To return to the Introduction and Table of Contents, click here.
Unit 6 covers the period from about 1640 to about 1915 (roughly).
The Enlightenment
This period is a period of immense changes in the philosophical foundations and the structure of Western society. This is the era where Christendom turns into something different, a kind of society familiar to us in the modern day. We call this the era of "modernity" because it's our era. Society underwent great changes, and the Church had to deal with and react to those changes. She was greatly challenged, and, as usual, this challenging led to great growth through the guidance and grace of the Spirit of God. This period goes from around the early 1600s to around the early 1900s. It overlaps a bit, then, with our previous period (and a bit with the next unit as well). And it carries further some of the themes from that earlier period.
This is the period of the so-called Enlightenment. The very name suggests how the cultures birthed in the Enlightenment came to think about themselves, particularly in contrast with what went before. The Enlightenment, in many ways, continued the fresh intellectual movement that was the Renaissance. People were thinking in new ways, outside of the box. People were particularly interested in learning new things not known before, studying things not studied as much before, and reexamining ideas previously assumed to be correct.
It is an unanswerable question to ask how this flowering of the Renaissance would have gone if it had occurred in an intact Christendom, a world in which the Reformation had not occurred. We saw that the Renaissance began as a largely Catholic movement, inspired by the worldview of the previous Medieval era. But the Reformation shattered Christendom, and now there were many Christian traditions in competition in Western society. And the shattering of Christendom, along with the wars of religion it birthed, and the weariness of argument and warfare which partly gave birth to the toleration of pluralism in international and eventually within national societies, created an environment in which even foundational ideas of Christianity itself would be more and more challenged. We see, in this age, the growth of Agnosticism--the attitude that doubts whether objective knowledge can be had in matters of religion and high philosophy. This Agnostic attitude will become more and more prominent. The Enlightenment, then, will come to have two versions or expressions--a Christian one and an Agnostic one. And they will come to be in great competition with one another.
Enlightenment Philosophers
The beginning of the Enlightenment is often traced to a philosopher named René Descartes (1596-1650). Descartes was a Catholic philosopher. In his famous work, Meditations on First Philosophy, published in 1641, Descartes tells how he was greatly concerned that many of his ideas might be wrong because he had assumed them without really, thoroughly investigating them. He knew he needed to embark on a complete examination of his ideas, but he kept putting it off because he knew that it was a momentous thing to do, and that it would require a lot of time and energy. But one day, he finally got around to it. He put off all other business, and he describes how he decided to devote a long stretch of free time for, as he puts it, "the general demolition of my opinions" (Descartes 76). He kept notes as he did this, and those notes became the Meditations.
At first, things seem to be going distressingly badly. He comes to the conclusion that he can't trust his senses, because they might be deceiving him. He posits that, for all he knows, the universe might be run by an omnipotent, evil demon bent on deceiving him, in which case how could he possibly hope to avoid deception? Of course, he had no reason to believe that such a demon was really in charge, but--and here's the rub--even if such a situation is merely possible, it would seem to destroy all possibility of knowledge, because we would have no way of knowing if we could trust any appearances at all. We couldn't even know how likely anything was, for the data that informs our evaluation of probabilities could be manipulated by the demon. So it would seem that we can know nothing at all. Thus ended Descartes's first day of examining his opinions.
He therefore began his second day with great trepidation. He puts it this way:
So serious are the doubts into which I have been thrown as a result of yesterday's meditation that I can neither put them out of my mind nor see any way of resolving them. It feels as if I have fallen unexpectedly into a deep whirlpool which tumbles me around so that I can neither stand on the bottom nor swim up to the top. Nevertheless I will make an effort and once more attempt the same path which I started on yesterday. (Descartes 80)
Well, he ends up making a good bit of progress from this point on. He realizes that there is one thing the evil demon could not deceive him about--his own existence. Even if he doubts his own existence, his very doubt proves his existence, because it proves there is someone there doubting! If you're thinking at all--whether deceived or not--then you exist! (This, of course, is the famous cogito, ergo sum - "I think, therefore I am".) He also observed other self-evident ideas that one could not be deceived about--such as that a triangle has three sides, 2+2=4, etc. Since these ideas are self-evident (they carry their evidence in themselves directly), there is no place for deception to get in and trick us. We might in fact be confused about such things, but we don't need to be if we keep our ideas "clear and distinct." Error is avoidable.
The next thing Descartes does is prove the existence of God. Only after that does he reconstitute a foundation for believing in the external world revealed by our senses--for the only way we could trust our senses is if we have reason to believe there is a benevolent God who loves truth in charge of all things rather than a deceptive evil demon. By the time Descartes has finished, he has exposed and made firm the foundations of his entire Catholic worldview.
So we see in Descartes a perfect model of the Enlightenment--questioning everything, even things previously recognized as proved; an individualistic approach that refuses to accept something just because the "experts" accept it; an informal manner--instead of following scholastic methods, Descartes, as they say, simply "flies by the seat of his pants" in his thinking and writing, embracing originality in both his methods and his conclusions. But we also see in Descartes the fact that the strongly skeptical, unconventional approach of the Enlightenment was not in itself necessarily in conflict with the classic Christian or Catholic worldview. Catholics had always valued reason. Scholasticism was just as rational and demanding of proof as the Enlightenment movement; the two just expressed themselves in different ways and with different emphases. Although Descartes was radically original in style, his reasoning was not, at its core, all that different from the reasoning philosophers and theologians had been using for centuries and which had helped them to see the truth of the Catholic worldview.
Many of the great Enlightenment thinkers were strongly Christian. John Locke (1632-1704), another of the early founders and inspirers of the Enlightenment movement, was a very serious Christian. George Berkeley (1685-1753) is another example. However, another, less Christian strand also grew out of the Enlightenment movement. David Hume (1711-1776) is a classic example of this strand. Hume's works articulated great skepticism towards the possibility of real knowledge of ultimate philosophical and religious matters. Voltaire (1694-1778) is another example. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), though notoriously a bit hard to classify, also questioned the classic view that philosophical reasoning can give us access to knowledge of the real world. This less-Christian strand of thought would help move Western culture towards a much more Agnostic frame of mind over the centuries covered by our time period.
Perhaps read a bit of this in class (I'll show you where) - Rene Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, from Descartes: Selected Philosophical Writings, tr. John Cottingham, et al. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988).
Take a look at in class - http://dbanach.com/homepage/medol.htm - A helpful summary outline of Descartes's chain of reasoning in his Meditations on First Philosophy whereby he established a foundation for his beliefs about himself, God, and the world.
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/10615 - John Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Volume I
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/10616 - Volume II.
The Enlightenment had great influence in politics as well. In contrast to political thought which emphasized, for example, the "divine right of kings" to rule dynastically over society, Enlightenment political thinkers were much more down to earth in their ideas regarding civil authority and its foundation. The Enlightenment came to favor, typically, a "social contract" sort of view of the foundations of civil authority. In such a view, the people as a whole--as opposed to some divinely-appointed king or dynasty--are held to be the ultimate holders of political authority. The people then delegate that authority to rulers who run the society. This can take many forms, including monarchy, so long as it is understood that, if there is a king or a dictator, he receives his authority from the people who appoint him to rule. But during this time, the trend of thought overall was towards a more democratic or republican idea of the structure of civil government, as we see, for example, in the results of both the French and the American Revolutions. The social contract view suggests, also, that it might be possible and reasonable in some circumstances for the people to remove a ruler who is ruling unjustly. If the people have the highest authority, and the authority of the ruler is delegated from the people, then the people who appointed the ruler can also remove him from office. This, of course, is the foundation of the revolutions that happened during this time period and later on also in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.
John Locke is one of the most well-known and influential early articulators of the social contract point of view. Here is a succinct statement of the idea from his Second Treatise on Government (1690), section 95:
The idea of the people as the primary holders of authority in civil society was an idea that Catholic theologians had already been articulating for some time, so this aspect of social contract thinking was not uncongenial to the Catholic view. The modern Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (2004) articulates this aspect of Catholic social teaching:
However, within the more Agnostic strains of the Enlightenment context in which the idea was developed, many formulations of the social contract came to have elements in them that were not so congenial to the Catholic worldview. Many social contract theorists went further and placed the ultimate moral authority and legitimacy of civil government in nothing more than the consent of the governed people. In other words, following the language of John Locke above, it was imagined that everyone originally is free of all obligations to obedience to any civil authority. But then these free and independent individuals agree amongst themselves to create a civil society, and any authority the government of that society has over them is ultimately rooted only in their own consent. If the government, then, tells me what to do, it is only my own consent which provides the foundation for any obligation I might have to obey it. In its most extreme, Naturalistic form, the idea is that there is no objective moral law. My desires constitute the ultimate basis of morality, and so my desires--my consent--forms the only basis for any obligation I might have to obey civil authority. When I obey civil authority, I am really ultimately only obeying myself and my own desires, which consent to delegate authority to the government on the grounds that the government is needed to help me attain the satisfaction of my desires.
The Catholic worldview cannot accept this Naturalistic theory of morality and civil authority. Section #396 of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church addresses this issue explicitly:
Even if the people are the primary holders of political power in a society, that does not mean that the will of the people is the ultimate source of political or moral authority. God is the ultimate source of moral and therefore political authority. God, in his moral law, grants people the right and duty to create civil governments to serve the common good. The people, then, having received authorization from God, delegate that authority to the rulers they choose. But since God and his moral law are the ultimate source of moral authority, "justice" is defined by the moral law, not merely by the whims or desires of the people. If the people try to create an unjust law--that is, a law that goes against the requirements of the objective moral law of God--that law is null and void. It has no authority, no matter how much the people are in favor of it. And the obligation of citizens to obey just civil laws does not derive ultimately from their own consent, but from the moral law of God which requires them to obey the government for the sake of the common good. So we see that the "social contract" idea can end up taking very different forms depending on which worldview-context it is developed in. This became a source of conflict between the Church and various secular Western societies during our time period, as we will see.
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7370 - Locke's Second Treatise of Government.
https://freethoughtforchrist.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-social-contract-isnt-worth-paper-it_27.html - An article I wrote up a few years back criticizing a Naturalistic reading of social contract theory.
The idea of the people as having the ultimate authority in civil affairs has led to many revolutions over the past few hundred years. The first of these was the American Revolution, followed shortly thereafter by the French Revolution. These revolutions were very different in many ways. The American Revolution was friendly towards Christianity, while the French Revolution was very aggressively and violently anti-Christian (leading to the martyrdom of many Catholics during that time). The American Revolution was more moderate and careful, and avoided a number of the pitfalls the French Revolution afterwards fell into. But the two revolutions were similar in that they attempted to create "secular" societies--that is, societies that were not grounded in some particular religious point of view.
When the United States had finally gained independence from England and was able to form its own Constitution, the framers of the Constitution made a decision that had enormous philosophical and political implications. They developed a "Godless" Constitution. The Constitution, ratified in 1788, had no mention in it of God at all. The foundation of civil authority was described as being "We the people." It certainly did not repudiate God or Christianity, but it did not affirm them either. Not long afterwards, in 1791, the Bill of Rights was ratified. Within the Bill of Rights was the First Amendment, which said that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." (This was later considered to have been extended to apply to the states as well by the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.) The United States was to have no officially-established religion. This has been understood in different ways by different people down through the centuries, but the view that was intended by at least some of the Founders and which has eventually prevailed in the official interpretations of the courts is that it meant that the United States has no official religious point of view as well as no officially recognized religious denomination, and no religious point of view is allowed to be the basis of any laws or policies. In other words, the United States is officially neutral in matters of religion.
However it was understood, this was an extraordinarily momentous declaration. To my knowledge, there had never in the history of the entire human race been a nation up to that time which had declared itself to have no official religious position. This was a tremendous break, then, not only with the previous establishments of Christendom, but with all human precedent whatsoever.
So the United States, at least according to some, claimed to be neutral in religious matters. But what does this actually mean? There is a difficulty with this point of view, because it is actually impossible for any society of human beings to be religiously neutral. We can see this if we consider carefully what "neutrality" means. "Religious neutrality" would be a situation in which a society holds no views, and takes no actions, that contradict or disagree with the religious views or worldview beliefs of anyone at all (or at least anyone living in the society). I think that just by stating the idea explicitly we can see how impossible it is going to be. To take a very obvious example, there were plenty of people at the time the Constitution was ratified who disagreed with its Godlessness. These people held that it was wrong for the Constitution to be Godless, because all societies ought to acknowledge God and his true religion and base their laws on his moral law. Catholics held that point of view, and so did many Protestants. The Catholic Church continues today to hold that society cannot be neutral towards God and his moral law:
So, ironically, the very attempt to make the society religiously neutral was itself a violation of religious neutrality, because not everyone agreed that society ought to try to be religiously neutral!
Some laws are going to be agreed upon by the majority of people (laws against murder, theft, etc.), but other laws will necessarily be controversial. In our own day, we fight about things like abortion, euthanasia, transgenderism, immigration, the death penalty, just warfare, and a myriad of other things that people have very strong and diverse opinions about owing to different worldview beliefs and values. There is no way that society could possibly embrace any positions towards these things that could be neutral towards all points of view. And even in the things where the vast majority of people agree, there may be at least some people who disagree. (For example, if we outlaw human sacrifice, what if someone stands up and claims to be a follower of the old Aztec religion and believes he has a moral duty to sacrifice his enemies to the gods? Or if we outlaw suicide bombing, what about followers of Al Qaeda or ISIS who think this is sometimes a moral duty?) Every time we make any law at all, we are applying a set of values and beliefs. We make laws to regulate things according to what we value, and what we value is rooted in what we believe to be true. It cannot be otherwise. Therefore, inherently, all laws are establishments and applications of some particular worldview.
I would argue, in fact, that the establishment of "religious neutrality" in the law is really, effectively, the establishment of Agnosticism as the official worldview of the society. In practice, "neutrality" amounts to taking a "know-nothing" attitude towards religious and worldview claims. We will not affirm or deny any such claims. We will act as if we do not know what is true with regard to such claims, as if we have no knowledge available to come to any conclusions. This may seem, on the surface, neutral, but it is not, because it contradicts the beliefs of those who think we do possess knowledge about such claims--that is, the beliefs of all non-Agnostics.
