I. PANTHEISM, NATURALISM AND ABSOLUTE RATIONALISM
1.
There exists no Supreme, all-wise, all-provident Divine Being, distinct
from the universe, and God is identical with the nature of things, and
is, therefore, subject to changes. In effect, God is produced in man and
in the world, and all things are God and have the very substance of
God, and God is one and the same thing with the world, and, therefore,
spirit with matter, necessity with liberty, good with evil, justice with
injustice. — Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862.
2. All action of God upon man and the world is to be denied. — Ibid.
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. — Ibid.
4. All the truths of religion proceed
from the innate strength of human reason; hence reason is the ultimate
standard by which man can and ought to arrive at the knowledge of all
truths of every kind. — Ibid. and Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9,
1846, etc.
5. Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore
subject to a continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the
advancement of human reason. — Ibid.
6. The faith of Christ is in
opposition to human reason and divine revelation not only is not useful,
but is even hurtful to the perfection of man. — Ibid.
7. The
prophecies and miracles set forth and recorded in the Sacred Scriptures
are the fiction of poets, and the mysteries of the Christian faith the
result of philosophical investigations. In the books of the Old and the
New Testament there are contained mythical inventions, and Jesus Christ
is Himself a myth.
II. MODERATE RATIONALISM
8. As human
reason is placed on a level with religion itself, so theological must be
treated in the same manner as philosophical sciences. — Allocution
“Singulari quadam,” Dec. 9, 1854.
9. All the dogmas of the
Christian religion are indiscriminately the object of natural science or
philosophy, and human reason, enlightened solely in an historical way,
is able, by its own natural strength and principles, to attain to the
true science of even the most abstruse dogmas; provided only that such
dogmas be proposed to reason itself as its object. — Letters to the
Archbishop of Munich, “Gravissimas inter,” Dec. 11, 1862, and “Tuas
libenter,” Dec. 21, 1863.
10. As the philosopher is one thing, and
philosophy another, so it is the right and duty of the philosopher to
subject himself to the authority which he shall have proved to be true;
but philosophy neither can nor ought to submit to any such authority. —
Ibid., Dec. 11, 1862.
11. The Church not only ought never to pass
judgment on philosophy, but ought to tolerate the errors of philosophy,
leaving it to correct itself. — Ibid., Dec. 21, 1863.
12. The decrees of the Apostolic See and of the Roman congregations impede the true progress of science. — Ibid.
13.
The method and principles by which the old scholastic doctors
cultivated theology are no longer suitable to the demands of our times
and to the progress of the sciences. — Ibid.
14. Philosophy is to be treated without taking any account of supernatural revelation. — Ibid.
III. INDIFFERENTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM
15.
Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by
the light of reason, he shall consider true. — Allocution “Maxima
quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.
16.
Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of
eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. — Encyclical “Qui
pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846.
17. Good hope at least is to be
entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in
the true Church of Christ. — Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10,
1863, etc.
18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of
the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please
God equally as in the Catholic Church. — Encyclical “Noscitis,” Dec. 8,
1849.
IV. SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM, SECRET SOCIETIES, BIBLICAL SOCIETIES, CLERICO-LIBERAL SOCIETIES
Pests
of this kind are frequently reprobated in the severest terms in the
Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846, Allocution “Quibus quantisque,”
April 20, 1849, Encyclical “Noscitis et nobiscum,” Dec. 8, 1849,
Allocution “Singulari quadam,” Dec. 9, 1854, Encyclical “Quanto
conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863.
V. ERRORS CONCERNING THE CHURCH AND HER RIGHTS
19.
The Church is not a true and perfect society, entirely free- nor is she
endowed with proper and perpetual rights of her own, conferred upon her
by her Divine Founder; but it appertains to the civil power to define
what are the rights of the Church, and the limits within which she may
exercise those rights. — Allocution “Singulari quadam,&quuot; Dec.
9, 1854, etc.
20. The ecclesiastical power ought not to exercise
its authority without the permission and assent of the civil government.
— Allocution “Meminit unusquisque,” Sept. 30, 1861.
21. The
Church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of
the Catholic Church is the only true religion. — Damnatio “Multiplices
inter,” June 10, 1851.
22. The obligation by which Catholic
teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only
which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the
infallible judgment of the Church. — Letter to the Archbishop of Munich,
“Tuas libenter,” Dec. 21, 1863.
23. Roman Pontiffs and Ecumenical Councils have wandered outside the limits of their powers, have usurped
the rights of princes, and have even erred in defining matters of faith
and morals. — Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.
24.
The Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal
power, direct or indirect. — Apostolic Letter “Ad Apostolicae,” Aug. 22,
1851.
25. Besides the power inherent in the episcopate, other
temporal power has been attributed to it by the civil authority granted
either explicitly or tacitly, which on that account is revocable by the
civil authority whenever it thinks fit. — Ibid.
26. The Church has
no innate and legitimate right of acquiring and possessing property. —
Allocution “Nunquam fore,” Dec. 15, 1856; Encyclical “Incredibili,”
Sept. 7, 1863.
27. The sacred ministers of the Church and the
Roman pontiff are to be absolutely excluded from every charge and
dominion over temporal affairs. — Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9,
1862.
28. It is not lawful for bishops to publish even letters
Apostolic without the permission of Government. — Allocution “Nunquam
fore,” Dec. 15, 1856.
