have but httle

312 MODERNISM
esteem, but which testify to a science and a solidity
far greater than theirs, and to a refinement and
subtlety of observation far beyond any which the
Modernists take credit to themselves for possessing.
It seems to Us nothing short of madness, or at the
least consummate temerity, to accept for true, and
without investigation, these incomplete experiences
which are the vaunt of the Modernist. Let us for a
moment put the question: If experiences have so
much force and value in their estimation, why do
they not attach equal weight to the experience that
so many thousands of Catholics have that the
Modernists are on the wrong path? Is it that the
Cathohc experiences are the only ones which are false
and deceptive? The vast majority of mankind
holds and always will hold firmly that sense and
experience alone, when not enlightened and guided
by reason, cannot reach to the knowledge of God.
What, then, remains but atheism and the absence of
all religion. Certainly it is not the doctrine of
symbolism that will save us from this. For if all the
intellectual elements, as they call them, of religion
are nothing more than mere symbols of God, will
not the very name of God or of divine personality

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 313
be also a symbol, and if this be admitted, the person
ality of God will become a matter of doubt and the
gate will be opened to Pantheism? And to
Pantheism pure and simple that other doctrine of
the divine immanence leads directly. Foi this is the
question which We ask: Does or does not this
immanence leave God distinct from man? If it does,
in what does it differ from the Catholic doctrine, and
why does it reject the doctrine of external revelation?
If it does not, it is Pantheism. Now the doctrine of
immanence in the Modernist acceptation holds and
professes that every phenomenon of conscience
proceeds from man as man. The rigorous conclusion
from this is the identity of man with God, which
means Pantheism. The distinction which Modern
ists make between science and faith leads to the
same conclusion. The object of science, they say,
is the reality of the knowable: the object of faith,
on the contrary, is the reahty of the unknowable.
Now, what makes the unknowable unknowable is the
fact that there is no proportion bptwpen its object
and the intellect — a defect of proportion which
nothing whatever, even in the doctrine of the
Modernist, can suppress. Hence the unknowable

314 MODERNISM
remains and will eternally remain unknowable to the
believer as well as to the philosopher. Therefore if
any rehgion at all is possible, it can only be the
religion of an unknowable reality._ And why this
religion might not be that soul of the .universe, of
which certain rationalists speak, is something which
certainly does not seem to Us apparent. These
reasons suffice to show superabundantly by how
many roads Modernism leads to atheism and to the
annihilation of all religion. The error of Protestant
ism made the first step on this path ; that of Modern
ism makes the second; Atheism makes the next.

[PART IL— THE CAUSE OF MODERNISM.]
To penetrate still deeper into the meaning of
Modernism and to find a suitable remedy for so deep
a sore, it behoves Us, Venerable Brethren, to in
vestigate 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 recognise that the
remote causes may be reduced to two : curiosity and

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 315
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: 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.*
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 vain-glory
which aUows 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
* Ep. Encycl. Singulari Nos, 7 Kal. Jul. 1834.

316 MODERNISM
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 hberty. 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 Cathohc layman or a priest forgets the
precept of the Christian hfe 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 wiU be your first duty to resist such victims of
pride, to employ them only in the lowest and ob
scurest 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 carefuUy your young clerics by
yourselves and by the directors of your seminaries,
and when you find the spirit of pride amongst them
reject them without compunction from the priesthood.

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 317
Would to God that this had always been done with
the vigilance and constancy which were required!
If we pass on from the moral to the inteUectual
causes of Modernism, the first and the chief which
presents itself is ignorance. Yes, these very Modern
ists who seek to be esteemed as Doctors of the Church,
who speak so loftily of modern philosophy and show
such contempt for scholasticism, have embraced the
one with aU its false glamour, precisely because their
ignorance of the other has left them without the
means of being able to recognise confusion of thought
and to refute sophistry. Their whole system, con
taining as it does errors so many and so great, has
been born of the union between faith and false
philosophy. [Methods of Propagandism.]
Would that they had but displayed less zeal and
energy in propagating it ! But such is their activity
and such their unwearying labour on behalf of their
cause, that one cannot but be pained to see them
waste such energy in endeavouring to ruin the Church
when they might have been of such service to her had

318 MODERNISM
their efforts been better directed. 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 re
source that can serve their purpose. They recognise
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 con
tempt. Whether it is ignorance or fear, or both,
that inspires this conduct in them, certain it is that
the passion for novelty is always united in them with
hatred of scholasticism, and there is no surer sign that
a man is tending to Modernism than when he begins
to show his dishke for the scholastic method. Let
the Modernists and their admirers remember the
proposition condemned by Pius IX.: The method
and principles which have served the ancient doctors
of scholasticism when treating of theology no longer
correspond with the exigencies of our time or the pro
gress of science.* They exercise all their ingenuity
* Syll. Prop. 13.