Let's look at a modern example: In the United States today, it is considered illegal to teach "creationism" in the public schools. "Creationism", as it is often defined, is the idea that the world was created in six days by God as described in a literal reading of the Book of Genesis. Some forms of Christianity (and Judaism) hold creationism as a religious belief. They think it to be true. They believe that God--not only an eyewitness to the creation of the world but the one who actually did the creating--has revealed that this is the way the world was created. Therefore, understandably, they want this view at least represented in the public school classes that deal with the origin and history of the universe. But it is currently illegal to have this view taught in the public schools. Why? Because it is religious. Instead of creationism, the theory of evolution and the view of the earth as billions of years old is deemed appropriate to teach, a view which is diametrically opposed to the beliefs of the creationists. It should be obvious on the surface that this is not a neutral situation, and yet it is typically claimed to be a neutral approach by the courts. In this case, it is evident that "neutral" really means "Agnostic". If we take an Agnostic approach, what the public schools do makes perfect sense. Many forms of Agnosticism hold that we can have knowledge in things pertaining to the natural world, because these are accessible to our senses, while we cannot have knowledge of things pertaining to religious matters or the ultimate nature of the universe, for these things cannot be known through the senses. Since, on this view, we have no evidence that Genesis really is an eyewitness testimony from God, or that the creationists are interpreting it correctly, Genesis is irrelevant to our knowledge of the real history of the origin of the world. But evolution is based, so it is held, on scientific observations--that is, on data that comes from the senses. So evolution has a legitimate basis in the evidence. Therefore, if we want to teach kids what is really, objectively true about the origin and early history of the world, we will teach an evolutionary view and reject the creationist view. We may not know that Genesis is not from God, but since we can't know if it is from God either, it is irrelevant to our knowledge of real earth history. So a "neutral" point of view--that is, an Agnostic, "know-nothing" point of view--leads to the rejection of creationism and the embrace of evolution. But, again, this is not really neutral at all. It only has a superficial appearance of neutrality that falls away if we look at it more carefully.
The secularization of the United States became an inspiration to many other nations to varying degrees and in various ways, and over the next few centuries secular, Agnostic attitudes became very influential in much of Western civil society.
https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/human-basis-laws-ethics/ - Article articulating a Naturalistic (Atheist or Agnostic) idea of the foundation and meaning of ethics.
http://freethoughtforchrist.blogspot.com/2016/04/articles-on-impossibility-of.html - A list of articles arguing for the impossibility of religious neutrality in civil government.
Bring out in class - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli - The Treaty of Tripoli famously declared that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion," supporting the interpretation of the Constitution and the First Amendment that holds that the United States endorses no particular religious viewpoint.
https://www.covenanter.org/reformed/2016/4/21/james-r-willsons-essay-on-tolerance - A very perceptive, short essay by a 19th-century American Presbyterian minister asking some hard questions about the meaning of the idea of "religious tolerance".
Take a look at in class, perhaps - https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/nature_04 - A page from an educational website on evolution put out by the National Center for Science Education and the University of California Museum of Paleontology, and funded by the National Science Foundation. As a government-supported website, it would claim to be religiously neutral, and yet anyone who can read between the lines can see the clear Naturalistic (Agnostic, or even Atheistic) philosophical bias of the content. Just one among many examples that could be given of people trying--and failing miserably--to accomplish the impossible task of arguing for a controversial position while trying to be neutral.
Over the centuries between the 1600s and the 1900s, secular Agnosticism continued to become more and more influential and pervasive. It greatly influenced the civil sphere, as we've seen, but it also influenced all other aspects of life and thought. It pervaded the natural sciences, philosophy, biblical studies, and all other areas of education. It pervaded the thinking of Westerners on a grassroots level as well, so that many people came to think Agnostically about life, about knowledge, about the world, and about religion. A very important feature of this "Agnosticization" of Western culture is that it has not taken place in a purely explicit manner, as have most other worldview conversions throughout human history. Agnostic thinking spread to a great degree by infiltrating the thinking of people who often did not think of themselves as Agnostic. Although sometimes--and more and more so as time went by--people were persuaded to explicitly abandon their previous religious convictions in favor of an explicit Agnosticism or Atheism, many more people found themselves thinking Agnosticly while still affirming their traditional religions. Religious institutions themselves began to change and Agnosticize, until, in many cases, while there was still an outward form arising from old beliefs, the beliefs themselves--at least in terms of their objective content--had been gutted, or at least greatly muted, in favor of substantially Agnostic views and attitudes. Thus arose the prevalence of so-called "liberal religion"--religion which continued to affirm classic doctrines, but which now thought of those doctrines not so much as objective claims about the world but as subjective attitudes taken by individuals towards the world. People more and more began to think in terms of dichotomies between facts, knowledge, reason, science, and objectivity on the one hand, and faith, belief, religion, feelings, and subjectivity on the other. The very terminology that shaped the thinking of people on religion took on the form of Agnostic-influenced categories.
Even theology was affected by this Agnosticization. I mentioned that in some religious circles, religious doctrine, while preserving classic terminology, underwent changes in meaning as the substance of beliefs was Agnosticized to varying degrees. (To see an extreme example of this, consider Reconstructionist Judaism.) This push went on even within the Catholic Church and among Catholic theologians, which began eventually to alarm the Popes. This Agnosticizing movement within the Catholic Church came to be called modernism. Pope Pius X (who reigned from 1903 to 1914), in the earliest days of the twentieth century, began a kind of crusade (not a literal crusade) to root modernism out of the Church. He required theologians to take an oath against modernism. He published encyclicals attacking it. His encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, given in 1907, attempted a thorough analysis and attack upon it. Pius X very clearly and explicitly recognized Agnosticism as the fundamental philosophical perspective underlying it:
I've already mentioned how the Agnosticization of Western culture had affected the political concept of the state, its authority, and its relationship to religion. I should mention also another important political effect: the tendency to consider the State absolute and to refuse to recognize the authority of the Church. In the Catholic view, Church and State are both ordained by God. There is thus real authority in both. The temporal authority of the State must be submissive to the spiritual authority of the Church, because the Church is the guardian of the interpretation of the moral law which tells the whole human race, including the State, how to function justly. But in an Agnostic view, religion is nothing more than people embracing unknowable and unprovable beliefs based on their own personal preferences. The "moral law of God" is nothing more, so far as we know, than an invention of the imagination of human beings. And the Church is nothing more than a voluntary organization of people who form a club based on the fact that they all accept the same imaginary stories and choose to live by them. The Church, therefore, as such, can have no real, objective authority. But the State is the real collection of real citizens trying to get along living their real lives. Therefore, since the desires of the people are paramount, and the State is the collective expression of those desires, the State naturally takes the highest place, being the ultimate dictator of good and bad and what should be done and allowed and what should not be done and allowed. The Church must submit to and be tailored by the State's wishes and authority. The Church, during this period, thus found itself increasingly constrained within various Western nations by laws attempting to dictate how she would be allowed to function. These constraints were more or less severe in various nations. And since laws were being made on a secular--that is, an Agnostic--foundation, those laws did not always jive with the Church's own sense of her duty and her mission. (To give a modern example of this phenomenon, consider the recent attempt in California to require priests in certain circumstances to reveal information gained in the confessional. In the view of a lot of people, the State has every right to insist that the Church violate what she sees as her divine mandate if the State feels, based on its own Agnosticism-grounded judgment, that it would be best if she would do so. Or, for another example, consider the push in recent years by some to ban the practice of infant male circumcision, which is a sacred religious practice Jews believe is required of them by God. These laws would be inconceivable from a Catholic or a Jewish point of view, but they are at least plausible from an Agnostic point of view.)
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html - Pope Pius X's 1907 encyclical attacking Agnosticism among the theologians of the Church, or modernism.
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius10/p10moath.htm - Pope Pius X's Oath Against Modernism, which he required of Catholic theologians in order to help root out Agnostic thinking among them.
The Church grew increasingly alarmed at the progressing Agnosticization of the culture. She reacted strongly by clearly condemning the tenets of the new Agnostic philosophy and the applications of that philosophy in religion, morality, education, politics, etc. Pope Pius IX (who reigned from 1846 to 1878) released in 1864 a Syllabus of Errors, a list of secular Agnostic propositions condemned by the Church. Here is a small sampling of the propositions condemned:
Pope Leo XIII (who reigned from 1878 to 1903) published numerous encyclicals attacking Agnostic trends, including Libertas, which was given in 1888. In this encyclical, Leo XIII laid out the serious problems with the idea of an Agnosticism-grounded morality which separates the foundation of ethics from any knowledge of God and therefore grounds it entirely in knowledge derived from the senses and in the desires of human beings:
Pope Pius X, in response to the 1905 law in France separating the government of France from the Catholic Church, vigorously condemned the idea that the State could declare its independence from God and the Church in his 1907 encyclical Vehementer Nos:
Vatican I
The Church came to the conclusion in the 19th century that the errors opposing true Catholic doctrine had grown so great and prevalent that it was time to respond to them formally by means of an ecumenical council. This was the first ecumenical council since the Council of Trent in the 16th century. It was held at the Vatican, and so has come to be called the First Vatican Council, or Vatican I. The council dealt with two fundamental questions: The fundamental nature of the Catholic faith and the relation between faith and reason, and the infallibility and supreme authority of the Pope. Both of these were dealt with because they had been under attack from the advancement of secular Agnosticism. The supreme authority of the Pope had also been a question of controversy with those in the Church who had been advocating conciliarism or Gallicanism--which put various institutions above the authority of the Pope, such as an ecumenical council or a national government (Gallicanism, as its name suggests, was a French movement and was focused on the autonomy of the French government in religious matters).
The council was called in 1868 by Pope Pius IX and went on through 1870. But these were turbulent times. This was the period of the Franco-Prussian War, and there was also a push within Italy to unify the entirety of Italy into one nation, with Rome as the capital. This would entail the end of the Papal States--the territory over which the Pope had ruled since the 8th century. Pope Pius IX resisted giving up the Papal States, but eventually the Kingdom of Italy occupied Rome and the Pope was forced to surrender. At the same time, Pius IX called for a temporary adjourning of the council. Although the adjournment was supposed to be temporary, the council never did come back together, and it wasn't actually formally closed until 1960, shortly before the Second Vatican Council. But before the council had adjourned, it had already approved two Dogmatic Constitutions dealing with faith and reason and papal supremacy and infallibility. The council would have done more, but the rest of the plans made for the council were never carried out because of the adjournment.
The opening statement within the Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith reveals the motivations behind the council, as the Church was concerned to uphold the faith in the midst of widespread apostasy and Agnosticism:
Vatican I affirmed strongly the objectivity of the Catholic faith--that is, that the propositions of the faith are objectively true and not just the subjective beliefs of religious people, as Agnostic thinking would hold. It also upheld the reasonableness of the faith and the true relationship between faith and reason. A few samples from the canons (the negative part of the declarations, where errors are condemned):
In its First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ (called the "first", although there never were any more because of the adjournment), the council put forward strong, definitive claims regarding the supreme authority (under Christ) of the Pope in the Church and his infallibility in matters of faith and morals. This had always been the teaching of the Catholic Church, affirmed many times throughout Church history--we've seen some examples in our study. But sometimes, when error is persistent, the Church feels called upon to make a stronger and more obviously definitive statement on a subject. That was the case here. The Church needed to make an absolutely clear, specific, and definitive declaration regarding the authority and reliability of the Pope. The council spends a number of pages rehearsing and reaffirming historic Church teachings on these subjects by means of quotations from earlier sources. These pages provide a nice summary of some of the most important of these earlier statements.
Here are some of the declarations the Dogmatic Constitution makes regarding the papacy:
This Dogmatic Constitution finally quashed any remaining conciliarism in the Church. Some Catholics refused to accept what they could now no longer ignore--full, papal supremacy and infallibility as defined explicitly and dogmatically by the Pope and an ecumenical council--and they broke off and formed the "Old Catholic" movement. Not all the bishops wanted the Church to make the decree--they considered it untimely, or they were afraid of its political implications, or they didn't feel the articulation was nuanced enough, etc.--but once the decree had been made, all the bishops unanimously assented to it and agreed with it. It was therefore very difficult from this point on for a conciliarist argument to be made. Conciliarism tries to pit the authority of an ecumenical council against the authority of the Pope, and to make the former of higher authority than the latter, but that line of reasoning was no longer available now that an ecumenical council had joined with the Pope in affirming papal supremacy and rejecting conciliarism. In the Church's teaching, the Pope and the Church as a whole have equal and indeed the same authority. One is not higher than the other. They are, in fact, one and the same thing ultimately. One cannot be used to trump the other. A council without the Pope is not a real ecumenical council, for only the Pope's sanction can give authority to a council, and there is no ecumenicity without the Bishop of Rome. On the other hand, when the Pope defines a doctrine, he defines it as the head and representative of all the bishops and the entire Catholic Church--all of whose faithful members unite with him in affirming the faith which he upholds.
The council's decree did have an unfortunate side-effect, however. In its zeal to be clear and explicit, the council's definition of infallibility ended of being very narrow and specific, defining an infallible ex cathedra declaration to mean a declaration the Pope makes when he intends to use his supreme authority to define a doctrine in a definitive manner. But most papal teaching does not consist of making formal, definitive doctrinal definitions. Most ordinary papal teaching is not intending to definitively define some doctrine, but simply to articulate the faith to the people of God and exhort them regarding doctrines already defined or understood. Such teaching often mixes together teachings that have been definitively defined along with not-so-definitive teachings. The narrowness of the council's definition thus opened the door for an erroneous opinion that one comes across not infrequently in some Catholic circles even today--the idea that the Pope is only kept from error in his teaching when he is teaching ex cathedra (in the narrow sense used at Vatican I), and that when he is not making an ex cathedra statement his teaching is just as fallible as anyone else's and can, at times, be ignored or even resisted. This idea, of course, undermines the entire point of what Vatican I was trying to do in asserting papal supremacy and infallibility. The Pope's authority and teaching is intended as a sure beacon guiding the Church to a pure expression of the faith, and he is also therefore a means of unity since he defines the faith that unites all Catholics together. If the Pope is only protected from leading the Church into error on rare occasions, when he is making a formal, ex cathedra pronouncement, and the rest of the time he can be ignored or even opposed in his teaching, papal authority is effectively gutted.
Vatican I did not give any sanction to this error. As can be seen from the above quotations, it very carefully articulated the complete reliability of official papal teaching and the unifying power it is intended to have. But still, the narrow language of Vatican I provided an apparent loophole for this error to try to gain a foothold. After Vatican I, as we will see later, and especially from Vatican II on, the Church made further explicit clarifications to seal off this apparent loophole and affirm the complete reliability of all official papal teaching and the duty of Catholics to submit to the entirety of what is delivered to them to keep by the teaching authority of the Church.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Vatican_Council
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Rome
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Decrees_of_the_Vatican_Council - The Documents of Vatican I.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Catholic_Church
http://freethoughtforchrist.blogspot.com/2019/03/st-francis-de-sales-on-pope-as.html - St. Francis de Sales, writing at the end of the 16th century and addressing Calvinists, articulates the historic view of the Church on papal supremacy and infallibility.