29. Favours granted by the Roman pontiff
ought to be considered null, unless they have been sought for through
the civil government. — Ibid.
30. The immunity of the Church and
of ecclesiastical persons derived its origin from civil law. — Damnatio
“Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.
31. The ecclesiastical forum
or tribunal for the temporal causes, whether civil or criminal, of
clerics, ought by all means to be abolished, even without consulting and
against the protest of the Holy See. — Allocution “Nunquam fore,” Dec.
15, 1856; Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.
32. The
personal immunity by which clerics are exonerated from military
conscription and service in the army may be abolished without violation
either of natural right or equity. Its abolition is called for by civil
progress, especially in a society framed on the model of a liberal
government. — Letter to the Bishop of Monreale “Singularis nobisque,”
Sept. 29, 1864.
33. It does not appertain exclusively to the power
of ecclesiastical jurisdiction by right, proper and innate, to direct
the teaching of theological questions. — Letter to the Archbishop of
Munich, “Tuas libenter,” Dec. 21, 1863.
34. The teaching of those
who compare the Sovereign Pontiff to a prince, free and acting in the
universal Church, is a doctrine which prevailed in the Middle Ages. —
Apostolic Letter “Ad Apostolicae,” Aug. 22, 1851.
35. There is
nothing to prevent the decree of a general council, or the act of all
peoples, from transferring the supreme pontificate from the bishop and
city of Rome to another bishop and another city. — Ibid.
36. The
definition of a national council does not admit of any subsequent
discussion, and the civil authority car assume this principle as the
basis of its acts. — Ibid.
37. National churches, withdrawn from
the authority of the Roman Pontiff and altogether separated, can be
established. — Allocution “Multis gravibusque,” Dec. 17, 1860.
38.
The Roman pontiffs have, by their too arbitrary conduct, contributed to
the division of the Church into Eastern and Western. — Apostolic Letter
“Ad Apostolicae,” Aug. 22, 1851.
VI. ERRORS ABOUT CIVIL SOCIETY, CONSIDERED BOTH IN ITSELF AND IN ITS RELATION TO THE CHURCH
39.
The State, as being the origin and source of all rights, is endowed
with a certain right not circumscribed by any limits. — Allocution
“Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862.
40. The teaching of the Catholic
Church is hostile to the well- being and interests of society. —
Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846; Allocution “Quibus quantisque,”
April 20, 1849.
41. The civil government, even when in the hands
of an infidel sovereign, has a right to an indirect negative power over
religious affairs. It therefore possesses not only the right called that
of “exsequatur,” but also that of appeal, called “appellatio ab abusu.”
— Apostolic Letter “Ad Apostolicae,” Aug. 22, 1851
42. In the case of conflicting laws enacted by the two powers, the civil law prevails. — Ibid.
43.
The secular Dower has authority to rescind, declare and render null,
solemn conventions, commonly called concordats, entered into with the
Apostolic See, regarding the use of rights appertaining to
ecclesiastical immunity, without the consent of the Apostolic See, and
even in spite of its protest. — Allocution “Multis gravibusque,” Dec.
17, 1860; Allocution “In consistoriali,” Nov. 1, 1850.
44. The
civil authority may interfere in matters relating to religion, morality
and spiritual government: hence, it can pass judgment on the
instructions issued for the guidance of consciences, conformably with
their mission, by the pastors of the Church. Further, it has the right
to make enactments regarding the administration of the divine
sacraments, and the dispositions necessary for receiving them. —
Allocutions “In consistoriali,” Nov. 1, 1850, and “Maxima quidem,” June
9, 1862
.
45. The entire government of public schools in which the
youth- of a Christian state is educated, except (to a certain extent) in
the case of episcopal seminaries, may and ought to appertain to the
civil power, and belong to it so far that no other authority whatsoever
shall be recognized as having any right to interfere in the discipline
of the schools, the arrangement of the studies, the conferring of
degrees, in the choice or approval of the teachers. — Allocutions
“Quibus luctuosissimmis,” Sept. 5, 1851, and “In consistoriali,” Nov. 1,
1850.
46. Moreover, even in ecclesiastical seminaries, the method
of studies to be adopted is subject to the civil authority. —
Allocution “Nunquam fore,” Dec. 15, 1856.
47. The best theory of
civil society requires that popular schools open to children of every
class of the people, and, generally, all public institutes intended for
instruction in letters and philosophical sciences and for carrying on
the education of youth, should be freed from all ecclesiastical
authority, control and interference, and should be fully subjected to
the civil and political power at the pleasure of the rulers, and
according to the standard of the prevalent opinions of the age. —
Epistle to the Archbishop of Freiburg, “Cum non sine,” July 14, 1864.
48.
Catholics may approve of the system of educating youth unconnected with
Catholic faith and the power of the Church, and which regards the
knowledge of merely natural things, and only, or at least primarily, the
ends of earthly social life. — Ibid.
49. The civil power may
prevent the prelates of the Church and the faithful from communicating
freely and mutually with the Roman Pontiff. — Allocution “Maxima
quidem,” June 9, 1862.
50. Lay authority possesses of itself the
right of presenting bishops, and may require of them to undertake the
administration of the diocese before they receive canonical institution,
and the Letters Apostolic from the Holy See. — Allocution “Nunquam
fore,” Dec. 15, 1856.
51. And, further, the lay government has the
right of deposing bishops from their pastoral functions, and is not
bound to obey the Roman pontiff in those things which relate to the
institution of bishoprics and the appointment of bishops. — Allocution
“Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852, Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10,
1851.