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 319
in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the char
acter of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and
authority. But for Catholics nothing will remove
the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where
it condemns those who dare, after the impious fashion
of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to
invent novelties of some kind . . . or endeavour by
malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate
traditions of the Catholic Church ; nor that of the
declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople:
We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules
bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church,
by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the
orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by every
one of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and
Doctors of the Church. Wherefore the Roman
Pontiffs, Pius IV. and Pius IX., ordered the insertion
in the profession of faith of the foUowing declaration :
I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and
ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and
constitutions of the Church.
The Modernists pass judgment on the holy Fathers
of the Church even as they do upon tradition. With
consummate temerity they assure the pubhc that

320 MODERNISM
the Fathers, whUe 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 hved. Finally,
the Modernists try in every way to diminish and
weaken the authority of the ecclesiastical magis
terium 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 apphed those words which
Our Predecessor sorrowfully wrote: To bring con
tempt 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* This being so, Venerable Brethren, there
is little reason to wonder that the Modernists vent
all their bitterness and hatred on Cathohcs who
zealously fight the battles of the Church. There
is no species of insult which they do not heap upon
them, but their usual course is to charge them
*Motu Proprio, Ut Mysticum, 14 March 1891.

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 321
with ignorance or obstinacy. When an adversary
rises up against them with an erudition and force
that render him redoubtable, they seek to make
a conspiracy of silence around him to nullify the
effects of his attack. The policy towards Catholics
is the more invidious in that they belaud with
admiration which knows no bounds the writers
who range themselves on their side, hailing their
works, exuding novelty in every page, with a chorus
of applause. For them the scholarship of a writer
is in direct proportion to the recklessness of his
attacks on antiquity, and of his efforts to undermine
tradition and the ecclesiastical magisterium. When
one of their number faUs under the condemnation
of the Church the rest of them, to the disgust of
good Cathohcs, gather round him, loudly and
pubhcly applaud him, and hold him up in venera
tion as almost a martyr for truth. The young,
excited and confused by all this clamour of praise
and abuse, some of them afraid of being branded
as ignorant, others ambitious to rank among the
learned, and both classes goaded internaUy by
curiosity and pride, not unfrequently surrender
and give themselves up to Modernism.

322 MODERNISM
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, news-
papers. reviews, and sometimes one and the same
writer adopts a variety of pseudonyms to trap the
incautious reader into beheving 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
fuU 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

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 323
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 fight, on the plea of telling the
whole truth, everything that appears to cast a
stain upon the Church. Under the sway of certain
a priori conceptions they destroy as far as they
can the pious traditions of the people, and bring
into disrespect certain relics highly venerable from
their antiquity. They are possessed by the empty
desire of having their names upon the lips of the
public, and they know they would never succeed
in this were they to say only what has always been
said by all men. Meanwhile it may be that they
have persuaded themselves that in all this they
are really serving God and the Church. In reality
they only offend both, less perhaps by their
works in themselves than by the spirit in which

324 MODERNISM
they write, and by the encouragement they thus
give to the aims of the Modernists.

[PART III.— REMEDIES.]
Against this host of grave errors, and its secret
and open advance, Our Predecessor Leo XIIL,
of happy memory, worked strenuously, both in his
words and his acts, especiaUy as regards the study
of the Bible. But, as we have seen, the Modernists
are not easily deterred by such weapons. With
an affectation of great submission and respect,
they proceeded to twist the words of the Pontiff
to their own sense, while they described his action
as directed against others than themselves. Thus
the evil has gone on increasing from day to day.
We, therefore, Venerable Brethren, have decided
to suffer no longer delay, and to adopt measures
which are more efficacious. We exhort and conjure
you to see to it that in this most grave matter
no one shall be in a position to say that you have
been in the slightest degree wanting in vigilance,
zeal, or firmness. And what We ask of you and

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 325
expect of you, We ask and expect also of all other
pastors of souls, of all educators and professors of
clerics, and in a very special way of the Superiors
of rehgious communities.
[1. — The Study of Scholastic Philosophy.]
1. In the first place, with regard to studies, We
will and strictly ordain that scholastic philosophy
be made the basis of the sacred science^ It goes
without saying that if anything is met with among
the scholastic doctors which may be regarded as some
thing investigated with an excess of subtlety, or taught
without sufficient consideration ; anything which is
not in keeping with the certain results of later times ;
anything, in short, which is altogether destitute of
probability, We have no desire whatever to propose
it for the imitation of present generations* And let
it be clearly understood above all things that when"
We prescribe scholastic philosophy We understand
chiefly that which the Angehc Doctor has bequeathed
to us, and We, therefore, declare that all the ordin
ances of Our Predecessor on this subject continue
* Leo XIIL, Enc. Aeterni Patris. \