As we've seen, the revelation of God, as interpreted and applied in the Church's teaching, has much to say about morality on both an individual and a corporate level. It provides principles of justice and righteousness upon which individual lives and human societies should be based. The Church had been providing moral guidance to society from her very beginning. In the nineteenth century, however, political and social changes combined with technological advancement had created very new situations not faced by people in previous centuries. We remember that the Church's teaching develops over time as she continues to ponder what the revelation of God means, and especially as she applies its ideas and principles to new circumstances and new questions not previously considered. The great societal changes of the nineteenth century and continuing into the twentieth century led to a great deal of growth in the Church's teaching on social matters.
The 19th century saw the Industrial Revolution, which greatly increased the efficiency of production. But this increase in efficiency also led to a growth in mass consumerism, which eventually began to threaten the integrity of the environment. Also, the increase in productivity increased the need for workers, and so developed a large class of workers who were hired to do jobs in factories, along railroads, and in many other areas. There were those who wanted to get rich partly by exploiting these workers, since there were very few laws in place outlining the sorts of rights workers ought to have. Children were often brought to work in the factories in very dangerous and difficult conditions. Extreme views of economics and politics began to be presented and become popular, such as socialism, which emphasized the unity of the collective of all the people in society, but sometimes at the expense of the rights and concerns and integrity of individuals and smaller social groups. On the other hand, some promoted a radical capitalism which placed so much emphasis on individualism and "free market" values that there was very little room for society to regulate the practices of individuals and of businesses which might use means to attain wealth that cause harm to those who do not fare so well in the relentless and often cruel competition of the market.
Pope Leo XIII is usually credited as the first to begin systematically addressing these new problems and challenges in modern society by articulating values and principles, based in revelation and Church moral teaching, that directly applied to these new challenges. His encyclical Rerum Novarum, "On the Condition of Labor", given in 1891, inaugurated this modern period of "Catholic social teaching."
Modern Catholic social teaching lays out certain key principles that must all be held together and embraced by society in order to ensure social justice. Some of these include recognition of the fundamental dignity of human persons, the central importance of the common good, solidarity among all, the universal destination of goods, and subsidiarity. Society must be organized around respect for the dignity of the human person as made in the image of God and therefore possessing an intrinsic value we all have a moral obligation to recognize and respect. Individuals and institutions in society must seek the common good--that is, the good of society as a whole and of all the individuals within it, including the vulnerable, poor, minorities, and marginalized--in everything they do. We must recognize the unity and solidarity of the human race, that we are all connected to each other--think of St. Paul's image of the Body of Christ--and so have a concern for each other.
One of the major expressions of solidarity is the universal destination of goods. God has given all the gifts of the creation to all of us. Every single person, therefore, has a right to a reasonable use of these goods. Private property exists as a practical necessity to keep the use of created goods from evolving into chaos. However, the universal destination of goods reminds us that private property is not absolute. If, through my work and diligence, I have access to money, food, education, and other goods that are part of a healthy human life, but someone else, for whatever reason, is unable to attain what they need, I have an obligation to share my goods with them. And note: This is not so much an act of charity (in the sense of giving beyond what is due) as an act of justice. I am giving them what is theirs. If I should withhold my goods against their needs, I would be committing theft. For created goods belong to us all, not just to those fortunate enough to be able to gather them up for themselves first. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2446, referencing earlier teachers of the Church, puts it this way:
There is also the principle of subsidiarity. Higher orders of society--such as, in the United States, the Federal government--should not unnecessarily interfere with the functioning of lower orders--states, cities, families, churches, individuals, etc.--or try to take their initiative away from them, spoonfeed them, or micromanage them. If a lower order can accomplish something, the higher order should allow them to do it. Higher orders only step in when there is some abuse or disorder that cannot be regulated without intervention from a higher order. So there is a balance here. We avoid two extremes. We do not say that higher orders are never to step in, even when there are unfixable disorders or abuses of rights in the lower orders; but, on the other hand, we say that it is only as a last resort that higher orders should step in. Ordinarily, unless necessity calls for something extraordinary, what can be done by lower orders should be done by lower orders.
Keeping all of these principles together and implementing them in proper balance leads to a society where the innovation, diligence, and creativity of individuals, families, businesses, smaller orders of government, etc., are respected and nurtured, and yet there are checks and balances so that abuses can be corrected and rights can be maintained across the whole of society. Note also that Catholic social teaching transcends the boundaries between what we in the United States call the "conservative" and the "liberal" political points of view. It does not fit neatly into either category. There are aspects that conservatives would love and aspects they would hate, and likewise with the liberals. Catholic social teaching gives us a good example of how the Spirit-guided teaching of the Church can speak prophetically and powerfully into the social circumstances and challenges of human societies and provide a perspective from a higher wisdom.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#The%20beginning%20of%20a%20new%20path - The Church has put out a document summarizing her social teaching, the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. #87-104 provides a helpful overview of the history of modern Catholic social teaching.
http://usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catholic-social-teaching/foundational-documents.cfm - The US Bishops have put out a very helpful list of important documents from the universal Church and from the US Church over the years since the 19th century having to do with the Church's social teaching.
During this time period, it is often said that the Church adopted a kind of "fortress" mentality against the advancement and challenges of modern ideas--particularly those ideas, rooted in an Agnostic worldview, which threatened her own beliefs and values. It is said that she turned inward and took a defensive stance, attacking modern errors and articulating and defending the truths of her own teaching. This is all quite true. However, it is not the whole truth. Also, during this time, we see the Church begin to engage in fruitful dialogue with the new circumstances and ideas of modernity. Catholic social teaching is a good example of this. The Church is the custodian of divine revelation. As such, she must be, by nature, a guard that protects truth from the encroach of error. She will therefore ever be, and rightly so, involved in defending and articulating truth and rejecting and refuting error. What we might call her "negative," defensive response against error and sin is a necessary part of her divine mission. But she is also called, at the same time, to a more positive dialogue with the times. The Church teaches the world how to understand and apply divine revelation. But, at the same time, she also learns from dialogue with the world how to better understand the revelation she is called to guard and to teach. We've seen this throughout her history. We recall, for example, the period of the first great ecumenical councils. Most of them were called to refute and reject heresies and to defend and articulate the truth. But the heresies didn't simply bounce off an unchanging wall of doctrinal truth. The heresies pushed the Church to consider even more carefully the implications of the divine revelation and to better understand aspects of what it means. So while the Church guarded her ancient truth against the novelties of error, she also learned and grew, and her doctrine developed. The heresies had a positive role to play in the growth of the Church's own understanding. And the Church does not only learn from the errors of the world, but she can also benefit from the wisdom granted by God to the people of the world. While the Church is the authoritative proclaimer of the divine revelation, this does not mean that she cannot and should not also gain further wisdom herself from the wisdom granted to others. We've seen this throughout her history as well--for example, we think of how much the early Church gained from her dialogue with Greek philosophy, and how much the philosophical perspective has enriched her doctrinal depth and articulation throughout the ages. So the dialogue between the Church and the entirety of humanity is a two-way street.
The Church faced new, unprecedented social circumstances during our time period--new problems, challenges, and questions that the human race had never faced before in quite the same way. She encountered new ideas that had never before been voiced in precisely the same way. And so, as she was challenged by these new situations and ideas, her doctrine and practice developed in new ways and new areas, with the result that her teaching began to take on a more modern flavor and a new richness and depth in certain areas. Her social teaching, as I mentioned, is an excellent example of this. But it was happening in many areas.
It was happening in the area of religious toleration and freedom. We've seen in previous units how the Church dealt with religious dissidents in an era when Christianity dominated all of social and political life in the societies in which the Church found herself. We saw her fight against heresies, and even make use of the civil arm to suppress them. But now, things were changing rapidly. Christendom had fallen. Nations were abandoning the Catholic faith and becoming first Protestant, and then secular. The Church's first impulse, in response to this, was to double down in the defense of the duty of individuals and societies to follow the true religion and support the Church. So she vigorously opposed the separation of Church and State and the growing secularism that would embrace Agnosticism in the name of neutrality. But she also learned to adapt, and eventually the new circumstances would help her develop a deeper appreciation for the important values of religious freedom and liberty of conscience. These were not new ideas for her, to be sure. We've seen them articulated by great theologians of the Church not only in the time of the early Roman persecutions but even during the height of Christendom in the Middle Ages. But the unprecedented realities of modern life in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries would further deepen her appreciation of these values. This would flower at the Second Vatican Council, as we will see in a later unit, but the first signs of growth can be seen during our time period. Pope Leo XIII, for example, in his encyclical Libertas, even in the midst of his attempt to refute the errors of modern secular morality and politics, shows the Church's growing recognition of the value of toleration and freedom for people of other religions in society.
The growing secularism and pluralism of the Western world was accompanied by the growth and spread of false religious ideas and immoral behavior. Pope Leo XIII points out the duty of the state to seek the common welfare by fighting against such evils, but he also recognizes that there are other concerns that have to be balanced together with the duty to oppose these evils. To prohibit and penalize heresy and the spread of false religion in Medieval Christendom is one thing; to do it in modern, pluralistic societies is something else. Leo XIII recognized that there had to be greater toleration of these evils in his day than there had been in the past, for ignoring changing circumstances and attempting to act as if everyone was still in Medieval Christendom would do more harm than good. In dialogue with modern circumstances and modern thought, the Church was coming to recognize the value of religious tolerance in the modern day. Note that it is not that her fundamental beliefs or principles had changed. She had always had to balance principles such as the danger of false ideas and the duty to oppose them; the importance of keeping the civil government from micromanaging society; the importance of freedom and conscience; etc. But she was learning how to balance them differently and wisely in light of new circumstances.
Another example of this growth occurred in the area of the Church's attitude toward the salvation of non-Catholics and non-Christians. The Church had always recognized that salvation comes to human beings only through Christ and through his Church. She had many times articulated this teaching very forcefully. An example of this constant teaching is found among the affirmations of the Ecumenical Council of Florence (1438-1445), in Session 11:
Sounds pretty straightforward! Unless you are a member of the Catholic Church, you can't be saved. This is because salvation flows from Christ through the Church. If you reject Christ, or you reject his Church, you are rejecting salvation, just like those who reject the only medicine that can cure them will die of their disease. However, it had always been recognized that there are nuances in this. For example, the Church recognized very early on that Catechumens, who were on their way to joining the Church but had not yet been baptized, were already connected to the Church through their desire to join it. If such Catechumens should die before they could be baptized, they would go to heaven. For another example, we see Church Fathers affirming that Christ's salvation was at work in the world before Christ came and brought salvation to those who had not heard of the historical personage of Christ but were nonetheless connected to him by his all-pervasive presence and grace. Of course, this applied to the Old Testament people of God before Christ came, but it also applied to those who were strangers even from the Old Testament covenants and revelation. The great Church Father Justin Martyr spoke about this back around the years 153-155 in his First Apology:
The Church Father Optatus of Milevis, writing between the years 363-376, made the argument that schismatics, who have broken from the Catholic Church but who have maintained the doctrines of the Catholic faith, are not necessarily cut off from salvation because they have the same sacraments. As we saw back in Unit 2, back in the third century Pope Stephen I had caused controversy by declaring that the baptism of heretics and schismatics should be accepted as valid, so that when people who had been baptized by them returned to the Church they did not need to be re-baptized.
Despite these sorts of nuances, however, it was the case that for the most part, Catholics throughout the earlier and middle ages of the Church tended to generally assume that a person who was not a Catholic--whether an atheist, a pagan, a Jew, a heretic, or a schismatic--had rejected Christ and his Church and was therefore bound for hell unless they repented. Catholics had a lot of confidence in the truth of their religion. This was only heightened by the spread of the gospel and the growth of Christendom. So it was very easy to assume that the truth is evident enough so that people who refuse to accept it are rejecting that which they ought to know and so are culpable in their refusal to convert. Most of the time, therefore, Catholic teachers and Church councils did not see a need to elaborate upon all the possible nuances when making strong assertions regarding the necessity of Christ and the Church for salvation, as we saw above in the strong declaration from the Council of Florence. Nevertheless, the Church never rejected those nuances, even if they were not typically brought out or emphasized. This started to change during our time period, however, as the Church began to adjust herself to the fact of the demise of Christendom and the growing prevalence of pluralism in the Western world. She began to take more seriously the fact that not everyone who is not a Catholic is necessarily willful and malicious in their errors or in their failure to immediately come into the Church. While still maintaining the necessity of Christ and the Church for salvation, she began to focus more attention on the nuanced question of those who, through no fault of their own, are unable to come explicitly to the Catholic faith or the Catholic Church--even when such people live in societies where the Catholic faith is known. Pope Pius IX, who, as we saw above, was on the forefront fighting against Agnosticism in the Church and defending historic Catholic doctrine, was also the first Pope to begin to put more emphasis on this nuance in his public teaching. In 1863, he issued the encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, in which he made these comments:
In 1908, Pope Pius X issued a catechism (the Catechism of St. Pius X) which also addressed the nuances of this issue:
Salvation only comes through Christ and the Church, but, if one is in "invincible ignorance" (in other words, ignorance that can't be helped, as opposed to willful or culpable ignorance), or for some other reason is unable to embrace the faith or belong to the visible body of the Church in an explicit manner, if such a person, moved by grace, is following God as best they can based on their ability and knowledge, such a person is indeed in Christ and in the Church in the deepest sense, since they are in a state of grace (grace which flows through Christ and the Church), although their unity with the people of God is very imperfect.
Again, such nuances were already latent in Church teaching and at least partially recognized by the Church in previous eras, but, through her dialogue with the realities of modern persons in the new circumstances of modern Western pluralism, the Church was led by the Spirit to further develop and put more emphasis on these nuances in her teaching and in her relationships with the people of the world.
https://www.ncregister.com/blog/steven-greydanus/if-non-catholics-can-be-saved-why-evangelize - Helpful, short article on the Church's teaching regarding the salvation of non-Catholics and the history of this teaching.
http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Church_Dogma/Church_Dogma_032.htm - Longer article on the same subject.
http://shamelesspopery.com/salvation-outside-of-the-church/ - Another very helpful article on the same subject.
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=1610 - The First Apology of Justin Martyr (ca. 153-155).
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/ecumenical-council-of-florence-1438-1445-1461 - Documents of the Council of Florence (1431-1449).
https://ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/optatus_01_book1.htm#C10 - St. Optatus of Milevis's writing Against the Donatists, Book I (ca. 363-376).
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9quanto.htm - Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, by Pope Pius IX (1863).
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/catechism-of-st-pius-x-1286 - Catechism of Pope St. Pius X (1908).