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. — Allocution “Nunquam fore,” Dec.
15, 1856.
53. The laws enacted for the protection of religious
orders and regarding their rights and duties ought to be abolished; nay,
more, civil Government may lend its assistance to all who desire to
renounce the obligation which they have undertaken of a religious life,
and to break their vows. Government may also suppress the said religious
orders, as likewise collegiate churches and simple benefices, even
those of advowson and subject their property and revenues to the
administration and pleasure of the civil power. — Allocutions
“Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852; “Probe memineritis,” Jan. 22, 1855; “Cum
saepe,” July 26, 1855.
54. Kings and princes are not only exempt
from the jurisdiction of the Church, but are superior to the Church in
deciding questions of jurisdiction. — Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June
10, 1851.
55. The Church ought to be separated from the .State,
and the State from the Church. — Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27,
1852.
VII. ERRORS CONCERNING NATURAL AND CHRISTIAN ETHICS
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. — Allocution
“Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862.
57. The science of philosophical
things and morals and also civil laws may and ought to keep aloof from
divine and ecclesiastical authority. — Ibid.
58. No other forces
are to be recognized except those which reside in matter, and all the
rectitude and excellence of morality ought to be placed in the
accumulation and increase of riches by every possible means, and the
gratification of pleasure. — Ibid.; Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,”
Aug. 10, 1863.
59. Right consists in the material fact. All human
duties are an empty word, and all human facts have the force of right. —
Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862.
60. Authority is nothing else but numbers and the sum total of material forces. — Ibid.
61.
The injustice of an act when successful inflicts no injury on the
sanctity of right. — Allocution “Jamdudum cernimus,” March 18, 1861.
62.
The principle of non-intervention, as it is called, ought to be
proclaimed and observed. — Allocution “Novos et ante,” Sept. 28, 1860.
63.
It is lawful to refuse obedience to legitimate princes, and even to
rebel against them. — Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1864;
Allocution “Quibusque vestrum,” Oct. 4, 1847; “Noscitis et Nobiscum,”
Dec. 8, 1849; Apostolic Letter “Cum Catholica.”
64. The violation
of any solemn oath, as well as any wicked and flagitious action
repugnant to the eternal law, is not only not blamable but is altogether
lawful and worthy of the highest praise when done through love of
country. — Allocution “Quibus quantisque,” April 20, 1849.
VIII. ERRORS CONCERNING CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE
65.
The doctrine that Christ has raised marriage to the dignity of a
sacrament cannot be at all tolerated. — Apostolic Letter “Ad
Apostolicae,” Aug. 22, 1851.
66. The Sacrament of Marriage is only
a something accessory to the contract and separate from it, and the
sacrament itself consists in the nuptial benediction alone. — Ibid.
67.
By the law of nature, the marriage tie is not indissoluble, and in many
cases divorce properly so called may be decreed by the civil authority.
— Ibid.; Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.
68. The
Church has not the power of establishing diriment impediments of
marriage, but such a power belongs to the civil authority by which
existing impediments are to be removed. — Damnatio “Multiplices inter,”
June 10, 1851.
69. In the dark ages the Church began to establish
diriment impediments, not by her own right, but by using a power
borrowed from the State. — Apostolic Letter “Ad Apostolicae,” Aug. 22,
1851.
70. The canons of the Council of Trent, which anathematize
those who dare to deny to the Church the right of establishing diriment
impediments, either are not dogmatic or must be understood as referring
to such borrowed power. — Ibid.
71. The form of solemnizing
marriage prescribed by the Council of Trent, under pain of nullity, does
not bind in cases where the civil law lays down another form, and
declares that when this new form is used the marriage shall be valid.
72. Boniface VIII was the first who declared that the vow of chastity taken at ordination renders marriage void. — Ibid.
73.
In force of a merely civil contract there may exist between Christians a
real marriage, and it is false to say either that the marriage contract
between Christians is always a sacrament, or that there is no contract
if the sacrament be excluded. — Ibid.; Letter to the King of Sardinia,
Sept. 9, 1852; Allocutions “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852, “Multis
gravibusque,” Dec. 17, 1860.
74. Matrimonial causes and espousals
belong by their nature to civil tribunals. — Encyclical “Qui pluribus,”
Nov. 9 1846; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851, “Ad
Apostolicae,” Aug. 22, 1851; Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.
IX. ERRORS REGARDING THE CIVIL POWER OF THE SOVEREIGN PONTIFF
75.
The children of the Christian and Catholic Church are divided amongst
themselves about the compatibility of the temporal with the spiritual
power. — “Ad Apostolicae,” Aug. 22, 1851.
76. The abolition of the
temporal power of which the Apostolic See is possessed would contribute
in the greatest degree to the liberty and prosperity of the Church. —
Allocutions “Quibus quantisque,” April 20, 1849, “Si semper antea,” May
20, 1850.
X. ERRORS HAVING REFERENCE TO MODERN LIBERALISM
77.
In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion
should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of
all other forms of worship. — Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855.
78.
Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries,
that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of
their own peculiar worship. — Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27,
1852.
79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every
form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and
publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more
easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate
the pest of indifferentism. — Allocution “Nunquam fore,” Dec. 15, 1856.
80.
The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to
terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.- -Allocution
“Jamdudum cernimus,” March 18, 1861.