326 MODERNISM
fully in force, and, as far as may be necessary, We
do decree anew, and confirm, and order that they
shall be strictly observed by all. In seminaries
where they have been neglected it will be for the
Bishops to exact and require their observance in
the future; and let this apply also to the Superiors
of religious orders. Further, We admonish Pro-
fessors to bear well in mind that they cannot set
aside S. Thomas, especially in metaphysical ques-
tions^withnnt grave disadvantage.
On this philosophical foundation the^theological
edifice is to be carefully raised. Promote the study
of theology, Venerable Brethren, by all means in
your power, so that your clerics on leaving the
seminaries may carry with them a deep admiration
and love of it, and always find in it a source of
delight. For in the vast and varied abundance of
studies opening before the mind desirous of truth,
it is known to everyone that theology occupies such
a commanding place, that according to an ancient
adage of the wise, it is the duty of the other arts and
sciences to serve it, and to wait upon it after the manner
of handmaidens* We wiU add that We deem
* Leo XIIL, Lett. ap. In Magna, Dec. 10, 1889.

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 327
worthy of praise those who with full respect for
tradition, the Fathers, and the ecclesiastical magis
terium, endeavour, with well-balanced judgment,
and guided by Catholic principles (which is not
always the case), to illustrate positive theology
by throwing upon it the light of true history. It
is certainly necessary that positive theology should \
be held in greater appreciation than it has been in '
the past, but this must be done withouLxlelriment
to scholastic theology; and those are to be dis
approved as Modernists who exalt positive theology
in such a way as to seem to despise the scholastic.
With regard to secular studies, let it suffice to
recall here what Our Predecessor has admirably
said: Apply yourselves energetically to the study
of natural sciences : in which department the things
that have been so brilliantly discovered, and so usefully
applied, to the admiration of the present age, will
be the object of praise and commendation to those who
come aper us.* But this is to be done without^
interfering with sacred studies, as Our same Pre
decessor described in these most weighty words:
// you carefully search for the cause of those errors
* Leo XIIL, Alloc, March 7, 1880.

328 MODERNISM
you will find that it is lien the fact that in these days
when the natural sciences absorb so much study, the
more severe and lofty studies have been proportionately
neglected — some of them have almost passed into
oblivion, some of them are pursued in a half-hearted
or superficial way, and, sad to say, now that the
splendour of the former estate is dimmed, they have
been disfigured by perverse doctrines and monstrous
errors* We ordain, therefore, that the study
of natural sciences in the seminaries be carried out
according to the law.
[2. — Practical Application.]
2. All these prescriptions, both Our own and
those of Our Predecessor, are to be kept in view
whenever there is question of choosing directors
and professors for seminaries and Catholic Uni-
versifies. Anyone who in any way is found to
be tainted with Modernism is to be excluded without
compunction from tlnpip office^ whether of govern?
jnent or of teaching,, and those who already occupy
them are to be removed. The same policy is to be
*Loc. at.

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 329
adopted towards those who openly or secretly
lend countenance to Modernism either by extolling
the Modernists and excusing their culpable conduct,
or by carping at scholasticism, and the Fathers,
and the magisterium of the Church, or by refusing
obedience to ecclesiastical authority in any of its
depositaries; and towards those who show a love
of novelty in history, archaeology, biblical exegesis;
and finaUy towards those who neglect the sacred
sciences or appear to prefer to them the secular.
In all this question of studies, Venerable Brethren,
you cannot be too watchful or too constant, but
most of all in the choice of professors, for as a rule
the students are modelled after the pattern of their
masters. Strong in the consciousness of your duty,
act always in this matter with prudence and with
vigour. Equal diligence and severity are to be used in
examining and selecting candidates for Holy Orders.
Far, far from the clergy be the love of novelty!
God hateth the proud and the obstinate mind.
For the future the doctorate of theology and canon
law must never be conferred on anyone who has not
first of aU made the regular course of scholastic

330 MODERNISM
philosophy; if conferred, it shall be held as null and
void. The rules laid down in 1896 by the Sacred
Congregation of Bishops and Regulars for the
clerics, both secular and regular, of Italy, concerning
the frequenting of the Universities, We now decree
to be extended to all nations. Clerics and priests
inscribed in a Catholic Institute or University
must not in the future follow in civil Universities
those courses for which there are chairs in the
Catholic Institutes to which they belong. If this
has been permitted anywhere in the past, We ordain
that it be not allowed for the future. Let the
Bishops who form the Governing Board of such
Catholic Institutes or Universities watch with aU
care that these Our commands be constantly
observed. [3. — Episcopal Vigilance over Publications.]
3. It is also the duty of the Bishops to prevent
writings of Modernists, or whatever savours of .
Modernism or promotes it, from being read when
they have been published, and to hinder their.
rvnhliratipri wlipn tripy fray" riot N-O books Or
papers or periodicals whatever of this kind are