An important movement occurred in the Anglican world during our time period. It came to be known as the Oxford Movement because it was spurred on by a number of teachers connected with the University of Oxford. The movement was a revival of Catholic ideas and forms of worship within the Anglican Church, an attempt to "de-Protestantize" it and move it back in the direction of the historic Catholicism of the Church of England. The leaders of the movement didn't want the Anglican Church to rejoin Rome and submit to the authority of the Pope, but, short of that, they did want it to regain and reclaim much of its Catholic heritage. The movement had a lot of success and did, in the end, end up moving Anglicanism overall in a more Catholic direction, particularly in its worship.
Some of the members of this movement ended up coming into full communion with Rome and the Catholic Church, the most prominent of them being St. John Henry Newman. Newman ended up making a significant contribution to Catholic life and thought in England, during a time when "Romanism" was still immensely unpopular and subject to great suspicion. He helped to develop a very "English-flavored" version of Catholic thought that has greatly enriched the Church in a number of ways.
http://www.puseyhouse.org.uk/what-was-the-oxford-movement.html - Helpful, brief article describing the Oxford Movement and its legacy.
https://www.newmancanonisation.com/newmans-life - Good article-length biography of St. John Henry Newman.
http://www.newmanreader.org/ - Good source for the writings of Newman.
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html - Newman's famous Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/apologia/index.html - Newman's Apologia Pro Vita Sua ("Defense of One's Own Life"), his autobiographical account of his life, his work in the Oxford Movement, and especially the overall trajectory that led to his conversion to the Catholic Church.
We've already touched on Catholic missions to the American continents in our previous unit. As Catholic countries like Spain and France explored and colonized areas of the "New World", the Catholic Church came with them, with the result that Catholicism became widespread in Central and South America and in parts of North America (California, Canada, etc.).
The next thing Descartes does is prove the existence of God. Only after that does he reconstitute a foundation for believing in the external world revealed by our senses--for the only way we could trust our senses is if we have reason to believe there is a benevolent God who loves truth in charge of all things rather than a deceptive evil demon. By the time Descartes has finished, he has exposed and made firm the foundations of his entire Catholic worldview.
So we see in Descartes a perfect model of the Enlightenment--questioning everything, even things previously recognized as proved; an individualistic approach that refuses to accept something just because the "experts" accept it; an informal manner--instead of following scholastic methods, Descartes, as they say, simply "flies by the seat of his pants" in his thinking and writing, embracing originality in both his methods and his conclusions. But we also see in Descartes the fact that the strongly skeptical, unconventional approach of the Enlightenment was not in itself necessarily in conflict with the classic Christian or Catholic worldview. Catholics had always valued reason. Scholasticism was just as rational and demanding of proof as the Enlightenment movement; the two just expressed themselves in different ways and with different emphases. Although Descartes was radically original in style, his reasoning was not, at its core, all that different from the reasoning philosophers and theologians had been using for centuries and which had helped them to see the truth of the Catholic worldview.
Many of the great Enlightenment thinkers were strongly Christian. John Locke (1632-1704), another of the early founders and inspirers of the Enlightenment movement, was a very serious Christian. George Berkeley (1685-1753) is another example. However, another, less Christian strand also grew out of the Enlightenment movement. David Hume (1711-1776) is a classic example of this strand. Hume's works articulated great skepticism towards the possibility of real knowledge of ultimate philosophical and religious matters. Voltaire (1694-1778) is another example. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), though notoriously a bit hard to classify, also questioned the classic view that philosophical reasoning can give us access to knowledge of the real world. This less-Christian strand of thought would help move Western culture towards a much more Agnostic frame of mind over the centuries covered by our time period.
Perhaps read a bit of this in class (I'll show you where) - Rene Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, from Descartes: Selected Philosophical Writings, tr. John Cottingham, et al. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988).
Take a look at in class - http://dbanach.com/homepage/medol.htm - A helpful summary outline of Descartes's chain of reasoning in his Meditations on First Philosophy whereby he established a foundation for his beliefs about himself, God, and the world.
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/10615 - John Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Volume I
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/10616 - Volume II.
Enlightenment Politics
The Enlightenment had great influence in politics as well. In contrast to political thought which emphasized, for example, the "divine right of kings" to rule dynastically over society, Enlightenment political thinkers were much more down to earth in their ideas regarding civil authority and its foundation. The Enlightenment came to favor, typically, a "social contract" sort of view of the foundations of civil authority. In such a view, the people as a whole--as opposed to some divinely-appointed king or dynasty--are held to be the ultimate holders of political authority. The people then delegate that authority to rulers who run the society. This can take many forms, including monarchy, so long as it is understood that, if there is a king or a dictator, he receives his authority from the people who appoint him to rule. But during this time, the trend of thought overall was towards a more democratic or republican idea of the structure of civil government, as we see, for example, in the results of both the French and the American Revolutions. The social contract view suggests, also, that it might be possible and reasonable in some circumstances for the people to remove a ruler who is ruling unjustly. If the people have the highest authority, and the authority of the ruler is delegated from the people, then the people who appointed the ruler can also remove him from office. This, of course, is the foundation of the revolutions that happened during this time period and later on also in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.
John Locke is one of the most well-known and influential early articulators of the social contract point of view. Here is a succinct statement of the idea from his Second Treatise on Government (1690), section 95:
MEN being, as has been said, by nature, all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent. The only way whereby any one divests himself of his natural liberty, and puts on the bonds of civil society, is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any, that are not of it. This any number of men may do, because it injures not the freedom of the rest; they are left as they were in the liberty of the state of nature. When any number of men have so consented to make one community or government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one body politic, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest.
The idea of the people as the primary holders of authority in civil society was an idea that Catholic theologians had already been articulating for some time, so this aspect of social contract thinking was not uncongenial to the Catholic view. The modern Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (2004) articulates this aspect of Catholic social teaching:
The subject of political authority is the people considered in its entirety as those who have sovereignty. In various forms, this people transfers the exercise of sovereignty to those whom it freely elects as its representatives, but it preserves the prerogative to assert this sovereignty in evaluating the work of those charged with governing and also in replacing them when they do not fulfil their functions satisfactorily. Although this right is operative in every State and in every kind of political regime, a democratic form of government, due to its procedures for verification, allows and guarantees its fullest application. The mere consent of the people is not, however, sufficient for considering “just” the ways in which political authority is exercised. (#395, footnote removed)
However, within the more Agnostic strains of the Enlightenment context in which the idea was developed, many formulations of the social contract came to have elements in them that were not so congenial to the Catholic worldview. Many social contract theorists went further and placed the ultimate moral authority and legitimacy of civil government in nothing more than the consent of the governed people. In other words, following the language of John Locke above, it was imagined that everyone originally is free of all obligations to obedience to any civil authority. But then these free and independent individuals agree amongst themselves to create a civil society, and any authority the government of that society has over them is ultimately rooted only in their own consent. If the government, then, tells me what to do, it is only my own consent which provides the foundation for any obligation I might have to obey it. In its most extreme, Naturalistic form, the idea is that there is no objective moral law. My desires constitute the ultimate basis of morality, and so my desires--my consent--forms the only basis for any obligation I might have to obey civil authority. When I obey civil authority, I am really ultimately only obeying myself and my own desires, which consent to delegate authority to the government on the grounds that the government is needed to help me attain the satisfaction of my desires.
The Catholic worldview cannot accept this Naturalistic theory of morality and civil authority. Section #396 of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church addresses this issue explicitly:
Authority must be guided by the moral law. All of its dignity derives from its being exercised within the context of the moral order, "which in turn has God for its first source and final end”. Because of its necessary reference to the moral order, which precedes it and is its basis, and because of its purpose and the people to whom it is directed, authority cannot be understood as a power determined by criteria of a solely sociological or historical character. “There are some indeed who go so far as to deny the existence of a moral order which is transcendent, absolute, universal and equally binding upon all. And where the same law of justice is not adhered to by all, men cannot hope to come to open and full agreement on vital issues”. This order “has no existence except in God; cut off from God it must necessarily disintegrate”. It is from the moral order that authority derives its power to impose obligations and its moral legitimacy, not from some arbitrary will or from the thirst for power, and it is to translate this order into concrete actions to achieve the common good. (footnotes removed)
Even if the people are the primary holders of political power in a society, that does not mean that the will of the people is the ultimate source of political or moral authority. God is the ultimate source of moral and therefore political authority. God, in his moral law, grants people the right and duty to create civil governments to serve the common good. The people, then, having received authorization from God, delegate that authority to the rulers they choose. But since God and his moral law are the ultimate source of moral authority, "justice" is defined by the moral law, not merely by the whims or desires of the people. If the people try to create an unjust law--that is, a law that goes against the requirements of the objective moral law of God--that law is null and void. It has no authority, no matter how much the people are in favor of it. And the obligation of citizens to obey just civil laws does not derive ultimately from their own consent, but from the moral law of God which requires them to obey the government for the sake of the common good. So we see that the "social contract" idea can end up taking very different forms depending on which worldview-context it is developed in. This became a source of conflict between the Church and various secular Western societies during our time period, as we will see.
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7370 - Locke's Second Treatise of Government.
https://freethoughtforchrist.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-social-contract-isnt-worth-paper-it_27.html - An article I wrote up a few years back criticizing a Naturalistic reading of social contract theory.
A New, Secular--Religiously Neutral?--Society
The idea of the people as having the ultimate authority in civil affairs has led to many revolutions over the past few hundred years. The first of these was the American Revolution, followed shortly thereafter by the French Revolution. These revolutions were very different in many ways. The American Revolution was friendly towards Christianity, while the French Revolution was very aggressively and violently anti-Christian (leading to the martyrdom of many Catholics during that time). The American Revolution was more moderate and careful, and avoided a number of the pitfalls the French Revolution afterwards fell into. But the two revolutions were similar in that they attempted to create "secular" societies--that is, societies that were not grounded in some particular religious point of view.
When the United States had finally gained independence from England and was able to form its own Constitution, the framers of the Constitution made a decision that had enormous philosophical and political implications. They developed a "Godless" Constitution. The Constitution, ratified in 1788, had no mention in it of God at all. The foundation of civil authority was described as being "We the people." It certainly did not repudiate God or Christianity, but it did not affirm them either. Not long afterwards, in 1791, the Bill of Rights was ratified. Within the Bill of Rights was the First Amendment, which said that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." (This was later considered to have been extended to apply to the states as well by the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.) The United States was to have no officially-established religion. This has been understood in different ways by different people down through the centuries, but the view that was intended by at least some of the Founders and which has eventually prevailed in the official interpretations of the courts is that it meant that the United States has no official religious point of view as well as no officially recognized religious denomination, and no religious point of view is allowed to be the basis of any laws or policies. In other words, the United States is officially neutral in matters of religion.
However it was understood, this was an extraordinarily momentous declaration. To my knowledge, there had never in the history of the entire human race been a nation up to that time which had declared itself to have no official religious position. This was a tremendous break, then, not only with the previous establishments of Christendom, but with all human precedent whatsoever.
So the United States, at least according to some, claimed to be neutral in religious matters. But what does this actually mean? There is a difficulty with this point of view, because it is actually impossible for any society of human beings to be religiously neutral. We can see this if we consider carefully what "neutrality" means. "Religious neutrality" would be a situation in which a society holds no views, and takes no actions, that contradict or disagree with the religious views or worldview beliefs of anyone at all (or at least anyone living in the society). I think that just by stating the idea explicitly we can see how impossible it is going to be. To take a very obvious example, there were plenty of people at the time the Constitution was ratified who disagreed with its Godlessness. These people held that it was wrong for the Constitution to be Godless, because all societies ought to acknowledge God and his true religion and base their laws on his moral law. Catholics held that point of view, and so did many Protestants. The Catholic Church continues today to hold that society cannot be neutral towards God and his moral law:
Authority should always be exercised as a service, respecting fundamental human rights, a just hierarchy of values, laws, distributive justice, and the principle of subsidiarity. All those who exercise authority should seek the interests of the community before their own interest and allow their decisions to be inspired by the truth about God, about man and about the world (Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #463).
So, ironically, the very attempt to make the society religiously neutral was itself a violation of religious neutrality, because not everyone agreed that society ought to try to be religiously neutral!
Some laws are going to be agreed upon by the majority of people (laws against murder, theft, etc.), but other laws will necessarily be controversial. In our own day, we fight about things like abortion, euthanasia, transgenderism, immigration, the death penalty, just warfare, and a myriad of other things that people have very strong and diverse opinions about owing to different worldview beliefs and values. There is no way that society could possibly embrace any positions towards these things that could be neutral towards all points of view. And even in the things where the vast majority of people agree, there may be at least some people who disagree. (For example, if we outlaw human sacrifice, what if someone stands up and claims to be a follower of the old Aztec religion and believes he has a moral duty to sacrifice his enemies to the gods? Or if we outlaw suicide bombing, what about followers of Al Qaeda or ISIS who think this is sometimes a moral duty?) Every time we make any law at all, we are applying a set of values and beliefs. We make laws to regulate things according to what we value, and what we value is rooted in what we believe to be true. It cannot be otherwise. Therefore, inherently, all laws are establishments and applications of some particular worldview.
I would argue, in fact, that the establishment of "religious neutrality" in the law is really, effectively, the establishment of Agnosticism as the official worldview of the society. In practice, "neutrality" amounts to taking a "know-nothing" attitude towards religious and worldview claims. We will not affirm or deny any such claims. We will act as if we do not know what is true with regard to such claims, as if we have no knowledge available to come to any conclusions. This may seem, on the surface, neutral, but it is not, because it contradicts the beliefs of those who think we do possess knowledge about such claims--that is, the beliefs of all non-Agnostics.
Let's look at a modern example: In the United States today, it is considered illegal to teach "creationism" in the public schools. "Creationism", as it is often defined, is the idea that the world was created in six days by God as described in a literal reading of the Book of Genesis. Some forms of Christianity (and Judaism) hold creationism as a religious belief. They think it to be true. They believe that God--not only an eyewitness to the creation of the world but the one who actually did the creating--has revealed that this is the way the world was created. Therefore, understandably, they want this view at least represented in the public school classes that deal with the origin and history of the universe. But it is currently illegal to have this view taught in the public schools. Why? Because it is religious. Instead of creationism, the theory of evolution and the view of the earth as billions of years old is deemed appropriate to teach, a view which is diametrically opposed to the beliefs of the creationists. It should be obvious on the surface that this is not a neutral situation, and yet it is typically claimed to be a neutral approach by the courts. In this case, it is evident that "neutral" really means "Agnostic". If we take an Agnostic approach, what the public schools do makes perfect sense. Many forms of Agnosticism hold that we can have knowledge in things pertaining to the natural world, because these are accessible to our senses, while we cannot have knowledge of things pertaining to religious matters or the ultimate nature of the universe, for these things cannot be known through the senses. Since, on this view, we have no evidence that Genesis really is an eyewitness testimony from God, or that the creationists are interpreting it correctly, Genesis is irrelevant to our knowledge of the real history of the origin of the world. But evolution is based, so it is held, on scientific observations--that is, on data that comes from the senses. So evolution has a legitimate basis in the evidence. Therefore, if we want to teach kids what is really, objectively true about the origin and early history of the world, we will teach an evolutionary view and reject the creationist view. We may not know that Genesis is not from God, but since we can't know if it is from God either, it is irrelevant to our knowledge of real earth history. So a "neutral" point of view--that is, an Agnostic, "know-nothing" point of view--leads to the rejection of creationism and the embrace of evolution. But, again, this is not really neutral at all. It only has a superficial appearance of neutrality that falls away if we look at it more carefully.