The faith teaches us and
human reason demonstrates that a double order of things exists, and that
we must therefore distinguish between the two earthly powers, the one
of natural origin which provides for secular affairs and the
tranquillity of human society, the other of supernatural origin, which
presides over the City of God, that is to say the Church of Christ,
which has been divinely instituted for the sake of souls and of eternal
salvation…. The duties of this twofold power are most wisely ordered in
such a way that to God is given what is God’s (Matt. 22:21), and because
of God to Caesar what is Caesar’s, who is great because he is smaller
than heaven. Certainly the Church has never disobeyed this divine
command, the Church which always and everywhere instructs the faithful
to show the respect which they should inviolably have for the supreme
authority and its secular rights….
. . . Venerable Brethren, you
see clearly enough how sad and full of perils is the condition of
Catholics in the regions of Europe which We have mentioned. Nor are
things any better or circumstances calmer in America, where some regions
are so hostile to Catholics that their governments seem to deny by
their actions the Catholic faith they claim to profess. In fact, there,
for the last few years, a ferocious war on the Church, its institutions
and the rights of the Apostolic See has been raging…. Venerable
Brothers, it is surprising that in our time such a great war is being
waged against the Catholic Church. But anyone who knows the nature,
desires and intentions of the sects, whether they be called masonic or
bear another name, and compares them with the nature the systems and the
vastness of the obstacles by which the Church has been assailed almost
everywhere, cannot doubt that the present misfortune must mainly be
imputed to the frauds and machinations of these sects. It is from them
that the synagogue of Satan, which gathers its troops against the Church
of Christ, takes its strength. In the past Our predecessors, vigilant
even from the beginning in Israel, had already denounced them to the
kings and the nations, and had condemned them time and time again, and
even We have not failed in this duty. If those who would have been able
to avert such a deadly scourge had only had more faith in the supreme
Pastors of the Church! But this scourge, winding through sinuous
caverns, . . . deceiving many with astute frauds, finally has arrived at
the point where it comes forth impetuously from its hiding places and
triumphs as a powerful master. Since the throng of its propagandists has
grown enormously, these wicked groups think that they have already
become masters of the world and that they have almost reached their
pre-established goal. Having sometimes obtained what they desired, and
that is power, in several countries, they boldly turn the help of powers
and authorities which they have secured to trying to submit the Church
of God to the most cruel servitude, to undermine the foundations on
which it rests, to contaminate its splendid qualities; and, moreover, to
strike it with frequent blows, to shake it, to overthrow it, and, if
possible, to make it disappear completely from the earth. Things being
thus, Venerable Brothers, make every effort to defend the faithful which
are entrusted to you against the insidious contagion of these sects and
to save from perdition those who unfortunately have inscribed
themselves in such sects. Make known and attack those who, whether
suffering from, or planning, deception, are not afraid to affirm that
these shady congregations aim only at the profit of society, at progress
and mutual benefit. Explain to them often and impress deeply on their
souls the Papal constitutions on this subject and teach, them that the
masonic associations are anathematized by them not only in Europe but
also in America and wherever they may be in the whole world.
To
the Archbishops and Bishops of Prussia concerning the situation of the
Catholic Church faced with persecution by that Government….
But
although they (the bishops resisting persecution) should be praised
rather than pitied, the scorn of episcopal dignity, the violation of the
liberty and the rights of the Church, the ill treatment which does not
only oppress those dioceses, but also the others of the Kingdom of
Prussia, demand that We, owing to the Apostolic office with which God
has entrusted us in spite of Our insufficient merit, protest against
laws which have produced such great evils and make one fear even greater
ones; and as far as we are able to do so with the sacred authority of
divine law, We vindicate for the Church the freedom which has been
trodden underfoot with sacrilegious violence. That is why by this letter
we intend to do Our duty by announcing openly to all those whom this
matter concerns and to the whole Catholic world, that these laws are
null and void because they are absolutely contrary to the divine
constitution of the Church. In fact, with respect to matters which
concern the holy ministry, Our Lord did not put the mighty of this
century in charge, but Saint Peter, whom he entrusted not only with
feeding his sheep, but also the goats; therefore no power in the world,
however great it may be, can deprive of the pastoral office those whom
the Holy Ghost has made Bishops in order to feed the Church of God.
To Our Venerable Brethren, all Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops having favor and Communion of the Holy See.
Venerable Brethren, Health and Apostolic Benediction.
With
how great care and pastoral vigilance the Roman Pontiffs, our
predecessors, fulfilling the duty and office committed to them by the
Lord Christ Himself in the person of most Blessed Peter, Prince of the
Apostles, of feeding the lambs and the sheep, have never ceased
sedulously to nourish the Lord’s whole flock with words of faith and
with salutary doctrine, and to guard it from poisoned pastures, is
thoroughly known to all, and especially to you, Venerable Brethren. And
truly the same, Our Predecessors, asserters of justice, being especially
anxious for the salvation of souls, had nothing ever more at heart than
by their most wise Letters and Constitutions to unveil and condemn all
those heresies and errors which, being adverse to our Divine Faith, to
the doctrine of the Catholic Church, to purity of morals, and to the
eternal salvation of men, have frequently excited violent tempests, and
have miserably afflicted both Church and State. For which cause the same
Our Predecessors, have, with Apostolic fortitude, constantly resisted
the nefarious enterprises of wicked men, who, like raging waves of the
sea foaming out their own confusion, and promising liberty whereas they
are the slaves of corruption, have striven by their deceptive opinions
and most pernicious writings to raze the foundations of the Catholic
religion and of civil society, to remove from among men all virtue and
justice, to deprave persons, and especially inexperienced youth, to lead
it into the snares of error, and at length to tear it from the bosom of
the Catholic Church.