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 331
to be permitted to seminarists or university students.
The injury to them would be not less than that
which is caused by immoral reading — nay, it would
be greater, for such writings poison Christian life
at its very fount. The same decision is to be taken
concerning the writings of some Cathohcs, who,
though not evilly disposed themselves, are ill-
instructed in theological studies and imbued with
modern philosophy, and strive to make this har
monise with the faith, and, as they say, to turn it
to the profit of the faith. The name and reputation
of these authors cause them to be read without
suspicion, and they are, therefore, all the more
dangerous in gradually preparing the way for
Modernism. To add some more general directions, Venerable
Brethren, in a matter of such moment, We order
that you do everything in your power to drive out
of your dioceses, even by solemn interdict, any
pernicious books that may be in circulation there.
The Holy See neglects no means to remove writings
of this kind, but their number has now grown to
such an extent that it is hardly possible to subject
them all to censure. Hence it happens sometimes

332 MODERNISM
that the remedy arrives too late, for the disease has
taken root during the delay. We will, therefore,
that the Bishops, putting aside all fear and the
prudence of the flesh, despising the clamour of evil
men, shall, gently, by all means, but firmly, do
,each his own part in this work, remembering the
injunctions of Leo XIIL in the Apostolic Constitution
Officiorum : Let the Ordinaries, acting in this also
as Delegates of the Apostolic See, exert themselves
to proscribe and to put out of reach of the faithful
injurious books or other writings printed or circulated
in their dioceses. In this passage the Bishops, it is
true, receive an authorisation, but they have also
a charge laid upon them. Let no Bishop think
I that he fulfils this duty by denouncing to us one
or two books, while a great many others of the
\same kind are being published and circulated.
!Nor are you to be deterred by the fact that a book
has obtained elsewhere the permission which is
commonly called the Imprimatur, both because
this may be merely simulated, and because it may
/have been granted through carelessness or too
\much indulgence or excessive trust placed in the
/author, which last has perhaps sometimes happened

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 333
in the religious orders. Besides, just as the same
food does not agree with everyone, it may happen
that a book, harmless in one place, may, on account
of the different circumstances, be hurtful in another.
Should a Bishop, therefore, after having taken the
advice of prudent persons, deem it right to condemn
any of such books in his diocese, We give him
ample faculty for the purpose and We lay upon
him the obhgation of doing so. Let all this be
done in a fitting manner, and in certain cases it
will suffice to restrict the prohibition to the clergy;
but in all cases it will be obligatory on Catholic
booksellers not to put on sale books condemned
by the Bishop. And whUe We are treating of this
subject, We wish the Bishops to see to it that book-
seUers do not, through desire for gain, engage in
evil trade. It is certain that in the catalogues of
some of them the books of the Modernists are not
unfrequently announced with no smaU praise.
If they refuse obedience, let the Bishops, after
due admonition, have no hesitation in depriving
them of the title of Catholic booksellers. This
apphes, and with still more reason, to those who
have the title of Episcopal booksellers. If they

334 MODERNISM
have that of Pontifical booksellers let them be
denounced to the Apostolic See. Finally, We
remind all of Article XXVI. of the above-mentioned
Constitution Officiorum : All those who have obtained
an apostolic faculty to read and keep forbidden books,
are not thereby authorised to read and keep books
and periodicals forbidden by the local Ordinaries
unless the apostolic faculty expressly concedes per
mission to read and keep books condemned by anyone
whomsoever. [4. — Censorship.]
4. It is not enough to hinder the reading and the
sale of bad books — it is also necessary to prevent
them from being published. Hence, let the Bishops
use the utmost strictness in granting permission to
print. Under the rules of the Constitution Offi
ciorum, many publications require the authorisation
of the Ordinary, and in certain dioceses (since the
Bishop cannot personally make himself acquainted
with them all) it has been the custom to have a
suitable number of official censors for the examina
tion of writings. We have the highest esteem for

•ENCYCLICAL LETTER 335
this institution of censors, and We not only exhort
but We order that it be extended to all dioceses.
In all episcopal Curias, therefore, let censors be
appointed for the revision of works intended for
publication, and let the censors be chosen from both
ranks of the clergy — secular and regular — men
whose age, knowledge, and prudence will enable them
to foUow the safe and golden mean in their judg
ments. It shall be their office to examine every
thing which requires permission for publication
according to Articles XLI. and XLII. of the above-
mentioned Constitution. The censor shall give his
verdict in writing. If it be favourable, the Bishop
wiU give the permission for publication by the
Word Imprimatur, which must be preceded by the
Nihil obstat and the name of the censor. In the
'Roman Curia official censors shall be appointed
in the same way as elsewhere, and the duty of
nominating them shaU appertain to the Master of
the Sacred Palace, after they have been proposed
to the Cardinal Vicar and have been approved
and accepted by the Sovereign Pontiff. It will also
be the office of the Master of the Sacred Palace
to select the censor for each writing. Permission