The secularization of the United States became an inspiration to many other nations to varying degrees and in various ways, and over the next few centuries secular, Agnostic attitudes became very influential in much of Western civil society.
https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/human-basis-laws-ethics/ - Article articulating a Naturalistic (Atheist or Agnostic) idea of the foundation and meaning of ethics.
http://freethoughtforchrist.blogspot.com/2016/04/articles-on-impossibility-of.html - A list of articles arguing for the impossibility of religious neutrality in civil government.
Bring out in class - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli - The Treaty of Tripoli famously declared that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion," supporting the interpretation of the Constitution and the First Amendment that holds that the United States endorses no particular religious viewpoint.
https://www.covenanter.org/reformed/2016/4/21/james-r-willsons-essay-on-tolerance - A very perceptive, short essay by a 19th-century American Presbyterian minister asking some hard questions about the meaning of the idea of "religious tolerance".
Take a look at in class, perhaps - https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/nature_04 - A page from an educational website on evolution put out by the National Center for Science Education and the University of California Museum of Paleontology, and funded by the National Science Foundation. As a government-supported website, it would claim to be religiously neutral, and yet anyone who can read between the lines can see the clear Naturalistic (Agnostic, or even Atheistic) philosophical bias of the content. Just one among many examples that could be given of people trying--and failing miserably--to accomplish the impossible task of arguing for a controversial position while trying to be neutral.
Agnosticization of Western Culture
Over the centuries between the 1600s and the 1900s, secular Agnosticism continued to become more and more influential and pervasive. It greatly influenced the civil sphere, as we've seen, but it also influenced all other aspects of life and thought. It pervaded the natural sciences, philosophy, biblical studies, and all other areas of education. It pervaded the thinking of Westerners on a grassroots level as well, so that many people came to think Agnostically about life, about knowledge, about the world, and about religion. A very important feature of this "Agnosticization" of Western culture is that it has not taken place in a purely explicit manner, as have most other worldview conversions throughout human history. Agnostic thinking spread to a great degree by infiltrating the thinking of people who often did not think of themselves as Agnostic. Although sometimes--and more and more so as time went by--people were persuaded to explicitly abandon their previous religious convictions in favor of an explicit Agnosticism or Atheism, many more people found themselves thinking Agnosticly while still affirming their traditional religions. Religious institutions themselves began to change and Agnosticize, until, in many cases, while there was still an outward form arising from old beliefs, the beliefs themselves--at least in terms of their objective content--had been gutted, or at least greatly muted, in favor of substantially Agnostic views and attitudes. Thus arose the prevalence of so-called "liberal religion"--religion which continued to affirm classic doctrines, but which now thought of those doctrines not so much as objective claims about the world but as subjective attitudes taken by individuals towards the world. People more and more began to think in terms of dichotomies between facts, knowledge, reason, science, and objectivity on the one hand, and faith, belief, religion, feelings, and subjectivity on the other. The very terminology that shaped the thinking of people on religion took on the form of Agnostic-influenced categories.
Even theology was affected by this Agnosticization. I mentioned that in some religious circles, religious doctrine, while preserving classic terminology, underwent changes in meaning as the substance of beliefs was Agnosticized to varying degrees. (To see an extreme example of this, consider Reconstructionist Judaism.) This push went on even within the Catholic Church and among Catholic theologians, which began eventually to alarm the Popes. This Agnosticizing movement within the Catholic Church came to be called modernism. Pope Pius X (who reigned from 1903 to 1914), in the earliest days of the twentieth century, began a kind of crusade (not a literal crusade) to root modernism out of the Church. He required theologians to take an oath against modernism. He published encyclicals attacking it. His encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, given in 1907, attempted a thorough analysis and attack upon it. Pius X very clearly and explicitly recognized Agnosticism as the fundamental philosophical perspective underlying it:
Modernists place the foundation of religious philosophy in that doctrine which is usually called Agnosticism. According to this teaching human reason is confined entirely within the field of phenomena, that is to say, to things that are perceptible to the senses, and in the manner in which they are perceptible; it has no right and no power to transgress these limits. Hence it is incapable of lifting itself up to God, and of recognising 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, all will readily perceive what becomes of Natural Theology, of the motives of credibility, of external revelation. The Modernists simply make away with them altogether; they include them in Intellectualism, which they call a ridiculous and long ago defunct system. Nor does the fact that the Church has formally condemned these portentous errors exercise the slightest restraint upon them. Yet the Vatican Council has defined, "If anyone says that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason by means of the things that are made, let him be anathema" (De Revel., can. I); 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" (Ibid., can. 2); 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" (De Fide, can. 3). But how the Modernists make the transition from Agnosticism, which is a state of pure nescience, to scientific and historic Atheism, which is a doctrine of positive denial; and consequently, by what legitimate process of reasoning, starting from ignorance as to whether God has in fact intervened in the history of the human race or not, they proceed, in their explanation of this history, to ignore God 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. (Pascendi Dominici Gregis, #6)
I've already mentioned how the Agnosticization of Western culture had affected the political concept of the state, its authority, and its relationship to religion. I should mention also another important political effect: the tendency to consider the State absolute and to refuse to recognize the authority of the Church. In the Catholic view, Church and State are both ordained by God. There is thus real authority in both. The temporal authority of the State must be submissive to the spiritual authority of the Church, because the Church is the guardian of the interpretation of the moral law which tells the whole human race, including the State, how to function justly. But in an Agnostic view, religion is nothing more than people embracing unknowable and unprovable beliefs based on their own personal preferences. The "moral law of God" is nothing more, so far as we know, than an invention of the imagination of human beings. And the Church is nothing more than a voluntary organization of people who form a club based on the fact that they all accept the same imaginary stories and choose to live by them. The Church, therefore, as such, can have no real, objective authority. But the State is the real collection of real citizens trying to get along living their real lives. Therefore, since the desires of the people are paramount, and the State is the collective expression of those desires, the State naturally takes the highest place, being the ultimate dictator of good and bad and what should be done and allowed and what should not be done and allowed. The Church must submit to and be tailored by the State's wishes and authority. The Church, during this period, thus found itself increasingly constrained within various Western nations by laws attempting to dictate how she would be allowed to function. These constraints were more or less severe in various nations. And since laws were being made on a secular--that is, an Agnostic--foundation, those laws did not always jive with the Church's own sense of her duty and her mission. (To give a modern example of this phenomenon, consider the recent attempt in California to require priests in certain circumstances to reveal information gained in the confessional. In the view of a lot of people, the State has every right to insist that the Church violate what she sees as her divine mandate if the State feels, based on its own Agnosticism-grounded judgment, that it would be best if she would do so. Or, for another example, consider the push in recent years by some to ban the practice of infant male circumcision, which is a sacred religious practice Jews believe is required of them by God. These laws would be inconceivable from a Catholic or a Jewish point of view, but they are at least plausible from an Agnostic point of view.)
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html - Pope Pius X's 1907 encyclical attacking Agnosticism among the theologians of the Church, or modernism.
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius10/p10moath.htm - Pope Pius X's Oath Against Modernism, which he required of Catholic theologians in order to help root out Agnostic thinking among them.
The Church Responds
The Church grew increasingly alarmed at the progressing Agnosticization of the culture. She reacted strongly by clearly condemning the tenets of the new Agnostic philosophy and the applications of that philosophy in religion, morality, education, politics, etc. Pope Pius IX (who reigned from 1846 to 1878) released in 1864 a Syllabus of Errors, a list of secular Agnostic propositions condemned by the Church. Here is a small sampling of the propositions condemned:
3. Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil; it is law to itself, and suffices, by its natural force, to secure the welfare of men and of nations.
20. The ecclesiastical power ought not to exercise its authority without the permission and assent of the civil government.
39. The State, as being the origin and source of all rights, is endowed with a certain right not circumscribed by any limits.
52. Government can, by its own right, alter the age prescribed by the Church for the religious profession of women and men; and may require of all religious orders to admit no person to take solemn vows without its permission.
56. Moral laws do not stand in need of the divine sanction, and it is not at all necessary that human laws should be made conformable to the laws of nature and receive their power of binding from God.
Pope Leo XIII (who reigned from 1878 to 1903) published numerous encyclicals attacking Agnostic trends, including Libertas, which was given in 1888. In this encyclical, Leo XIII laid out the serious problems with the idea of an Agnosticism-grounded morality which separates the foundation of ethics from any knowledge of God and therefore grounds it entirely in knowledge derived from the senses and in the desires of human beings:
15. What naturalists or rationalists aim at in philosophy, that the supporters of liberalism, carrying out the principles laid down by naturalism, are attempting in the domain of morality and politics. The fundamental doctrine of rationalism is the supremacy of the human reason, which, refusing due submission to the divine and eternal reason, proclaims its own independence, and constitutes itself the supreme principle and source and judge of truth. Hence, these followers of liberalism deny the existence of any divine authority to which obedience is due, and proclaim that every man is the law to himself; from which arises that ethical system which they style independent morality, and which, under the guise of liberty, exonerates man from any obedience to the commands of God, and substitutes a boundless license. The end of all this it is not difficult to foresee, especially when society is in question. For, when once man is firmly persuaded that he is subject to no one, it follows that the efficient cause of the unity of civil society is not to be sought in any principle external to man, or superior to him, but simply in the free will of individuals; that the authority in the State comes from the people only; and that, just as every man's individual reason is his only rule of life, so the collective reason of the community should be the supreme guide in the management of all public affairs. Hence the doctrine of the supremacy of the greater number, and that all right and all duty reside in the majority. But, from what has been said, it is clear that all this is in contradiction to reason. To refuse any bond of union between man and civil society, on the one hand, and God the Creator and consequently the supreme Law-giver, on the other, is plainly repugnant to the nature, not only of man, but of all created things; for, of necessity, all effects must in some proper way be connected with their cause; and it belongs to the perfection of every nature to contain itself within that sphere and grade which the order of nature has assigned to it, namely, that the lower should be subject and obedient to the higher.
16. Moreover, besides this, a doctrine of such character is most hurtful both to individuals and to the State. For, once ascribe to human reason the only authority to decide what is true and what is good, and the real distinction between good and evil is destroyed; honor and dishonor differ not in their nature, but in the opinion and judgment of each one; pleasure is the measure of what is lawful; and, given a code of morality which can have little or no power to restrain or quiet the unruly propensities of man, a way is naturally opened to universal corruption. With reference also to public affairs: authority is severed from the true and natural principle whence it derives all its efficacy for the common good; and the law determining what it is right to do and avoid doing is at the mercy of a majority. Now, this is simply a road leading straight to tyranny. The empire of God over man and civil society once repudiated, it follows that religion, as a public institution, can have no claim to exist, and that everything that belongs to religion will be treated with complete indifference. Furthermore, with ambitious designs on sovereignty, tumult and sedition will be common amongst the people; and when duty and conscience cease to appeal to them, there will be nothing to hold them back but force, which of itself alone is powerless to keep their covetousness in check. Of this we have almost daily evidence in the conflict with socialists and members of other seditious societies, who labor unceasingly to bring about revolution. It is for those, then, who are capable of forming a just estimate of things to decide whether such doctrines promote that true liberty which alone is worthy of man, or rather, pervert and destroy it. (Libertas, #15-16)
Pope Pius X, in response to the 1905 law in France separating the government of France from the Catholic Church, vigorously condemned the idea that the State could declare its independence from God and the Church in his 1907 encyclical Vehementer Nos:
That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. Our illustrious predecessor, Leo XIII, especially, has frequently and magnificently expounded Catholic teaching on the relations which should subsist between the two societies. "Between them," he says, "there must necessarily be a suitable union, which may not improperly be compared with that existing between body and soul. - Quaedam intercedat necesse est ordinata colligatio (inter illas) quae quidem conjunctioni non immerito comparatur, per quam anima et corpus in homine copulantur."He proceeds: "Human societies cannot, without becoming criminal, act as if God did not exist or refuse to concern themselves with religion, as though it were something foreign to them, or of no purpose to them.... As for the Church, which has God Himself for its author, to exclude her from the active life of the nation, from the laws, the education of the young, the family, is to commit a great and pernicious error. - Civitates non possunt, citra scellus, gerere se tamquam si Deus omnino non esset, aut curam religionis velut alienam nihilque profuturam abjicere.... Ecclesiam vero, quam Deus ipse constituit, ab actione vitae excludere, a legibus, ab institutione adolescentium, a societate domestica, magnus et perniciousus est error."[1] (Vehementer Nos, #3)
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_11021906_vehementer-nos.html - Vehementer Nos, Pope Pius X's 1906 response to a French law which endorsed secularism.
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm - Pope Pius IX's 1864 Syllabus of Errors, condemning various errors associated with Agnostic and Atheistic secularism.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas.html - Pope Leo XIII's 1888 Libertas, which condemned Agnostic secular ideas about morality, authority in civil society, and human liberty.
Vatican I
The Church came to the conclusion in the 19th century that the errors opposing true Catholic doctrine had grown so great and prevalent that it was time to respond to them formally by means of an ecumenical council. This was the first ecumenical council since the Council of Trent in the 16th century. It was held at the Vatican, and so has come to be called the First Vatican Council, or Vatican I. The council dealt with two fundamental questions: The fundamental nature of the Catholic faith and the relation between faith and reason, and the infallibility and supreme authority of the Pope. Both of these were dealt with because they had been under attack from the advancement of secular Agnosticism. The supreme authority of the Pope had also been a question of controversy with those in the Church who had been advocating conciliarism or Gallicanism--which put various institutions above the authority of the Pope, such as an ecumenical council or a national government (Gallicanism, as its name suggests, was a French movement and was focused on the autonomy of the French government in religious matters).