2. But now, as is well known to you,
Venerable Brethren, already, scarcely had we been elevated to this Chair
of Peter (by the hidden counsel of Divine Providence, certainly by no
merit of our own), when, seeing with the greatest grief of Our soul a
truly awful storm excited by so many evil opinions, and (seeing also)
the most grievous calamities never sufficiently to be deplored which
overspread the Christian people from so many errors, according to the
duty of Our Apostolic Ministry, and following the illustrious example of
Our Predecessors, We raised Our voice, and in many published Encyclical
Letters and Allocutions delivered in Consistory, and other Apostolic
Letters, we condemned the chief errors of this most unhappy age, and we
excited your admirable episcopal vigilance, and we again and again
admonished and exhorted all sons of the Catholic Church, to us most
dear, that they should altogether abhor and flee from the contagion of
so dire a pestilence. And especially in our first Encyclical Letter
written to you on Nov. 9, 1846, and in two Allocutions delivered by us
in Consistory, the one on Dec. 9, 1854, and the other on June 9, 1862,
we condemned the monstrous portents of opinion which prevail especially
in this age, bringing with them the greatest loss of souls and detriment
of civil society itself; which are grievously opposed also, not only to
the Catholic Church and her salutary doctrine and venerable rights, but
also to the eternal natural law engraven by God in all men’s hearts,
and to right reason; and from which almost all other errors have their
origin.
3. But, although we have not omitted often to proscribe
and reprobate the chief errors of this kind, yet the cause of the
Catholic Church, and the salvation of souls entrusted to us by God, and
the welfare of human society itself, altogether demand that we again
stir up your pastoral solicitude to exterminate other evil opinions,
which spring forth from the said errors as from a fountain. Which false
and perverse opinions are on that ground the more to be detested,
because they chiefly tend to this, that that salutary influence be
impeded and (even) removed, which the Catholic Church, according to the
institution and command of her Divine Author, should freely exercise
even to the end of the world — not only over private individuals, but
over nations, peoples, and their sovereign princes; and (tend also) to
take away that mutual fellowship and concord of counsels between Church
and State which has ever proved itself propitious and salutary, both for
religious and civil interests.1
For you well know, venerable
brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to
civil society the impious and absurd principle of “naturalism,” as they
call it, dare to teach that “the best constitution of public society and
(also) civil progress altogether require that human society be
conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more
than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being
made between the true religion and false ones.” And, against the
doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do
not hesitate to assert that “that is the best condition of civil
society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power,
of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic
religion, except so far as public peace may require.” From which totally
false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that
erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and
the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an
“insanity,”2 viz., that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s
personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in
every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the
citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no
authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able
openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever,
either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.” But, while
they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are
preaching “liberty of perdition;”3 and that “if human arguments are
always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men
who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of
human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus
Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most
injurious babbling.”4
4. And, since where religion has been
removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine
revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human
right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate
right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that
some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound
reason, dare to proclaim that “the people’s will, manifested by what is
called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law,
free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order
accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are
accomplished, have the force of right.” But who, does not see and
clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of
religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the
purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such
circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the
unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests? For
this reason, men of the kind pursue with bitter hatred the Religious
Orders, although these have deserved extremely well of Christendom,
civilization and literature, and cry out that the same have no
legitimate reason for being permitted to exist; and thus (these evil
men) applaud the calumnies of heretics. For, as Pius VI, Our
Predecessor, taught most wisely, “the abolition of regulars is injurious
to that state in which the Evangelical counsels are openly professed;
it is injurious to a method of life praised in the Church as agreeable
to Apostolic doctrine; it is injurious to the illustrious founders,
themselves, whom we venerate on our altars, who did not establish these
societies but by God’s inspiration.”5 And (these wretches) also
impiously declare that permission should be refused to citizens and to
the Church, “whereby they may openly give alms for the sake of Christian
charity”; and that the law should be abrogated “whereby on certain
fixed days servile works are prohibited because of God’s worship;” and
on the most deceptive pretext that the said permission and law are
opposed to the principles of the best public economy. Moreover, not
content with removing religion from public society, they wish to banish
it also from private families. For, teaching and professing the most
fatal error of “Communism and Socialism,” they assert that “domestic
society or the family derives the whole principle of its existence from
the civil law alone; and, consequently, that on civil law alone depend
all rights of parents over their children, and especially that of
providing for education.” By which impious opinions and machinations
these most deceitful men chiefly aim at this result, viz., that the
salutary teaching and influence of the Catholic Church may be entirely
banished from the instruction and education of youth, and that the
tender and flexible minds of young men may be infected and depraved by
every most pernicious error and vice. For all who have endeavored to
throw into confusion things both sacred and secular, and to subvert the
right order of society, and to abolish all rights, human and divine,
have always (as we above hinted) devoted all their nefarious schemes,
devices and efforts, to deceiving and
depraving incautious youth
and have placed all their hope in its corruption. For which reason they
never cease by every wicked method to assail the clergy, both secular
and regular, from whom (as the surest monuments of history conspicuously
attest), so many great advantages have abundantly flowed to
Christianity, civilization and literature, and to proclaim that “the
clergy, as being hostile to the true and beneficial advance of science
and civilization, should be removed from the whole charge and duty of
instructing and educating youth.”