336 MODERNISM
for publication will be granted by him as well as
by the Cardinal Vicar or his Vicegerent, and this
permission, as above prescribed, must be preceded
by the Nihil obstat and the name of the Censor.
Only on very rare and exceptional occasions, and
on the prudent decision of the Bishop, shall it be
possible to omit mention of the Censor. The name
of the Censor shall never be made known to the
authors until he shaU have given a favourable
decision, so that he may not have to suffer incon
venience either while he is engaged in the examina
tion of a writing or in case he should withhold
his approval. Censors shall never be chosen from
the religious orders until the opinion of the Pro
vincial, or in Rome, of the General, has been privately
obtained, and the Provincial or the General must
give a conscientious account of the character,
knowledge, and orthodoxy of the candidate. We
admonish religious superiors of their most solemn
duty never to allow anything to be published by
any of their subjects without permission from
themselves and from the Ordinary. Finally, We
affirm and declare that the title of Censor with
which a person may be honoured has no value

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 337
whatever, and can never be adduced to give credit
to the private opinions of him who holds it.
[Priests as Editors.]
Having said this much in general, We now ordain
in particular a more careful observance of Article
XLII. of the above-mentioned Constitution Offi
ciorum, according to which it is forbidden to secular
priests, without the previous consent of the Ordinary,
to undertake the editorship nf pappy* nr ppyindimU
This permission shall be withdrawn from any priest
who makes a wrong use of it after having received an
admonition thereupon. With regard to priests who
are correspondents or collaborators of periodicals, as it
happens not unfrequently that they contribute
matter infected with Modernism to their papers or
periodicals, let the Bishops see to it that they do not
offend in this manner; and if they do, let them warn
the offenders and prevent them from writing. We
solemnly charge in like manner the Superiors of
religious orders that they fulfil the same duty, and
should they fail in it, let the Bishops make due pro
vision with authority from the Supreme Pontiff.

338 MODERNISM
Let there be, as far as this is possible, a special Censor
for newspapers and periodicals written by Catholics.
It shall be his office to read in due time each number
after it has been published, and if he find anything
dangerous in it let him order that it be corrected as
soon as possible. The Bishop shall have the same
right even when the Censor has seen nothing objec
tionable in a publication.

[5. — Congresses.]
5. We have already mentioned congresses and
public gatherings as among the means used by the
Modernists to propagate and defend their opinions.
In the future, Bishops shall not permit Congresses
of priests except on very rare occasions. When they
do permit them it shaU only be on condition that
matters appertaining to the Bishops or the Apostolic
See be not treated in them, and that no resolutions
or petitions be allowed that would imply a usurpation
of sacred authority, and that absolutely nothing be
said in them which savours of Modernism, Presby-
terianism or Laicism. At Congresses of this kind,
which can only be held after permission in writing has

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 339
been obtained in due time and for each case, it shall
not be lawful for priests of other dioceses to be present
without the written permission of their Ordinary.
Further, no priest must lose sight of the solemn re
commendation of Leo XIIL : Let priests hold as sacred
the authority of their pastors, let them take it for certain
that the sacerdotal ministry, if not exercised under the
guidance of the Bishops, can never be either holy, nor
very fruitful, nor worthy of respect.*
[6. — Diocesan Vigilance Committees.]
6. But of what avail, Venerable Brethren, would be
all Our commands and prescriptions if they be not
dutifully and firmly carried out? In order that this
may be done it has seemed expedient to us to extend
to all dioceses the regulations which the Bishops of
Umbria, with great wisdom, laid down for theirs
many years ago.
" In order," they say, " to extirpate the errors
already propagated and to prevent their further diffu
sion, and to remove those teachers of impiety through
whom the pernicious effects of such diffusion are being
* Lett. Encyc. Noblissima Gallorum, 10 Feb. 1884.

340 MODERNISM
perpetuated, this sacred Assembly, following the example
of S. Charles Borromeo, has decided to establish in each
of the dioceses a Council consisting of approved
members of both branches of the clergy, which shall be
charged with the task of noting the existence of errors
and the devices by which new ones are introduced and
propagated, and to inform the Bishop of the whole, so
that he may take counsel with them as to the best means
for suppressing the evil at the outset and preventing it
spreading for the ruin of souls or, worse still, gaining
strength and growth." * We decree, therefore, that
in every diocese a council of this kind, which We are
pleased to name the " Council of Vigilance," be in
stituted without delay. The priests called to form
part in it shall be chosen somewhat after the manner
above prescribed for the Censors, and they shall
meet every two months on an appointed day in the
presence of the Bishop. They shall be bound to
secrecy as to their deliberations and decisions, and in
their functions shall be included the following:
They shall watch most carefully for every trace and
sign of Modernism both in publications and in teach-
* Acts of the Congress of the Bishops of Umbria, November
1849, tit. 2, art. 6,

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 341
ing, and to preserve it from the clergy and the young
they shaU take all prudent, prompt and efficacious
measures. Let them combat novelties of words,
remembering the admonitions of Leo XIIL : * It is
impossible to approve in Catholic publications a style
inspired by unsound novelty which seems to deride the
piety of the faithful and dwells on the introduction of a
new order of Christian life, on new directions of the
Church, on new aspirations of the modern soul, on a
new social vocation of the clergy, on a new Christian
civilisation, and many other things of the same
kind. Language of the kind here indicated is not to be
tolerated either in books or in lectures. The
Councils must not neglect the books treating of the
pious traditions of different places or of sacred relics.
Let them not permit such questions to be discussed
in journals or periodicals destined to foster piety,
neither with expressions savouring of mockery or
contempt, nor by dogmatic pronouncements, especi
ally when, as is often the case, what is stated as a
certainty either does not pass the limits of pro-
babUity or is based on prejudiced opinion. Con-
* Instruct. S.C. NN. EE. EE., January 27, 1902.

342 MODERNISM
cerning sacred relics, let this be the rule : if Bishops,
who alone are judges in such matters, know for certain
that a relic is not genuine, let them remove it at once
from the veneration of the faithful; if the authenti
cations of a relic happen to have been lost through
civil disturbances, or in any other way, let it not be
exposed for public veneration until the Bishop has
verified it. The argument of prescription or well-
founded presumption is to have weight only when
devotion to a relic is commendable by reason of its
antiquity, according to the sense of the Decree issued
in 1896 by the Congregation of Indulgences and
Sacred Relics: Ancient relics are to retain the venera
tion they have always enjoyed except when in individual
instances there are clear arguments that they are false
or supposititious. In passing judgment on pious
traditions let it always be borne in mind that in this
matter the Church uses the greatest prudence, and
that she does not allow traditions of this kind to
be narrated in books except with the utmost caution
and with the insertion of the declaration imposed by
Urban VIII. ; and even then she does not guarantee
the truth of the fact narrated; she simply does not
forbid belief in things for which human evidence is

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 343
not wanting. On this matter the Sacred Congrega
tion of Rites, thirty years ago, decreed as foUows:
These apparitions or revelations have neither been ap
proved nor condemned by the Holy See, which has
simply allowed them to be believed on purely human
faith, on the tradition which they relate, corroborated
by testimony and documents worthy of credence*
Anyone who follows this rule has no cause to fear.
For the devotion based on any apparition, in as far
as it regards the fact itself, that is to say, in so far
as the devotion is relative, always imphes the con
dition of the fact being true; while in as far as it is
absolute, it is always based on the truth, seeing that
its object is the persons of the saints who are
honoured. The same is true of relics. Finally, We
entrust to the Councils of Vigilance the duty of over
looking assiduously and diligently social institutions
as well as writings on social questions so that they
may harbour no trace of Modernism, but obey the
prescriptions of the Roman Pontiffs.
* Decree, May 2, 1877.

344 MODERNISM

[7. — Triennial Returns.]
7. Lest what We have laid down thus far should
pass into obhvion, We wiU and ordain that the
Bishops of all dioceses, a year after the publication
of these letters and every three years thenceforward,
furnish the Holy See with a diligent and sworn report
on the things which have been decreed in this Our
Letter, and on the doctrines that find currency
among the clergy, and especially in the seminaries
and other Catholic institutions, those not excepted
which are not subject to the Ordinary, and We
impose the hke obligation on the Generals of Religious
Orders with regard to those who are under them.

[Conclusion.]
This, Venerable Brethren, is what We have
thought it Our duty to write to you for the salvation
of all who believe. The adversaries of the Church
will doubtlessly abuse what We have said to refurbish
the old calumny by which We are traduced as the
enemy of science and of the progress of humanity.

ENCYCLICAL LETTER 345
As a fresh answer to such accusations, which the
history of the Christian religion refutes by never-
failing evidence, it is Our intention to establish by
every means in our power a special Institute in which,
through the co-operation of those Catholics who are
most eminent for their learning, the advance of
science and every other department of knowledge
may be promoted under the guidance and teaching
of Catholic truth. God grant that We may happily
realise Our design with the assistance of all those
who bear a sincere love for the Church of Christ.
But of this We propose to speak on another occasion.
Meanwhile, Venerable Brethren, fully confident
in your zeal and energy, We beseech for you with Our
whole heart the abundance of heavenly light, so that
in the midst of this great danger to souls from the
insidious invasions of error upon every hand, you may
see clearly what ought to be done, and labour to do it
with all your strength and courage. May Jesus
Christ, the author and finisher of our faith, be with
you in His power ; and may the Immaculate Virgin,
the destroyer of all heresies, be with you by her
prayers and aid. And We, as a pledge of Our affec
tion and of the Divine solace in adversity, most

346 MODERNISM
lovingly grant to you, your clergy and people, the
Apostolic Benediction.
Given at S. Peter's, Rome, on the eighth day of
September, one thousand nine hundred and seven, the
fifth year of our Pontificate.
PIUS X., POPE.

CONTENTS OF THE ENCYCLICAL
PASCENDI.

Gravity of the Situation
Division of the Encyclical

PAGE 232 236

PART I.— ANALYSIS OF MODERNIST TEACHING 236

Agnosticism its Philosophical Foundation
Vital Immanence .....
Deformation of Religious History — the Consequence
The Origin of .Dogmas ....
Its Evolution .....
The Modernist as Believer : Individual Experience and
Religious Certitude ....
Religious Experience and Tradition
Faith and Science .....
Faith subject to Science ....
The Methods of Modernists
The Modernist as Theologian : His Principles, Imman
ence and Symbolism ....
Dogma and the Sacraments
The Holy Scriptures ....
The Church ......
The Relations between Church and State
The Magisterium of the Church .
The Evolution of Doctrine
The Modernist as Historian and Critic .
Criticism and its Principles 347

237239 243
247'249252256257259 j
262

264] 268
270 272274 277}
2803
287291

348

CONTENTS OF ENCYCLICAL

PAGI

How the Bible is dealt with

• 295

The Modernist as Apologist

. 298

Subjective Arguments ....

• 305

The Modernist as Reformer

306

Modernism the Synthesis of all the Heresies

• 3°9

PART II.— THE CAUSE OF MODERNISM

• 3M

Methods of Propagandism ....

• 3'7

PART III.— REMEDIES

. 324

I. — The Study of Scholastic Philosophy .

• 325J)

2. — Practical Application ....

. 328

3. - Episcopal Vigilance over Publications .

• 330

4. — Censorship .....

¦ 334

Priests as Editors .....

• 337

5. — Congresses .....

• 338

6. — Diocesan Vigilance Committees .

• 339

7. — Triennial Returns . . . ,

• 344

Conclusion ......

• 344

INDEX TO THE INTRODUCTION
AND LECTURES

Ambrosini, Father, 167
Andrieu, Mgr., 81-2
Anglicans and the Modernist
movement, 1 3- 1 5
Armonie della Fede, 115, 116, 145
Awenire of Bologna, 96
Barbier, AbW, 168
Battaglie d 'Oggi, 127
Benigni, Mgr., 13, 143
Bible, the Modernists' attitude
towards the, 149-50
Biblical Studies, Pontifical Com
mission on, 39, 143
Bidwell, Rev. D., 99
Billot, Father, 113, 129
Blondel, M., 163
Briggs, Dr C. A., 43, 174
Buisson, M., 159
Caird, Dr Edward, 93, 174
Chamard, Dom, 16, 18
Civilla Cattolica, 1 69
Ccenobium, 1 75
Corrispondenza Romana, 13, 14,
91, 108-9
Croix, 115, 117, 126
Cyr, M., 117
Dabry, Abbe, 128
Debout, Canon Henri, 16, 18
Deherme, M. , 159
Deho, Abbe, 168
Dogma, the Modernists' attitude
towards, 150-2
Ehrhard, Mgr., 105-7
Encyclicals: Pascendi, 38, 65, 91,
94, IOI, 119-20, 130, 163 ; full text,

231-346; its authorship, 1 13-4;
Gravissimo, 57, 59 ; Pieni
P Animo, 1 19-21, 130 ; full text,
181-96
England, Modernism in, 92, 97-8,
i°3
Eucken, Prof. Rudolf, 93, 174
Fallieres, President, 140
Fleming, Father, 129
Fogazzaro, Antonio, 68, 123
Fonsegrive, M. , 96, 163
Fontaine, Pere, 19
Fourth Gospel, 26
France, separation of Church and
State in, 52-64 ; attitude of the
French Episcopate, 57-60 ; Petition
of a Group of French Catholics,
61 ; full text of the Petition,
197-216; reply of the French
Modernists, 108
Francis, St, 175
Fulbert-Petit, Mgr., 57
Garibaldi celebration in Florence,
88-90
Gamier, Abbe, 17, 97
Germany, Modernism in, 104-9 j
the supposed League against the
Index, 108-9
Giacomelli, Signorina, 169
Giornale dTtalia, 99, 100
Giulio-Benso, Signora, 122
Goyau, Georges, 170
Graf, Arturo, 159
Hompel, Dr A. ten, 109
Hiigel, Baron Frederich von 40-4
Huss, John, 19

349

350

INDEX

Italy, Modernist groups in, 118-
28 ; Italian Modernists' reply to
the Encyclical Pascendi, 105,
108, 126
Jansens, Father, 129
Jesuits, their influence on the Pope,
112; their attack on Signorina
Giacomelli, 169
Jowett, Benjamin, 49-51
Justice Sociale, 1 28
Laberthonniere, Pere, 163
Lacordaire, Pere, 160
Lagrange, Pere, 165
Langogne, Father Pie de, 113, 129
Lecot, Cardinal, 57
Lega Democratica Nazionale, 121-2
Leo XIIL, 128, 168, 174
Le Roy, Edouard, 151, 163
Liberia, 1 27
Lilley, Rev. A. L., 126
Loisy, AbM, his Quelques Lettres,
7-32, 36-7, 40-1 ; bibliography of
his writings, 7, II, 12 ; his style,
10 ; absurd charges against him,
17; his letter to a student of theo
logy at Geneva, 23, 93; his letter
to a priest professor, 30-1 ; his pas
toral sympathy , 36-7 ; V Evangile
et PEglise, 76-8, 118; not the
head of the new movement, 72 ;
specially aimed at in the Syllabus,
130, 164
Louis, St, 84
Louis XVI., 101
Loyson, Pere Hyacinthe, 159
Luther, 80
Manara, Cardinal, 119
Mass, the Modernists' view of the,
153-6
Matone, Mgr., 166
Merry del Val, Cardinal, 143
Modernism, the Pope's description
of, 66 ; inadequacy of the name,
70 ; a profoundly Catholic move
ment, 72-81 ; in England, 92, 97-
8, 103; in Germany, 104-9; in
Belgium, Switzerland, Spain and

Portugal, no; in Italy, 118-29;
its reconciliation of science and
faith, 131-4, 157-8; its attitude
towards authority, 135-46, to
wards tradition, 146-9, towards
the Bible, 149-50, towards dogma,
150-2 ; its view of the Mass, 153-
6 ; its relations with free thought,
158-60; persecutionof Modernists,
164-74; summary, 1 76-9
Monod, Wilfred, 159
Montagnini, Mgr., 14, 62-3
Mulo, 168
Murri, Abbe, 118-22, 128-9, 164
Naudet, Abbi, 128
Newman, Cardinal, 93-7
Nova et Vetera, 46, 1 25
Osservatore Romano, 17 1
Pagine Buone, 127
Pecaut, M., 159
Peuple Francais, 17, 97
Pius X., Pope, 38, 57 ff; his character,
111-21 ; his election, 173
Portalie, Pere, 97, 116
Protestantism contrasted with
Catholicism, 74-81 ; 135-9 ! '49"
5°
Puzyna, Cardinal, 173
Quirielle, Pierre de, 13
Rampolla, Cardinal, 143
Rassegna Nazionale, 127
Revue des Deux Mondes, 173
Revue du Clerge" Francais, 97
Rinieri, Father, 1 69
Rinnovamento, 1 22-5 ; 1 28, 1 74
Rose, Pere, 165
Roussel, Auguste, 16, 18
Sabatier, Augusts, 93
Sardi, Mgr., 117
Satolii, Cardinal, 143
Savonarola, 127
Schell, Professor, 107
Schnitzer, Professor, 107-9
Se'ailles, Gabriel, 159

INDEX

35i

Segna, Cardinal, 143
Seminarists, Modernist influence
among, 33
Societa Ii ternazionale Scientifico-
Religiosa, 126
Southwark, Anglican Bishop of, 15
Syllabus Lamentabili, 65, 130; full
text, 217-30
Thomas Aquinas, 106, 108
Toth, Abbe de, 96
Turinaz, Mgr., 19
Tyrrell, Father, 92, 98, 164
Uniene of Milan, 96

Unitd, Cattolica, 96
Univers, l8, 56
Vandervelde, Emile, 159
Vaughan, Father Bernard, 171
Veritl Franfaise, 18
Veuillot, Eugene, 173
Vie CathoUque, 128
Vita Religiosa, 1 27
Vives, Cardinal, 113, 143
Wagner, Charles, 159
William II. , German Emperor,
104-5, ,29
Wrenz, Father, 129