The council was called in 1868 by Pope Pius IX and went on through 1870. But these were turbulent times. This was the period of the Franco-Prussian War, and there was also a push within Italy to unify the entirety of Italy into one nation, with Rome as the capital. This would entail the end of the Papal States--the territory over which the Pope had ruled since the 8th century. Pope Pius IX resisted giving up the Papal States, but eventually the Kingdom of Italy occupied Rome and the Pope was forced to surrender. At the same time, Pius IX called for a temporary adjourning of the council. Although the adjournment was supposed to be temporary, the council never did come back together, and it wasn't actually formally closed until 1960, shortly before the Second Vatican Council. But before the council had adjourned, it had already approved two Dogmatic Constitutions dealing with faith and reason and papal supremacy and infallibility. The council would have done more, but the rest of the plans made for the council were never carried out because of the adjournment.
The opening statement within the Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith reveals the motivations behind the council, as the Church was concerned to uphold the faith in the midst of widespread apostasy and Agnosticism:
No one is ignorant that the heresies proscribed by the Fathers of Trent, by which the divine magisterium of the Church was rejected, and all matters regarding religion were surrendered to the judgment of each individual, gradually became dissolved into many sects, which disagreed and contended with one another, until at length not a few lost all faith in Christ. Even the Holy Scriptures, which had previously been declared the sole source and judge of Christian doctrine, began to be held no longer as divine, but to be ranked among the fictions of mythology.
Then there arose, and too widely overspread the world, that doctrine of rationalism, or naturalism, which opposes itself in every way to the Christian religion as a supernatural institution, and works with the utmost zeal in order that, after Christ, our sole Lord and Saviour, has been excluded from the minds of men, and from the life and moral acts of nations, the reign of what they call pure reason or nature may be established. And after forsaking and rejecting the Christian religion, and denying the true God and His Christ, the minds of many have sunk into the abyss of Pantheism, Materialism, and Atheism, until, denying rational nature itself, and every sound rule of right, they labor to destroy the deepest foundations of human society.
Unhappily, it has yet further come to pass that, while this impiety prevailed on every side, many even of the children of the Catholic Church have strayed from the path of true piety, and by the gradual diminution of the truths they held, the Catholic sense became weakened in them. For, led away by various and strange doctrines, utterly confusing nature and grace, human science and divine faith, they are found to deprave the true sense of the doctrines which our Holy Mother Church holds and teaches, and endanger the integrity and the soundness of the faith.
Considering these things, how can the Church fail to be deeply stirred? For, even as God wills all men to be saved, and to arrive at the knowledge of the truth; even as Christ came to save what had perished, and to gather to gether the children of God who had been dispersed, so the Church, constituted by God the mother and teacher of nations, knows its own office as debtor to all, and is ever ready and watchful to raise the fallen, to support those who are falling, to embrace those who return, to confirm the good and to carry them on to better things. Hence, it can never forbear from witnessing to and proclaiming the truth of God, which heals all things, knowing the words addressed to it: "My Spirit that is in thee, and my words that I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, from henceforth and forever" (Isaias lix. 21).
We, therefore, following the footsteps of our predecessors, have never ceased, as becomes our supreme Apostolic office, from teaching and defending Catholic truth, and condemning doctrines of error. And now, with the Bishops of the whole world assembled round us, and judging with us, congregated by our authority, and in the Holy Spirit, in this Ecumenical Council, we, supported by the Word of God written and handed down as we received it from the Catholic Church, preserved with sacredness and set forth according to truth,—have determined to profess and declare the salutary teaching of Christ from this Chair of Peter, and in sight of all, proscribing and condemning, by the power given to us of God, all errors contrary thereto. (Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, The Vatican Council and Its Definitions, Second Edition [New York: D. & J. Sadlier, 1871], 207-209, edited.)
Vatican I affirmed strongly the objectivity of the Catholic faith--that is, that the propositions of the faith are objectively true and not just the subjective beliefs of religious people, as Agnostic thinking would hold. It also upheld the reasonableness of the faith and the true relationship between faith and reason. A few samples from the canons (the negative part of the declarations, where errors are condemned):
1. If any one shall say that the One true God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be certainly known by the natural light of human reason through created things; let bim be anathema.
2 . If any one shall say that it is impossible or inexpedient that man should be taught, by divine revelation, concerning God and the worship to be paid to Him; let bim be anathema.
1. If any one shall say that human reason is so independent that faith cannot be enjoined upon it by God; let him be anathema.
3. If any one shall say that divine revelation cannot be made credible by outward signs, and therefore that men ought to be moved to faith solely by the internal experience of each, or by private inspiration; let him be anathema.
6. If any one shall say that the condition of the faithful, and of those who have not yet attained to the only true faith, is on a par, so that Catholics may have just cause for doubting, with suspended assent, the faith which they have already received under the magisterium of the Church, until they shall have obtained a scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith; let him be anathema. (Ibid., 217-219, edited.)
In its First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ (called the "first", although there never were any more because of the adjournment), the council put forward strong, definitive claims regarding the supreme authority (under Christ) of the Pope in the Church and his infallibility in matters of faith and morals. This had always been the teaching of the Catholic Church, affirmed many times throughout Church history--we've seen some examples in our study. But sometimes, when error is persistent, the Church feels called upon to make a stronger and more obviously definitive statement on a subject. That was the case here. The Church needed to make an absolutely clear, specific, and definitive declaration regarding the authority and reliability of the Pope. The council spends a number of pages rehearsing and reaffirming historic Church teachings on these subjects by means of quotations from earlier sources. These pages provide a nice summary of some of the most important of these earlier statements.
Here are some of the declarations the Dogmatic Constitution makes regarding the papacy:
We therefore teach and declare that, according to the testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God was immediately and directly promised and given to Blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord. . . .
For none can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that the holy and Blessed Peter, the Prince and Chief of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, and lives, presides, and judges, to this day and always, in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome, which was founded by him, and consecrated by his blood. Whence, whosoever succeeds to Peter in this See, does by the institution of Christ Himself obtain the Primacy of Peter over the whole Church. . . . Wherefore it has at all times been necessary that every particular Church—that is to say, the faithful throughout the world—should agree with the Roman Church, on account of the greater authority of the princedom which this has received; that all being associated in the unity of that See whence the rights of communion spread to all, might grow together as members of one Head in the compact unity of the body. . . .
Hence we teach and declare that by the appointment of our Lord the Roman Church possesses a superiority of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatever rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, by their duty of hierarchial subordination and true obedience, to submit not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world, so that the Church of Christ may be one flock under one supreme pastor through the preservation of unity both of communion and of profession of the same faith with the Roman Pontiff. . . . But so far is this power of the Supreme Pontiff from being any prejudice to the ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which Bishops, who have been set by the Holy Ghost to succeed and hold the place of the Apostles, feed and govern, each his own flock, as true Pastors, that this their episcopal authority is really asserted, strengthened, and protected by the supreme and universal Pastor; in accordance with the words of St. Gregory the Great; my honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the firm strength of my brethren. I am truly honored, when the honor due to each and all is not withheld.
Further, from this supreme power possessed by the Roman Pontiff of governing the Universal Church, it follows that he has the right of free communication with the Pastors of the whole Church, and with their flocks, that these may be taught and ruled by him in the way of salvation. Wherefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that the communication between this supreme Head and the Pastors and their flocks can lawfully be impeded; or who make this communication subject to the will of the secular power, so as to maintain that whatever is done by the Apostolic See, or by its authority, for the government of the Church, cannot have force or value unless it be confirmed by the assent of the secular power.
And since by the divine right of Apostolic primacy, the Roman Pontiff is placed over the Universal Church, we further teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all causes, the decision of which belongs to the Church, recourse may be had to his tribunal, and that none may re-open the judgment of the Apostolic See, than whose authority there is no greater, nor can any lawfully review its judgment. Wherefore they err from the right course who assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiffs to an Ecumenical Council, as to an authority higher than that of the Roman Pontiff. . . .
And indeed all the venerable Fathers have embraced and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed their Apostolic doctrine; knowing most fully that this See of holy Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error according to the divine promise of the Lord our Saviour made to the Prince of His disciples: I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not, and, when thou art converted, confirm thy brethren. This gift, then, of truth and never-failing faith was conferred by heaven upon Peter. and his successors in this Chair, that they might perform their high office for the salvation of all; that the whole flock of Christ kept away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished with the pasture of heavenly doctrine; that the occasion of schism being removed the whole Church might be kept one, and, resting on its foundation, might stand firm against the gates of hell.
But since in this very age, in which the salutary efficacy of the Apostolic office is most of all required, not a few are found who take away from its authority, we judge it altogether necessary solemnly to assert the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God vouchsafed to join with the supreme pastoral office.
Therefore faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God Our Saviour, the exaltation of the Catholic Religion, and the salvation of Christian people, the Sacred Council approving, We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals: and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church.
But if any one—which may God avert—presume to contradict this Our definition; let him be anathema. (Ibid., 231, 233-236, 239-240, edited and footnotes removed.)
This Dogmatic Constitution finally quashed any remaining conciliarism in the Church. Some Catholics refused to accept what they could now no longer ignore--full, papal supremacy and infallibility as defined explicitly and dogmatically by the Pope and an ecumenical council--and they broke off and formed the "Old Catholic" movement. Not all the bishops wanted the Church to make the decree--they considered it untimely, or they were afraid of its political implications, or they didn't feel the articulation was nuanced enough, etc.--but once the decree had been made, all the bishops unanimously assented to it and agreed with it. It was therefore very difficult from this point on for a conciliarist argument to be made. Conciliarism tries to pit the authority of an ecumenical council against the authority of the Pope, and to make the former of higher authority than the latter, but that line of reasoning was no longer available now that an ecumenical council had joined with the Pope in affirming papal supremacy and rejecting conciliarism. In the Church's teaching, the Pope and the Church as a whole have equal and indeed the same authority. One is not higher than the other. They are, in fact, one and the same thing ultimately. One cannot be used to trump the other. A council without the Pope is not a real ecumenical council, for only the Pope's sanction can give authority to a council, and there is no ecumenicity without the Bishop of Rome. On the other hand, when the Pope defines a doctrine, he defines it as the head and representative of all the bishops and the entire Catholic Church--all of whose faithful members unite with him in affirming the faith which he upholds.
The council's decree did have an unfortunate side-effect, however. In its zeal to be clear and explicit, the council's definition of infallibility ended of being very narrow and specific, defining an infallible ex cathedra declaration to mean a declaration the Pope makes when he intends to use his supreme authority to define a doctrine in a definitive manner. But most papal teaching does not consist of making formal, definitive doctrinal definitions. Most ordinary papal teaching is not intending to definitively define some doctrine, but simply to articulate the faith to the people of God and exhort them regarding doctrines already defined or understood. Such teaching often mixes together teachings that have been definitively defined along with not-so-definitive teachings. The narrowness of the council's definition thus opened the door for an erroneous opinion that one comes across not infrequently in some Catholic circles even today--the idea that the Pope is only kept from error in his teaching when he is teaching ex cathedra (in the narrow sense used at Vatican I), and that when he is not making an ex cathedra statement his teaching is just as fallible as anyone else's and can, at times, be ignored or even resisted. This idea, of course, undermines the entire point of what Vatican I was trying to do in asserting papal supremacy and infallibility. The Pope's authority and teaching is intended as a sure beacon guiding the Church to a pure expression of the faith, and he is also therefore a means of unity since he defines the faith that unites all Catholics together. If the Pope is only protected from leading the Church into error on rare occasions, when he is making a formal, ex cathedra pronouncement, and the rest of the time he can be ignored or even opposed in his teaching, papal authority is effectively gutted.
Vatican I did not give any sanction to this error. As can be seen from the above quotations, it very carefully articulated the complete reliability of official papal teaching and the unifying power it is intended to have. But still, the narrow language of Vatican I provided an apparent loophole for this error to try to gain a foothold. After Vatican I, as we will see later, and especially from Vatican II on, the Church made further explicit clarifications to seal off this apparent loophole and affirm the complete reliability of all official papal teaching and the duty of Catholics to submit to the entirety of what is delivered to them to keep by the teaching authority of the Church.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Vatican_Council
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Rome
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Decrees_of_the_Vatican_Council - The Documents of Vatican I.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Catholic_Church
http://freethoughtforchrist.blogspot.com/2019/03/st-francis-de-sales-on-pope-as.html - St. Francis de Sales, writing at the end of the 16th century and addressing Calvinists, articulates the historic view of the Church on papal supremacy and infallibility.
Catholic Social Teaching
As we've seen, the revelation of God, as interpreted and applied in the Church's teaching, has much to say about morality on both an individual and a corporate level. It provides principles of justice and righteousness upon which individual lives and human societies should be based. The Church had been providing moral guidance to society from her very beginning. In the nineteenth century, however, political and social changes combined with technological advancement had created very new situations not faced by people in previous centuries. We remember that the Church's teaching develops over time as she continues to ponder what the revelation of God means, and especially as she applies its ideas and principles to new circumstances and new questions not previously considered. The great societal changes of the nineteenth century and continuing into the twentieth century led to a great deal of growth in the Church's teaching on social matters.
The 19th century saw the Industrial Revolution, which greatly increased the efficiency of production. But this increase in efficiency also led to a growth in mass consumerism, which eventually began to threaten the integrity of the environment. Also, the increase in productivity increased the need for workers, and so developed a large class of workers who were hired to do jobs in factories, along railroads, and in many other areas. There were those who wanted to get rich partly by exploiting these workers, since there were very few laws in place outlining the sorts of rights workers ought to have. Children were often brought to work in the factories in very dangerous and difficult conditions. Extreme views of economics and politics began to be presented and become popular, such as socialism, which emphasized the unity of the collective of all the people in society, but sometimes at the expense of the rights and concerns and integrity of individuals and smaller social groups. On the other hand, some promoted a radical capitalism which placed so much emphasis on individualism and "free market" values that there was very little room for society to regulate the practices of individuals and of businesses which might use means to attain wealth that cause harm to those who do not fare so well in the relentless and often cruel competition of the market.
Pope Leo XIII is usually credited as the first to begin systematically addressing these new problems and challenges in modern society by articulating values and principles, based in revelation and Church moral teaching, that directly applied to these new challenges. His encyclical Rerum Novarum, "On the Condition of Labor", given in 1891, inaugurated this modern period of "Catholic social teaching."