5. Others meanwhile, reviving
the wicked and so often condemned inventions of innovators, dare with
signal impudence to subject to the will of the civil authority the
supreme authority of the Church and of this Apostolic See given to her
by Christ Himself, and to deny all those rights of the same Church and
See which concern matters of the external order. For they are not
ashamed of affirming “that the Church’s laws do not bind in conscience
unless when they are promulgated by the civil power; that acts and
decrees of the Roman Pontiffs, referring to religion and the Church,
need the civil power’s sanction and approbation, or at least its
consent; that the Apostolic Constitutions,6 whereby secret societies are
condemned (whether an oath of secrecy be or be not required in such
societies), and whereby their frequenters and favourers are smitten with
anathema — have no force in those regions of the world wherein
associations of the kind are tolerated by the civil government; that the
excommunication pronounced by the Council of Trent and by Roman
Pontiffs against those who assail and usurp the Church’s rights and
possessions, rests on a confusion between the spiritual and temporal
orders, and (is directed) to the pursuit of a purely secular good; that
the Church can decree nothing which binds the conscience of the faithful
in regard to their use of temporal things; that the Church has no right
of restraining by temporal punishments those who violate her laws; that
it is conformable to the principles of sacred theology and public law
to assert and claim for the civil government a right of property in
those goods which are possessed by the Church, by the Religious Orders,
and by other pious establishments.” Nor do they blush openly and
publicly to profess the maxim and principle of heretics from which arise
so many perverse opinions and errors. For they repeat that the
“ecclesiastical power is not by divine right distinct from, and
independent of, the civil power, and that such distinction and
independence cannot be preserved without the civil power’s essential
rights being assailed and usurped by the Church.” Nor can we pass over
in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine,
contend that “without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic
profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and
decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the
Church’s general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not
touch the dogmata of faith and morals.” But no one can be found not
clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is
opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ
our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding
the Universal Church.
6. Amidst, therefore, such great perversity
of depraved opinions, we, well remembering our Apostolic Office, and
very greatly solicitous for our most holy Religion, for sound doctrine
and the salvation of souls which is intrusted to us by God, and
(solicitous also) for the welfare of human society itself, have thought
it right again to raise up our Apostolic voice. Therefore, by our
Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the
singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this
letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all
children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned.
7.
And besides these things, you know very well, Venerable Brethren, that
in these times the haters of truth and justice and most bitter enemies
of our religion, deceiving the people and maliciously lying, disseminate
sundry and other impious doctrines by means of pestilential books,
pamphlets and newspapers dispersed over the whole world. Nor are you
ignorant also, that in this our age some men are found who, moved and
excited by the spirit of Satan, have reached to that degree of impiety
as not to shrink from denying our Ruler and Lord Jesus Christ, and from
impugning His Divinity with wicked pertinacity. Here, however, we cannot
but extol you, venerable brethren, with great and deserved praise, for
not having failed to raise with all zeal your episcopal voice against
impiety so great.
8. Therefore, in this our letter, we again most
lovingly address you, who, having been called unto a part of our
solicitude, are to us, among our grievous distresses, the greatest
solace, joy and consolation, because of the admirable religion and piety
wherein you excel, and because of that marvellous love, fidelity, and
dutifulness, whereby bound as you are to us. and to this Apostolic See
in most harmonious affection, you strive strenuously and sedulously to
fulfill your most weighty episcopal ministry. For from your signal
pastoral zeal we expect that, taking up the sword of the spirit which is
the word of God, and strengthened by the grace of our Lord Jesus
Christ, you will, with redoubled care, each day more anxiously provide
that the faithful entrusted to your charge “abstain from noxious
verbiage, which Jesus Christ does not cultivate because it is not His
Father’s plantation.”7 Never cease also to inculcate on the said
faithful that all true felicity flows abundantly upon man from our
august religion and its doctrine and practice; and that happy is the
people whose God is their Lord.8 Teach that “kingdoms rest on the
foundation of the Catholic Faith;9 and that nothing is so deadly, so
hastening to a fall, so exposed to all danger, (as that which exists)
if, believing this alone to be sufficient for us that we receive free
will at our birth, we seek nothing further from the Lord; that is, if
forgetting our Creator we abjure his power that we may display our
freedom.”10 And again do not fail to teach “that the royal power was
given not only for the governance of the world, but most of all for the
protection of the Church;”11 and that there is nothing which can be of
greater advantage and glory to Princes and Kings than if, as another
most wise and courageous Predecessor of ours, St. Felix, instructed the
Emperor Zeno, they “permit the Catholic Church to practise her laws, and
allow no one to oppose her liberty. For it is certain that this mode of
conduct is beneficial to their interests, viz., that where there is
question concerning the causes of God, they study, according to His
appointment, to subject the royal will to Christ’s Priests, not to raise
it above theirs.”12
9. But if always, venerable brethren, now
most of all amidst such great calamities both of the Church and of civil
society, amidst so great a conspiracy against Catholic interests and
this Apostolic See, and so great a mass of errors, it is altogether
necessary to approach with confidence the throne of grace, that we may
obtain mercy and find grace in timely aid. Wherefore, we have thought it
well to excite the piety of all the faithful in order that, together
with us and you, they may unceasingly pray and beseech the most merciful
Father of light and pity with most fervent and humble prayers, and in
the fullness of faith flee always to Our Lord Jesus Christ, who redeemed
us to God in his blood, and earnestly and constantly supplicate His
most sweet Heart, the victim of most burning love toward us, that He
would draw all things to Himself by the bonds of His love, and that all
men inflamed by His most holy love may walk worthily according to His
heart, pleasing God in all things, bearing fruit in every good work. But
since without doubt men’s prayers are more pleasing to God if they
reach Him from minds free from all stain, therefore we have determined
to open to Christ’s faithful, with Apostolic liberality, the Church’s
heavenly treasures committed to our charge, in order that the said
faithful, being more earnestly enkindled to true piety, and cleansed
through the sacrament of Penance from the defilement of their sins, may
with greater confidence pour forth their prayers to God, and obtain His
mercy and grace.
10. By these Letters, therefore, in virtue of our
Apostolic authority, we concede to all and singular the faithful of the
Catholic world, a Plenary Indulgence in the form of Jubilee, during the
space of one month only for the whole coming year 1865, and not beyond;
to be fixed by you, venerable brethren, and other legitimate Ordinaries
of places, in the very same manner and form in which we granted it at
the beginning of our supreme Pontificate by our Apostolic Letters in the
form of a Brief, dated November 20, 1846, and addressed to all your
episcopal Order, beginning, “Arcano Divinae Providentiae consilio,” and
with all the same faculties which were given by us in those Letters. We
will, however, that all things be observed which were prescribed in the
aforesaid Letters, and those things be excepted which we there so
declared. And we grant this, notwithstanding anything whatever to the
contrary, even things which are worthy of individual mention and
derogation. In order, however, that all doubt and difficulty be removed,
we have commanded a copy of said Letters be sent you.
11. “Let us
implore,” Venerable Brethren, “God’s mercy from our inmost heart and
with our whole mind; because He has Himself added, ‘I will not remove my
mercy from them.’ Let us ask and we shall receive; and if there be
delay and slowness in our receiving because we have gravely offended,
let us knock, because to him that knocketh it shall be opened, if only
the door be knocked by our prayers, groans and tears, in which we must
persist and persevere, and if the prayer be unanimous . . . let each man
pray to God, not for himself alone, but for all his brethren, as the
Lord hath taught us to pray.”13 But in order that God may the more
readily assent to the prayers and desires of ourselves, of you and of
all the faithful, let us with all confidence employ as or advocate with
Him the Immaculate and most holy Virgin Mary, Mother of God, who has
slain all heresies throughout the world, and who, the most loving Mother
of us all, “is all sweet . . . and full of mercy . . . shows herself to
all as easily entreated; shows herself to all as most merciful; pities
the necessities of all with a most large affection;”14 and standing as a
Queen at the right hand of her only begotten Son, our Lord Jesus
Christ, in gilded clothing, surrounded with variety, can obtain from Him
whatever she will. Let us also seek the suffrages of the Most Blessed
Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of Paul, his Fellow-Apostle, and of
all the Saints in Heaven, who having now become God’s friends, have
arrived at the heavenly kingdom, and being crowned bear their palms, and
being secure of their own immortality are anxious for our salvation.
12.
Lastly, imploring from our great heart for You from God the abundance
of all heavenly gifts, we most lovingly impart the Apostolic Benediction
from our inmost heart, a pledge of our signal love towards you, to
yourselves, venerable brethren, and to all the clerics and lay faithful
committed to your care.
Given at Rome, from St. Peter’s, the 8th
day of December, in the year 1864, the tenth from the Dogmatic
Definition of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, Mother of
God.
In the nineteenth year of Our Pontificate.
1. Gregory XVI, encyclical epistle “Mirari vos,” 15 August 1832.
- 2. Ibid.
- 3. St. Augustine, epistle 105 (166).
- 4. St. Leo, epistle 14 (133), sect. 2, edit. Ball.
- 5. Epistle to Cardinal De la Rochefoucault, 10 March 1791.
- 6. Clement XII, “In eminenti;” Benedict XIV, “Providas Romanorum;” Pius VII, “Ecclesiam;” Leo XII, “Quo graviora.”
- 7. St. Ignatius M. to the Philadelphians, 3.
- 8. Ps 143.
- 9. St. Celestine, epistle 22 to Synod. Ephes. apud Const., p. 1200.
- 10. St. Innocent. 1, epistle 29 ad Episc. conc. Carthag. apud Coust., p. 891.
- 11. St. Leo, epistle 156 (125).
- 12. Pius VII, encyclical epistle “Diu satis,” 15 May 1800.
- 13. St. Cyprian, epist. 11.
- 14. St. Bernard, Serm. “de duodecim praerogativis B. M. V. ex verbis Apocalyp.”
Those who ridicule the Syllabus have clearly never read it - it’s a handy guide to avoiding doctrinal blunders
Today marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of Blessed
Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors. There is perhaps no document in the recent
history of the Church that has been so misunderstood.
The Syllabus had a long and complicated history even before its
publication in 1864. The first suggestion that the Pope should draw up a
constitution listing the errors of the day emerged from the Provincial
Council of Spoleto in 1849. Urged on by Cardinal Gioacchino Pecci (who
later became Pope Leo XIII), Pope Pius set up a commission to study the
matter, but this was overtaken by the Bishop of Perpignan publishing his
own syllabus of errors in 1860. The Pope admired the bishop’s work and
so set up a new commission which eventually came up with the document
that we call the Syllabus, and which was published as an addendum to the
encyclical Quanta Cura in 1864. So the gestation period of the Syllabus
was 15 years, which is a sure indication that the document ran into
numerous difficulties in the course of its preparation.
A casual look at the Syllabus itself shows the reader why this should
be so. It is nothing to do with the contents of the document (which are
mainly non-controversial, though more of that later), but rather to do
with the form of the document. The Syllabus aimed to be, as its title
says, a list of “the most important errors of our time, which have been
condemned by our Holy Father Pius IX in allocutions, at consistories, in
encyclicals, and other Apostolic letters.”
Thus the Syllabus is a list of theses that are condemned as untrue,
and at the same time a collection of quotes and paraphrases from the
Pope’s previous statements, all referenced. It must have been quite hard
to determine what made the cut from the many pronouncements of Pius IX,
and also quite hard to make sure that the condemnation of errors was
expressed in such a way as to be accurate. If one is firing off
anathemas, one wants, after all, to make sure they hit their targets.
The most celebrated condemned proposition was the last one,
number 80, which stated: “The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile
himself, and come to terms with, progress, liberalism and modern
civilisation.” This was drawn from a papal allocution entitled Jamdudum
Cernimus. To understand what exactly is being condemned here, one needs
to refer back to that allocution. Likewise to understand what
is being asserted as true, one needs to preface the condemned statement with the phrase “It is not true that…”
When one does that, one realises that proposition 80 is not what it
critics at the time and since have gleefully claimed for it, namely a
rejection of the 19th century and all it stands for. It is, rather, a
rejection of liberalism and progress as understood in the narrow sense
intended by the allocution, what we would doubtless term false
liberalism, false progress and falsely modern civilisation.
Proposition 80 makes perfect sense when one considers the following
statement: “Today I want to dispel any misleading impression that the
Church will abandon her witness to the truth and change her teaching in
the face of hostile trends in public opinion or the destructive
ideologies of our time.” That statement is quite in keeping with the
Syllabus’s robust desire to see the Church resist the temptation to give
into the spirit of the age. Moreover, that statement comes from the
latest pastoral letter of the Bishop of Shrewsbury, rather than some
reactionary 19th century prelate. The Syllabus shows, therefore, in its
most celebrated and contested line, that little has changed. Then, as
now, the chattering classes have said that the Church needs to move with
the times. Then as now, the Church wishes to assert the timelessness of
truth.
Consider this statement, condemned as false: “Human reason, without
any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and
falsehood, and of good and evil” (number 3). This is the most popular
error not just of the age of Blessed Pius IX, but of our own age as
well. It denies the idea that there is any objectivity in religious and
moral matters. Other propositions condemned also point to this same
underlying heresy: there is no objective truth, and every person’s
subjective understanding is equally valid. This, of course, was what
Benedict XVI characterised as “the dictatorship of relativism”, the
belief that nothing is certain, and that anyone who claims to the
contrary must be persecuted in the name of this one truth.
The following erroneous statement from the Syllabus could equally
have been condemned by Benedict XVI: “All the truths of religion proceed
from the innate strength of human reason; hence reason is the ultimate
standard by which man can and ought to arrive at the knowledge of all
truths of every kind” (number 4). But it is important to note what this
is not saying. It is not claiming that reason cannot lead to truth (that
would not only be ridiculous, it would also be a heresy). Rather, it is
condemning the claim that reason alone is the arbiter of truth, and
thus that Revelation has no part to play. Indeed, this proposition is
claiming that religion, in so far as it true, is a purely natural
phenomenon, something that most atheists today would hold as true.
So is the Syllabus still in force? Is it still a part of the Church’s
teaching? That depends on the errors that it is condemning. Some of
these errors have a quaintly old-fashioned ring to them. For example,
number 20 reminds us that it is not true that “the ecclesiastical power
ought not to exercise its authority without the permission and assent of
the civil government.”
This clearly refers back to the time when anti-clericalism was rife
in Italy. That time has passed. However, once one gives the proposition a
second glance, it is not altogether out of date. There are places today
where the Church does not have freedom of action thanks to restrictive
laws (China is the most obvious example.) And there are places, our own
country included, where the state might like to restrict the freedom of
the Church if it could get away with it. So it is hard to dismiss the
Syllabus as a relic of another age. It is still relevant.
Why was the Syllabus so contested? One reason, I think, that people
like Victor Emmanuel II had it banned is because it cut too close to the
bone. The 19th century liberals wanted to enslave the Church and make
it another department of the state. The Syllabus saw through their
plans, and revealed the project of “a free Church in a free State” as
the sham it was. There again, the idea of the Roman Pontiff firing off
anathemas was, well, anathema to people like Gladstone, who felt that
the only people who should occupy the moral high ground were people like
himself. The Syllabus was an offence to many, because Whig ideology had
consigned the Church to the dustbin of history, and here was the Church
asserting her rights and above all asserting her role as a guardian of
truth and morality. How much, one wonders, has changed since then?
Perhaps we need another syllabus for our own time? Perhaps not: the
Syllabus of Blessed Pius IX still makes for excellent and instructive
reading.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2014/12/08/lets-celebrate-the-syllabus-of-errors/