Modern Catholic social teaching lays out certain key principles that must all be held together and embraced by society in order to ensure social justice. Some of these include recognition of the fundamental dignity of human persons, the central importance of the common good, solidarity among all, the universal destination of goods, and subsidiarity. Society must be organized around respect for the dignity of the human person as made in the image of God and therefore possessing an intrinsic value we all have a moral obligation to recognize and respect. Individuals and institutions in society must seek the common good--that is, the good of society as a whole and of all the individuals within it, including the vulnerable, poor, minorities, and marginalized--in everything they do. We must recognize the unity and solidarity of the human race, that we are all connected to each other--think of St. Paul's image of the Body of Christ--and so have a concern for each other.
One of the major expressions of solidarity is the universal destination of goods. God has given all the gifts of the creation to all of us. Every single person, therefore, has a right to a reasonable use of these goods. Private property exists as a practical necessity to keep the use of created goods from evolving into chaos. However, the universal destination of goods reminds us that private property is not absolute. If, through my work and diligence, I have access to money, food, education, and other goods that are part of a healthy human life, but someone else, for whatever reason, is unable to attain what they need, I have an obligation to share my goods with them. And note: This is not so much an act of charity (in the sense of giving beyond what is due) as an act of justice. I am giving them what is theirs. If I should withhold my goods against their needs, I would be committing theft. For created goods belong to us all, not just to those fortunate enough to be able to gather them up for themselves first. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2446, referencing earlier teachers of the Church, puts it this way:
2446 St. John Chrysostom vigorously recalls this: "Not to enable the poor to share in our goods is to steal from them and deprive them of life. The goods we possess are not ours, but theirs."239 "The demands of justice must be satisfied first of all; that which is already due in justice is not to be offered as a gift of charity":240
- When we attend to the needs of those in want, we give them what is theirs, not ours. More than performing works of mercy, we are paying a debt of justice.241
There is also the principle of subsidiarity. Higher orders of society--such as, in the United States, the Federal government--should not unnecessarily interfere with the functioning of lower orders--states, cities, families, churches, individuals, etc.--or try to take their initiative away from them, spoonfeed them, or micromanage them. If a lower order can accomplish something, the higher order should allow them to do it. Higher orders only step in when there is some abuse or disorder that cannot be regulated without intervention from a higher order. So there is a balance here. We avoid two extremes. We do not say that higher orders are never to step in, even when there are unfixable disorders or abuses of rights in the lower orders; but, on the other hand, we say that it is only as a last resort that higher orders should step in. Ordinarily, unless necessity calls for something extraordinary, what can be done by lower orders should be done by lower orders.
Keeping all of these principles together and implementing them in proper balance leads to a society where the innovation, diligence, and creativity of individuals, families, businesses, smaller orders of government, etc., are respected and nurtured, and yet there are checks and balances so that abuses can be corrected and rights can be maintained across the whole of society. Note also that Catholic social teaching transcends the boundaries between what we in the United States call the "conservative" and the "liberal" political points of view. It does not fit neatly into either category. There are aspects that conservatives would love and aspects they would hate, and likewise with the liberals. Catholic social teaching gives us a good example of how the Spirit-guided teaching of the Church can speak prophetically and powerfully into the social circumstances and challenges of human societies and provide a perspective from a higher wisdom.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#The%20beginning%20of%20a%20new%20path - The Church has put out a document summarizing her social teaching, the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. #87-104 provides a helpful overview of the history of modern Catholic social teaching.
http://usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catholic-social-teaching/foundational-documents.cfm - The US Bishops have put out a very helpful list of important documents from the universal Church and from the US Church over the years since the 19th century having to do with the Church's social teaching.
Dialogue and Doctrinal Development
During this time period, it is often said that the Church adopted a kind of "fortress" mentality against the advancement and challenges of modern ideas--particularly those ideas, rooted in an Agnostic worldview, which threatened her own beliefs and values. It is said that she turned inward and took a defensive stance, attacking modern errors and articulating and defending the truths of her own teaching. This is all quite true. However, it is not the whole truth. Also, during this time, we see the Church begin to engage in fruitful dialogue with the new circumstances and ideas of modernity. Catholic social teaching is a good example of this. The Church is the custodian of divine revelation. As such, she must be, by nature, a guard that protects truth from the encroach of error. She will therefore ever be, and rightly so, involved in defending and articulating truth and rejecting and refuting error. What we might call her "negative," defensive response against error and sin is a necessary part of her divine mission. But she is also called, at the same time, to a more positive dialogue with the times. The Church teaches the world how to understand and apply divine revelation. But, at the same time, she also learns from dialogue with the world how to better understand the revelation she is called to guard and to teach. We've seen this throughout her history. We recall, for example, the period of the first great ecumenical councils. Most of them were called to refute and reject heresies and to defend and articulate the truth. But the heresies didn't simply bounce off an unchanging wall of doctrinal truth. The heresies pushed the Church to consider even more carefully the implications of the divine revelation and to better understand aspects of what it means. So while the Church guarded her ancient truth against the novelties of error, she also learned and grew, and her doctrine developed. The heresies had a positive role to play in the growth of the Church's own understanding. And the Church does not only learn from the errors of the world, but she can also benefit from the wisdom granted by God to the people of the world. While the Church is the authoritative proclaimer of the divine revelation, this does not mean that she cannot and should not also gain further wisdom herself from the wisdom granted to others. We've seen this throughout her history as well--for example, we think of how much the early Church gained from her dialogue with Greek philosophy, and how much the philosophical perspective has enriched her doctrinal depth and articulation throughout the ages. So the dialogue between the Church and the entirety of humanity is a two-way street.
The Church faced new, unprecedented social circumstances during our time period--new problems, challenges, and questions that the human race had never faced before in quite the same way. She encountered new ideas that had never before been voiced in precisely the same way. And so, as she was challenged by these new situations and ideas, her doctrine and practice developed in new ways and new areas, with the result that her teaching began to take on a more modern flavor and a new richness and depth in certain areas. Her social teaching, as I mentioned, is an excellent example of this. But it was happening in many areas.
It was happening in the area of religious toleration and freedom. We've seen in previous units how the Church dealt with religious dissidents in an era when Christianity dominated all of social and political life in the societies in which the Church found herself. We saw her fight against heresies, and even make use of the civil arm to suppress them. But now, things were changing rapidly. Christendom had fallen. Nations were abandoning the Catholic faith and becoming first Protestant, and then secular. The Church's first impulse, in response to this, was to double down in the defense of the duty of individuals and societies to follow the true religion and support the Church. So she vigorously opposed the separation of Church and State and the growing secularism that would embrace Agnosticism in the name of neutrality. But she also learned to adapt, and eventually the new circumstances would help her develop a deeper appreciation for the important values of religious freedom and liberty of conscience. These were not new ideas for her, to be sure. We've seen them articulated by great theologians of the Church not only in the time of the early Roman persecutions but even during the height of Christendom in the Middle Ages. But the unprecedented realities of modern life in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries would further deepen her appreciation of these values. This would flower at the Second Vatican Council, as we will see in a later unit, but the first signs of growth can be seen during our time period. Pope Leo XIII, for example, in his encyclical Libertas, even in the midst of his attempt to refute the errors of modern secular morality and politics, shows the Church's growing recognition of the value of toleration and freedom for people of other religions in society.
32. The Church most earnestly desires that the Christian teaching, of which We have given an outline, should penetrate every rank of society in reality and in practice; for it would be of the greatest efficacy in healing the evils of our day, which are neither few nor slight, and are the off spring in great part of the false liberty which is so much extolled, and in which the germs of safety and glory were supposed to be contained. The hope has been disappointed by the result. The fruit, instead of being sweet and wholesome, has proved cankered and bitter. If, then, a remedy is desired, let it be sought for in a restoration of sound doctrine, from which alone the preservation of order and, as a consequence, the defense of true liberty can be confidently expected.
33. Yet, with the discernment of a true mother, the Church weighs the great burden of human weakness, and well knows the course down which the minds and actions of men are in this our age being borne. For this reason, while not conceding any right to anything save what is true and honest, she does not forbid public authority to tolerate what is at variance with truth and justice, for the sake of avoiding some greater evil, or of obtaining or preserving some greater good. God Himself in His providence, though infinitely good and powerful, permits evil to exist in the world, partly that greater good may not be impeded, and partly that greater evil may not ensue. In the government of States it is not forbidden to imitate the Ruler of the world; and, as the authority of man is powerless to prevent every evil, it has (as St. Augustine says) to overlook and leave unpunished many things which are punished, and rightly, by Divine Providence. But if, in such circumstances, for the sake of the common good (and this is the only legitimate reason), human law may or even should tolerate evil, it may not and should not approve or desire evil for its own sake; for evil of itself, being a privation of good, is opposed to the common welfare which every legislator is bound to desire and defend to the best of his ability. In this, human law must endeavor to imitate God, who, as St. Thomas teaches, in allowing evil to exist in the world, "neither wills evil to be done, nor wills it not to be done, but wills only to permit it to be done; and this is good." This saying of the Angelic Doctor contains briefly the whole doctrine of the permission of evil.
34. But, to judge aright, we must acknowledge that, the more a State is driven to tolerate evil, the further is it from perfection; and that the tolerance of evil which is dictated by political prudence should be strictly confined to the limits which its justifying cause, the public welfare, requires. Wherefore, if such tolerance would be injurious to the public welfare, and entail greater evils on the State, it would not be lawful; for in such case the motive of good is wanting. And although in the extraordinary condition of these times the Church usually acquiesces in certain modern liberties, not because she prefers them in themselves, but because she judges it expedient to permit them, she would in happier times exercise her own liberty; and, by persuasion, exhortation, and entreaty would endeavor, as she is bound, to fulfill the duty assigned to her by God of providing for the eternal salvation of mankind. One thing, however, remains always true - that the liberty which is claimed for all to do all things is not, as We have often said, of itself desirable, inasmuch as it is contrary to reason that error and truth should have equal rights. (Libertas, #32-34, footnotes removed)
The growing secularism and pluralism of the Western world was accompanied by the growth and spread of false religious ideas and immoral behavior. Pope Leo XIII points out the duty of the state to seek the common welfare by fighting against such evils, but he also recognizes that there are other concerns that have to be balanced together with the duty to oppose these evils. To prohibit and penalize heresy and the spread of false religion in Medieval Christendom is one thing; to do it in modern, pluralistic societies is something else. Leo XIII recognized that there had to be greater toleration of these evils in his day than there had been in the past, for ignoring changing circumstances and attempting to act as if everyone was still in Medieval Christendom would do more harm than good. In dialogue with modern circumstances and modern thought, the Church was coming to recognize the value of religious tolerance in the modern day. Note that it is not that her fundamental beliefs or principles had changed. She had always had to balance principles such as the danger of false ideas and the duty to oppose them; the importance of keeping the civil government from micromanaging society; the importance of freedom and conscience; etc. But she was learning how to balance them differently and wisely in light of new circumstances.
Another example of this growth occurred in the area of the Church's attitude toward the salvation of non-Catholics and non-Christians. The Church had always recognized that salvation comes to human beings only through Christ and through his Church. She had many times articulated this teaching very forcefully. An example of this constant teaching is found among the affirmations of the Ecumenical Council of Florence (1438-1445), in Session 11:
It [that is, the Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.
Sounds pretty straightforward! Unless you are a member of the Catholic Church, you can't be saved. This is because salvation flows from Christ through the Church. If you reject Christ, or you reject his Church, you are rejecting salvation, just like those who reject the only medicine that can cure them will die of their disease. However, it had always been recognized that there are nuances in this. For example, the Church recognized very early on that Catechumens, who were on their way to joining the Church but had not yet been baptized, were already connected to the Church through their desire to join it. If such Catechumens should die before they could be baptized, they would go to heaven. For another example, we see Church Fathers affirming that Christ's salvation was at work in the world before Christ came and brought salvation to those who had not heard of the historical personage of Christ but were nonetheless connected to him by his all-pervasive presence and grace. Of course, this applied to the Old Testament people of God before Christ came, but it also applied to those who were strangers even from the Old Testament covenants and revelation. The great Church Father Justin Martyr spoke about this back around the years 153-155 in his First Apology:
But lest some should, without reason, and for the perversion of what we teach, maintain that we say that Christ was born one hundred and fifty years ago under Cyrenius, and subsequently, in the time of Pontius Pilate, taught what we say He taught; and should cry out against us as though all men who were born before Him were irresponsible—let us anticipate and solve the difficulty. We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them; and among the barbarians, Abraham, and Ananias, and Azarias, and Misael, and Elias, and many others whose actions and names we now decline to recount, because we know it would be tedious. So that even they who lived before Christ, and lived without reason, were wicked and hostile to Christ, and slew those who lived reasonably.
The Church Father Optatus of Milevis, writing between the years 363-376, made the argument that schismatics, who have broken from the Catholic Church but who have maintained the doctrines of the Catholic faith, are not necessarily cut off from salvation because they have the same sacraments. As we saw back in Unit 2, back in the third century Pope Stephen I had caused controversy by declaring that the baptism of heretics and schismatics should be accepted as valid, so that when people who had been baptized by them returned to the Church they did not need to be re-baptized.
Despite these sorts of nuances, however, it was the case that for the most part, Catholics throughout the earlier and middle ages of the Church tended to generally assume that a person who was not a Catholic--whether an atheist, a pagan, a Jew, a heretic, or a schismatic--had rejected Christ and his Church and was therefore bound for hell unless they repented. Catholics had a lot of confidence in the truth of their religion. This was only heightened by the spread of the gospel and the growth of Christendom. So it was very easy to assume that the truth is evident enough so that people who refuse to accept it are rejecting that which they ought to know and so are culpable in their refusal to convert. Most of the time, therefore, Catholic teachers and Church councils did not see a need to elaborate upon all the possible nuances when making strong assertions regarding the necessity of Christ and the Church for salvation, as we saw above in the strong declaration from the Council of Florence. Nevertheless, the Church never rejected those nuances, even if they were not typically brought out or emphasized. This started to change during our time period, however, as the Church began to adjust herself to the fact of the demise of Christendom and the growing prevalence of pluralism in the Western world. She began to take more seriously the fact that not everyone who is not a Catholic is necessarily willful and malicious in their errors or in their failure to immediately come into the Church. While still maintaining the necessity of Christ and the Church for salvation, she began to focus more attention on the nuanced question of those who, through no fault of their own, are unable to come explicitly to the Catholic faith or the Catholic Church--even when such people live in societies where the Catholic faith is known. Pope Pius IX, who, as we saw above, was on the forefront fighting against Agnosticism in the Church and defending historic Catholic doctrine, was also the first Pope to begin to put more emphasis on this nuance in his public teaching. In 1863, he issued the encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, in which he made these comments:
7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom “the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior.” The words of Christ are clear enough: “If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;” “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;” “He who does not believe will be condemned;” “He who does not believe is already condemned;” “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.” The Apostle Paul says that such persons are “perverted and self-condemned;” the Prince of the Apostles calls them “false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction.” (footnotes removed)
In 1908, Pope Pius X issued a catechism (the Catechism of St. Pius X) which also addressed the nuances of this issue:
21 Q. What is the constitution of the Church of Jesus Christ?
A. The Church of Jesus Christ has been constituted as a true and perfect Society; and in her we can distinguish a soul and a body.
22 Q. In what does the Soul of the Church consist?
A. The Soul of the Church consists in her internal and spiritual endowments, that is, faith, hope, charity, the gifts of grace and of the Holy Ghost, together with all the heavenly treasures which are hers through the merits of our Redeemer, Jesus Christ, and of the Saints.
23 Q. In what does the Body of the Church consist?
A. The Body of the Church consists in her external and visible aspect, that is, in the association of her members, in her worship, in her teaching-power and in her external rule and government.
24 Q. To be saved, is it enough to be any sort of member of the Catholic Church?
A. No, to be saved it is not enough to be any sort of member of the Catholic Church; it is necessary to be a living member.
25 Q. Who are the living members of the Church?
A. The living members of the Church are the just, and the just alone, that is, those who are actually in the grace of God.
26 Q. And who are the dead members?
A. The dead members of the Church are the faithful in mortal sin.
27 Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?
A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.
28 Q. How, then, were the Patriarchs of old, the Prophets, and the other just men of the Old Testament, saved?
A. The just of the Old Testament were saved in virtue of the faith they had in Christ to come, by means of which they spiritually belonged to the Church.
29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation
30 Q. Suppose that a man is a member of the Catholic Church, but does not put her teaching into practice, will he be saved?
A. He who is a member of the Catholic Church and does not put her teaching into practice is a dead member, and hence will not be saved; for towards the salvation of an adult not only Baptism and faith are required, but, furthermore, works in keeping with faith.
Salvation only comes through Christ and the Church, but, if one is in "invincible ignorance" (in other words, ignorance that can't be helped, as opposed to willful or culpable ignorance), or for some other reason is unable to embrace the faith or belong to the visible body of the Church in an explicit manner, if such a person, moved by grace, is following God as best they can based on their ability and knowledge, such a person is indeed in Christ and in the Church in the deepest sense, since they are in a state of grace (grace which flows through Christ and the Church), although their unity with the people of God is very imperfect.
Again, such nuances were already latent in Church teaching and at least partially recognized by the Church in previous eras, but, through her dialogue with the realities of modern persons in the new circumstances of modern Western pluralism, the Church was led by the Spirit to further develop and put more emphasis on these nuances in her teaching and in her relationships with the people of the world.
https://www.ncregister.com/blog/steven-greydanus/if-non-catholics-can-be-saved-why-evangelize - Helpful, short article on the Church's teaching regarding the salvation of non-Catholics and the history of this teaching.
http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Church_Dogma/Church_Dogma_032.htm - Longer article on the same subject.
http://shamelesspopery.com/salvation-outside-of-the-church/ - Another very helpful article on the same subject.
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=1610 - The First Apology of Justin Martyr (ca. 153-155).
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/ecumenical-council-of-florence-1438-1445-1461 - Documents of the Council of Florence (1431-1449).
https://ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/optatus_01_book1.htm#C10 - St. Optatus of Milevis's writing Against the Donatists, Book I (ca. 363-376).
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9quanto.htm - Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, by Pope Pius IX (1863).
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/catechism-of-st-pius-x-1286 - Catechism of Pope St. Pius X (1908).
The Oxford Movement and John Henry Newman
An important movement occurred in the Anglican world during our time period. It came to be known as the Oxford Movement because it was spurred on by a number of teachers connected with the University of Oxford. The movement was a revival of Catholic ideas and forms of worship within the Anglican Church, an attempt to "de-Protestantize" it and move it back in the direction of the historic Catholicism of the Church of England. The leaders of the movement didn't want the Anglican Church to rejoin Rome and submit to the authority of the Pope, but, short of that, they did want it to regain and reclaim much of its Catholic heritage. The movement had a lot of success and did, in the end, end up moving Anglicanism overall in a more Catholic direction, particularly in its worship.
Some of the members of this movement ended up coming into full communion with Rome and the Catholic Church, the most prominent of them being St. John Henry Newman. Newman ended up making a significant contribution to Catholic life and thought in England, during a time when "Romanism" was still immensely unpopular and subject to great suspicion. He helped to develop a very "English-flavored" version of Catholic thought that has greatly enriched the Church in a number of ways.
http://www.puseyhouse.org.uk/what-was-the-oxford-movement.html - Helpful, brief article describing the Oxford Movement and its legacy.
https://www.newmancanonisation.com/newmans-life - Good article-length biography of St. John Henry Newman.
http://www.newmanreader.org/ - Good source for the writings of Newman.
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html - Newman's famous Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/apologia/index.html - Newman's Apologia Pro Vita Sua ("Defense of One's Own Life"), his autobiographical account of his life, his work in the Oxford Movement, and especially the overall trajectory that led to his conversion to the Catholic Church.
Catholicism in the United States
We've already touched on Catholic missions to the American continents in our previous unit. As Catholic countries like Spain and France explored and colonized areas of the "New World", the Catholic Church came with them, with the result that Catholicism became widespread in Central and South America and in parts of North America (California, Canada, etc.).
England, however, had become Protestant early on during the time of the Reformation, as we've seen. So the English explorers and colonists who founded the thirteen colonies that would later become the United States brought Protestantism with them primarily. The one exception was the colony of Maryland. In the 17th century, a noble family in England, the Calverts, took an interest in developing a colony in the "New World" that could provide a refuge for Catholics (the Calverts were themselves converts to Catholicism), who were persecuted in England during this time. Cecil Calvert, also known by title as the 2nd Baron Baltimore, became the first proprietor of the new colony of Maryland. Whereas many of the colonies had state churches and could be intolerant of other forms of Christianity, Maryland adopted a policy that was tolerant towards Trinitarian Christians in general. Many Catholic colonists came to Maryland and gave a uniquely Catholic cast to the colony. However, eventually Protestant settlers dominated and directed the colony in a more typically Protestant direction.
Overall, there were very few Catholics in the thirteen English colonies, but there were some. One of the signers of the Declaration of Independence was a Catholic, Charles Carroll. Until the United States gained independence from England, the Catholics in the colonies were under the oversight of prelates in England. But after the war the Holy See established an "Apostolic Prefecture" (basically a pre-diocese mission establishment) in the new nation, and in 1789 this was elevated to become the first diocese in the United States, the Diocese of Baltimore. The first Bishop of Baltimore was John Carroll. John Carroll was the cousin of Charles Carroll, whom I mentioned above as a signer of the Declaration of Independence. John Carroll's brother, Daniel Carroll II, was a signer of the Constitution. Eventually the Diocese of Baltimore was elevated to an Archdiocese, and John Carroll became an Archbishop.
But there were still very few Catholics in the United States. This began to change in the mid-1800s. The Catholic population swelled rapidly, partly due to immigration. Germans, Irish, and later Polish and Mexican Catholics, and Catholics from other countries as well, began to come in larger numbers into the United States. This influx of Catholics posed a challenge to the culture of the United States. As we've seen, the US was committed to a kind of religious neutrality and toleration. But the US was also almost entirely Protestant. Although there was opposition, it eventually came to make sense to a lot of the Protestant citizens of the US that the nation should be tolerant towards all the different brands of Protestant Christianity and should not take sides between Protestant denominations. But it was harder to swallow that such neutrality and toleration should be applied equally to Catholics. This strained the leniency of many Americans. The Protestant Reformation had occurred three centuries earlier, and Catholicism had thus been seen as "the bad guy" for a long time. Catholicism had come to stand for all that a Protestant society found frightening and distasteful--slavery to the Pope, persecution, foolish and absurd rituals, false worship, etc. It took American society some time before it was prepared to receive Catholics without tension into the social and political landscape of the country. Even as late as 1960, many Americans were fearful of the election of John F. Kennedy as president because he was Catholic. There was a fear that he would have greater allegiance to the Catholic Church and to the Pope than to the Constitution and America.
One area where this cultural conflict manifested itself was over the issue of education. In the 19th century, the public school movement in the United States really got going, and many Americans believed that all children should be required to participate in public schools in order to get a good, solid, American education, not only in arithmetic, reading, etc., but also in morality and even in basic religion. The public schools, therefore, tended to be biased in a Protestant direction. Catholics were concerned that their children would be subject to anti-Catholic and pro-Protestant propaganda and that there would be an effort to train them to think like Protestants, and so a movement arose among Catholics to form their own Catholic schools to raise their children. The parochial Catholic school system became well-established during this period.
Many Americans were concerned that Catholics could not embrace the American ideals of religious and civil liberty, because they held to a system that emphasized the requirement that all people and all societies should submit to the Catholic Faith and the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church, during the 19th century, as we've seen, strongly opposed the growing movement to separate Church and religion from the State and to try to create a neutral (read: Agnostic) civil society. Pope Leo XIII, in the 1890s, even addressed a series of documents to the American clergy warning against going too far with American concepts of secularism and liberty, to the detriment of Catholic truth. Catholics sometimes had a hard time trying to figure out how to reconcile Catholic teachings on these subjects with American sentiments and practices, and non-Catholics often referred to these issues to make the case that Catholics, if they were good Catholics, could not be truly good Americans. In a sense, this is a question that has never been fully resolved--not just with regard to Catholics, but with regard to the relationship between religion and the State in general. As we've seen, there are some inherent ambiguities and even absurdities lurking under the American self-identity as a "religiously neutral" nation, and these unclear and confused ideas will always lead to a lack of complete resolution regarding the exact role of religion in American society. But, as we've seen, Catholics, while refusing to surrender to Agnosticism or religious indifferentism, could recognize the value of toleration in society and of working together with people of other viewpoints to create and preserve the most just society possible given the pluralism of the modern Western world. Thus, while some versions of "secularism" must be opposed by Catholics, other forms of "secularism" could be embraced and promoted.
We've seen throughout our narrative times when individuals or local churches or smaller groups of churches were out of accord with the universal Church or with the See of Rome on certain issues. Unfortunately, this happened with the American Catholic Church of the 19th century with regard to issues of slavery and race. In spite of the fact that Popes had been condemning slavery since the 1400s (just looking at relatively modern times--see the discussion of this and the references in the previous unit), not all Catholics wanted to go along with that. Many American Church leaders refused to oppose American domestic slavery and tried to rationalize ways of understanding papal teaching that would allow them to continue what they were doing. Racial prejudices were, of course, rampant among Catholics, as they were among many Americans during this time period. The first fully African-American Catholic priest, Father Augustus Tolton, could not get accepted into any American seminary to become a priest. He had to go to Rome, where he was accepted and ordained. Rome, to his surprise, then sent him back to the United States to work among the black community there.
American Catholics, particularly Irish Catholics, many of whom were urban workers, played an important role in the development of the labor movement in the United States and the foundation of trade unions.
Watch in class - https://www.pbs.org/godinamerica/view/ - A segment of this series ("A New Eden", 36:00-53:30) has a helpful discussion of anti-Catholic feeling in 19th-century America and the controversy over Catholics and public education.
The Immaculate Conception, and Our Lady of Lourdes
In 1854, Pope Pius IX released an apostolic constitution entitled Ineffabilis Deus, in which he made an ex cathedra statement formally defining the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary as a doctrine revealed by God. Here is the definition:
Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: “We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.” (Ineffabilius Deus, taken from the website of "Papal Encyclicals Online", footnote removed)
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception provides a good case study in the Church's doctrinal development. Ineffabilis Deus traces out the roots of this doctrine in Scripture and Tradition and in the history of the Church. Pius IX affirms the Immaculate Conception as a doctrine that has always been held by the Church, but which has been more and more understood and made clear and explicit by the Church over time:
And indeed, illustrious documents of venerable antiquity, of both the Eastern and the Western Church, very forcibly testify that this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the most Blessed Virgin, which was daily more and more splendidly explained, stated and confirmed by the highest authority, teaching, zeal, knowledge, and wisdom of the Church, and which was disseminated among all peoples and nations of the Catholic world in a marvelous manner — this doctrine always existed in the Church as a doctrine that has been received from our ancestors, and that has been stamped with the character of revealed doctrine. For the Church of Christ, watchful guardian that she is, and defender of the dogmas deposited with her, never changes anything, never diminishes anything, never adds anything to them; but with all diligence she treats the ancient documents faithfully and wisely; if they really are of ancient origin and if the faith of the Fathers has transmitted them, she strives to investigate and explain them in such a way that the ancient dogmas of heavenly doctrine will be made evident and clear, but will retain their full, integral, and proper nature, and will grown only within their own genus — that is, within the same dogma, in the same sense and the same meaning. (Ibid.)
Scripture nowhere explicitly addresses the subject of the Immaculate Conception, but the Church has found in its description of Mary and the gift of the fullness of grace that was given to her the implication of her freedom from sin in a special way through the merits of her Son. The Fathers of the Church, from the beginning, have spoken highly of the purity of Mary and her freedom from the stains of sin. Two or three of the early Fathers seem to speak of Mary as not being free from all personal fault, but these references are the only exceptions to an otherwise universal, general rule. A feast celebrating the conception of Mary began very early in the Church and eventually became universal. During the Middle Ages, Western theologians debated whether Mary's freedom from sin required the idea that she was kept free from all original sin from the moment of her conception (as opposed, for example, to her being freed from original sin subsequent to her conception but before she ever committed personal sin). Over time, belief in the full, explicit teaching of the Immaculate Conception as we know it today became pretty much universal. Pope Pius IX, in 1849, sent out a letter to the bishops of the whole Church to ask them their opinion regarding whether they felt the Church was ready to make a formal, definitive pronouncement to the effect that the Immaculate Conception is a divinely-revealed teaching. Upon receiving a positive response, Pope Pius IX went on to make this formal definition.
Only a few years later, a girl named Bernadette Soubirous from Lourdes, France, claimed to have encountered the Virgin Mary, who eventually identified herself by declaring, "I am the Immaculate Conception."
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9ineff.htm - Ineffabilis Deus
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm - Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Immaculate Conception, its meaning and history.
Discuss this story in class - https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/mary/popular-marian-devotions/our-lady-of-lourdes - Nice, thorough article on the story of Bernadette and Our Lady of Lourdes.
Some important saints during this period (along with others mentioned earlier): Bernadette, Therese of Lisieux, Margaret Mary Alacoque, John Vianney, Catherine Laboure, Elizabeth Ann Seton, Frances Cabrini, John Neumann, Katherine Drexel, Rose Philippine Duchesne, Theodora Guerin, Kateri Tekakwitha.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment