THE THOMIST
A SPECULATIVE QUARTERLY REVIEW
OF THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY

EDITORS:

THE DoMINICAN FATHERS oF THE PROVINCE OF ST. JosEPH

Publishers: The Thomist Press, Washington, D. C. 20017

VoL. XXXIII

JULY, 1969

THE COMPOSITION

No.3

OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD

T

HE PEOPLE of God is a salvific reality which originates from the divine plan for the salvation of men.
It incarnates this plan in history and tends to the
fulfilment of all the forms of historical change by the final
return to God, when men, " regenerated in Christ through the
Holy Spirit and beholding together the glory of God will be
able to say 'Our Father.'" 1 Accordingly, the constitution of
the People of God passes through three great stages. The first
embraces the whole period of its preparation, which lasted
until the coming of Jesus. The second stage extends from the
coming of Christ until the end of time; and, finally, the third
is established above all time, because men saved through God's
grace will have achieved in God himself that fullness of perfection which is possible for them.
In each of these stages the People of God manifests special
characteristics which it is necessary to consider in order to
determine its configuration or physiognomy. As these great
1

Decree on the Church's Missionary Activity

405

(Ad gentes divinitus), n. 7 fin.

406

ARMANDO BANDERA

stages are differing manifestations of one sole plan of salvation,
no one of them can be correctly understood except in relation
to the last and definitive stage; this one alone fully incarnates
God's plan. Even during its life here on earth the People of
God " is marked with a genuine though imperfect holiness:' 2
that is, imperfect as compared with the definitive holiness of
the life to come.
Presupposing the essential ordination of each stage to the
next and of all of them to the last and definitive stage, it is
possible, however, to examine specifically the characteristics of
one of these stages in order to determine what the composition
or constitution of the People of God is at a given moment,
without losing sight of the fact that its full constitution will be
achieved at the end of time. 8
The Present Stage of the People of God
For evident reasons which need no explanation, everything
that relates to the composition or constitution of the People of
God during the present stage holds special interest for us, since
this stage is situated between the preparation and the ultimate
consummation. This situation makes clear to us that the
People of God among whom we live should display characteristics of the transitoriness linking it with the earlier phase, as
well as anticipations of the permanence which lead it to the
threshold of full union with Christ in the glory of the Father.
The present stage of the People of God can be defined as
that of fullness in the faith, 4 of historical fullness, of sacraDogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen gentium), n. 48.
This typically eschatological view of the Church or People of God was habitual
among the great masters of theology, as can be seen in St. Thomas Aquinas,
Summa Theol., III, q. 8, a. 3. Full incorporation into the Church or People of
will
God or Body of Christ is achieved in glory, where the essence of the
be fully manifested. When the eschatological view was lost, there arose the error
of regarding this way of speaking among the great masters to be inexact, if not
dangerous. The renewed ecclesiology which we have today rectifies the preceding·
deviation and is situated along the line of those masters whose doctrine fits in
with the great riches afforded especially through Vatican II.
• Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum), nos. 4 and 8.
2

3

THE COMPOSITION

OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD

407

mental fullness. 5 All these formulas, and others like them
which could be proposed, express one and the same fundamental idea. A stage of faith can be had only in this life; yet,
by speaking of a full faith, any new public revelation in this
world is excluded, so that the stage which follows must consist
in the clear vision of God. Similarly, historical fullness, on the
one hand, includes history, that is, anything that touches the
People of God in its earthly condition; and, on the other hand,
since it is the fullness of this same history, it implies that
there can be no expectation of a later historical stage but only
the victory over all mutability by entrance into the unchangeable repose of God, " resting " from the works of this world
" as God rested from his works." 6
If one speaks of sacramental fullness, the same ideas are
expressed in a more concrete and compact form. The sacraments really imply transitoriness and a state of pilgrimage,
since in them is reflected " the appearance of this passing
world," 7 that is, the image of a " world " which needs symbols
to go towards God and to be united with him. Yet, at the same
time, the sacraments orient us directly towards the definitive
term of our salvation; the sacraments prefigure eternal life,8
since they unite us fully with Jesus Christ as author of our
salvation. This is realized most especially in the Eucharist,
which, if we may be allowed the paradox, can be defined as
bliss in darkness, since in it Jesus Christ is present really and
substantially as object of our blessedness, though under symbols which call forth from us the exercise of faith. The
Eucharist expresses in the highest way imaginable the proper
condition of the People of God in its present phase, which is
a state of faith, of history, and of symbols, under which is
contained the selfsame reality which will be manifested in its
fullness in the life to come.
Lumen gentium, nos. 1 and 48.
Hebrews 4: 10.
7 Lumen gentium, n. 48.
8 St. Thomas indicates this relation to eternal life as one of the elements included
in the very notion of sacrament (cf. Summa Theol., III, q. 60, a. 3).
5
6

408

ARMANDO BANDERA

We are used to speaking of the beginning of the life of
heaven; but in reality there is much more involved than a mere
beginning. We are not "foreign visitors" but "part of God's
household," 9 that is, his sons regenerated " through water and
the Spirit." 10 This closeness to the final state is precisely what
causes the movement of the People of God towards blessedness
to be much stronger at this time than in pre-Christian times.
St. Paul's words, "I want to be gone and be with Christ, which
would be very much the better," 11 expresses very vividly the
force and sureness with which the People of God seek for
fulfilment in the world beyond.
However, despite the perfection of the present state and its
immediate nearness to final glory, one can never ignore the
basic fact that, in this world, the People of God are subject to
limitations, arising from various causes which we need not treat
here. 12 All these limitations introduce into the prefection of the
Church or the People of God an element of relativity which has
manifold repercussions, above all when we consider that the
Church is not merely an exterior reality capable of being
understood and explained by human resources alone but a
mystery that calls for the exercise of faith. The content of
faith, though always the same for all men, can be understood in
varying degrees of penetration according to the differences of
each man's condition. All this enlarges the complexity of the
problem of the constitution of the People of God in this world
and demands nuances which we shall try to establish in a
general way in the following pages.

"To Belong" and "To Be Related"
Both the complexity of the problem and the need fo:r fine
shades of meaning come strikingly to mind in a paragraph very
characteristic of Vatican II:
• Eph. 2:19.
Jn. 3:5.
11 Phil. 1:23.
12 To gTasp this fact in its deepest source, it is enough to recall what Vatican II
says about the limitations of the kingdom of Christ in this world (cf. Decree on
the Apostolate of the Laity, Apostolicam actuositatem, n. 5).
10

THE COMPOSITION

OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD

409

All men are called to be part of this catholic unity of the People of
God, a unity which is harbinger of the universal peace it promotes.
And there belong [pertinent] to it or are related [ordinantur] to it
in various ways the Catholic faithful as well as all who believe in
Christ, and indeed the whole of mankind. For all men are called
to salvation by the grace of God. 13

The complexity of the paragraph is as evident as its compactness. The position of men in relation to the Church is defined
by two basic concepts: to belong and to be related, that is,
some persons belong to the Church whereas others are related
to it. Obviously the first supposes a greater perfection, since
there can be no doubt that to belong to the Church is much
more than to be related to it.
These two fundamental concepts of belonging and being
related can be realized or become incarnate among men " in
various ways." For belonging to the Church does indeed take
place in different modes, depending on whether the members
are children or adults, just or sinners; and even within these
categories conditions can differ enormously, since not all sinners are attached to sin with the same intensity of will, nor
do all the just possess the grace of justification in the same
degree. In an analogous way, being related to the Church can
take the most diverse forms. Within this " relationship " are
included all the men who do not yet belong to the Church and
who, on the other hand, live in such different religious conditions that it is not possible to consider them to be related
to the Church in an equal manner.
To make this argument concrete it is enough to cite the
example of two extreme cases. Let us consider, on the one side,
a good Jew who believes in God, loves him, hopes for immortal
life and has good relations with his neighbor, in all this following God's word as revealed in the Old Testament. On the other
side, let us take a militant atheist, who not only rejects faith
from his own soul but does everything possible also to uproot
it from all other men. Both are related to the Church. But the
relation of the first contains very great salvific richness, while
13

Lumen gentium, n. IS fin.

410

ARMANDO

BANDERA

that of the second man is extremely weak and is counteracted
by a personal posture consciously hostile to everything that
comes from God as Savior and implies a share in goods leading
to salvation. Men of this type, says Vatican II: "deceived by
the Evil One . . . , living and dying in a world without God,
are subject to utter hopelessness." 14 This implies definitive loss
of the goods of salvation, as well as a complete rupture with the
mystery of the Church. Between these two extremes there
exists an immense variety in the actual manner in which each
man or groups of men are related to the Church. 15 Yet it is
always necessary to maintain that during the present life
every man is really related to the Church and, as he subjects
himself to the power of this relation in greater or lesser degree,
he will receive in a greater or lesser measure goods leading to
salvation.
Man does not establish his relation to the Church by his own
initiative. This is a grace which God gives and which remains
obscure for the person who receives it, so much so that, allowing for exceptional cases, men who are related to the Church
only through this orientation do not come to have an explicit
awareness of it. The Moslem and the Hindu are related to the
Church, but they are not conscious of this ordination. If they
accept the preaching of the Gospel when this is effectively
proposed to them, their situation changes. This, however,
brings up another subject, that is, the means whereby God
grants men the grace of conversion and incorporates them into
the Church, so that they are no longer merely related to her
but truly belong to her. We are not going to enter into so great
a problem now. Our aim in the foregoing arguments has been
to clarify a little the state of the person related to the Church
while the situation continues.
All of this serves to show the complexity and compactness
of the ideas which Vatican II expressed in the paragraph quoted
14 Ibid., n. 16. Cf. also Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World
(Gaudium et spes), nos. 13 and 37.
15 In this regard it is enough to concentrate on the categories or forms of ordination indicated by Lumen gentium, n. 16 and Ad gentes divinitus, n. 10.

THE COMPOSITION

OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD

411

above. As yet we have not given our attention to a detail
which is very important. The Council, on the one hand,
reduces the immense number of conditions in which men can
be found with regard to the Church to two basic situations,
namely, either belonging or being related to the Church. But
the same Council, on the other hand, having reduced the
situations to two, distinguishes three groups of men: " the
Catholic faithful," " the others who believe in Christ," and the
rest of men. At first sight it would seem obvious that, if there
are two situations, there would be two groups; yet the Council
points out three.
This anomaly is due neither to a flaw in logic nor much less
to carelessness. The expression here was the subject of much
study and was chosen deliberately. On the one hand, it is clear
that Catholics belong to the Church; on the other, it is clear
that those who have not received the Gospel as yet "are
related ... to the People of God." 16 However, in the Constitution on the Church the Council did not wish to state precisely
what is the exact situation of " the others who believe in
Christ," that is, non-Catholic Christians; these men find themselves neither in the situation of the Catholic nor in that of
the person who is still ignorant of the Gospel. Speaking in
general terms, we could say that they are in an intermediate
situation, although the word " intermediate " is inadequate,
since it conveys the idea of equidistance from the extremes; such
is not found in this concrete case, since the distance between a
man who knows Christ and another who never heard of him is
always much greater than that which can exist among those
who hold differing opinions about the teachings and work
of Christ.
Non-Catholic Christians, that is, all those we commonly
designate by the expression separated brethren, are closer to
belonging to the Church than merely being related, if their
situation is taken collectively. Within this very great mass of
persons there are also extremely varied conditions, so that
16

Lumen gentium, n. 16.

41Q

ARMANDO

BANDERA

some are not very different from those who have only a relation
to the Church. Nevertheless, their corporate situation is one of
greater closeness. At any rate, Vatican II in its Constitution
on the Church does not place such persons definitely in either
of the two great categories or gTOups, that is, neither among
those who belong to the Church nor among those who are
simply related to her. In other documents the Council is more
precise with regard to the concrete situation in which the
separated brethern are actually found. But of this we shall treat
later. Nevertheless, we must say now that the Council was
unable afterwards to find a simple formula to describe the
situation of all these men, since the situation in itself is complex. That is to say, since it is characterized by such contrasted
features as, for example, nearness and distance, it cannot be
expressed by a simple formula, which would necessarily have to
be partial, one-sided, and incomplete. One cannot dream of
a magic power in formulas which changes the real situation, nor
did Vatican II ever intend this. Nevertheless, the Council,
despite the fact that it was facing a problem which would
place necessary limitations on it, did achieve considerable progress in comparison with the earlier papal teaching which, on
this particular subject, is represented principally by the Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis of Pius XII.
Pius XII settled upon two groups, namely, Catholics and
separated brethren. The former fully belong to the Church as
its members, the latter are only " related to her by desire and
wish." 17 The relation of which the pope speaks has a greater
scope than relation as understood by Vatican II. Yet the very
fact that the Council does not use this concept to define the
situation of this class of believers opens the road to a search
for a terminology which would be better suited to the reality,
since it is beyond doubt that the concept of relation leads one
to think only of weak and very distant ties with the Church,
when the fact is that numerous groups of separated brethren
are very close to the fullness of the Church.
17

Pius XII, Mystici corporis (AAS, 35 [1943], 243).

THE COMPOSITION

OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD

413

Pius XII does not speak of the relation of the rest of mankind with the Church except implicitly, when he affirmed with
all Christian tradition that all mankind is called to belong to
the Church, or, inversely, that the Church was founded for all
men without distinction. But the pope makes an important
point which does not appear in the passage from Vatican II
we have just explained. It is the idea of the mediation of the
Church to all mankind who are still ignorant of the Gospel.
Pius XII expresses this by saying that Christ embraces the
human race, that is, he bestows on men the goods of salvation
through his spouse the Church. 18 As a result of this action of
Christ upon humanity through the Church, the entire human
race returns or is related to Christ through the mediation of the
Church. This cannot be effected without a relation to the
Church itself.
The personal teachings of Pius XII and those of Vatican II
are identical in content. Nevertheless, the Council, by the very
act of considering the problem in its full complexity and by
avoiding the term relation to express the aggregate of !'elations
between the separated brethren and the Catholic Church, opem;
up great possibilities of doctrinal progress in this matter and
expedites the practical progress of ecumenism. From the time
of the Encyclical Mystici Corporis of Pius XII to the promulgation of the Council's Constitution on the Church twenty
years went by during which the greatest effort in the whole
history of theology took place in ecclesiology. It is natural that
a labor of this nature should have produced fruit.
Recapitulating all that has been said, we can affirm some
clear conclusions, which it suffices here to state: Catholics
belong to the People of God; those who have not yet received
the Gospel are only related to this People; the separated
brethren, taken collectively, are much closer to belonging than
to being related. We intend to determine the degree of this
belonging on the basis of the Decree on Ecumenism, which,
although it is a document of a lower rank than the Constitution
'" Ibid., pp. £39-240.

414

ARMANDO BANDERA

on the Church, stands out clearly, nevertheless, among those
most representative of the new theological mentality produced
by Vatican II. Looking back at the
we have just
proposed, we see at once the extreme cases of mere relation to
the Church are represented by the Jew and the militant atheist.
The maximum degree is found in the former, the minimum in
the latter.

"Subsistence"

of the People of God in this World

The above explanation has familiarized us with some fundamental concepts of Vatican II regarding the constitution or
composition of the People of God in this world. To penetrate
the depth of these concepts we must now consider further each
of the large groups of men indicated by the Council: Catholics,
separated brethren, and the rest of mankind. Following the
order of the Council itself, we begin with the Catholics.
The chief statement of Vatican II on this point is contained
in the following words: The People of God in this world
" subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the
successor of Peter and by the bishops in union with that
successor." 19 In this way the general teaching of the Council
concerning the People of God acquires a concrete determination. The People of God subsists [subsistit] in the Catholic
Church. A little later on we shall see how this word " subsists,"
which was not used in the vocabulary of ecclesiology before
the Council, has a very full and precise meaning, which would
be difficult to express by any other word.
The foregoing statement of the Council has various parallel
places which we are going to repeat in order to obtain a concilar
perspective wide enough to allow us an exact overall idea.
According to the Council, the Church " is a kind of sacrament
or sign" and "instrument" of salvation. 20 Now this concept,
attributed to the Church without further clarification, is made
concrete in the Catholic Church. According to the Council,
19

20

Lumen gentium, n. 8.
Ibid., n. I. Cf. also nos, 9 and 48.

THE COMPOSITION

OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD

415

the Catholic Church is effectively " the all-embracing means of
salvation," and it is only through her " that the fullness of the
means of salvation can be obtained." 21 The only difference
which can be noted between these passages is merely verbal
and involves the substitution of the word sacrament for the
composite expression all-embracing means [generale auxilium J
which was more in use in the theological vocabulary immediately prior to the Council. The doctrine contained in both
expressions is totally identical.
This idea of the concrete realization of the Church or
the People of God in the Catholic Church is set forth by the
Council under another form, which consists in identifying the
hierarchical structure, willed by Christ for the community of
his faithful, with the college of bishops presided over by the
pope. Let us examine the texts.
In order to establish this holy Church of his everywhere in the
world until the end of time, Christ entrusted to the College of the
Twelve the task of teaching, ruling, and sanctifying. Among their
number he chose Peter. After Peter's profession of faith, he decreed
that on him he would buiid his Church; to Peter he promised the
keys of the kingdom of heaven. After Peter's profession of love,
Christ entrusted all his sheep to him to be confirmed in faith and
shepherded in perfect unity. Meanwhile, Christ Jesus himself forever remains the chief cornerstone and shepherd of our souls.22
Yet, on the other hand, we know that this organization
established by Christ is definitively found in the Catholic
Church " governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops
who are in communion with him." 23
Finally, we can add an argument of a general nature which,
in one form or another, is present in almost all the conciliar
documents. In fact, when we read these documents we see
21 Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis redintegratio), n. 8.
•• Ibid., n.
Cf. also nos. 9 and 48.
•• Lumen gentium, n. 8. A fuller development of this point would demand 11.
delineation of the relations existing between the episcopal college, presided over by
the pope, and the apostolic college, presided over by Peter. Naturally we shall not
go into this theme, which Vatican II treated especially in Lumen gentium, nos.
and

416

ARMANDO BANDERA

without any possible doubt that Christians not integrated into
the Catholic Church are, on the one hand, brethren but, on the
other hand, separated; that is, in their situation there are
positive values which make them truly brethren; but there is
also something negative, there is separation, there is rupture,
and therefore the lack o£ some or many means o£ salvation
given by Christ. Since the People instituted by Christ cannot
be lacking in anything that leads to salvation, it is obvious that
where this lack exists, one cannot find the People o£ God with
the fullness proper to it. This fullness, on the contrary, is found
in the Catholic Church, which is the all-embracing means of
salvation and "has been endowed with all divinely revealed
truth and with all means o£ grace." 24
Now we have before our eyes a broad view o£ conciliar
teaching which allows us to contemplate £rom different angles
a truth o£ capital importance to us, that is, that the People o£
God subsists in the Catholic Church. For this reason everything Vatican II says in the other documents about the Church
or the People o£ God in general must be understood in the
concrete o£ the Catholic Church. By this we are not trying to
take away the value and importance that other Christian
confessions possess £or the Christian disposition o£ the things
o£ this world and the attainment o£ salvation. All o£ this we
grant, o£ course, and we shall explain it at greater length later
on. What concerns us now is to establish solidly one o£ the
extremes, namely, the clear affirmation made by Vatican II
that the People o£ God subsists in the Catholic Church. In the
Council's teaching we shall encounter many other complementary statements which give to this first one its own precise
meaning o£ this basic truth within an overall synthesis. But
before reaching tile synthesis, it is necessary to analyze the
themes. Like every other analysis, this one demands the treatment o£ one thing after another, so that we reserve £or each
matter the place that belongs to it.
•• Unitatia redintegratio, n. 4.

THE COMPOSITION

OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD

417

"To Subsist" and "To Be"
We have indicated earlier that the verb to subsist was introduced into the vocabulary of ecclesiology by Vatican II to
express the relation of identity between the People of God and
the Catholic Church. Ecclesiology before the Council made use
of the verb to be for this purpose. Whereas preconciliar ecclesiology said that the People of God is the Catholic Church, the
Council says that the People of God subsists in the Catholic
Church. At first sight, the preconciliar statement seems simpler
and clearer, since the verb to subsist used by the Council gives
the impression o£ being overly academic. We shall see, however, that the Council's term is not only exact but that it
contains besides an enormous advance as regards the recognition of the ecclesial values of other Christian confessions. To
do this, we shall begin by locating the Council's expression to
subsist in its proper context.

History and Context of a Council Term
The introduction of the verb to subsist was the result of a
debate which focused on the appropriateness of using to
subsist or to be. Only during the final stages of the elaboration
of the Constitution on the Church was the verb to be set aside.
This historical circumstance clearly shows us that Vatican II
made the change in full awareness of the reason and with a
precise purpose of which we shall speak later.
Once the term was chosen to be inserted into the Constitution on the Church, the Council introduced it also into other
documents to express concepts which have an intimate relation
with the theme that now concerns us. So, for example, treating
of unity, the Council manifests its desire that all Christians will
be gathered "into that unity ... which Christ bestowed on
his Church .... This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic
Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it
will continue to increase until the end of time." 25 What is
affirmed at first of the Church in general is later applied to one
26

Ibid., n. 4.

418

ARMANDO BANDERA

of her essential properties, unity. The same could be said also
of holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity, since these, too, are
properties of the Church of Christ which subsist in the Catholic
Church. The Council, however, makes this application explicit
only when it treats of unity.
Again, the verb to subsist appears in regard to the relation
between the Catholic religion and other religions. God, says
the Council, " has made known to mankind the way in which
men are to serve him, and thus be saved in Christ and come to
blessedness. We believe that this one true religion subsists in
the catholic and apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus
committed the duty of spreading it abroad among all men." 26
Keeping in mind that the term religion, according to the
vocabulary of the Council, means not just a catalogue of truths
or external practices but embraces also the totality of the
human person in his relations with God and neighbor, the statement that the one religion willed by God subsists in the
Catholic Church acquires a singular value and is equivalent to
saying that in the Catholic Church are found or subsist the
whole of revelation and all the means of salvation given by
God to men. This is a new way of proclaiming, in less customary terms, that the Church is the universal "sacrament" of
salvation though which grace comes to men, since Christ, who
founded the new People "as a fellowship of life, charity, and
truth, uses it also as an instrument for the redemption of all,
and sends it forth into the whole world as the light of the world
and the salt of the earth." 27
We now have a view of a selection of passages from Vatican
II which, despite the diversity of subjects to which they refer,
echo an identical concern. One verbal feature of this concern
is the use of the verb to subsist instead of the verb to be, a
practice which takes on special significance if we recall that it
does not come from a spontaneous choice of words based on
earlier usage but the outcome of a debate and of an effort to
clarify ideas.
•• Declaration on Religious Freedom
27 Lumen gentium, n. g.

(D-ignitatis humanae), n. 1.

THE COMPOSITION

OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD

419

The Intention and Thought of the Council
On this solid foundation it is easy for us to take the next step
to explain the profound intention of Vatican II. As everyone
knows, one of the great preoccupations of the Council was to
show that in the Catholic Church are concentrated or integrated all the goods leading to salvation, affirming at the
same time the value of these goods when any one of them or
many are found outside the Catholic Church. 28 Certainly, the
circumstance of being found outside the Catholic Church
lessens the salvific efficacy of these goods, but just as surely
this efficacy, although diminished, remains and plays an important role in the history of salvation/ 9 until the day of the
Lord comes.
Affirming the superior excellence of the Catholic Church and
safeguarding the goods of salvation existing outside of her
necessitate the use of a finely nuanced vocabulary. If, for
example, Vatican II had said that the Church of Christ is the
Catholic Church, that the unity intended by Christ is Catholic
unity, that the religion willed by Christ is the Catholic religion,
we would have a collections of statements susceptible, no
doubt, of a correct explanation but open also to erroneous interpretations. Hence, to say that the Church of Christ is the
Catholic Church runs the risk of implying that other Christian
confessions are in no way communities endowed with ecclesial
reality. Then the comparison between the Catholic Church
and the other confessions would amount to a comparison
between one community in which the whole ecclesial reality
willed by Christ is concentrated and other communities which
possess nothing of this reality. Such a way of understanding
the matter is radically false, not for what it attributes to the
Catholic Church but for what is denied to the other confessions.
Unitatis redintegratio, n. 3; Lumen gentium, n. 15.
Unitatis redintegratio, n. 3; Lumen gentium, n. 16; Ad gentes divinitu8', n. 10;
Declaration on the Relationship of the Chnrch to Non-Christian Religions
(NoB'tras aetate), nos. 2-4.
28

29

420

ARMANDO BANDERA

As regards unity and religion an analogous argument can be
used, that is, it is possible to think that unity and religion exist
in the Catholic Church in such a way that nowhere else are
found either the elements of unity proceeding from Christ or
any religious value capable of putting man in contact with
God. In these cases, as in the preceding one, one cannot object
to the fullness attributed to the Catholic Church; yet one cannot concede the totally negative assertion about other Christian
confessions or about non-Christian religions.
To avoid any possibility of understanding the matter in this
way, Vatican II abandoned the use of the verb to be and
adopted instead the verb to subsist. When the Council says
that the Church, the unity, and the religion willed by Christ
subsist in the Catholic Church, it states that this Church
possesses the fulness of the goods and means of salvation
instituted by Christ in such a way that in her is reflected fully
the plan of salvation and that the image of Christ himself
shines there inasmuch as he is the author of this salvation. The
subsisting of the plan of salvation in the Catholic Church
causes her to be effectively the image of Christ analogous to
the way Christ is the image of the Father. 30
Yet this manner of affirming the fullness which belongs to
the Catholic Church does not afford any basis for a negative
judgment concerning other confessions or religions. On the contrary, the very fact of attributing to the Catholic Church the
embodiment of the subsistence or fullness of the salvific plan
presupposes the acknowledgment that there are diverse participations of this same plan which, without attaining the fullness
which would enable them to subsist, have a true salvific content
which proceeds from God and which, therefore, can lead men
to God.
The degrees of participation in the goods and means of
salvation, as well as the salvific efficacy derived from this
participation, differ enormously. Yet, wherever there is some
30 The theme of the Church as the image of Christ was fully developed by Paul
VI in his Allocution at the opening of the second session of Vatican IT. Cf. AAS,
55 (1963)' 845-852.

THE COMPOSITION

OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD

49ll

form of participation there must be a principle which acts upon
men in a positive way to orient them towards God and enable
them to find salvation in him. Since these are always limited
participations, they cannot subsist or be efficacious of themselves. We can say that, as regards their salvific purposes, they
exist only inasmuch as they adhere to the Catholic Church in
some way and in proportion to the measure of this adherence.
In the Catholic Church is the subsisting fullness of salvation;
outside of her there are participations which, on the one hand,
must rest upon this fullness and, on the other, must tend towards it. We believe that this is exactly the thought of Vatican
II. In its documents we read that the salvific efficacy of
separated Christian confessions " is derived from the very
fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church," 31
and that the elements of sanctification and truth existing in
these confessions " possess an inner dynamism toward Catholic
unity." 32

Full and Participated Member ship
Having recourse to an analogy from the physical order we
can argue in the following way. Just as the fullness of being
exists only in the subsisting Being, from which proceed and
towards which are ordered all other beings, so too, in all due
proportion, the fullness of the plan of salvation subsists in the
Catholic Church in which all those religious expressions which
have a true salvific content share and to which they are
ordered. Thus, just as the limited being which creatures share
is true being, so, too, the limited participations of the salvific
plan existing outside of Catholic fullness are true participations
of one true salvation. On the basis of these explanations it is
now possible to express in a concrete and simple way the
relation existing between the Catholic Church and the separated Christian confessions. The Catholic Church is the total,
full, subsistent realization of the People of God as Christ
founded it; the other confessions are partial or incomplete
Unitatis redintegratio, n. 3.
•• Lumen gentium, n. 8.

31

422

ARMANDO

RANDERA

realizations of this same People. For this reason, the truth
found in its fullness in the Catholic Church is found also, in
a partial and incomplete manner, in the other Christian
confessions.
From this follows a conclusion of major importance in the
practical order. If, for example, a confession actually separated
becomes united to the Catholic Church, it does not disappear
nor is it destroyed; rather it is brought to perfection and
attains the fullness to which it tends by a dynamism inherent
in the goods of salvation which it already possessed. Thus,
just as the end of a journey is not the destruction of the voyage
but its natural completion, so too, making due allowance for
the analogy, union with the Catholic Church is not the extinction of the other confessions but represents the attainment of
their fullness.
If the separated confessions are partial realizations of the
People of God, of the Church of Christ, they possess also in
a partial way an ecclesial reality, that is, they are communities
organized and sanctified by virtue of one element or many that,
by the will of Christ, pertain to the constitution of his Church.
The partial realization of Christ's will for the Church in separated confessions is a basic principle for judging everything
related to these confessions. Although they do not have the
fullness of the salvific means given by Christ, yet those means
which they do preserve are authentically Christian and identical with those used in the Catholic Church. Thus, for example,
Baptism, if valid, is the same everywhere; and this can be said
of any sacrament, as long as it is a true sacrament instituted
by Christ.
Any community formed by these means of salvation possesses a true ecclesial reality, even though it has it only in part.
And this reality, insofar as it is true and ecclesial, is not
merely similar to but strictly identical with that which is found
in the Catholic Church. The fullness of the Catholic Church
does not consist in her baptism being better or more efficacious
that that of the other confessions but rather in possessing,
along with baptism. all the other means of salvation, while the

THE COMPOSITION

OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD

423

other confessions always lack something and are precisely for
that reason separated. One must always return to the principle that the Catholic Church fully incarnates a reality which
the other confessions incarnate only partially. The Catholic
Church is the fullness of the Church, the other confessions are
participations in the Church in unequal degrees which depend
on the concrete situation of each confession.
According to Vatican II the ecumenical apostolate is directed
to confessions as such, not immediately to persons. 33 However,
although the apostolate directed towards individual persons is
distinct from the ecumenical, it cannot be properly exercised
except within an ecumenical atmosphere. This demands that
the situation of the non-Catholic be acknowledged in all its
values and that the step towards Catholicism appear to be not
a disapproval of what went before but the culmination or fullness towards which the previous status was ordered by its
very nature .. This psychological atmosphere which this type of
apostolate should involve was very well defined by Paul VI
when he said: "The door is open ... ; the step to clear it can
be given honorably." 34 It is a step which does not mean a
break but rather complete consistency with truths already
accepted. As the Council says: "Baptism is thus oriented
toward a complete profession of faith, a complete incorporation
into the system of salvation such as Christ himself willed it to
be, and finally, toward a complete participation in Eucharistic
communion." 35 The step that leads to all these forms of
fullness can surely be taken honorably.

The Vocabulary of Vatican II and of Pius XII
In Pius XII there is the culmination of a literary tradition
which we can now consider as antiquated and surpassed. This
is the tradition which used to express the relations between the
Church or People of God and the Catholic Church by the verb
Unitatis redintegratio, n. 4.
Paul VI, "Message to the World from Bethlehem," Jan. 1, 1964 (AAS, 56,
175).
35 Unitatis redintegratio, n. 22.
33

34

424

ARMANDO BANDERA

to be, with the consequent affirmation that the People of God
is the Catholic Church and vice versa. The most explicit and
clearcut statement in this direction was made by Pius XII
when he said that " the Mystical Body of Christ and the
Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing: unum
idemque esse." 36 Taken in the precise sense intended by the
pope and confirmed by the whole preceding tradition, this
statement expresses an indubitable truth which must always
be maintained and which, of itself, does not imply lack of
esteem, and even less not any denial, of the ecclesial goods
possessed by the separated confessions. The popes, especially
from the time of Leo XIII and notably as regards the separated
Oriental confessions, repeatedly called attention to the close
bonds between them and the Catholic Church. All of this
remains intact in the statement of Pius XII. However, it
must be recognized that, objectively considered, such a statement is not the best and that it can afford a pretext for wrong
interpretations, as we have already mentioned. For this reason,
the development of ecumenical studies and the greater sensitivity which these studies awaken have given an urgency to
the task of seeking a vocabulary completely adjusted to the
objective situation and capable of excluding every possibility of
false interpretation in this very delicate matter. Progress in
this regard was achieved by the Council, progress which has its
more visible manifestation in the wording of the new formula
and yet, at the same time, opens great possibilities for doctrinal
progress.
If we take all of this into account, we can explain, on the
one hand, the resistance of some theologians to the vocabulary
of Pius XII and, on the other hand, the full objective coherence
between the teaching of this pope, which represents the whole
preceding tradition, and the teaching of Vatican II, while at the
same time recognizing the great verbal and doctrinal progresg
achieved by the Council. We think that in this way each matter
is put in its proper place. Nor can one fall into the huge error
86

Pius XII, Humani generis (AAS, 42 [1950], 571).

THE COMPOSITION

OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD

425

of thinking that Vatican II limited itself to sanctioning things
already accepted and perceived by all, nor is there even the
slightest basis for saying that the Council liquidated the
ecumenical teaching prevalent during the previous period. The
Council summarized and enriched the common heritage and
gave it a more precise expression as the result of examining the
problem under all of its aspects and in relation to the totality
of the doctrine professed by the Church. We can say that the
Council made ecumenism pass from an initial phase, in which
it is necessary above all to see to the consolidation of what is
primary, to another stage of development and expansion.
Vatican II achieved a similar advance in the question of the
relations between the Catholic Church and non-Christian religions. The distance between these religions and the separated
Christian confessions is so great that one may not argue on the
basis of the same criterion in both cases. However, working
from the principle of safeguarding all good existing outside the
Catholic Church, the Council made an important advance also
in the subject. In these religions are found "rays " of that
Truth which enlightens men and "subsists" in fullness in the
Catholic Church. 37

Variety within the Catholic Church
We have just seen that the full or" subsistent" embodiment
of the People of God during its earthly stage is the Catholic
Church. Separated Christian confessions approach this fullness
to a greater or lesser degree and non-Christian religions possess,
or at least can possess, some of its " rays." This basic problem
resolved, we can now turn to the inner life of the Catholic
Church in order to study its constitution, which is precisely
what God has willed for His People, since, as we have already
said, this People is realized or embodied with subsistent fullness in the Catholic Church. In keeping with the principle of
analyzing before trying to synthesize, we shall first study the
elements of diversification existing within the Catholic Church.
37

Nostrae aetate, n.

426

ARMANDO BANDERA

Then we shall see how all her elements are mutually coordinated.
"Not only, then, is the People of God made up of different
peoples but even in its inner structure it is composed of various
ranks." 38 By these words the Council expresses two different
categories of diversity, namely, that which affects persons by
reason of their ethnic origin and that which comes forth from
the ecclesial organism itself in which, as in every organism,
there is a "variety from the members and functions." 39 The
first category of diversity is somewhat external to the Church
as such; the second, on the other hand, is inherent and intrinsically constitutive.

Diversity of Origin
The diversity derived from ethnic orgin could appear to be
strange in itself, in view of the concept we sometimes have
regarding the Church, but also expressly contrary to another
statement of Vatican II. The Council says that " there is in
Christ and in the Church no inequality on the basis of race or
nationality, social condition or sex." 40 If none of these introduces inequality, its seems that diversity of origin should have
no reverberation in the Church and consequently should not
be taken into account to explain variety within the Church
itself.
If we examine the problem more closely, however, we see
that one cannot come to this conclusion, nor is there any
opposition among the various statements of the Council. When
the Council rejects any type of inequality which has its origin
in race or nationality, social condition or sex, it is referring
tacitly to one of the world's most serious problems, namely,
discrimination, by which certain rights, which are of themselves
common to all, are unjustly limited to citizens of a determinate
race, nationality, social condition, or sex. The Church com··
pletely excludes from her inmost being any type of discrimina88 Lumen gentium, n. 13.
•• Ibid., n. 7.
' 0 Ibid., n.

THE COMPOSITION

OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD

tion in favor of some members and against others. However,
it does not follow, not even remotely, from this that qualities
inherent in race, nationality, social condition, or sex are in no
way present in the Church. It is enough to consider marriage,
for example, which, on the one hand, is a sacrament belonging
to the unchangeable constitution of the Church, and, on the
other hand, can only be contracted between a man and a
woman; that is, marriage presupposes difference of sex and is
established upon this differentiation. Nevertheless, this difference implied in the sacrament has nothing to do with discriminatory theories or practices which attempt to reserve the right
to contract marriage to certain groups or which limit the
possibilities of the choice of mate.
Within the Church discrimination is rejected. 41 At the same
time, however, there is room for every legitimate diversity no
matter where it comes from. The number of the Constitution
on the Church where the Council rejects every type of discrimination begins clearly with these words: "By divine institution Holy Church is structured and governed with wonderful
diversity." 42 The problem lies in determining how the diversity
inherent in qualities of the natural order, such as race, nationality, social condition, or sex, can be present within the Church
and modify its proper life, that is, the life of salvation. The
same Council provides sufficient instruction on this important
problem. The principle from which everything else flows is
stated by the Council in these words: " This characteristic of
universality which adorns the People of God is a gift from the
Lord himself. By reason of it, the Catholic Church strives
energetically and constantly to bring all humanity with all its
riches back to Christ its Head in the unity of his Spirit." 43 In
virtue of this principle everything that is genuinely human has
its place within the Church. Furthermore, moved by the Holy
Spirit, the Church is conscious of the obligation to work to
integrate this within her own life by preserving the proper
Concerning this theme cf. Gaudium et spes, n. 29; Nostrae aetate, n. 5.
Lumen gentium, n. 32.
•• Ibid., n. 13.
41

42

428

ARMANDO BANDERA

characteristic of this human reality and making it serve, by
the gift of God, the work of salvation. The Council goes on to
say that, in bringing the kingdom of God to humanity, the
Church" takes nothing away from the temporal welfare of any
people by establishing that kingdom. Rather does she foster
and take to herself, insofar as they are good, the ability, resources, and customs of each people." 44
This way of expressing the consciousness of the Church
concerning the bonds uniting it with the genuinely human
patrimony of various peoples demands, as a necessary consequence, that the various goods of that patrimony and all of
them together survive within the Church; with this they
acquire a new value, that is, the value which results from their
insertion into the Church in virtue of which they are apt to
lead man to salvation whose only author and finisher is Christ.
The Church welcomes to her bosom any form of healthy
pluralism, since everything that is healthy comes from God,
and it not only does not impede salvation but contributes to
the more effective attainment of it. In this postconciliar period
attention has been focused on pluralism especially in the
liturgical field. If we compare the present situation with the
uniformity of the previous period, we become immediately
aware of the magnitude of the change; nevertheless, we have
not, as yet, reached the end of the progress which can be
made in this direction.
The acceptance of racial and ethnic differences, as well as
any other type, together with their incorporation into the
Church, should be regarded as one of the basic points of the
teaching on the missions developed within Vatican II. The
principle passage on this point follows:
Theological investigation must necessarily be stirred up in each
major socio-cultural area, as it is called. In this way, under the light
of the tradition of the universal Church, a fresh scrutiny will be
brought to bear on the deeds and words which God has made
known, which have been consigned to Sacred Scripture, and which
have been unfolded by the Church Fathers and the teaching
u

Ibid.

THE COMPOSITION

OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD

429

authority of the Church. Thus it will be more clearly seen in what
ways faith can seek for understanding in the philosophy and
wisdom of these peoples. A better view will be gained of how
their customs, outlook on life, and social order can be reconciled
with the manner of living taught by divine revelation. As a result,
avenues will be opened for a more profound adaptation in the whole
area of Christian life. Thanks to such a procedure, every appearance of syncretism and of false particularism can be excluded, and
Christian life can be accommodated to the' genius and dispositions
of each culture. Particular traditions, together with the individual
patrimony of each family of nations, can be illumined by the light
of the gospeU 5

The possibilities contained in this program are unlimited.
For its effective realization and adequate guidance there is
required the presence of an " authority " which plans and
directs. This is the task which the Council entrusts to the
Conferences of Bishops in each great socio-cultural territory. 46
All these types of diversity directly affecting the style of
Christian life partially germinate from pluralism already existing and partially stimulate it. At the same time, because of the
ease of communication among the various parts of the world,
a new phenomenon is realized which tends to produce bonds of
higher unity among distinct cultures. Hence one cannot consider that the contact of one culture with another terminates
in a simple juxtaposition of the two. Cultures cross-fertilize
and enrich one another and impel the human mind to ever
higher goals. To be able to foretell where the diversities with a
higher unity will be manifested in the life of the Church as a
result of the encounter and compenetration of cultures, it would
be necessary to make a specialized study of the whole second
chapter in the second part of the Constitution on the Church
in the Modern World. We shall not go into that matter here.
For our purpose we think that the explanation of the principle
which we have just given is sufficient.
'" Ad gentes divinitus, n. 22.
•• Ibid. Some further determinations on the way to put this order of the
Council into practice can be seen in the third part of the Motu Proprio, Ecclesiae
Sanctae, n. 18 (AAS, 58 [1966], 786).

480

ARMANDO BANDERA

Diversity of Origin and Organic Diversity
As explained, diversity proceeding from origin is always
somewhat external to the Church in the sense that the goods
of salvation, which are the things that properly constitute the
Church, do not demand of themselves such a diversity; this
proceeds rather from below, that is, from the earthly situation
of the man who received the message of salvation. However,
it is not a question either of a diversity which can be described
as merely external, since salvation builds upon it, takes it and
makes it effectively serve its own purposes. Salvation is of
such a nature as to embrace man in his totality, and nothing
that is genuinely human by nature, by custom, or by any other
title, is excluded from its transforming influence. Just as, on
the other hand, salvation during the present stage " subsists "
in the Church or People of God, so it is obvious that human
goods as well, including diversity, belong to this People and
contribute to its constitution.
Admitting all this, however, we must recognize also that
diversity of origin does not flow from salvation as such, nor,
for the same reason, is it necessary for attaining final consummation in the bliss of heaven. Even if the whole human race
formed only one country, had only one culture and accepted
the same customs, the goods of salvation would still not lose
their efficacy, since their power is equally effective whether it
acts on men who are all alike or who are different from one
another. Considered in itself, salvation is "indifferent" to
merely human diversities; it takes them and incorporates them
when they exist, but it does not cause them.
The People of God, which incarnates salvation, can exist
perfectly without these human differences. If the constant
progress of the media of social communication and all the other
causes which condition the life of mankind should arrive at the
total removal of existing diversities,-supposing that such an
elimination could be the term of a genuine progress,-nothing
essential would change in the People of God. Certain modes
of expressing its life would disappear, but its life would be kept

THE COMPOSITION

OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD

431

intact; since, if it is true that the People of God is embodied
in the persons and things of this world, considered in itself,
however, it is not of this world but of God. Just as the Word
assumed human nature, not to depend upon it but to exalt and
transform it into a universal instrument of salvation, so, analogously, the People of God incorporates human diversities in
such a way that it is never subordinated to them but directs
them to the transcendental goal of the salvation which it
brings. 47
With the People of God there is another kind of diversity
which, in contrast to the one due to origin, we can call organic.
[t arises from within this People, flows from the very goods
which constitute it, which are ordered among themselves in
such a way that they demand a variety of offices and functions. It is impossible to make all of them uniform or gather
all of them together in a single person without causing them to
disappear. This sort of diversity is inherent in the People of
God and belongs intrinsically to its constitution.
Whatever may be its concrete realization, the general idea
of a people always involves a relation to a diversity, not merely
numerical because it includes a large number of persons but
also, and principally, qualitative. For a people's life is impossible without a distinction and distribution of functions, all of
which are contained within a hierarchical organization which
orientates all of this to the common good of the people. The
Church or People of God is truly a people and as such is
" organically structured." 48 The criteria and means for structuring this people are original and belong to it exclusively,
that is, they are not derived from copying the structures of the
various peoples in the human race. According to Vatican II,
the structure of the People of God is based on " the sacraments
and the virtues." 49
Among the virtues charity holds the first place, since it is the
"law" of the People of God. 5 ° For this reason the basic destiny
of this people is " to make a simultaneous manifestation and
47
48

Lumen gentium, n. 8.
Ibid., n. 11.

•• Ibid.
Ibid., n. 9.

50

432

ARMANDO

BANDERA

exercise of the mystery of God's love for man." 51 Among the
sacraments it is the Eucharist which best manifests the organically structured character of the People of God. On the one
hand, the celebration of the Eucharist is " the fount and apex
of the whole Christian life," 52 and, on the other, the faithful
participate in this celebration " not, indeed, all in the same way
but each in that way which is appropriate to himself." 53
These principles organization and diversification are completely unknown in the constitutional law of any country in
the world. They are principles given by Jesus Christ himself
when he instituted his Church or his People. It is true that
this People can and should give attention to the structures of
the various nations in order to gain a deeper knowledge of its
own structure. However, basically this structure will always
remain a mystery, a reality which does not flow from the
essential social nature of man and which is not demanded by
this nature but proceeds directly from Christ. Like every
structure, the Church, too, introduces diversification, hierarchy,
order among persons in such a way that it is impossible to think
of a Church whose members would be completely uniform and
undiversified. By its very being the Church or People of God
implies a diversity of elements and persons. However, one
must always keep in mind that this diversity is always hierarchical and ordered to the end that " the new commandment
of charity may be fulfilled by all." 54
This elemental analysis of the concept of the People of God
has been sufficient to show that there exists in it a diversity
which is so intimately connected with its nature that it cannot
be suppressed or changed without attacking what is deepest in
Gaudium et spes, n. 45.
Lumen gentium, n. 11.
53 Ibid.
The idea that the hierarchical structure of the People of God is manifested in the liturgy and especially in the eucharistic celebration is found frequently
in Vatican II, as for example, in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) nos.
41. Cf. also the Instruction, dated May
1967,
given by the " Consilium " for applying the aforementioned Constitution to The
Cult of the Eucharist, n. 16 (AAS, 59, 551).
54 Lumen gentium, n. 32.
51

52

THE COMPOSITION

OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD

433

the very being of this people. We shall arrive at the identical
conclusion if we take as our point of departure other symbols
expressing the People of God, as, for example, the body and
the family. St. Paul often uses the idea of body and applies
it directly to explain the difference of members, gifts, and
functions which cannot be lacking in the Church, just as they
cannot be lacking in the human body. 55 Revelation likewise
abounds in concepts drawn from family life to express the
relations of men with God and among themselves. Using this
basis the Council frequently speaks about the Church as the
family of God. 56 The family demands a diversity of persons
and functions and, at the same time, stamps on the exercise of
these functions a well-defined "style," which consists in love
holding predominance. Analogously, in the Church there is a
diversity, much more complex than that of a natural family,
from which flows a multitude of functions which should be
performed with that spirit of love which is in the concrete the
love of charity. The Council says: "Thus it is evident to
everyone that all the faithful of Christ of whatever rank or
status are called to the fullness of the Christian life and to the
perfection of charity." 57

Concrete Forms of Diversification
The forms of diversification proceeding from origin cannot
be classified. They can increase, decrease and even disappear
without the intimate life of the Church being thereby affected.
By extending a little the concept of diversification bound up
with origin we can include within this category the differences
which characterize the various local churches. As Vatican II
says: " Within the Church particular Churches hold a rightful
place. These Churches retain their own traditions without in
55 A synthesis of St. Paul's ideas, including diversity and the bases upon which
it depends, can be seen in Lumen gentium, n. 7.
56 Concerning this theme cf. E. Marino-G.
di Agresti, 0. P., "Processo evolutivo
nelle imagini della Chiesa. Popolo di Dio o famiglia di Dio? ", Vita Sociale, n. 3
(Pistoia, 1967).
57 Lumen genthtm, n. 40.

434

ARMANDO BANDERA

any way lessening the primacy of the Chair of Peter. This
Chair presides over the whole assembly of charity and protects
legitimate differences, while at the same time it sees that such
differences do not hinder unity but rather contribute toward
it." 58 The traditions of the particular Churches, insofar as they
are proper to these Churches and not directly bound up with
the universal Church, can disappear without detriment to what
is essential. Often they represent a way of understanding and
expressing the Christian life, a way marked by the differences
of origin which prevail in the region and give it its own physiognomy distinct from that of other places. If the differences
based upon origin are not essential to the Church, neither are
any other differences which are founded upon them or which
necessarily presuppose them.
In saying this we do not intend to assert or even vaguely to
suggest that the existence of particular Churches is an accidental phenomenon in the Church or People of God. We are
only saying that the local differences or peculiarities or traditions as local can vary endlessly without affecting in the least
the universal Church in its constitutive elements. Hence it is
impossible to make a list of the legal characteristics or traditions of the Church. Vatican II states that these local traditions correspond to the gentle form whereby divine Providence governs the Church 59 and are concerned chiefly with
discipline, liturgical rites, and the theological and spiritual
heritage of the various regions. 60 Among all these particular
traditions those are of special importance which are found in
the ancient Patriarchal Churches, which the Council calls
" parent-stocks of the faith [matrices fidei]." 61
All these forms of diversification are subject, of themselves,
to great variability, inasmuch as they differ not only from one
Ibid., n. 13.
Ibid., n. 23.
60 Ibid. Cf. also Vnitatis redintegratio, nos. 15-17.
62 Lumen gentium, n. 23.
A fuller development of everything referring to the

58

59

traditions of these Churches and their insertion into the universal Church can be
seen in the Decree on Eastern Catholic Churches (Orientalium Ecclesiarum),
nos. 1-6.

THE COMPOSITION

OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD

435

region to another but also within the same region where the
Church or Rite undergoes notable changes in the course of
time. The ritual forms everywhere usually have a greater
permanence, especially in what we call the "oriental rites."
Yet in itself this does not prevent this kind of diversity from
being very changeable, if it be compared with the permanent
constitution of the Church as such. Besides all these variable
forms of diversity there are others which are permanent. The
Constitution on the Church implies certain diversities which
we call organic, which are as permanent and definite as the
Church from whose nature they come forth as an inner demand.
According to Vatican II the concrete forms of organic diversification within the Church have one of these two bases,
namely, office, condition and state of life.62
a) Clergy and Laity. There is diversity, first of all, by
reason of office. By this the Council means that within the
People of God there are some members consecrated especially
to exercise " the sacred ministry for the good of their brethren." 63 It is a ministry which comes from Christ, is exercised
among men, and has as its aim that the whole People of God
be oriented freely and efficaciously to Christ.
For the nuturing and constant growth of the People of God, Christ
the Lord instituted in his Church a variety of ministries, which
work for the good of the whole body. For these ministers who are
endowed with sacred power are servants of their brethren, so that
all who are of the People of God, and therefore enjoy a true
Christian dignity, can work toward a common goal freely and in an
orderly way, and arrive at salvation. 64

This diversity by reason of office proceeds from the sacrament of Orders instituted by Christ for the precise purpose of
providing pastors or ministers for his Church. 65 Therefore, it
is Jesus Christ himself who by instituting the sacrament of
Orders has introduced into his Church the distinction between
Lumen gentium, nos. 13 and 44.
Ibid., n. 13.
6 ' Ibid., n. 18.
65 Ibid., nn. II,

62

63

486

ARMANDO BANDERA

those who receive this sacrament and all other persons. This
distinction is commonly expressed by the terms clergy and
laity." 6 "By reason of their particular vocation" the clerics
" are chiefly and professedly ordained to the sacred ministry .
. . . But the laity, by their very vocation, seeks the kingdom of
God by engaging in temporal affairs and by ordering them
according to the plan of God." 67
The distinction between clergy and laity is essential within
the Church and cannot disappear or even be diminished as far
as its basic truth is concerned. However, the juridical and
social forms in which the distinction is expressed can vary for
many reasons. It is obvious that, although through the whole
history of the Church clerics have been clerics and lay persons
have been lay persons, the concrete manner of establishing the
relation between these two ranks of the faithful presents quite
different aspects from one age to another. Exactly the same
thing will happen in the future.
To appreciate the full scope of this distinction, we must take
account of an important fact. Christ not only instituted the
sacrament of Orders but also reserved to himself the choice
of the persons who are to receive it by giving the grace of
vocation to whom he wills. Christ is the author of the institution, that is, of both the sacrament and the interior call to
receive it. For this reason we can say that the sacrament of
Orders is hierarchical in the twofold sense that this sacrament
gives rise to the hierarchy constituted by sacred ministers and
is reserved by the will of Christ to some men within the
Church. The latter is a characteristic of the sacrament of
Orders which distinguishes it from all the rest.
The sacred ministry is of divine institution 68 and requires
a divine vocation or calling which Christ alone gives. The
necessity of this vocation for the sacred ministry is frequently
66 In the strictly
canonical sense clerics are all those persons who have received
the tonsure. We prescind now from this rite, as well as from minor orders and the
subdeaconate, and take the word cleric in its rigorous theological meaning, which
implies having received at least the deaconate.
67 Lumen gentium, n. 31.
68 Ibid., n. 28.

THE COMPOSITION

OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD

437

affirmed by the Council. For building up the Christian community, the Council says, there must be various ministries
which "are raised up by divine vocation in the midst of the
faithful." 69 Like every other grace, this divine vocation demands personal cultivation not only on the part of the person
who is called but also on the part of the whole community
wherein the vocation is born and developed. 70 Inasmuch as the
vocation transforms the person called into a servant of the
community, it is natural that both this person and the community have very clear obligations to foster this outstanding
gift of God.
One of the most delicate duties of the Church's authorities is
precisely that of discerning who are called by God. As in
every other human work, one must reckon with the sad reality
of mistakes, to which are exposed not only the person concerned
but also those who must make a judgment about the genuineness of his vocation. The vocation is a gift of God; nevertheless,
allowing for exceptional cases, it " is never to be looked for as
something which will be heard by the ears of future priests in
any extraordinary manner. It is rather to be detected and
weighed in the signs by which the will of God is customarily
made known to prudent Christians." 71
The grades divinely established for the ministry of the
Church are three, namely, episcopate, priesthood, and deaconate.72 The supreme authority over the universal Church is
definitely linked with the first of these, not in the sense that
only one who is already a bishop can be elected pope but inasmuch as the acceptance of the election as supreme pontiff
obligates the one elected to receive episcopal ordination, if
he is not already a bishop.
Ad gentes divinitus, n. 15 (last paragraph).
Vatican II strongly inists upon the obligations of the whole Christian community in order that the divine calling may be awakened and strengthened in
suitable pet·sons. Cf. Decree on Priestly Formation (Optatam totius), n. !?.
71 Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests
(Presbyterorum ordinis), n. II.
72 The development of this great theme fills the whole third chapter in Lumen
gentium.
69

70

438

ARMANDO BANDERA

b) Religious. We begin by stating that we understand the
term " religious " not in the juridical or canonical sense but
in the purely theological meaning of consecration to perfect
charity towards God and neighbor through the practice of the
evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience, within
a form of life approved by the Church. As far as we are
concerned, it makes no difference whether this form of life
constitutes a state canonically distinct from that of the laity
or not. In this way we locate the term and the concept of
religious on the same ground as the dogmatic Constitution on
the Church places it. 73 The organic diversification willed by
Christ is not completely achieved with a hierarchy whose
members possess, in quite distinct degrees, an office in which
the laity does not share. Undoubtedly this is the most im.
portant and most visible diversification connected, as it is,
with the sacrament of Orders. It is not, however, the only one.
Christ is the author of the family, and he consecrates it
through the institution of marriage. The same Christ, however,
calls some Christians determinately and asks them to renounce
the formation of a family, so that they might follow him in a
special way and devote themselves only to building up the
kingdom of heaven. According to Vatican II, the relation exist·
ing between religious or consecrated believers and lay persons
is analogous to the relation between builders and those who
prepare the building materials. 74
It is not possible to develop here and now the theology of the
religious life or special consecration to God. We are interested
73 This approach to the problem by Vatican II raises certain difficulties on the
part of Secular Institutes, which are basically only psychological difficulties. In·
eluding the members of these Institutes in the term and concept of religious, the
Council does not even remotely wish to say that they are religious in the canonical
sense but only that they are Christians consecrated to God in a special way, within
a form of life approved by the Church and which, like every particular form,
requires its own organization to which these who are commonly called lay persons
cr " Christians of the street " neither are nor can be made subject. On this matter
cf. J. M. F. Castano, 0. P., "Naturaleza de los Institutos Seculares a la luz del
Vaticano II," Revista Espanola de Derecho Canonico, 21 (1966), 217-239; " Gli
Istituti Secolari nel nuovo Codice della Chiesa," Angelicum 45 (1968), 44-47.
74 Gaudium et spes, n. 38.

THE COMPOSITION

OF THE PEOPLE

OF GOD

439

only in placing the problem in the general setting of organic
diversification within the Church. The substance of revealed
teaching on this point was summarized and expressed by the
Constitution on the Church in the following words: "Although
the religious state constituted by the profession of the evangelical counsels does not belong to the hierarchical structure of
the Church, nevertheless it belongs inseparably to her life and
holiness." 75 If, then, this special form of life which we call
the religious life is contained within the universal life of the
Church as one of its typical expressions, obviously this form
can never fail despite the variety of social and canonical forms
in which it is embodied. Religious life, then, is not a circumstantial or superficial phenomenon in the Church but a vital
element involved in its very substance. On the other hand, as
it is a type of life to which not all persons are obligated or
called but which of its very nature is reserved for some persons,
it follows ultimately that religious life is a permamant principle
of diversification within the Church.
To grasp the value of diversification inherent in the religious
life we should reason in a way analogous to that which we used
when we examined the ministry. In fact, just as Christ is the
author of the ministry inasmuch as he instituted the sacrament
of Orders and gives the vocation to receive it, so too, with all
due proportion, it is true to say that religious life is derived
from Christ by a twofold title, namely, inasmuch as it is
contained in his example and his explicit teaching, and inasmuch as he gives the vocation to embrace this type of life.
Christ is the author of the religious life. 76 Here is a statement of
capital importance which is not always noticed as it should be.
Vatican II explicitly teaches that " the evangelical counsels
of chastity dedicated to God, poverty, and obedience ... are
a divine gift, which the Church has received from her Lord
Lumen gentium, n. 44 fin.
It would be puerile to argue against this statement by saying that it is not
found in Sacred Scripture. We have already said that we understand religious life
in the sense of a life especially consecrated to God through the practice of the
evangelical counsels, of which Revelation speaks very clearly.
75
7"

440

ARMANDO BANDERA

and which she ever preserves with the help of his grace." 77
It is impossible to state with greater clarity that this life of
special dedication to God has Christ as its author and that
the Church knows that she is committed to preserve this way
of life always. But we shall not go on to develop these matters,
which would draw us away from our present purpose.
In addition to being the author of the religious life, Christ
is also the one who gives to certain believers the grace of a
special call to embrace this life. The need for this special
vocation is a fact evidenced in the whole of revealed teaching
and in the whole tradition of the Church. As regards revelation, it suffices to cite a gospel text which has always been
justly considered as typical. When Jesus, arguing with the
Pharisees, proclaimed the indissolubility of marriage, he heard
this remark from his own disciples: " If the case of a man with
his wife is so, it is not expedient to marry." 78 This comment
gave Jesus the opportunity to explain the idea which concerns
us here: "Not all can accept this teaching; but those to whom
it has been given," 79 that is, to some it is given but to others
it is not. Christ chooses, that is, makes a selection based on
motives which he alone knows. The consequence is that some
"understand" and others "do not understand." It we take
into account the special characteristics of biblical language,
this means that some receive the grace to embrace virginity
"for the sake of the kingdom of heaven," 80 whereas others do
not receive it. Gathering together all the biblical and traditional teachings, the Council insists frequently upon divine
vocation as the original and primary basis of all religious life.
The first thing of which members of any religious Institute
must take into account is that " by their profession of the
evangelical counsels they have given answer to a divine call " 81
Lumoo gootium, n. 48.
Matt. 19:10.
79 Ibid., 11.
80 Ibid., 12.
81 Decree on the Appropriate Renewal of the Religious Life (Perfectae Caritatia),
77
78

n. 5.

THE COMPOSITION

OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD

441

which entrusts to them a function proper to them " in the
Church at the present time." 82
Christ wills the religious life, and it is a perennial reality in
the Church. The diversifications derived from it in the inner
life of the Christian community are consubstantial with the
People of God and will remain forever. By pointing out the
ministry and the religious life as bases of organic diversification
Vatican II penetrates to the very depths of the essential
mystery of the People of God. Whatever can be said about
the relation among ministry, structure, organization, and hierarchy on the one hand, and life on the other, is already virtually
contained in the great conciliar principle which takes ministry
and life together as the point of reference for every organic
diversity inherent in the Church as such. The concrete forms in
which the religious life is embodied can vary almost without
limit. It is enough to cast a glance at the number and variety
of existing Institutes to gain an approximate idea. And yet,
for a complete view of the problem, one must take into account
the fact that some old forms have disappeared and that other
new ones will appear in the future.
If one reflects a bit upon the relation that exists between
the development of human society and religipus life, one
observes an interesting fact, namely, that to the extent that
new kinds of life and new technical professions or specialties are
introduced, the Church endeavors to have believers especially
dedicated to God through the practice of the evangelical
counsels to live in each one of these new conditions. This is
the best way to show that the Church not only accepts these
new situations but also considers them apt to serve as a human
setting in which are found lives of total consecration to God.
Thus there arose forms of religious life devoted to the teaching
of the young; thus the secular institutes came into being; and
thus there will continue to come about other "styles" whose
configuration no one can predict at this time.
Ultimately all of this is a simple consequence of the fact that
human progress helps the Church to penetrate more profoundly
82

Ibid., n. 25; cf. also n. 1.

44Q

ARMANDO

BANDERA

into the content of revelation and to express it not only by her
doctrinal statements but also by the concrete styles of life
which have taken deep root in the human stituation of the
various ages. 83 Just as, on the one hand, the forms of consecration to God, characteristic of one era, subsist in those that
follow (at least the principal forms and what is substantial in
them) , the history of religious life can be legitimately regarded
as a mirror which reflects the consciousness of the Church
through the course of time, and like an organ in which lives
and through which is exercised her rich experience of human
affairs. It is impossible to judge today's man without knowing
yesterday's man. The forms of religious life which arose in
the past are organs of the " memory " in which the Church
preserves her " experiences " of an earlier age, which at the
same times makes it easier for her to act upon men of any later
period. From this point of view there is no human institution
which is in conditions so favorable for obtaining an exact
overall view of the history of all mankind.
The " memory " of the past is preserved in the Church not
only though the " adult " forms of religious life but also through
the whole being of the Church herself. It has not been our intention to suggest prerogatives exclusively found in the religious
life but only to show that in everything we have been speaking
of it fulfills a special function. Since religious life in the same
way makes manifest especially the eschatalogical direction and
characteristics of the People of God 84 by intensifying their
desire to be united with the Lord, 85 so, too, it has a special
mission in the preservation of the " traditional " characteristics
of the Church whereby she lives in perennial contact with her
origin and continues ever in harmony and consistency with
hcrsel£.86 In the Church the projection toward the future
Cf. Gaudium et spes, nos. 44, 57, 58,
Dei Verbum, nos. 8, 10, 12.
Lumen gentium, n. 44.
85 Ibid., n. 5.
86 Vatican
II expressly speaks of rick spiritual traditions inherent in Eastem
monasticism when it treats of the bonds which unite the separated Christian communities of the East with the Catholic Church. Cf. Unitatis redintegratio, n. 15.
83

84

THE COMPOSITION

OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD

443

springs from her being rooted in a source which develops an
ever stronger propulsive as it pierces to profounder depth.

The Forms of Diversification Compared
We have indicated three types of diversification: one which
proceeds from ethnic origin and other human circumstances
which can affect the person; another which is based upon the
reception of the sacrament of Orders; and a third which has its
origin in the profession of the evangelical counsels according
to some form approved by the Church. The first does not
arise from the inner life of the Church nor is it an essential
clement among the goods constituting the plan of salvation.
Absolutely considered, this diversification could be absent, not
in the sense that the person ceases to be affected by his ethnic
origin and the other circumstances which surround his life
but in the sense that salvation and the Church's existence
would be equally possible on the hypothesis that all men
belonged to only one country having the same ethnic traits
and identical social customs. In contrast, the diversification
derived from the sacrament of Orders and religious profession
is essential to the Church, so much so that she would lose her
identity if forms of diversification such as these were to disappear. This is precisely the reason why we call these forms
organic. They flow from the very nature of the ccclesial organism and express functions which cannot be lacking to her in
any hypothesis.
a) Order of Importance. If we compare these types of diversification according to the degree of their importance in the
Church, the lowest place belongs to the diversification based
upon origin and the highest belongs to the sacrament of Orders.
What could be absent without loss to the Church is always
less important than what emerges from the inner life of the
Church herself and cannot be eliminated without directly undermining the constitution which Christ gave her.
The diversification based upon the sacrament of Orders is
also more important than the one derived from religious profession. By the sacrament of Orders the ministers of the

444

ARMANDO

BANDERA

Church are appointed to be the judges who must decide about
the genuineness of religious life and its conformity with the
Gospel. 87 It is not the religious who judges the minister of
the Church as such but vice versa. Ultimately, the supreme
reason is that Christ placed all the goods of the New Testament and, therefore, the religious life "in the hands of the
apostolic college, over which Peter is the head," 88 that is, in
the hands of the episcopal college presided over by the pope,
since it is in this college where " the apostolic body continually
perdures." 89 The college of bishops not only succeeds the apostolic college but has become, as it were, its perennial incarnation
through the ages. It succeeds chronologically but by inheriting
the powers which the apostolic college received " in order to
establish on earth the one Body of Christ." 90 On its part, the
episcopal college is built upon the sacrament of Orders in its
highest grade. As Vatican II says: " Episcopal consecration,
together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the offices
of teaching and of governing. These, however, of their very
nature, can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with
the head and the members of the college." 91
Religious life is " in the hands " of the college of bishops.
If anyone tried" to liberate it" from this dependency, he would
destroy it. When the Council says that, " in fulfilling their
duty toward the Church " religious " should show toward
bishops . . . reverence and obedience," 92 it is not merely
proposing a " pious consideration " but expressing a dogmatic
truth, namely, the intrinsic dependence of the religious life
upon the episcopal college. The exemption some Institutes
enjoy is not contrary to this dependence but organizes this
dependence in a determined manner and with the purpose of
Lumen gentium, nos. 48 and 45.
Vnitatis redintegratio, n. 8.
•• Lumen gentium, n. 22.
90 Vnitatis redintegratio, n. 8.
91 Lumen gentium, n. 21. Concerning the relation to one another of these three
duties conferred by episcopal consecration, cf. J. M. Ramirez, 0. P., De episcopatu
ut sacramento deque episcoporum collegia (Salamanca, BAC, 1966), pp. 48-57.
•• Lumen gentium, n. 45.
87

88

THE COMPOSITION

OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD

445

"providing more adequately for the necessities of the entire
flock of the Lord." 93 Exemption can be and is granted with
regard to the local bishop, but it can never be granted with
regard to the episcopal college as a whole or as regards the
Roman Pontiff. Furthermore, exemption with regard to the
local bishop is, in practice, very limited; 94 although influenced
by the tendencies of various eras in the area of canonical
regulation, the progressive reductions which it has undergone
basically obey the original and dogmatic fact that religious
life is subject to bishops by a will of Christ which no one can
change, not even the college of bishops.
b) Compatibility. The various sorts of diversification we
have indicated are not mutually exclusive but can be present
together. It is evident that a particular person finds himself
marked by some well-defined ethnic, social, or other characteristics, and no one can be simultaneously in differing conditions.
Yet, granting this, there is no incompatibility between differences by reason of origin and organic diversifications. A
Christian, no matter what his human situation may be, can
follow a religious life and receive the sacrament of Orders if
he has the necessary qualifications demanded by the very
nature of religious profession and the sacrament. The constitution of the Church stands above all discrimination. The
religious can be a minister of the Church, and one who is
already a minister can become a religious. Finally, neither the
religious nor the minister should be chosen solely from a
specified race, country, social class or profession. To dedicate
oneself to God by the profession of the evangelical counsels or
to receive the sacrament of Orders or both of these, the color
of the skin and other circumstances which define the human
situation of the person are utterly indifferent. If, in practice,
it is fitting to make some choice, it is not based upon any
discriminatory principle but on the "law of incarnation" or
•• Ibid.
•• Decree on the Bishops' Pastoral Office in the Church (Christus Dominus),
nos. 33-35.

446

ARMANDO

BANDERA

adaptation which presides over the life of the Church; 95 that
is, the Church should try to bring salvation to men by presenting it in forms of expression, persons, and institutions which
have a human attraction for the peoples to be evangelized.
A man, especially when he does not as yet know the Church
very well, tends to judge her by her mode of presentation. 96
Hence there is the exceptional importance that, for " planting "
the Church and the growth of the Christian community, the
evangelization of peoples must be accomplished by natives,
men who have a good knowledge of national traditions and
can make these traditions serve the more effective spread of
the Gospel. 97 For this reason the Church makes a great effort
to recruit natives from each country to be the ministers needed
on each level of the hierarchy, and she asks that religious
Institutes make the due adaptations whereby they can express
consecration to God " according to the nature and the genius
of each nation " 98 by incorporating " into the Christian religious life the ascetic and contemplative traditions whose seeds
were sometimes already planted by God in ancient cultures
prior to the preaching of the Gospel." 99 No one can see in this
a discrimination deserving criticism. Rather, it is the empirical
and concrete proof of the esteem the Church has for every one
of the various cultures in relation to the spread of the GospeP 00
From the foregoing reflections it can be understood that the
sacred ministry and religious life are not only compatible with
differences founded on origin; rather, one must say that, granted
such diversities, they tend to become incarnate in the latter
to express more brilliantly the characteristics and constitution
of Christ's Church. For it will always be true that the Church
" strives energetically and constantly to bring all humanity
with all its riches back to Christ its Head in the unity of
His Spirit." 101
95 Ad gentes divinitus, n. 10.
•• Gaudium et spes, n. 43.
97 Ad gentes divinitus, nos. 15 fin. and
98 Ibid., n. 18.
99 Ibid.
100 Gaudium et spes, n. 58,
101 Lumen gentium, n. 13.

THE COMPOSITION

OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD

447

Coordination of the Diversities
In the preceding pages we have analyzed the immediate
principles of diversification within the Church. Each of these
principles is nothing more than the realization of some particular aspect of God's plan from which every legitimate form
of diversity proceeds and to which it returns. However, these
immediate principles of diversification, by the very fact that
they proceed from God, cannot bring anarchy into the Church.
Today, as in the time of St. Paul, it is necessary to affirm that
Christ is not divided. 102 Where there is division, there we
encounter an evident consequence of the sin whereby "man
is split within himself." 103 Ecclesial diversification excludes
uniformity but not order. It is a coordinated diversification in
which functions are distributed so that the whole organism
may be better served and be endowed with greater vitality.
The same analogies of people, body, and family, which
served us to establish a basis for diversity, serve us equally
to understand that this diversity must be subject to coOI·dination, since, on the contrary, the Church would not be one body,
one people, or one family but a conglomerate of things and
persons in which the incarnation of Christ's will concerning
the community of salvation could not be recognized. Christ
founded the Church by enriching it " with an admirable
variety." 104 Yet, at the same time he wants the faithful to
" wipe out every kind of division, so that the whole human
race may be brought into the unity of the family of God." 105
We cannot now make a study of the unity of the Church in
its fullness. We shall limit ourselves to reproducing an extremely compact paragraph from Vatican II on this point:
They are fully incorporated into the society of the Church who,
possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept her entire system and all
the means of salvation given to her, and through union with her
visible structure are joined to Christ, who rules her through the
I Cor. 1:18.
Gaudium et spes, n. IS.
10 ' Lumen gentium, n. S!i!.
10 " Ibid., n. !i!S fin. Cf. also Gaudium et spes, n. 48.
10 •

103

448

ARMANDO

BANDERA

Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. This joining is effected by the
bonds of professed faith, of the sacraments, of ecclesiastical government, and of communion. 106

This paragraph must be examined closely, if an understanding
of its meaning is not to become singularly difficult for those
who are not familiar with the subject. Here, however, we
cannot digress to engage in this task. 107
What concerns us at the moment is to offer some brief
reflections on the way the diversities within the Church are
coordinated among themselves for the greater good of the
whole.
a) Ministers and Lay Persons. The ministers or pastors
" know that they themselves were not meant by Christ to
shoulder alone the entire saving mission of the Church toward
the world. On the contrary, they unde1·stand that it is their
noble duty so to shepherd the faithful and recognize their
services and charismatic gifts that all according to their proper
roles may cooperate in this common undertaking with one
heart." 108 The pastors have a high-ranking function, but it
is not all-embracing. "The laity are called in a special way to
make the Church present and operative in those places and
circumstances where only through them can she become the
salt of the earth." 109 The sanctification of the human professions from within, that is, by living them, forms one great task
which pertains properly and specifically to the laity. Just as
the Church does not find herself truly established in a country
as long as there is not a number of natives in whom her
ministries are embodied and realized, so also, in all due proportion, human professions are not effectively incorporated into
the Church if there are not persons who, on the one hand,
fulfil their genuine requirements and, on the other, practice
them in accordance with the salvific will of Christ. Only in
Lumen gentium, n. 14.
In Unitatis redintegmtio, n. £, can be seen a clearer and easily available
explanation of the principle bonds which constitute the unity of the Church.
108 Lumen gentium, n. 30.
100 Ibid., n. 33.
106

101

THE COMPOSITION

OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD

449

this way can Christ make himself effectively present in each
of these human professions. Now it is obvious that the practice
of these professions pertains specifically to laymen. 110 It happens also that in many regions sacred ministers are either very
few in number or deprived of the necessary freedom of action.
In these cases the Church could not be present or function
without the collaboration of laymen. 111
In the Church there is a diversity of ministries, since the role
of the consecrated " minister " is different from the function of
the lay person practicing his worldly profession. Yet the
mission of the Church is but one and the same, 112 in such a
way that each person contributes from his own place to its
realization.
The distinction which the Lord made between sacred ministers and
the rest of the People of God entails a unifying purpose, since
pastors and the other faithful are bound to each other by a mutual
need. Pastors of the Church, following the example of the Lord,
should minister to one another and to the other faithful. The faithful in their turn should enthusiastically lend their cooperative assistance to their pastors and teachers. Thus in their diversity
all bear witness to the admirable unity of the Body of Christ.
This very diversity of graces, ministries, and works gathers the
children of God into one. 113

Actually, with all belonging to the one same body, each of
the parts benefits from the gifts and ministries of the rest and
finds in all this an effective help for reaching its own fullness,
while, at the same time, it helps others to gain the fullness
proper to them. 1H
These considerations already give us an idea of the dogmatic
foundations of the problem. Undoubtedly, to get a complete
picture of the coordination between pastors and lay persons
within the Church, it would be necessary to explain how the
priestly, prophetic and royal powers which laymen possess in
Ibid., n. 31.
ApostoUcam actuositatem, n. 1.
112 Ibid., n. !2.
118 Lumen gentium, n. 32.
1 " Ibid., n. 13.
110
111

450

ARMANDO

BANDERA

virtue of baptism and confirmation are attached to the analogous powers which the sacred ministers receive through the
sacrament of Orders. We hope to say something about this
at another time. For the present we shall not launch into
greater depths, since this would lead us too far afield. 115
Obviously the dogmatic aspects have repercussions in practical conduct. If we examine the problem from the standpoint
of priests, we find in Vatican II a paragraph which simultaneously expresses the way their life differs from that of the laity
and the need for coordination with them.
By their vocation and ordination, priests of the New Testament are
indeed set apart in a certain sense within the midst of God's
People. But this is so, not that they may be separated from this
people or from any man, but that they may be totally dedicated
to the work for which the Lord has raised them up. They cannot
be ministers of Christ unless they are witnesses and dispensers of a
life other than this earthly one. But they cannot be of service to
men if they remain strangers to the life and conditions of men.
Their ministry itself by a special title forbids them to be conformed
to the world. Yet at the same time this ministry requires that they
live in this world among men, and that as good shepherds they
know their sheep. It requires that they seek to lead those who
are not of this sheepfold so that they too may hear the voice of
Christ and that there may be one fold and one shepherd. 116

The interior disposition with which sacred ministers should
practice this living together with the faithful is the disposition
of brotherhood. They are "brothers among their brothers" 117
and in union with them should be considered " disciples of the
Lord," 118 that is, summoned by one and the same voice, which
115 Vatican
II explains sufficiently what relationships are especially involved in
the insertion of the priesthood common to all the faithful into the hierarchical
priesthood of consecrated ministers. Cf. especially Lumen gentium, n. 10 and
Presbyterorum ordinis, n.
In n. 9 of the latter document the Council makes a
general study of the relations between priests and believing laymen, those who
belong to the separated Christian confessions, and those who do not even believe
in Christ.
116 Presbyterorum ordinis, n. 3.
117 Ibid., n. 9.

118

Ibid.

THE COMPOSITION

OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD

451

makes known to each one the special function that pertains to
him in one common task.
b) Religious. Repeatedly in history ways of thinking have
appeared which seem to build up a kind of isolation between
religious 119 and the rest of the faithful. The consequence of
these false emphases is lack of esteem for consecration to God
in the religious life. Surely some of the ills which presently
affect the religious life come from this; hence we see that the
religious vocation is encountering on all sides serious difficulties.
However, despite the fact that the religious follows a special
way of life and that the profession of the evangelical counsels
constitutes a permanent principle of diversification within the
Church, it can never be said that the religious is an isolated
being, inhibited in the presence of the conditions and concerns
of men. It is evident that, given the human condition, there
can be religious who are indifferent toward their brethren, the
rest of men; unfortunately, however, such faults are found in
every state of life. We cannot enter here into the casuistic
analysis of the way each individual religious lives his vocation;
this would be an endless and foolish effort. The only thing that
interests us here is to offer some reflections about the way
religious life, objectively viewed, is coordinated with the other
states in which Christians live.
At this time we cannot even attempt an explanation of the
rich teaching which the Council provides concerning the religious life and its insertion into the whole of the Church. 12 ° For
the general view which interests us now it is enough to take
account of what the Council says when it speaks precisely
about the relation of the religious life to other states of life.
The concept used by the Council to set forth this relation is
exemplarity. 121 Those who embrace the religious state "tend119 We continue to use the term religious in the same sense explained above in
note 73.
120 The theme is developed by the Council especially in the sixth chapter
of
Lumen gentium and in the whole of PerfectaeJ Caritatis.
121 This does not mean that the Council considers exemplarity to be the concept
which primarily defines religious life considered in itself; under this aspect
religious life is especially a consecration to God, as the Council itself clearly says

452

ARMANDO

BANDERA

ing toward holiness by a narrow path, stimulate their brethren
by their example." 122 I£ the religious life is an example because
it sets out courageously " to that perfect holiness to whi2h all
the faithful . . . are called by the Lord," 123 it can never be
deemed an evasion of the obligations towards men or a cause
of isolation contrary to the demands of collaboration in the
work of salvation. The example or model is always close and
intimately present to those who allow themselves to be molded
by it. But for this it is necessary first to recognize one's own
need and to know how to welcome the exemplar.
Exemplarity always implies a certain superiority or excellence which obviously does not come from the person who
enters the religious life but from the grace of God. It is he who
freely distributed his gifts in accordance with norms and hierarchical gradations, which no one can impose upon him. As
we have said earlier, the religious life is the fruit of a special
call from God. Whoever accepts it contracts, in the presence of
God who gives it and of the Christian community wherein it
is developed, the responsibility to make it serve the purpose
intended by God. He continues, in fact, pledged to lead a life
so fixed upon God that it stimulates others to the full perfection
of charity. And this is no easy task. Whoever pays attention
solely to its excellence and does not attend to the responsibility
can easily fall into a more or less conscious state of pride.
Whoever, on the contrary, sets his eyes only on the responsibility and forgets that the greatness of the vocation contains
the graces needed to live it worthily suffers discouragement and
develops a psychological state in which the religious life is
smothered. It is necessary to balance the two extremes by
taking both with absoluteness. Then the religious life follows
the path traced by Christ himself and enters without difficulty
(cf. Lumen gentium, n. 44). What is treated here is not religious life in itself
but its integration or coordination with the other states of Christian life; that is,
we fix our attention not on the vertical line or with reference to God, which is
primary, but on the horizontal line, that is, with relation to men, and this is what
we have aimed to clarify.
122 Lumen gentium, n. 13.
123 Ibid., n. 11 fin.

THE COMPOSITION

OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD

458

into coordination with the other types of life also willed by
Christ.
Without departing from the order of most general principles
concerning the religious life, we can indicate the nature of its
exemplarity a bit more precisely. In this regard Vatican II
says that" by a more inward consecration made to God in the
Church " religious life " also luminously manifests and signifies
the inner nature of the Christian calling." 124 This very important statement of the Council, on the one hand, determines
exactly the nature of the exemplarity which belongs to the
religious life and, on the other hand, expresses with wonderful
precision the intrinsic coordination and compenetration which
exist between this life and the other types of Christian living.
The religious life is not an addition juxtaposed to the Christian
life from the outside; it is simply the purer and more genuine
expression of this Christian life, or, as the Council says, it
luminously expresses its inner nature. With this understanding
of the religious life it is impossible even to think that religious
life implies indifference, isolation, or remoteness from any true
form of Christian life. The Council expressed this same idea
in a distinct mode which offers us a new perspective for penetrating into the connection between religious life and Christian
life in general. As the Council says, religious consecration " is
deeply rooted in their baptismal consecration and ... provides
an ampler manifestation of it." 125 Every Christian is consecrated to God through baptism; the religious does not invent a
new consecration but binds himself to deepening his baptismal
consecration. It is precisely for this reason that religious life
becomes an example and model for every Christian who seriously strives to carry the possibilities and obligations of his
own baptism to their ultimate consequences. The exemplarity
of the religious life passes beyond the frontiers of the Church
and radiates over the world. As the Council says, religious
" give splendid and striking testimony that the world cannot be
12 '
125

Ad gentes divinitus, n. 18.
Perfectae caritatia, n. 5.

454

ARMANDO BANDERA

transfigured and offered to God without the spirit of the
beatitudes." 126
After all these theoretical considerations it will be well to
indicate, although in a very brief summary, some of the
practical ways whereby the religious is inserted into the life
of Christians and of men in general. We limit ourselves to
transcribing the following conciliar passage:
This sacred Synod encourages and praises the men and women,
brothers and sisters, who in monasteries, or in schools and hospitals,
or on the missions, adorn the Bride of Christ. They do so by their
unswerving and humble loyalty to their chosen consecration, while
rendering to all men generous services of every variety. 127

In the Church we find diversity and coordination. There
pastors who by virtue of their ordination must devote themselves to the exercise of the sacred ministry. There are religious
called by a special vocation to make manifest the profounder
demands of baptism to the whole Christian community. There
are laymen who ought to be active in all human professions
and order them according to God's will. The types of life are
distinct but not separated from one another. Each of them
enters into a connection with the others through the exercise
of its proper function. Ultimately, this leads to the following
very important conclusion: the Christian, no matter what his
concrete vocation may be, does not live for himself alone, nor
even solely for the " group " to which he belongs, but for the
whole Christian and human community; and if he considers
himself indifferent to the lot of even one man, he will be
unfaithful to his calling. 128 With this we shall return to a
well-known idea, namely, the communitarian character of salvation and of the Church or People of God which incarnates it.
In any reality which is essentially communal, no vocation, no
matter how special it may be, can be isolated from the rest;
the day this would happen, the person would have radically
Lumen gentium, n. 31; cf. also Gaudium et spes, n. 38.
Lumen gentium, n. 46 fin.
128 Gaudium et spes, n. 1.
126
127

THE COMPOSITION

OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD

455

brought his vocation to nothing and would have " excommunicated " himself.
Above the communitarian character of salvation and of the
Church the supreme reason for the intrinsic coordination among
the different Christian vocations must be sought in Christ
himself and in the action of his Spirit, since the Church tends
to recapitulate everything " under Christ its Head, in the unity
of his Spirit" 129 entering in this way into the most profound
communion with the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity, which
is the key, the center, and the summit of the unity of the
Church.
This is the sacred mystery of the unity of the Church, in Christ and
through Christ, with the Holy Spirit energizing a variety of
functions. The highest exemplar and source of this mystery is the
unity, in the Trinity of Persons, of one God, the Father and the
Son in the Holy Spirit. 130
ARMANDO BANDERA,

Oonvento de San Esteban
Salamanca, Spain

129
180

Lumen gentium, n. 13.
Unitatis redintegratio, n.

fin.

0. P.

DARWIN ON EVOLUTION:

ARE-ESTIMATION

I

I

N THE
edition of his The Origin of Species by Means
of Natural Selection or the Preservation of FavoTed Races
in the StTuggle joT Life, Darwin states: " I formerly spoke
to very many naturalists on the subject of evolution, and never
once met with any sympathetic agreement. It is probable that
some did then believe in evolution, but they were either silent,
or expressed themselves so ambiguously that it was not easy to
understand their meaning. Now things are wholly changed,
and almost every naturalist admits the great principle of evolution." 1 Fifty years later however, W. E. Ritter, of the University of California, writing in the April 14,
issue of
Science, the weekly periodical of the American Association for
the Advancement of Science, said that anyone who thinks
about evolution " can hardly fail to see signs that the whole
battleground of evolution will have to be fought over again,
this time not so much between scientists and theologians as
between scientists themselves." 2 Today, almost fifty years
later still, the issue is still being debated.
It should be pointed out that, whatever the present status
of evolutionary theory may be, there is no conflict between
evolution and monotheistic religion. That is to say, the theory
of evolution is not a religious issue. Judaism, Christianity, and
Islam are all compatible with some sort of evolutionary doctrine. Speaking specifically of Christianity, and especially of
Roman Catholicism, we find that, rather than being antagonistic toward evolutionary theories the Christian intellectual had
actually been prepared for them. In the last century, even while
1

C. Darwin, The Origin of Species (6th ed., 1872, Modern Library eel.), p. 369.
quoted by A. S. Zerbe, Evolution in a Nutshell (Chicago, 1926), p. 112.

2 As

456

DARWIN ON EVOLUTION:

A HE-ESTIMATION

457

evolutionary theories were being developed, Cardinal Newman
was defending evolutionary theories with respect to Church
doctrine and practice. More recently, Father E. C. Messenger
edited two books with similar titles documenting the fact that
evolutionary theories have been in vogue among Catholic intellectuals since the beginning of the Church. 3 In addition, recent
papal pronouncements, although cautious, have never condemned outright evolutionary theories. Pope Pius IX's 1864
Syllabus of Errors did not mention Darwinism specifically.
Darwin's works were never put on the Index of Forbidden
Books. And in 1950 Pius XII's Humani Generis actually
recommended that Catholics actively pursue research projects
concerned with evolutionary theories. Our approach, then, in
this monograph, will be in terms of science and philosophy
rather than theology.
First of all, we must contrast an evolutionary doctrine with a
non-evolutionary doctrine. In a non-evolutionary theory everything that exists presently has always existed in this present
fashion. There are no gradual transformations. According to
the "fixism" or "constancy" view, any innovations that have
taken place in the universe have come about as the direct result
of divine intervention. The supreme being must have some
how directly created anything new, which then continues in
existence until altered by another divine act. These interventions may be called revolutions: sudden changes.
On the other hand, evolutionary theories maintain gradual
There is no constancy but only constant
transformations.
activity and gradual change which produce, in time, some
innovation. These gradual changes are usually thought of as
being progressive, i. e., productive of more and more perfect
(usually meaning complicated) beings.
The contrast between the constancy view and the evolutionary view can be seen from two variations on the constancy
theory. One is the Noachian theory and the other is the
• See his Evolution and Theology (New York, 1989l) and Theology and Evolution
(London, 1950).

458

F. F. CENTORE

Catastrophic theory. The earlier Noachian theory maintained
that fossils were not really the remains of living creatures but
merely odd configurations of rock. A later version held that
these remains were once alive but had now been made extinct.
The cause of their extinction was the flood in the time of Noah.
As more evidence was accumulated, however, it became clear
that many specimens existed long before the great flood. To
explain the new evidence, many catastrophies were postulated
rather than simply the one flood. After each catastrophy, it was
claimed, new organisms were produced by God. The most.
prominent proponent of this widely popular theory was the
French naturalist George Cuvier (1769-1832) . As can be seen,
the constancy view does not deny change. It differs from the
evolutionary view concerning the way these changes have
occurred.
We must commence our discussion of evolution by noting
first that this term has several meanings. In its widest sense,
including both common sense or unreflective knowledge as well
as scientific knowledge other than biological, evolution refers
to any gradual change or development. Thus, the ea1th is
said to have evolved from a molten mass; social institutions
have evolved from more primitive forms to complicated bureaucracies; mathematical logic is supposed to have evolved
from Aristotelian logic, etc. Given this sense of the word, only
someone who would deny all change would deny evolution.
Secondly, in its presently generally accepted biological sense,
evolution means that all living things have been derived from
a few, or only one, living ancestor through a long series of
usually minute changes. In addition, in its biological context,
evolution usually brings to mind the notions of struggle and
progress as well as the unity of the biosphere. Evolution in
biology offers a principle of unification. From a few primordial
creatures there has developed all living things. There was
struggling, the overcoming of obstacles, advancement. Rather
than a preordained constant hierarchy there was a procession,
a primeval protoplasm or protophyte or protozoon conquering
the world. The ultimate development so far, of course, is man

DARWIN ON EVOLUTION:

A RE-ESTIMATION

459

himself. This is the general biological view of evolution. In
this vague, general biological sense the evolutionary outlook,
in Western thought at least, dates back to the ancient Greeks.
Thales (c. 624-565 B. C.), Anaximander (c. 611-547 B. C.),
Anaximcnes (c. 588-524 B. C.), Heraclitus (c. 540-475 B. C.),
Empedocles (c. 495-485 B. C.), Democritus (c. 470-400 B. C.),
and Anaxagoras (c. 488-429 B. C.) all held some kind of evolutionary theory in its general and vague biological sense. And,
although it is not generally assented to by scholars, some
authors even believe Aristotle (884-822 B. C.), the "father of
biology," to be an evolutionist. 4
The general theory of evolution, then, is as old as the hills.
But what is relatively new is the emergence of various special
theories of evolution, the most famous of which is Darwin's.
It must be emphasized that Darwin's theory was designed to
explain an already known theory. Darwin did not discover or
invent evolution. He did attempt, as have others, to make the
general theory more precise. Let us quickly review the preDarwinian intellectual atmosphere with respect to special
theories of evolution.
Modem special theories of evolution were inaugurated by
Jean Baptiste Chevalier de Lamarck (1744-1829) .5 Lamarck
attacked the constancy views, declaring instead that present
organisms are closely related to the extinct fossil remains. Life,
he claimed, originated from inanimate matter via an evolutionary process in accordance with a pre-established divine plan.
All present living creatures then developed from the first living
beings. Present species were achieved in the following manner.
First, there is a change in the creature's environment. Birds,
for example, used to living on the mainland, fly out to sea and
cannot find their way back. They must now adjust to an island
way of life. Or, to take another example, due to some natural
• See, for instance, E. Nordenskiold, The History of Biology (tr. by E. B. Eyre,
London, 1929), H. H. Newman, Evolution, Genetics and Eugenics (2nd ed.,
Chicago, 1935), and C. Singer, The Story of Living Things (New York, 1931).
• His main work is Philosophie Zoologique published in 1809. It has been translated by H. Elliott (London, 1914).

460

F. F. CENT ORE

geographical upheaval, vegetative growth on the ground becomes scarce and creatures must turn to leaves and other
vegetative growth above ground. In the effort to adjust to the
new environment, the creature must change its structure.
Thus, sea birds develop webbed feet and the giraffe's neck
becomes elongated. According to Lamarck's principle of use
and disuse, the use of the organ strengthens it, while it will
eventually die due to disuse. This change in structure is then
transmitted by the parents to their offspring.
Lamarck's theory never achieved wide acceptance. There
were two main objections to his view. First, there is the
question of origin. Habit might conceivably explain why a
neck is long but it cannot be used to explain why a giraffe has
a neck at all. Second, biologists failed to discover any transmission of acquired characteristics. The problem of inheritance
stopped Democritus and Darwin as well as Lamarck. Democritus thought that representative particles, coming from all
parts of the father's body, entered first his semen, then the
mother, and then the offspring. Darwin, desperate to explain
inheritance, revived the ancient view.6
The evidence against such a view, however, is strong. An
armless man can father a child with arms. Rats' tails have
been chopped off for years, yet their offspring are always born
with tails. The lips, heads, etc., in certain tribes, although
forced out of shape for years, always appear normal in the
new-born.
It should also be pointed out, with respect to Lamarckism,
that Darwin had another major objection to his theory.
Darwin accused Lamarck of anthropomorphism. According to
Lamarck, creatures actually strive to change. There is a kind
of willing on the part of creatures in Lamarckism which
Darwin found scientifically unthinkable.
Between Lamarck and Darwin there are four main figures to
be mentioned: James Cowles Prichard (1786-1848), Robert
6 See G. G. Simpson and W. S. Beck, Life (2nd ed., New York, 1965), pp. 164165. Darwin may have had some knowledge of Mendel's work. See P. J. Vorzimmer, "Darwin and Mendel," Isis, Vol. 59 (1968), pp. 77-82.

DARWIN ON EVOLUTION:

A HE-ESTIMATION

461

Chambers (1802-1871), Richard Owen (1804-1892), and Alfred Russel Wallace (1823-1913) .7
Prichard published his Researches into the Physical History
of Mankind in 1826 in three volumes. Prichard, a medical
doctor, realized that acquired characteristics cannot be transmitted to one's offspring. He also discussed how, by a process
of selection and breeding, domesticated species of plants and
animals can be altered. This process is then extended to living
things as a whole. Why cannot species come from a genus as
varieties come from a species, he asked. Prichard regarded
climate as the key factor in the production of changes. If individuals or groups fail to adapt to changes in climate, with the
other changes such a change would entail, they die out. He
came close to the notion of natural selection but never actually
stated it. He was also never very well-known.
A more flamboyant figure was Chambers. In 1844 he anonymously published his Vestiges of the N aturalllistmy of Creation. Although the book was not taken seriously by scientists,
it was popular and ran through twelve editions. In his work
Chambers attacks the notion of immutable species and special
creations. Rather, everything is constantly changing. The
change is not, however, erratic but under very strict laws o.f
nature established by God as Newton and Laplace had shown.
What was true for inorganic things was also true for the
biosphere. Chambers' special theory of evolution, argued with
force and vigor, was that everything changes according to a
divine plan.
Owen, a comparative anatomist, also expressed himself on
evolution. Owen, whose main, three-volume work is the Comparative Anatomy and Physiology of Vertebrates (London,
1866-1868), had published in 1843 a series of Lectures on Invertebrate Animals. He later (1846, 1847, 1855) produced
other works concerned primarily with the anatomy of birds. It
was Owen's belief that there was a basic archetype underlying
7 For more details see Philip G. Fothergill, Historical Aspects of Organic Evoluch. 4 and J. Loewen berg, Darwin, Wallace and The Theory of
tion (London,
Natural Selection (Cambridge, Mass., 1959).

462

F. F. CENTORE

the structures of various species of animals. There were also
many common structural elements among different species. He
also interpreted the fossil remains as indicating that the older
they are, the more vague and general (i.e., common to more
presently existing species) are the structures of the remains.
This in turn indicated a development or transmutation of
species, toward more diversified and complicated types, over
the centuries. How does this occur? By the agency of an
Intelligent Directing Power acting through secondary causes.
By a synchronization of climatic and geographical changes with
species changes, the Creator, according to a pre-established
plan, allows the basic type to alter and adjust. Owen rejected
both Lamarckism and Darwinism, choosing to take a middle
course. He admitted a struggle for existence leading to the
dying out of some species. But extinction is not an explanation
of origin. Lamarck was rejected because he attributed volitional powers to all living things. Owen's middle course was an
innate tendency, implanted by God, for creatures to deviate
from parental types.
Next we must mention a person who is of equal importance
with Darwin with respect to the theory of natural selection,
namely, Wallace. Wallace grew up in southern England. He
was never well-off financially and the closest he ever came to
being regularly employed was when, in his teens, he worked
as a surveyor with his brother. Wallace's interest in evolution
came about through his friendship with Henry W. Bates, whom
he met in 1844. Bates was well-off and spent his free time as an
amateur naturalist. In 1848 the two men went on an expedition
to the Amazon. Wallace returned to England in 1852, after
many hardships at sea. After a relatively brief stay in England,
Wallace left for the Malayan Archipelago to study the plant
and animal life there. He remained there for eight years (18541862). While there he wrote two essays: "The Law which
has regulated the Introduction of New Species" (1855) and
" On the Tendency of Varieties to depart indefinitely from the
Original Type" (1858). In these essays Wallace states conclusions the same as those of Darwin.

DARWIN ON EVOLUTION:

A HE-ESTIMATION

468

Wallace had come upon his conclusions independently of
Darwin. Nevertheless, Darwin was embarrassed by the timing
of Wallace's second paper, for he was then right in the middle
of writing his Origin of Species. Ironically, Wallace had sent
his second essay to Darwin in order to obtain Darwin's opinion
on its merits. Darwin immediately recognized it as his own
work in miniature but was at a loss in deciding how both
Wallace's and his rights to priority were to be simultaneously
protected. The problem was finally solved by having both
Wallace's paper and an abstract of his Origin read at the same
meeting of the Linnean Society on July 1, 1858.
Before passing on to Darwin himself, two other figures, both
of whom had a strong influence on both Wallace and Darwin,
should be mentioned. One was Thomas Malthus (1766-1884),
an Anglican clergyman, and the other was Charles Lyell (17971875), a highly influential geologist. In 1798 Malthus published
a pamphlet entitled Essay on the Principles of PopUlation. It
was his answer to several contemporaries who believed that
human evils and poverty were due to an uneven distribution
of property which resulted from abuses perpetrated by the
various social institutions. Malthus argued instead that the
evils were due to overpopulation. While the population increases geometrically (1, 4, 8, 16, etc.), he argued, the food
supply increases only arithmetrically (1, 3, 4, 5, etc.) . The
fact that the world has not felt the full burden of this
cal increase of population was due to the existence of wars,
disease, etc., which constantly reduce the population. Malthus
himself did not sanction such means of population reduction.
Rather, he recommended moral restraint in the forms of
celibacy and late marriages. Malthus's little essay went
through many editions and his views were well-known.
Sir Charles Lyell made his reputation as a geologist. He
published his main work, The Principles of Geology, which
quickly became a standard in its field, in 1880. Lyell's book
was taken by Darwin on his famous Beagle voyage (18311886) and carefully read. In his work Lyell presented a
basically uniformitarian point of view. The history of the earth

464

F. F.

CENTORE

is not a series of castastrophies but is instead one continuous
whole with each age leading gradually into the next. What is
going on today was going on millions of years ago. 8 Lyell noted
how land masses are being built up by sedimentation while
rocks are weathering down; how areas once under water are
now high above sea level and vice versa. By extrapolating into
the past what we know of geology today, he maintained, we
can understand how it is that present minute changes can and
do, in time, produce great changes. LyeWs views were also wellknown and even fashionable. He lectured to thousands, and
having a geological specimen in one's home was considered very
up-to-date. 9
Perhaps the general atmosphere during the first half of the
nineteenth century with respect to evolution can be no better
summarized than in a paragraph from Loren Eiseley' s review
of Gertrude Himmelfarb's book Darwin and the Darwinian
Revolution (New York, 1959) appearing in the New York
Times book review section April 26, 1959, pp. 5, 28. Eiseley
states that
Darwin once protested that he had never encountered another
naturalist who expressed evolutionary views, but the great man
must have been singularly restricted in his contacts. A contemporary diary reveals that in 1852. discussions about the origin of
animal species, the antiquity of the earth and related evolutionary
topics occurred among students at University College. In the light
of all this surrounding bustle of activity, it becomes easier to understand why Darwin's intellectual development was so immediately
quickened after his return from the voyage of the Beagle. Our
fascination with the romance of the Darwinian voyage, our yearning to share vicariously in a great adventure, has tended to obscure
the fact that it was not until Darwin reached home and began to
participate in the intellectual ferment of the Eighteen Thirties and
Forties, that he came upon the principle of natural selection.
8 Throughout
the nineteenth century it was generally thought that the earth
could not be more than a billion years old.
9 Besides those mentioned,
Darwin's theory was anticipated by several others.
For example, W. C. Wells in an article in the Philosophical Transactions for 1813
and Patrick Matthew in a book Naval Timber and Arbori Culture, 1831. For more
details see Darwin and Modern Science (ed. by A. C. Seward, Cambridge, England,
1909), pp. 13-17. Darwin himself, in his Origin, lists about two dozen precursors.

DARWIN ON EVOLUTION:

ARE-ESTIMATION

465

We must now consider Darwin's special theory of evolution.
Born in Shrewsbury, England in 1809, Darwin spent his early
years studying under Samuel Butler in the Shrewsbury school.
ln
his father, a successful medical doctor, sent Charles to
Edinburgh to study medicine. Charles, however, had no interest in that profession. Realizing his mistake, his father, in
sent his son to Cambridge to take holy orders in the
State Church. He graduated in 1831 without honors. While
there, however, he was befriended by two outstanding naturalists, John Henslow and Adam Sedgwick. Through their influence, Darwin changed from being an aimless rich man's son to
being an avid naturalist.
In August of 1831 Henslow urged Darwin to accept the
position of naturalist on the English surveying ship Beagle,
about to leave on a world cruise. After settling a dispute over
the trip with his father, he left England in December of 1831
on a five-year trip which took him across the Atlantic, around
South America, across the Pacific, around New Zealand and
Australia, around the tip of Africa, and back up the Atlantic
to England. Throughout his trip he was collecting specimens
and making notes. Upon his return he published various narratives of his work. Darwin tells us that in October of 1838 he
read Malthus and began to formulate the theory of natural
selection. By June of
he had worked out the basic outline
of his theory and put it down in the form of a brief sketch
which was later to be much expanded. He did not publish his
views because they were not yet perfected, and the necessary
evidence had not been completely marshalled. Under constant
urging by his friends Sir Joseph Hooker and Lyell, he finally
began to write his Origin of Species in 1856. Stimulated by the
arrival of Wallace's paper in 1858, Darwin rushed his work to
completion. The work was finally published in November of
1859. Its 1,250 first edition copies were quickly sold out.
The Origin of Species brought Darwin much notoriety and
made him financially independent for life. Lyell, at first sceptical, finally came around to Darwin's way of thinking in 1864.
All over England debates broke out over the merits and de-

466

F. F. CENTORE

merits, and its implications for science and religion, of the
theory of natural selection. Theists found Darwin's views a
powerful argument for theism and Christianity. Atheists used
it to show that God was an unnecessary hypothesis. Dnrwin
himself claimed to find no contradiction between his theory and
traditional religious beliefs. Undoubtedly, the stir caused by
Darwin's views was due mainly to their supposed effects upon
the religious life of the country. Those inclined to take the
books of Genesis literally condemned Darwin as a devil. Those
supporting antireligious doctrines regarded Darwin's book as
the epitomy of absolute scientific perfection. Darwin's later
work The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex
(1871), really two books in one, only added more fuel to the
fire. The latter part attempted to show how various colors
peculiar to one sex were developed because of a preference for
that color by the other sex. The former part was an attempt,
straining what little evidence there was available at the time,
to apply his special theory of evolution to the origin and history
of man. Before his death in 1882 Darwin authored several
other works, including a brief autobiography, but these were of
little significance when compared with his Origin of Species.
But what did Darwin say that called forth so much argument and dissension? The fifteen chapters comprising the sixth
edition (1872) of the Origin of Species discuss the use of artifical selection by man and the occurrence of natural selection
via a struggle for existence, the various causes of alterations in
species other than by natural selection, difficulties with respect
to accepting his theory, the evidence for his theory (which is
drawn almost exclusively from the fossil record), and end with
a recapitulation. In Darwin's approach, then, the theory is
presented first to be followed by his evidence for it. This was
good rhetoric on his part. In an atmosphere heavy with prejudice against such a theory, it was wise to "soften up" his
audience before presenting the evidence.

DARWIN ON EVOLUTION:

A HE-ESTIMATION

467

II

The Darwinian theory itself is simple enough to understand.
The breeding of various animals (horses, cattle, etc.) for
various purposes (speed, milk, etc.) was a well-established
occupation in Darwin's time. The same kind of thing was also
being done with plants. This breeding, cross-breeding, etc.,
under the aegis of human control, is artifical selection. Could
it be possible that there was another kind of selective
process going on in nature without human control? If there
was such a "natural " selection, perhaps it could account for
the :!_;30 varieties of pigeons,
varieties of grape vines, etc.,
found in nature. In addition, such a process might explain how,
assuming the general theory of evolution, more perfect creatures were formed just as human breeders produce, in time,
more perfect specimens of plants and animals.
The precise mechanism proposed by Darwin for natural
selection is the following. First, there is the universal tendency
for all offspring to vary slightly in many little ways from both
their parents and each other. No two plants or animals, even
of the same type and born in the same locale, are exactly alike.
Second, the propagation of new offspring is so rapid and prolific
that there is never enough food and other means of survival to
go around. Many must die. Take this fact in conjunction with
the innate instinct of self-preservation and there results the
familiar struggle for life. Although there are symbiotic relationships in nature, the general rule is constant warfare among
offspring within the same species and among different species
for survival. Third, there is, as a result of the above two steps,
the survival of the fitter, or, as is usually said, somewhat
erroneously, of the fittest. This accurs because some minute
variations possessed by some offspring are more advantageous
erroneously, of the fittest. This occurs because some minute
variations possessed by other offspring. The creature with the
favorable variation, within its total environmental situation,
thus lives on while its fellow offspring die. These stronger,
healthier, better suited to survive, survivors can then repro-

468

F. F. CENTORE

duce, thus carrying on the process toward greater and greater
perfection. The advantageous characteristics of the surviving
parents are, of course, inherited by the new offspring.
Several features of Darwin's explanation should be noted
here. The first concerns his purpose in proposing his thesis.
Darwin truly attempted an explanation and not merely a
description of what he found. If he had simply described the
birds, plants, animals, fossils, etc., which he had found in different geographical locations and in different rock stata, he would
have been just another naturalist. Descriptions and mere summations of data do not explain anything. Facts do not explain
themselves. To state a fact is not to state a cause. When the
problem is to explain the data, one cannot simply restate the
data. 10
For evolutionary theory this meant that Darwin had to give
some definite mechanism explaining the many facts indicating
that species were mutable. The theory of natural selection presented itself to Darwin's mind as a means of escaping the two
scientifically undesirable extremes of Lamarckism and special
creation. Concerning Lamarck, Darwin could agree with
Wallace's succint criticism. "The powerful retractile talons,"
he states," of the falcon and cat-tribes have not been produced
or increased by the volition of those animals; but among the
different varieties which occurred in the earlier and less highly
organized forms of these groups, those always survived longest
which had the greatest facilities for seizing their prey." 11 Concerning special creation, we read in Darwin's Descent of Man
that his purposes in writing The Origin of Species were" firstly,
to show that species had not been separately created, and
See G. Smith, Natural Theology (New York, 1951), pp.
From Wallace's paper read to the Linnean Society July 1, 1858. We should
note here a deep inconsistency in Darwin's views. He was not willing to allow all
creatures will power but he was willing to allow all creatures (at least all animals)
intellectual powers. He states in Chapter 3 of The Descent of Man: "My object
in this chapter is to show that there is no fundamental difference between man and
the higher mammals in their mental faculties." Moreocver, all the way down the
scale of animals the differences are only in degree.
10

11

DARWIN ON EVOLUTION:

A HE-ESTIMATION

469

secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of
change, though largely aided by the inherited effects of habit,
and slightly by the direct action of the surrounding conditions." 12
We note also that Darwin did not rule out an over-all
direction given to the development of species by God. That
is to say, he allowed for teleology, i. e., actions, changes, etc.,
taking place with a definite end or purpose in Mind. At the
very end of his Origin he declares " There is grandeur in this
view of life, with its special powers, having been originally
breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that,
whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed
law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most
beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being
evolved." As Ernst Cassirer has so aptly said, purposeful
activity has a secure place in Darwin's theory. It is, in fact,
not only there but absolutely indispensable to his reasoning.
It is safe, records Cassirer, to "assert that no earlier biological
theory ascribed quite so much significance to the idea of
purpose, or advocated it so emphatically, since not only individual but absolutely all the phenomena of life are regarded
from the standpoint of their survival value. All other questions
retreat into the background before this one." 13 Darwinism
chooses from among all the possible relationships among living
creatures one and only one group on which to concentrate,
namely, relative survival values of slight variations. The purely
morphological study of creatures, so important to the systematist, is ignored. Darwin himself, being less dogmatic than
many of his followers, admitted his dependence upon teleological reasoning. 14
What the above indicates, philosophically speaking, is that
Darwinism per se does not entail a doctrine of absolute chance.
There is rather a concatenation of events, lines of causality,
Modern Library edition, p. 441!.
E. Cassirer, The Problem of Knowledge (tr. by W. H. Woglom and C. W.
Hendel, New Haven, Conn., 1950), p. 166.
14 See The Descent of Man, Part I, ch. 1!.
12

13

470

F. F. CENTORE

which cross everywhere, thus bringing about sets of circumstances in which there is competition for survival. For instance,
a series of environmental changes might coincide, at just the
right time, with a series of inherited changes so as to produce
individuals with slightly stronger talons than other individuals
in the species. These then would have a better chance to
survive than the others. It is like a man going to the store to
buy something and meeting someone who owed him money
who was also at the store. Each man went through a series of
changes with a purpose in mind. The crossing of the two series
of events resulted in an unexpected, chance meeting. The first
man now has a chance to collect his money. We see that there is
no absolute chance involved. The so-called chance event is
dependent upon, and definitely secondary to, the purposeful
non-chance series of occurrences.
This aspect of Darwin's theory must be emphasized because
of the tendency on the part of many to hail his theory as the
final elimination of causality and order in the world. Causality
and order have traditionally been thought to lead ultimately
to God. Some thought that by eliminating the former they
could also finally eliminate the latter. They tried to make a
case for either religion or evolution but not both. This, however, was never the case. As Miss Himmelfarb has documented
in her book, previously mentioned, the situation following
1860 was not a case of religion vs. evolution but rather a case
of the two extremes in each group vs. the middle. The strictly
Biblical, fundamentalist-type religious person attacked his coreligious for allowing Darwin into the church by the back door.
On the other hand, the diehard materialist attacked his fellow
scientists and philosophers for allowing religion a pew in his
scientific church. Darwin himself tried to remain aloof from
such debates claiming that, since he was unversed in theology,
he was unfit to discuss the issues involved. 15
15 See F. Darwin (ed.), The Life and Letters of Charles Darwi:n (New York,
1898), Vol. I, p. 805.

DARWIN ON EVOLUTION:

ARE-ESTIMATION

471

III
But how critical was Darwin himself of his own position?
In the last chapter of the Origin of Species Darwin lists five
major objections. One concerns the belief that members of
two species cross-breeded to produce an offspring will always
produce a sterile offspring; that is, the offspring will not be able
to reproduce. This would seem to indicate that species are
really absolutely distinct and so cannot transmute into one
another. This objection is answered by arguing that such does
not actually occur; that is, it is possible, given the right conditions, for cross-breeded offspring to reproduce. The facts,
therefore, render the first objection impotent.
The second objection asks how it is possible to have such a
widespread distribution of species throughout the world if they
all came from one or two parents originally. Darwin's answer
is migration over long periods of time fostered by climatic and
geographical changes.
Third, according to his theory innumerable intermediate
forms among presently existing species should be observed, but
they are not. Where are all the links among the presently
existing species? In other words, how is it possible for a
systematist to classify flora and fauna at all? Should there not
be an infinite number of intermediate steps between and among
particular creatures picked out at random? He answers: " For
we have reason to believe that only a few species of a genus
ever undergo change; the other species becoming utterly extinct
and leaving no modified progeny. Of the species which do
change, only a few within the same country change at the same
time; and all modifications are slowly affected." In effect,
Darwin is saying that such intermediaries did and do exist.
The ones that did exist, however, have died out while the ones
presently forming are so far separated and are forming so
slowly that we do not notice them.
As a variation on the above objection, notes Darwin, it might
be asked why is not the geological record filled with these
extinct intermediate specimens, if his answer to the third ob-

472

F. F. CENT ORE

jection is true. He considers this the most obvious of the many
objections which might be urged against his theory. Also, as
two corollary objections, it can be asked why do whole groups
of allied species appear suddenly in successive geological strata
(a fact that would seem to support the Catastrophic theory),
and, why do we not find numerous fossil remains below the
Cambrian level since " we know that organic beings appeared
on this globe, at a period incalculably remote, long before the
lowest bed of the Cambrian system was deposited." Darwin':;:
reply is two-fold. One is the hope that such problems will be
removed by future discoveries. And second, "I can answer
these questions and objections," he states, " only on the supposition that the geological record is far more imperfect than
most geologists believe." 16
Finally, he notes the objection raised by Sir William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) , the famous physicist, to the effect that the
world is not old enough to have allowed all the proposed
mutations to have taken place. This is probably " one of the
gravest " objections yet advanced. In reply he gives two
possibilities. One is that evolution proceeds more quiddy than
even he himself believes. The other is that the world is much
older than Lord Kelvin believes. Modern dating techniques
have borne out the second possibility. The world is now
thought to be about 4.5 billion years old, about four times as
old as Kelvin would admit to. However, this is counteracted
by the fact that the process of evolution now seems to be
much slower than Darwin believed.
A little later, after recapitulating the half-dozen main arguments which he considered to favor his views, 17 he states, as a
general, psychological objection to his theory, that "the chief
cause of our natural unwillingness to admit that one species has
16 Several precambrian
fossils do exist. Several alga-like microfossils have been
found in Ontario, Australia, and South Africa. See "Alga-Like Fossils from the
Early Precambrian of South Africa," Science, Vol. 156 (April
1967), pp. 508-511.
17 The evidence for evolution in general and for Darwin's
theory in particular,
drawn from individual differences within species, the warfare of nature, plant and
animal breeding, paleontology, homology, embryology, and rudimentary organs, is to
be found in any elementary science book and need not be repeated here.

DARWIN ON EVOLUTION:

A RE-ESTIMATION

478

given birth to clear and distinct species, is that we are always
slow in admitting great changes of which we do not see the
steps." Scientifically speaking, this objection is minor.
When reflecting upon Darwin's self criticism, it is strange
that he did not raise what is considered by some to be a major
criticism of his special theory of evolution. As Fothergill comments, while discussing Richard Owen:
His criticism here still stands today, although it is to a large extent
ignored (this being the trend of the times). "Assuming, then that
Palaeotherium did ultimately become Equus, I gain no conception
of the operation of the effective force by personifying as ' Nature '
the aggregate of beings which comprise the universe, or the laws
which govern these things, by giving to my personification an attribute which can properly be predicated only of intelligence, and by
saying' Nature has selected the mid-hoof and rejected the others'."
Owen recognizes that there is a struggle for existence among species
which leads to the extinction of some of them. But extinction is
not creation. 18

Nat ural selection, it is argued, may be adequate to explain
some cases of survival, but it does not explain arrival. If
someone were to ask " Why does this tree produce this one
kind of fruit? " and if the answer given were " Because the
farmer didn't pick them," the answer would hardly be a
scientific explanation of the origin of the particular kind of
fruit in question. Likewise, for Darwin to say that a particular
species exists the way it does presently exist because its parents
possessed characteristics which gave them relatively greater
survival value and which characteristics were passed on to the
offspring, does not explain the origin of these characteristics.
Where did they come from originally? They were passed on
to the parents from the grandparents. How did the grandparents acquire them? From their parents, and so on ad
infinitum.
Now, as Owen remarks, it might be said that Nature gave
the ancestors of the presently existing species in question the
favorable characteristics somewhere along the line. But what
18

P. G. Fothergill, op. cit., p. 96.

474

F. F. CENTORE

is Nature if not a label used to cover the aggregate of everything in the universe and perhaps its laws of operation also?
Did everything give the one species its edge over others? Did
some part do so? Which part? And how? Isn't saying that
Nature, either in whole or in part, such as the ancestors'
immediate environmental situation, bestowed upon the ancestors slight variations conducive to winning the fight for life the
same as simply affirming that such characteristics are there
because they are there? And isn't this, in effect, the same as
saying that the presently existing species exist because Nature
in its selective process did not eliminate them just as the fruit
is there because the farmer did not pick it?
Darwin, however, certainly did think of his work as explicative of origins and not merely survivals. Not origins absolutely
speaking for, in the beginning, the initial wherewithal to commence the evolutionary process came from God, but in a
relative sense insofar as new varieties of living things are to
be explained by natural selection. When he speaks about the
survival of individuals and species, he means to say that the
slight changes inducing survival will in time accumulate to the
point where the resulting organism will differ to such a great
extent from its ancestors that it must be classified as a new
species/ 9 As an example of origination, Darwin presented to
the Linnean Society the imaginary case of island-bound canine
creatures feeding on relatively slow-moving rabbits and relatively fast-moving hares. Due to environmental changes, the
rabbit supply begins to decrease while the hare supply increases. As a result, the lighter, faster dogs with better eyesight
will be favored even if the differences be ever so small. They
would survive during periods of food scarcity, would rear more
young, and pass on their slight peculiarities to their offspring.
" I can see no more reason to doubt that these causes in a
thousand generations would produce a marked effect, and
adapt the form of the fox or dog to the catching of hares instead
19 Darwin was not aware of " mutations."
Even if he were, however, it would
not have helped his case much since, by and large, mutations are unfavorable to the
well-being and survival of the organism.

DARWIN ON EVOLUTION:

A HE-ESTIMATION

475

of rabbits, than that greyhounds can be improved by selection
and careful breeding." 20 After a thousand generations, then,
Nature will have affected a new species. We see, therefore,
that Darwin's whole theory is his answer to the objection that
he does not really explain origins.
It must be noted, however, that in doing so Darwin commits
himself to at least two presuppositions, both of which are open
to severe criticism, and which he himself never attempted to
completely justify. We do not include here his belief in God
as the ultimate cause of the organisms and the environment
which, through various physical and chemical interactions, produces the initial slight variations in individuals. Rather, we
have reference to his postulating an interminable progress
wherein the simpler creatures produce in time the more perfect,
more complex organisms and also to his nominalism with respect to the status of species. Let us discuss the first postulate.

IV
At the end of his Origin, Darwin declares that he cannot
doubt that his theory embraces all the members of the plant
and animal kingdoms. All animals descended from four or five
progenitors and likewise for all plants. He then offers a further
speculation. "Analogy would lead me one step farther," he
continues, " namely, to the belie£ that all animals and plants
are descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be
a deceitful guide." Deceitful or not, Darwin seems to have
favored his analogy. 21 He did favor the notion of a continuous
progressive line of development ultimately culminating in man.
Such a postulate cannot be simply assumed, for it has a legitimate alternative. To some, time is the great destroyer, not
creator. All things degenerate, become less perfect, in time.
From his paper read to the Linnean Society 1 July 1858.
Wallace, although a strong adherent of natural selection, could not see. how
Darwin or anyone else could claim that all plants, animals, and men carne from a
few cells. The differences among them were too great to allow for such a theory.
Wallace advocated instead special creations for inorganic matter, plants, animals,
and men.
20
21

476

F. F. CENTORE

Darwin realized this and did attempt to document his claim
by reference to the fossil record. The geological record appeared to Darwin to indicate this perfect ascent from very
simple to very complex organisms. 22
It does not appear this way to others. Simpson, for instance,
the Harvard paleontologist, admits that the course of evolution
seems to differ radically for different animals. Some appear to
have gone through comparatively rapid changes, while others
have changed very little, while still others have apparently not
changed at all, since the earliest days of life on our planet. 23
William Thompson, of the Entomology Research Institute in
Ottawa, Canada, is even more critical of the continuous progress aspect of Darwin's theory. Even assuming that the dates
assigned to various fossil remains are accurate, he states, it
still appears that the picture presented to us of these ancient
times is very much like that of the world today. 24 Many
genera and species are inseparable from those existing today
even though found in deposits of great antiquity. This is
especially true of insect fauna. The majority of the various
preserved species of termites, ants, flies, etc., are still in existence today even though their fossil remains go back fifty
million years. Professor Thompson, an avid student of paleontology, claims to possess a fly trapped in Baltic amber which
is of the same genotype as the present-day Drosophila. Other
examples are also available. The Crossopterygian fish (thought
to have become extinct seventy million years ago), a species of
deep sea mollusc (once thought to have disappeared 280
million years ago) , the conifer Metasequoia (once believed to
have become extinct fifty million years ago), the articulate
Brachiopod Lingula (going back 500 million years) , are all
still with us today. 25
29 See F. F. Centore, Life, Atoms, Chance (New York, 1966) for a discussion
of the scientific merits of the hypothesis that living organisms came from nonliving matter.
23 See G. G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution
(Columbia U. Press, 1944).
•• See W. R. Thompson, "The Status of Species," Philosophical Problems in
Biology (ed. by V. E. Smith, New York, 1966), pp. 85 ff.
25 The following is a condensed geological time chart taken from G. S. Carter,

DARWIN ON EVOLUTION:

A HE-ESTIMATION

477

Thompson also wishes to take into account the fact that the
dating of fossil remains is more guesswork than science. He
states that
the paleontological record is not by any means the simply convincing story that neophytes in biology are led to accept. Most
students receive without hesitation the idea that the seriation of
the fossils, on which the reconstruction of phylogenies depends, is
a basic fact, yet, as is well known, the order of the fossils is based
on the rocks containing them, while the order of the rocks is based
on the fossils they contain. This statement, though it was received
with protest when I made it in a symposium some years ago, is
not seriously contested by paleontologists. 26
To escape this circular reasoning, the Darwinian must assume
that organic evolution proceeded from the simple to the complex. In other words, instead of building a theory on the .facts,
he is using the theory to decide what the facts are, charges
Thompson.
At present there is no sure way of determining the ages o}.
rocks. The usual estimates depend upon three relatively wellestablished dates which in turn are based upon rates of atomic
disintegration. Any other dates given are interpolations based
A Hundred Years of Evolution (London, 1957), p. 197. The figures to the right
are in mi!Hons of years and are, of course, very, very approximate.
Quaternary
Secondary
Pleistocene
1
Cretaceous
120
Tertiary
Jurassic
150
Pliocene
12
Triassic
185
Miocene
Primary
30
Oligocene
50
Permian
220
Eocene
60
Carboniferous
280
Paleocene
70
Devonian
325
Silurian
350
Ordovician
400
Cambrian
500
26 W. R. Thompson, art. cit., p. 87. The criticism could also be expanded in other
directions. For example, the human eye is said to have the remains of an extra
eyelid. This would make it less complicated now than it was eons ago. But, if
the development was from the more to the less complicated, what becomes of the
geological timetable? Perhaps rock strata containing less complicated organisms
are newer than those containing the more complicated ones.

478

F. F. CENT ORE

upon the three. Also, there is no essential connection between
the thickness of the rock stratum and its age. 27
Moreover, the various rock strata often do not lie with the
supposed newer upon the supposed older. The Cambrian rocks,
for instance, which are thought to contain the oldest fossils and
therefore to be the oldest rocks, do not always rest upon the
usually non-fossil bearing precambrian rock formations. In
general, any rock stratum may be found to rest on any other
rock stratum in the series supposed to be older than itself, while,
in some cases, the supposedly older rock is found on top of the
supposedly newer rock. Darwin himself was aware of this
situation. He explained it away by calling upon Lyell and
others who showed that the earth's surface has undergone many
upheavals and shiftings thus disturbing the neatness of the
geological strata. The mixed-up stratifications, then, are abnormalities. This answer does not really solve the problem
posed by Thompson, however. For, in order to know what is
abnormal, one must know what is normal, and this is precisely
the issue to be decided. Obviously, it cannot be decided by
geology. Hence the importance of the progressive development
theory: the simpler the forms, the older the rocks. But what if
the present order of stratification is the normal one rather than
the abnormal one? In that case, simpler species will be found
in newer rocks and the constant progression theory must be
re-evaluated.
The question now to be raised, assuming the correctness of
the presently accepted geological stratification, is why some
species apparently developed into others while some other
species did not. Simpson believes that the reason some species
have remained constant is that they lived in stable environments and have reached a state of equilibrium with their
27 Even atomic disintegration methods have their limits. According to an article
in Time (August 17, 1962, p. 65), "By measuring the amount of potassium 40 and
its decay product, argon 40, in a digger's find, scientists conceivably can fix an
object's age at 50 million years, with a probable error of less than 2%. The radiouctive carbon dating system, for which Dr. Willard Libby won a Nobel Prize in
1960, reaches back for only 50,000 to 60,000 years."

DARWIN ON EVOLUTION:

A HE-ESTIMATION

479

enviromnents so that any change would destroy rather than
advance them. But do not the long-lived species live among
the short-lived species (i.e., species that have supposedly
evolved) in the same environment? Also, according to geologists, no part of the world has had a stable environment.
Environmental instability is, in fact, one of the two keys (the
other is mutations) to the modern theory of adaptation.
This points to a further difficulty with the assumption of a
continuous progressive development. Carter, referring to Darwin's day, says that "Another criticism against the gradual
evolution of complex organs was that small changes in their
parts in the course of evolution must destroy their efficiency.
This is the same criticism as that concerned with co-ordination
everywhere in the body." 28 He considers the answers to both
to be the same. The variations occurred in such small steps
that they could not have upset the over-all coordination of the
organism or caused it a loss of efficiency. However, the slight
variations could have given the creature some advantage over
its fellow creatures.
In the same place he also gives another objection against
Darwin's theory. "The objection was made that in development many organs reach complex structure before they begin
to function. The vertebrate heart is an example." This objection, he continues, " is removed when it is realized that it is
the whole life-history of an animal that evolves. Complex
structure in these organs is very necessary when they begin to
function, and any failure to develop their structure at earlier
stages would undoubtedly have negative selective value."
It is hard to see how the answers given by Carter in the
above two paragraphs can be reconciled. He seems to want to
have the same facet of the same theory explain two contrary
occurrences. To Darwin's way of thinking, some slight variations give their possessors the edge in the fight for life. Since
they survive, they can reproduce. The offspring inherit the
favorable variations. The sole criterion of favorableness is
•• G. S. Carter, op. cit., p. 76.

480

F. F. CENTORE

survival value at the time and at the place of variation. How,
then, can a natural selection type of evolutionist claim both
that the eye, for example, developed because each minute step
was favorable and that the vertebrate heart developed because
each minute step along the way was not favorable: it was only
the over-all, complex organ that was favorable. To say that
minute variations are passed on because right now, at the time
of variation, the parents have the edge over other creatures and
that minute variations are passed on because they will be of
value later seems to be stretching one theory a bit too far.
Darwin himself, later in life, again being less obstinate than
many of his followers, was willing to admit that perhaps too
much emphasis was given to natural selection. Other factors,
covered by other special theories of change (he did not say
exactly what they were), might also be at work. He justified
his earlier overemphasis by pointing out that, in order to counteract one extreme (special creation of each species), it is sometimes necessary to go to the other extreme. 29
Besides the problem of reconciling the two answers given by
Carter to the two objections stated above, there is also a problem with respect to the first answer taken alone. If survival
value is the sole criterion of favorableness in variations, why
would anything other than bacteria or some simpler form of
life exist in our world? Carter claims that each variation was
so small that it could in no way harm the efficiency of the
organism. But, on the one hand, if they are that small, how
could they in any way help the organism in its struggle for
existence? And, on the other hand, if such variations were
more than just above non-existence, how could they not hinder
the stability of a perfectly well-adjusted organism? If survival
is the end or purpose of natural selection, then this end has
been preeminently fulfilled eons ago with the advent of bacteria.
Compared to the ease with which so-called higher forms of life
can be killed, it is practically impossible to destroy these
things. The slightest variation in climate, ecology, atmosphere,
•• See The Descent of Man (2nd ed., 1874, Modern Library ed.), p. 442.

DARWIN ON EVOLUTION:

A HE-ESTIMATION

481

etc., can terminate the life of that highly complex organism,
man, while the various bacteria, by and large, can undergo all
sorts of extreme change and still survive to reproduce again a
million-fold.

v
Consider now the second assumption needed by Darwin in
order to explain not merely the survival of species but their
origin, namely, his nominalism. By nominalism we mean Darwin's view that species are only strongly marked varieties
which exhibit relative permanence and stability over a given
period of time. When beginning the summary of the evidence
for natural selection, the acceptance of the truth of this position is given as the first presupposition that must be assented
to. 3 ° For Darwin, this meant that there are no essential differences among living things. No individual existing creature is,
in any way, identical with any other living thing. There are
no true classes of creatures. There are only "populations" of
creatures. What is called a class is merely a collection of
individuals. Put positively, every individual existing creature
Is umque.
Darwin believed that the acceptance of this position would
be a great help to science. Of immediate benefit would be the
termination of the constant arguing among systematists over
what is and what is not a true species. In the future " Systematists will have only to decide (not that this will be easy)
whether any form be sufficiently constant and distinct from
other forms, to be capable of definition; and if definable,
whether the differences be sufficiently important to deserve a
specific name." Hereafter, systematists will be compelled to
say that the only difference between a species and a variety is
that varieties are presently seen to be connected by intermediate gradations, whereas the intermediate steps among species
are now missing. No longer must one search for the essence of a
creature so as to identify it with another creature of the same
30

See The Origin of Species (Modern Library ed.) , p. 360.

F. F.

CENT ORE

essence, for there are not now, nor have there ever been, such
essences. 31
In stating his position, Darwin was declaring himself on one
of the most ancient and important of philosophical issues,
namely, the problem of universal concepts. It does not appear,
however, that he realized what he was getting into. His manner
of presentation and his failure to elaborate and defend his view
reveals a philosophical naivete that one would not expect from
a great mind. If one were to consistently follow out the
consequences of this nominalistic position, the effects upon
science, and human life in general, would be profound.
The first difficulty posed by Darwin's nominalism is whether
or not the taxonomist has a right to exist at all. Rather than
aiding the systematist, it may well be that he and his profession
are rendered impossible. According to Darwin's "analogy,"
which is generally accepted by Darwinians today, there is one
long flowing continuum from the first living thing to man. How
then can anyone systematize a collection of millions of individual creatures when there is no system? A taxonomist cannot di8cover the genus and species of a specimen because all
such classes have been ruled out by the theory of gradual
ascent. The most he can do is arbitrarily to name groups of
creatures which appear to him to be similar. He invent8 his
own species and genera. 32
Consider the problem with respect to man. We say "John
is a human being," " Mary is a human being," " Sam is a
human being," "Sally is a human being," etc. But how is this
possible, if they are not identical with respect to being human?
Given the nominalistic position, no such identity is possible.
The most a systematist could say is that John, Mary, Sam,
31 Sec ibid., p. 371.
Cf. D. L. Hull, ., The Metaphysics of Evolution," The
British Journal for the History of Science, Vol. 3 (1967), pp. 309-337. Hull claims
that Darwin was not definite in deciding the status of species, but instead took a
position somewhere between the " essentialists " and nominalists. However, regardless of what Darwin himself may have thought, his position was nominalistic at
least in the tradition of either Roscelinus or Occam.
32 See G. G. Simpson, Principles of Animal Taxonomy
(New York, 1961), passim.

DARWIN ON EVOLUTION:

A BE-ESTIMATION

488

Sally, etc., are like human beings. They are similar in this
respect, not identical. What and where, then, is this " human
being" that they are like? If John, Mary, Sam, Sally, etc., are
not essentially the same but only similar to one another, in
what does the similarity reside? If they are like "human
beings " and there is no " humanbeingness," they resemble nothing. Similarity is not identity. To say something is like
something else implies that it is also different. New York is
is not London. Yet there is identity here also. New York and
London are cities. They are not like cities. 83
To escape this problem one o£ two courses has usually been
taken. One method is to ignore the implications o£ Darwin's
nominalism. It is not unusual to find biologists claiming to be
adherents of Darwin's special theory of evolution while they
simultaneously go on describing and naming species. It is
sometimes difficult to tell which half of the split personality
dominates. When giving a popular lecture, for instance, he
may sound like an orthodox neo-Darwinian in claiming that it
does not make much difference whether man is thought of as a
well-developed protozoon or whether a protozoon is thought of
as an underdeveloped man. In his actual work, however, he
proceeds to arrange individual specimens into various classes
as if there were something identical about them and as if he
had never heard of Darwin.
A second escape route is that proposed by such outstanding
biologists as Ernst Mayr, Simpson, and W. S. Beck. 84 Evolutionary taxonomy, they state, replaces the notion of an essence,
identical in each species, with the notion of a collection of
physical characteristics (similarities) inherited by all the members of the same group. Instead of types, there are now only
populations. Due to the passing on of certain characteristics
through genes, the offspring are similar to their parents. in
physical traits. The anatomy and physiology of a group of
33 On the history of this problem see W. Windelband, A History of Philosophy
(tr. by J. H. Tufts, New York, 1960), pp. 107 fi', 188 fi', 287 fi', 860 ff.
•• See G. G. Simpson and W. S. Beck, op. cit., pp. 487-506. For more detail see
S. Wright, Evolution and the Genetics of Population (Vol. I, Chicago, 1968).

484

F. F. CENT ORE

offspring is therefore the sum of the characteristics of those
individuals constituting the population.
Another way of looking at the second escape would be to
take a statistical approach. The pattern of characteristics is a
frequency distribution of the many variants on each characteristic present at any given time. Typology is thereby eliminated, it is alleged. Instead of looking for species, we now look
to the frequency with which certain characteristics and variations on those characteristics show up in a group of specimens.
A high frequency of a certain group of characteristics indicates
an area within the flowing continuum of creatures that is to be
marked off as a "species." In other words, the search for
similarities is now to be aided by mathematical techniques,
essences having been replaced by gene structures.
One wonders, though, if this really removes the difficulty.
If no two individuals in the universe are identical in any way,
why worry about classification at all? To claim that "John is
a man" and "Sam is a man" merely means that John and
Sam have similar genes (note that the concept gene is itself
a universal), manifesting themselves in similar physical traits,
is still to deny that " man " applies equally well to both. We
are still left with the question " What does it take to be a
man?" If John has one arm and Sam has two, is John less a
man than Sam? How is it that we can classify both John and
Mary as humans despite all the many obvious and not so
obvious differences? In other words, statistical means are fine
for noting the frequency with which various traits occur within
a group of specimens, but how are we to know that a certain
thing belongs in a particular group in the first place? How far
must an individual depart from the statistical average before
it is no longer in the species? To answer these questions one
must know what constitutes a species before, not after, the
measurements are made. It makes sense to say that men's
brain sizes vary between X and Y. It does not make sense
to say that because your brain size is between X and Y you
are a human. If this were the way things were done, then
human babies would not be human while adult dolphins and

DARWIN ON EVOLUTION:

ARE-ESTIMATION

485

porpoises would be. The status of a corpse is also instructive.
Although the brain sizes are the same, a corpse is not a human
being but only the remains of a human being.
This problem of determining species is not peculiar to modern
Darwinians but affiicted Darwin himself. We read in his Origin
of Species the following brief paragraph. " Hence, in determining whether a form should be ranked as a species or a
variety, the opinion of naturalists having sound judgment and
wide experience seems the only guide to follow. We must,
however, in many cases, decide by a majority of naturalists, for
few well-marked and well-known varieties can be named which
have not been ranked as species by at least some competent
judges." 35 Darwin's intention here is to indicate the subjectivity and arbitrariness of species selection. In a later paragraph, after giving examples of confusions in deciding what is
and is not a species, he states: " Nevertheless, no certain criterion can possibly be given by which variable forms, local forms,
sub-species, and representative species can be recognized." 36
One wonders, of course, how he can accuse some naturalists of
confusing varieties with species when there is no sure way of
telling them apart in the first place.

VI
Before going on to a discussion of the paleontological evidence surrounding Darwin's nominalism, we should pause a
moment to reflect upon the social consequences of such a
nominalism. Recall that there are no ontological breaks in the
scale of being from the first primal cell to the most intelligent
of men. This means that even at the upper end of the scale
there is a gradation of perfections. "In a series of forms,"
C. Darwin, The Origin of Species (Modem Library ed.), p. 41.
Ibid., p. 42. We might at this point remind ourselves of a compromise position
stated by Wallace and restated by others. For instance M. J. Adler, in answer
to his own book Problems for Thomists: The Problem of Species (New York, 1940),
published a long article entitled " Solution to the Problem of Species" (Thomist,
Vol. 3, 1941, pp. 279-379) in which he argued that to be true to St. Thomas
Aquinas one must hold for the existence of only four species (mineral, plant,
animal, man), all other divisions being merely varieties or races.
35

36

486

F. F. CENT ORE

thought Darwin, " graduating insensibly from some ape-like
creature to man as he now exists, it would be impossible to
fix on any definite point when the term ' man ' ought to be
used. But this is a matter of very little importance. So again,
it is almost a matter of indifference whether the so-called races
of man are thus designated, or are ranked as species or subspecies; but the latter term appears the more appropriate." 37
Darwin is again showing his naivete, this time in social and
political matters.
It did not take long for Darwin's " survival of the fittest"
and "all the world's a jungle" approach to evolution to find
its way into literature and politics. Perhaps the two figures
who best epitomize the full consequences of this approach to
life are Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) and Adolf Hitler
(1889-1945). Who can say that the white race, which has
produced Newtons, Shakespeares, Einsteins, etc., does not have
the right to use the inferior black and yellow races, just as they
in turn use creatures inferior to themselves? In fact, why cannot some groups within the white race, if they can out-survive
their fellow whites, assume the title and honor of supermen?
As Randall has said with respect to Nietzsche, " What was
good in the world in which Providence ruled for the salvation
of every human soul, can, to the emancipated mind that sees
the bitter travail of evolution, the fierce struggle to bring about
higher types of life, no longer appeal as good at all." 38 And, as
he said with respect to the relationship between the United
States and Hitler before our entry into the second World War,
" Secretary Hull is crying in the jungle to those who follow the
jungle's law." 39
It is strange that at a time when various movements were
afoot to eliminate slavery and imperialism, a new doctrine
should have arisen which could be used as a powerful tool to
support slavery and imperialism. Equally ironic is the fact that
C. Darwin, The Descent of Man (Modern Library ed.), p. 541.
J. H. Randall, Jr., The Making of the Modern Mind (revised ed., New York,
1940)' p. 608.
•• Ibid., p. 674.
37

38

DARWIN ON EVOLUTION:

A HE-ESTIMATION

487

Darwin, himself a kindly and charitable man, should have
provided a doctrine which could be and was used as the
ultimate justification for the most hideous of tortures.

VII
Turning now to the paleontological evidence for Darwin's
nominalism, one finds that the geological record of fossils has
not changed a great deal since 1872. In 1872 Darwin asked
himself why naturalists could not find innumerable intermediary
specimens among presently existing population types and why
the geological record did not retain the remains of these intermediaries. His answer to the first query was that the whole process is proceeding so slowly that the lifespan of one human is
not long enough to notice such mutations. His answer to the
second problem, however, has been the occasion of much disbelief. He said, in effect, that the remains are not there now
as far as we know, they may be discovered in the future, but
if they are not we have no right to expect that they will be.
For various reasons, such as the perishableness of the dead
creatures, he would be giving us false hopes if he were to
promise that they would certainly be unearthed some day.
To someone just coming from a class in scientific methodology such an answer must appear a bit strange, to say the
least. According to the usual presentation of scientific procedure, the scientist must be able to test his theories. Scientists
must sit at the feet of facts. The theologian may accept on
faith, the philosopher is allowed to build castles in the air, but
the scientist must prove and demonstrate his propositions, ultimately by reference to intersubjective, concrete experience. So,
when it is heard that a theory depends in large part upon
evidence that does not exist and that cannot be found, it is
understandable that scientists will hesitate before rushing in to
embrace the theory.
Darwin's explanation of why one does not have the right to
expect to find such evidence is plausible. Most organic beings
are highly fragile and quickly decompose after death without
leaving a trace. This is an observable fact. The trouble with

488

F. F. CENTORE

this fact of experience is that it can also be used to support
some theory diametrically opposed to Darwin's. 40 Someone in
favor of a special creation theory, to take an example, could
claim that God had created millions of very special species
before the great flood. If these creatures could be found, they
would prove the theory of special creature because they would
contain special marks put upon them by God. Unfortunately,
however, all these creatures were very perishable and now cannot possibly be found. It is like the story that tells that St.
Patrick drove the sea serpents away from the Irish coast. How
do you know that? Well, you don't find any sea serpents there,
do you? Or, why do elephants have red eyes? I don't know,
why? So they can hide in cherry trees. Don't be silly! Well,
you've never seen an elephant in a cherry tree, have you! It is
simply not scientifically acceptable to base a theory on nonexistent evidence.
Just what is the status of the paleontological record as it
stands today? The geological record exhibits two general characteristics, both of which were admitted by Darwin and both
of which are unfavorable to his particular theory. One fact is
that the paleontological record does not converge toward fewer
and fewer species, and ultimately to one creature, as we dig
further and further back into time. Secondly, the various large
divisions of creatures seem to come upon the scene suddenly
(by geological standards) rather than showing a gradual transformation from the simpler to the more complex. The first state
of affairs is more significant for the Darwinian than the second.
Perhaps most of the chains between and among the supposedly
sudden manifestations of new creatures are missing. Nevertheless, what fossils we do find, even if their number is relatively
small, should show the general tendency to converge upon the
postulated primal cell from which all subsequent variety and
•• The same holds for the argument based upon vestigial organs. Also, if chains
of fossils are missing for the lower forms, maybe they are also missing for the
higher forms. Did man exist in Cambrian times? Yes, but the remains are lost.
In a similar vein, having salt in our blood no more proves that we came from the
sea than having iron in our blood proves we came from the Great Mesabi Range.

DARWIN ON EVOLUTION:

A HE-ESTIMATION

489

differentiation has flowed. Instead o£ a gradually increasing
organization and definition o£ species, however, one finds that
the remains o£ past creatures are as well defined and ordered
as are those in existence today.
Darwin, at the beginning o£ Chapter 6 o£ The Origin of
Species, attempted to give various reasons, other than the imperfection o£ the geological record, £or the lack o£ intermediaries among well-defined species. His reasons were meant to
apply to both the present and the past, i. e., we should be able
to see the intermediaries around us today and preserved in
the fossil record. He asks "why, i£ species have descended
£rom other species by fine gradation, do we not everywhere see
innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well-defined? " He gives three reasons why the situation exists today
and, by extrapolation, why it existed in the past, therefore
explaining the lack o£ fossil evidence. As a further reason £or
the missing chains o£ evidence, he gives the £act that he believes
the geological record to be highly imperfect.
The first reason is that new varieties form very slowly, "So
that, in any one region and at any one time, we ought to see
only a £ew species presenting slight modifications o£ structure
in some degree permanent; and this assuredly we do see."
Second, by the constant rising and sinking o£ land masses,
surface areas o£ the earth are constantly being isolated £rom
each other, thus cutting off intermediary specimens. Third,
"when two or more varieties have been formed in different
portions o£ a strictly continuous area, intermediate varieties
will, it is probable, at first have been formed in the intermediate zones, but they will generally have had a short duration."
The main reason £or their short lives is that " the range o£ the
inhabitants o£ any country by no means exclusively depends on
insensibly changing physical conditions, but in a large part
on the presence o£ other species, on which it lives, or by which
it is destroyed, or with which it comes into competition; and as
these species are already defined objects, not blending one into
another by insensible gradations, the range o£ any one species,

490

F. F.

CENT ORE

depending as it does on the range of others, will tend to be
sharply defined." Also, due to their smaller numbers, intermediate varieties will be more quickly exterminated.
Darwin's first reason is observationally verifiable to some
extent. We can and do observe various changes in the outward
appearances of some creatures. This is especially true with
respect to color variations. One type of animal preys upon
another type. But in order to be caught, the victim must first
be seen. Gradually, the more easily seen offspring are eaten,
while the less easily seen offspring survive to reproduce. In
time, the less easily seen variety comes to dominate the
species. 41 However, no one as yet has claimed to witness a
certain type of bird, moth, snake, mouse, etc., change into
something other than what it started out as. As a result, evolution by natural selection has not be established by direct observation. Even in the case of the famous fruit fly, which differs
from the others in that it has been subjected to all sorts of
artificial conditions since 1909, the basic genotype has remained
the same. So it happened that, after many years of research
hinging upon Darwin's first reason, Robson and Richards could
write, " We do not believe that natural selection can be disregarded as a possible factor in evolution. Nevertheless, there
is so little positive evidence in its favor, so much that appears
to tell against it, and so much that is as yet inconclusive that
we have no right to assign to it the main causative role in
evolution." 42 Such titles, then, as " Darwin's Missing Evidence " or the like which appear from time to time in the
popular press, and which report upon some slight variation
or other, are misleading for two reasons. First, Darwin himsel£
was aware of such variations. Also, such variations are not
changes in species.
The second reason for the lack of intermediaries is much
more highly speculative than the others. Darwin himself ad41 See J. Huxley, Evolution:
The Mode:rn Synthesis (London, 1942) and P. G.
Fothergill, op. cit., pp. 319 fl.
•• G. C. Robson and 0. W. Richards, The Varmtion of Animals in Nature
(London, 1936), p. 316.

DARWIN ON EVOLUTION:

A RE-ESTIMATION

491

mitted this and chose but to mention it and then pass on to
his other reasons. We will do the same.
His third reason again shows Darwin to be somewhat less
critical of himself than he claimed to be. Darwin is ou.t to
explain why there is a sharp differentiation among species
(both past and present) . His answer here is that the intermediaries are destroyed in the process of having to live among other,
sharply defined, species. Because their neighbors are sharply
defined, and because they are quickly destroyed, the intermediary species cannot be found. One wonders how Darwin
can account for the sharp definition of species by calling upon
the sharp definition of other species. This merely assumes what
is to be explained.
The fact that the fossil record does not converge has led
some modern advocates of natural selection literally to invent
the missing chains of evidence. This practice has become so
commonplace that it can be found in any elementary science
text, on educational TV, and, of course, on popular programs
of all sorts. Most of the genealogies or " trees " have a tendency to be highly orthogenetic, i.e., to be set up in such a way
that the organisms seem to be inwardly directed to develop in
just a certain fashion and in no other. The practice of constructing family trees usually involves picking out some fossil
sample as the great ancestor of many present forms and then
drawing in lines, to which are attached drawings of other fossils
or existing creatures, which all converge on the ancient ancestor. When carefully scrutinized, however, such phylogenies do
not represent the actually existing fossil records. They are
rather imaginative constructions, arbitrarily arranging a few
actual fossil remains with many assumed intermediaries. As
Thompson has said, somewhat facetiously, with respect to the
ease with which an ancestor can be dreamed up,
It is, in fact, a construct, which represents a hypothetical reality,

but whose role, as I have said, is simply that of the generator of an
imaginary phylogeny. It is thus comparable to the constructs in
mathematical physics, such as the representations of the universe

492

F. F.

CENTORE

in the cosmologies of Ptolemy, Tycho Brahe, and Copernicus. But
while the constructs of the astronomers can be checked by quantitative measurement, those of the phylogeneticists cannot. This is
obviously a great advantage to them. 43

At this point we might interject another element posing a
problem for a more or less strict Darwinian with respect to
Darwin's nominalism. The gradual transmutation of one population group into another is said to be so slow as to be largely
imperceptible. This may be true at one time and one place,
but why could not one see the various stages in the evolution
of some creature at one time but in different places? That
is to say, it seems to be assumed that evolutionary development transpires at a fixed rate all over the world. The validity
of this assumption is questioned by Arnold Lunn. " There is
one point," he states, " which so far as I know has never been
made, but which seems to be worth making. Darwinists seem
to believe in what may be described as the synchronisation of
evolution. They assume that the different phases of evolution
were synchronised throughout the world." 44
Lunn takes as an example the development of the wing. If
Darwinians are right, he claims, there was a time when scales
on reptiles were becoming feathery. Later, feathers, incapable
of flight, were fully developed. Still later, archaeopteryx, the
first true bird, lifted itself into the air. Now, if evolution is still
continuing today, and we have no reason to turn off the theory
just now, why do we not see examples of the various stages
of wing development existing simultaneously throughout the
world today. In other words, unless all evolutionary phases
were and are synchronized throughout the world, there must
have been a time (which should show up in the fossil record),
and the present must now be a time, when some reptiles had
and have feathery scales, some feathers, and some efficient
wings. In fact, however, no modern form possesses any of
W. R. Trompson, art. cit., p. 70.
A. Lunn, The Revolt Against Reason (London, 1950), p. 124. Darwin himself
accepted synchronization as a fact. See The Origin of Species (Modern Library
ed.), pp. 262-265.
43
44

DARWIN ON EVOLUTION:

A HE-ESTIMATION

493

the many such nascent organs which innumerable millions of
creatures must have had somewhere along the line.
This consideration leads us into the next unfavorable aspect
of the paleontological evidence with respect to Darwin's nominalism. Darwin was also cognizant of this second problem and
attempted to explain its occurrence in the same manner as he
explained the first. Why is it that whole groups of creatures
appear rather suddenly and fully formed in various geological
strata? Because, for various reasons, the connecting chains of
slowly developing creatures have not been preserved. This is
inconvenient for the theory of natural selection. But such a
lack does not disprove the theory. But then neither does it
prove it.
Such ardent students of the subject, as W. Thompson,
Austin Clark, Paul Lemoine, and James Gray have found the
lack of sufficient paleontological evidence sufficient reason to
seriously question whether natural selection is true at all.
Among contemporary insects, for example, the Ephemeroptera,
Odonata, Orthoptera, Blattids, Coleoptera, Hymenoptera, Diptera, Lepidoptera, Hemiptera, and M ecoptera each appear
rather suddenly in some one particular time. This is also true
of oysters, Hippurites, frogs, whales, seals, etc. Sudden appearance is the rule and not the exception.
The well-known cases in which it appears that there may
have been a slow development can be explained in some other
way or there is evidence to show the contrary. The different
forms of the Paludine Mollusc shells, for instance, appear in
different parts of the world, under different ecological conditions, at the same time. This indicates that there is only a
difference in phenotype (accidental difference) rather than a
change in genotype (essential difference). In the case of the
Ammonites, genealogies have been set up going both from
straight to loosely coiled to tightly coiled cones and vice versa.
Mere shape or size cannot be used to decide antiquity. In the
case of the Foraminifera, the various forms exist simultaneously, and there seems to be no evidence of a struggle for existence.
Even in the famous cases of the horse and the elephant, the

494

F. F. CENT ORE

apparent changes can be explained phenotypically rather than
genotypically .45
Returning now for a moment to what was previously mentioned concerning the incompatibility of a doctrine which
teaches that variations are preserved because immediately useful for survival with a doctrine that says such variations are
preserved because they will be useful later, we can see a close
connection between the problems posed by the sudden appearances of species and the problems posed by the radical transformations of organs. Some organs are not useful at all until
they have reached a certain high degree of organization and
completion. Carter mentioned the vertebrate heart as an example. A survey of nature, however, reveals many more cases
of the same type. The cases of creatures that emerge from
eggs compared to those that emerge from wombs, the suckling
of offspring on land and in the sea, and the water spider will
suffice to show the problem. 46
In the first example, it is biologically impossible for a shelled
egg gradually to give up its shell, its food supply, and gradually
to develop a placental connection, with all the various blood
vessel connections, etc., that are needed. It is an all or nothing
situation. If such a change-over did occur at some time in the
past, it must have occurred suddenly, that is, there must have
been a radical transformation. Until the whole new method of
reproduction is completely coordinated in all its complicated
precision, it is useless for survival.
Consider also the case of the whale suckling its young under
water. The mother has a receptacle into which milk is secreted.
It has muscles which contract in order to force the milk into
the baby against the surrounding water pressure. There is
also a cap around the nipple (into which the baby's snout fits)
which prevents the mixing of salt water with the milk. Also,
the baby has an elongated windpipe, that projects beyond the
•• See W. R. Thompson, art. cit., pp. 90 fl'.
•• This type of objection has been especially emphasized by Douglas Dewar as
an argument against any kind of evolution. See his Difficulties of Evolutionary
Theory (London, 1931) and More Difficulties of the Evolutionary Theory (London,
1938).

DARWIN ON EVOLUTION:

A HE-ESTIMATION

495

gullet opening, to prevent milk from getting into the lungs.
Again there can be no gradual transformation. The apparatus
is useless if not fully developed. All modifications must be
complete before the child can be suckled under water.
In the case of the water spider, the home which it builds
ior its young is useless until completed. This creature builds
a little inverted cup-like structure, moored by threads to stones
or plants, under water. Air is brought into the cup by being
attached to the fine hairs on the spider's body. The trip to the
surface and back must be made many times. The same process
is used periodically to replace the nest's air. This, also, could
not have developed gradually. There is no half-way position
between rearing offspring above water and doing so under
water. Ordinary spiders quickly die under water. According to
Darwin's theory, then, the original spider must have developed
all the prerequisites for underwater life while above water
(where they would be of no use to it) and then haphazardly
fell into the water one day. How can evolutionary theory of
any stripe explain such a thing, one might ask. Similar difficulties can be raised in the cases of eyes, wings, and any other
highly complex organ.
Darwin argues that, impossible as it sounds, such intermediate steps must exist because his theory is true. And his theory
is true because it is the only scientific alternative to the
obnoxious theory of special creation. Dewar argues that a
scientist (Dewar himself was a trained zoologist) should not
espouse an explanation for which there is insufficient or contradictory evidence regardless of what his a priori " feelings " on
the subject may be.47 No reputable scientist who supported,
say, the wave theory of light would call someone crazy for
supporting the corpuscular theory of light. Nor would the
reverse happen. There are solid reasons on both sides. Why
should not the same openness of mind obtain in regard to
evolutionary theory? It appears that Darwin did sincerely
believe that there was sufficient evidence to support his special
•• It might also be asked why one must use only natural causes to explain It
phenomenon in order to be " scientific." This would be the case only if scientific
were defined that way. But this is an assumption which need not be granted.

496

F. F.

CENTORE

theory of evolution. But it also appears that his desire to
destroy the special creation view caused him to overrate the
supporting evidence and underrate the objections. His attitude
is understandable.
After all, how many different special
theories can there be? He knew of Lamarckism and of others
that were either the same as, or similar to, his own. And his
own theory was not that radical. He was merely extending the
use of "secondary causes." Previously, secondary causes, i.e.,
natural causes as opposed to the calling upon God as a direct
cause in each case, had been used to explain new varieties.
Now secondary causes would also explain new species. One
could even look at his theory from another point of view which
would also make it appear, he naively believed, as not so very
radical. Secondary causes are still used to explain varieties;
but now all species are to be considered as varieties. One need
not even consider the particular secondary cause mechanism he
chose to do the explaining, namely, natural selection, to be the
only one operating in nature.
It is interesting to observe that in our own century, after so
many years of heated debate in the last, no thinker of note is
willing to commit himself one hundred percent to Darwin's
position. In 1932, J. B. S. Haldane expressed the view that,
after observing the way all living things are so closely related
in so many different ways, any kind of revolutionary hypothesis
becomes fantastic. However, as far as the exact causes of
evolution are concerned, there is room for much critical caution.
Selection is a factor, but it is perhaps not even the major one.
Also, the dogmatic notion of a necessary progress in development, so dear to Haeckel and other early Darwinians, must be
abandoned. 48 And Carter, at the end of his consideration of a
hundred years of evolution, could say that evolution rather
than revolution is the order of the day, and that neo-Darwinian
theory is probably true, but that there is " certainly much work
still to be done before the theory approaches completeness." 49
University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

F. F. CENT ORE

•• See his The Causes of Evolution (London, 1932), pp. 152 fl'.
•• G. S. Carter, op. cit., p. 196.

THE ANALOGY OF INDIVIDUALITY
"TOGETHERNESS"

AND

I

N EVERY person's life and in every philosophy of man
there is the constant tension between honorable individuality and community. Excessive individuality can
destroy one's necessary membership in community. Over
preoccupation with community can check one's growth in
individuality. Occasionally some persons choose exclusively
either individuality or community. It seems that, although the
tension will never be fully resolved, one must be both an
individual and a member of community. In the paragraphs
which follow we wish to bring out this point, namely, that one
must be, necessarily, both an individual and a member of
community, but particularly we wish to expand the thought.
that neither individuality nor community is a univocal concept
or reality. Rather, in man there are various levels of individuality. Likewise there are various levels of community.
We have used the word" togetherness" as a generic term because, as will appear later, community, at least in our future
use of the word, will be limited to a particular level of togetherness. We wish, immediately, to acknowledge our indebtedness to Karl Rahner and to Gabriel Marcel for many
of the ideas which appear below and, in some instances, for
their terminology.
NouMENAL

EGo-PHENOMENAL

EGo

By these terms " noumenal " and " phenomenal ego " we
wish to give a name to two aspects of man which, although
they cannot be separated, yet must be distinguished. Man is
spirit in matter, or, if you will, spirit in the world. By the
" noumenal ego " we mean man as spirit. It is common doctrine
with the Scholastics that the human soul is a self-subsistent
form. By this they mean, at least the Thomists, that certainly

497

498

DANIEL J. SHINE

after death the human soul is capable of existing on its own
apart from the body. But also it must be emphasized that the
human spirit, even in its conjunction with the body, is selfsubsistent. If it is self-subsistent after death, it must be
self-subsistent before death. By the term "phenomenal ego"
we mean the same human soul which informs matter. Donceel l
has brought out this distinction rather felicitously. He points
out that the human soul must be considered both as a formal
principle and as a substance, as a spirit. The soul is said to
be a spirit which acts like a substantial form. The soul as spirit
is rightly said, as self-subsistent, to be a complete substance
but not a complete nature. This understanding of the soul as
a spirit which informs matter is a synthesis of a thesis which
derives from Plato and an antithesis which comes from Aristotle. Plato insisted that the human soul was a spiritual being
-and this we grant. Aristotle insisted that the human soul was
the form of matter-and this, too, we must grant. The synthesis is found in the fact that the human soul is a spirit which
informs matter.
It would take us too far afield to give a deeper explanation
here of how the unity of man is thus preserved and how,
simultaneously, the soul can be spirit which is materialized by
its intrinsic dependence upon matter. It is our opinion that a
solution of this antimony can be suggested by a recourse to
Karl Rahner's theory of quasi-formal causality 2 and likewise
to De la Taille's theory of Act and Actuation. 3
INTELLECT- UNDERSTANDING

If man is a spirit (noumenal ego) and spirit in matter
(phenomenal ego) on the substantial level, it will be necessary
that these two aspects of man appear in his levels of activity.
1 J. F. Donceel, S. J., Philosophical Anthropology (New York:
Sheed and Ward,
1967), pp. 435-436.
2 Karl Rahner, S. J. "Some Implications of the Scholastic Concept of Uncreated
Grace," Theological Investigations, trans. Cornelius Ernst, 0. P. (Baltimore:
Helicon Press), I, pp. 319-346; cf. footnote
p. 340.
3 Maurice de la Taille, S. J., The Hypostatic Union and Created Actuation by
Uncreated Act (West Baden Springs, Ind.: West Baden College,

THE ANALOGY

OF INDIVIDUALITY

AND " TOGETHERNESS "

499

We wish here to point out how this will become manifest in
the operations of man's intelligence. Before we recall this
distinction, we must immediately point out that there is only
one intellect, one intelligence, in man. Just as there is only
one soul in man which is a spirit which informs matter and
thus we truly have two aspects to the one human soul, so
likewise in man there is but one intelligence with these two
aspects, intellect and understanding. As it is always the total
man (the noumenal ego and phenomenal ego) which exists
and operates, so, too, whenever man's intelligence operates
both aspects must be present, namely, intellect and understanding. Man, in intelligizing, must necessarily and simultaneously know the other, a material reality and himself, be
conscious of the other and of himself. In the first aspect of
this one operation we have the intentionality of knowledge,
identity with opposition, and in the second aspect we have only
the pure identity of knowledge, identity without opposition,
or simply being-present-to-itself. In the human intellect as
understanding there is present the quiddity of material things
or the proper formal object of the human mind attained by the
abstraction of the intelligible species. In the intellect aspect
of the human intelligence, we have being as common formal
object of the mind. This is intellectual consciousness. Understanding is the spiritual, cognitive faculty of the substantial
j01·m of a material body. Intellect is the spiritual, cognitive
faculty of spirit in matter. Understanding has been commonly
well-developed by scholastic philosophers. We would wish,
therefore, to underline the aspect of intelligence which we have
called intellect, namely, that aspect of intelligence whereby the
human soul as spirit, as self-subsistent spiritual substance, is
capable, by reflection, of returning to its essence, of being
present-to-itself-as-subject, of taking possession of itself as
being and thus achieving the identity of the real and the
intelligible. 4
• D. J. Shine, S. J., An Interior Metaphysics: The Philosophical Synthesis of
Pierre Scheuer, S. J. (Weston, Mass.: Weston College Press, 1966), pp. 78-81 and
footnote. Cf. also, footnote of pp.

500

DANIEL J. SHINE

INTELLECTUAL

WILL-RATIONAL

WILL

Just as there is only one soul in man which is spirit and yet
informs matter; just as there is only one intelligence in man
which yet has two aspects, intellect and understanding, so too
in man there is but one will, but it has two aspects. These we
have called intellectual will and rational will. Intellectual will
parallels human intelligence as intellect. It is spirit taking possession of itself, necessarily loving itself simultaneously with the
other. Rational will parallels the understanding aspect of the
intelligence. It is concerned with the will's appetite for the
material quiddities which have been presented to it by the
understanding. Just as the intelligence in its every act as
intellect will necessarily also act as understanding and thus be
involved with materiality (the "tuming to the phantasms"
of the Scholastics), so likewise the intellectual will must operate simultaneously with the rational will which both seeks the
material quiddities presented to it by the understanding and
" informs " affective movements on the sensitive level. This
we have elsewhere called a "turning of the will to the sensitive
appetites." 5
AN INDIVIDUAL-ANALOGY
CoNVERTIBLE-ANALOGY

OF BEING-BEING

AND THE ONE ARE

OF INDIVIDUALITY

What is an individual? An individual would be a natural
unit which is undivided in itself and separated from all others.
It is in the system of St. Thomas-Capreolus-Karl Rahner-De la
Taille an individual substance of a particular nature which has
its own commensurate act of existence. Thus we can draw up
a schema of the strata of being; beginning from the lowest to
the highest there would be inanimate units (perhaps atoms
and/or molecules), vegetative beings, animals, men, angels,
and God in whom the particular individual substance or essence
is identical with his act of existence.
Analogy of being. The principle of analogy or proportion• D. J. Shine, S. J., "Spiritual Direction and the Spiritual Exercises," Review for
Religious, vol. 25, no. 5 (September 1966), p. 891.

THE ANALOGY

OF INDIVIDUALITY

AND "TOGETHERNESS"

501

ality is stated thus. The transcendental perfections and the
ontological perfections of being are common to all beings, to
each according to its degree. The transcendental perfections
would be oneness, trueness, and goodness. Some of the ontological perfections would be life, consciousness, knowledge,
love. 6 We would also include "togetherness."
Being and the one are convertible. The unity of a being is
going to be in direct proportion to its being itself. Hence, as
its perfection of being increases in the strata of being, its unity
and individuality are going to become more perfect. For the
present we are concerned with but the transcendental property
of the unity of a being. Later we shall briefly make an application to the ontological properties of being and their analogy
within the strata of being.
Analogy of individuality. It is apparent that we simply cannot speak now in a univocal way about the individuality of
being for, by the principle of proportionality which we have
just recalled, the unity of a being is going to be in direct proportion to its being. So the unity of a vegetative being is going
to have something in common with, and something different
from, the unity of the inanimate unit. The being and unity of
a man will be superior to that of an animal, etc. Hence we
must say of the analogy of individuality that, as truly as being
is analogous in its various manifestations, so there must be an
analogy of the at-oneness-with-itself of every being. Shortly
we shall see that man is in the unique position of having within
himself, even as an individual, a stratified unity of individuality.
w·e would like to insert here a parenthesis drawn from Karl
Rahner. 7 Within a particular being the degree of its ability for
presence to itself through consciousness and self-possession in
love is the indication of its degree of being. This would be true
of all beings. We are speaking here of analogy. This "beingpresent-to-itself" is simply a mode of describing the actuality,
the intrinsic self-realization of the being. Beings, that is, all
Scheuer-Shiue, op. cit., pp. 58-54.
• Theological
IV, " The Theology of the Symbol," pp. 229-230.

6

502

DANIEL J. SHINE

beings, express themselves because they realize themselves
through a plurality in unity. Self-realization as plurality and
as possession of sel£ are not disparate elements simply juxtaposed in a being, since possession of self in knowledge and love
is not just an element but the content of that which we call
being. Briefly, being expresses itself, because it must realize
itself through a plurality in unity. We know from Revelation
that in God where we have the highest being and hence the
greatest degree of at-oneness-with-oneself, we have simultaneously plurality in the supreme being, the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit. This is without detriment to the divine unity.
Hence plurality, although in the composition of creatures it is
really an indication of finiteness, must also be considered as
having a positive aspect. I£ there is plurality in the supreme
divine unity, plurality must also be considered as a positive
perfection found in the finiteness of a being. We mention this
plurality in the unity of a being here because Rahner's emphasis
of plurality as a positive perfection strikes us as a valid insight
into the metaphysics of being. We know from Revelation that
there is a community of persons in the one supreme being. This
seems one instance where a Christian philosopher can and
should profit from his knowledge of Revelation. Perhaps it
could be said that in all of philosophy, particularly in metaphysics and psychology, the Christian philosophers have not
adequately worked downward from Revelation to enlighten
their own philosophy of being and of man. For example,
Christian philosophers might be able to get a deeper understanding of human fatherhood if they studied the data of
Revelation about God the Father " from whom every family
in heaven and on earth is named." 8
THE GREATER THE INDIVIDUALITY,
MUNICABILITY

THE GREATER IS THE CoM-

AND NEED FOR COMMUNICATION

We would like to establish eventually the fact that, as the
individuality of a being on the various levels of beings increases,
8

Eph. 3: 14-15.

THE ANALOGY

OF INDIVIDUALITY

AND "TOGETHERNESS"

503

there is in direct proportion a greater possibility of communication and simultaneously a greater need for communication.
Hence, as unity is a transcendental property of being, communicability is necessarily an ontological perfection. As background for this statement we wish to establish first the two
following propositions: a) the greater the transcendence of
form over matter, the greater is the interiority of the activity
of the being; b) the greater the interiority of the activity of the
being, the greater is its individuality; then we shall come to
our primary point, c) the greater the individuality of the being,
the greater is the communicability and the need for communication.
a) The greater the transcendence of form over matter, the
greater is the inteTiority of the activity of the being. In the
hylomorphic theory the form of the corporeal being is understood to be less dependent on matter the higher its level in the
strata of being. Although we will speak in terms of the transcendence of form over matter, the basic outlook applies simply
to act and potency as such. In all beings, as we ascend from the
lower to the higher, act progressively predominates over potency. This is but to assert in another way the superiority of act
over potency. On the level of inanimate being there is almost an
equality between the characteristics of form and matter. Qualities which are due to the form, such as taste, color, sound, etc.,
and activity which springs from form, are almost totally
realized in and through matter. So quantity, the source of
extension and mensurability in the corporeal being, can be
equated with qualities, and the qualities of the being are thus
measureable. The passivity of matter is conjoined with spontaneity of form and there is an equality, that is, there is a
constancy in the realized balance of spontaneity and passivity
in the immaterial body. Hence, there is relatively little interiority of the inanimate being in its activity. Its spontaneity is,
as it were, exhausted in its self-realization in matter. However,
on the second level of corporeal being, vegetative beings, action
now tends to become more immanent. This is said to be due to
the transcendence of the form over matter. There is a depend-

504

DANIEL J. SHINE

ence of the form upon matter; nevertheless, there is a superority
of activity precisely due to the higher form and also a greater
interiority of activity. Hence the three attributes commonly
ascribed to vegetative beings, namely, growth, nutrition and
reproduction, although exteriorized, yet show greater interiority
than is found in the lower level of being. Animals have sensitive
knowledge. Their images and memories as such are completely
interior. In man there is the highest interiority found in
corporeal beings, for man is capable of being present-to-himself
in knowledge and love. In the angels there is still greater
interiority because they do not, as does man, depend on matter
for their knowledge of material realities. Nevertheless, there
is a degree of exteriority because, although they truly know
themselves as creatures or created knowers, they simultaneously know other things from the " outside " and thus simultaneously know the other and themselves. Finally, in God we
have perfection of interiority, for in his knowledge and self
love he is dependent on nothing outside of himself.
b) The greater the interiority of the activity of the being,
the greateT is the individuality of the being. Although stones
and inanimate things truly have an individuality, it is not in
most instances of particular importance. It makes little difference to a stonemason which of thousands of bricks of a particular type he will next place into that section of the wall. Individuality increases on the level of vegetative being. A rose bush
put in favorable circumstances of sun, water, chemical food,
is going to be noticeably different, noticeably individualized in
comparison with another rose bush of the same species which
is planted in an unfavorable milieu. Animals will have yet a
greater individuality. Consider the individuality of two dogs
of the same litter, of the one who has to find his way in life
by searching the garbage pails of back alleys and of the other
who is cared for by a dowager. When we come to the level of
man we need not stress the individuality, for we shall develop
this point at some length later. Yet even here, the individuality of the substantial nature is enhanced much more intensely precisely because of the intellectual and volitional activities

THE ANALOGY

OF INDIVIDUALITY

AND "TOGETHERNESS"

505

which man realizes throughout his lifetime. Angels possess yet
greater individuality because, whereas man has a common
nature, each angel is a unique species and hence totally differ-·
ent from any other angel. In God again we reach the perfection
of individuality, because God is infinitely unique.
c) The greateT the individuality of the being, the greater is
the communicability and need for communication. Rahner has
stated that "the true law of things is not: the more special
and distinct in character, the more separated, isolated and
discontinuous from everything else, but the reverse: the more
really special a thing is, the more abundance of being it has in
itself, the more intimate unity and mutual participation there
will be between it and what is other than itself." 9 Non-living
material beings have the lowest level of communication although they truly communicate. Hence hydrogen and oxygen
communicate and water results, but in their communication of
self their individuality is destroyed. Communication for them
frequently means self-destruction. The contrary is going to be
true on the higher levels of being. Precisely through communication the individuality of a being will not be destroyed but
necessarily enriched. In plants there is a slight rise in this
ability and necessity for communication. Plants, as against
inanimate things, need not destroy their own nature in their
self communication. They communicate by the propagation of
others of the same species. Animals have yet greater communication. They communicate with one another through knowledge, e. g., hens clucking as grain is being tossed to them,
horses neighing in a barn when a fire breaks out. In man,
obviously, there is yet higher communication. He is capable
of language, he communicates through books, art, literature,
political life. In angels a higher level of knowledge and will
activity necessarily implies greater means for communication
and greater need for communication. For the angels in their
communication do not have, as does man, the" symbol" of the
9 Karl
Rahner, " The Significance in Redemptive History of the Individual
Member of the Church," The Christian Commitment, (New York: Sheed and
Ward, 1963), pp. 77-78.

506

DANIEL

J. SHINE

body which is a necessary means whereby man communicates.
Hence the body is for man both a means of self-revelation and
at the same time a veil which hinders and frequently blocks
his ability to communicate with another person. 10 Through
Revelation we know that in God we have the supreme example
of communication. By divine necessity the Son proceeds from
the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and
the Son. Here is the infinite exemplar of interior communication. By and in his freedom God communicates outside himself,
and we have creation, conservation, concurrence, the communication of divine goodness through sanctifying grace and the
uncreated gift of the Three Persons to intellectual beings. De
Finance has attributed this apparent paradox-of greater individuality implying greater communicability-to
the act of
existence.
It [the act of existence] is a principle of communion, yes, but at the
same time a principle of uniqueness. It is the act by which each
being affirms itself in its incommunicable singularity, but affirms
itself within being, as sharing in being, as linked in its very singularity with all other singulars. . . . And the more each one strives
to be itself and to advance towards perfect authenticity, the more
also it enters into profound communion with all the others, since it
is the same Act which is acting in all and communicating itself to
all. It is not, therefore, by some illusory renunciation of being oneself that would bring about the meeting with another, but in a
deepening of one's own self. Nevertheless we must distinguish here
between simple individuality, which belongs to the order of nature
or essence, and ' ipseity ' or selfward, which belongs to the order of
act, of existing, while at the same time being conditioned by the
former. To cling stubbornly to the former is to imprison one's self
in one's poverty. To descend more deeply into the latter is to make
one's self ever more open to others.U
ANALOGY oF "ToGETHERNEss"

Speaking above of the principle of proportionality or of
analogy we have said that we must attribute to being not only
10

Jean Mourroux, The Meaning of Man, (New York:

Sheed and Ward, 1948),

pp. 41-78.

Joseph de Finance, S. J., "Being and Subjectivity," Cross Currents, vol. 6, no.
(1966)' p. 174.

11

THE ANALOGY

OF INDIVIDUALITY

AND "TOGETHERNESS"

507

the transcendental properties of oneness, trueness and goodness
but also ontological perfections. We have given examples of
these previously, such as life, consciousness and love. These
will be found in all beings, to each according to its degree of
being. We state now that, in addition to life, consciousness,
knowledge and love, "togetherness " is also an ontological perfection common to all beings. We have chosen this word "togetherness " because it seems to cover the different levels of
beings. A "togetherness" of atoms may be called a molecule;
a "togetherness" of vegetative beings could be called a grove,
a forest; a " togetherness " of animals would be a flock, a fold,
a bevy or a clutch. In man, as we shall see at greater length
shortly, we may distinguish" togetherness" of community and
of communion, in the State and in the Church. Revelation tells
us of choirs of angels and likewise of the interpersonal communion of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. On the level of human
individuals and of angels and of God the notion of " togetherness" has always been accepted, but on the analogy of being
it would seem to us that the notion of " togetherness " for subhuman individuals has been underdeveloped in the past. Karl
Rahner writes:
The sub-human individual is CJ::stituted in the way which needs to
be precisely and clearly seen if anything is to be understood of the
problem involved in this question: namely, its difference from and
its bond with what is other than itself increase and decrease together. This seems at first to be a contradiction. At first sight one
is inclined to say that anything that exists possesses its own
peculiarity (and difference) in inverse ratio to its unity with, its
bond with, what is other than itself; that, in other words, it
decreases in selfhood the more it becomes bound up with something
else, while any growth in distinguishing selfhood involves a decrease
in its unity with and relationship to anything other than itself. It
is no exaggeration to say that this error, seemingly such a selfevident truth, the apparent contradiction between all embracing
unity and individual uniqueness, lies at the root of all the errors
and heresies that have arisen in the study of relationships, of
" social being." And yet even at the lowest sub-human level, if
we look at it properly, we see that it is not so. Something that is
merely separated spatially and temporally from something else is

508

DANIEL

J. SHINE

neither really anything for itself (does not really possess anything
for itself) nor really one with anything elseP

Teilhard de Chardin brilliantly saw this "togetherness" in
all reality and particularly the horizontal " togetherness " of a
particular level of being. For, as he saw it, there was a constant
convergence in the evolutionary process. After the initial opposition in the dispersion of atoms there was a higher composition
in convergence due to a thrust for vertical "togetherness" and
a concomitant transformation in this convergence with the
result that there was an emergence of a higher level of being.
Hence by involution in the evolutionary process a " togetherness " on a particular level of being was realized, and this in
turn had an inner thrust for ascent to a higher level of " togetherness." However, the present writer does not think that
it is an excessively harsh judgment of de Chardin's work to
suggest that he perhaps conceived this " togetherness " in too
univocal a sense and did not sufficiently, if not in his own mind
at least in his written expression of convergence, emphasize its
analogous nature. 13 Thus some of his critics have accused him
of error in finding consciousness in the lower levels of being.
I believe that in good part this is due to the fact that de
Chardin did not emphasize sufficiently that he was speaking
analogously of consciousness. Our observations about consciousness in lower forms of being gives us the opportunity to
explain a bit more about the principle of proportionality or of
analogy as we have applied it to "togetherness." :For example,
the present author would be willing to speak analogously of
consciousness in atoms, molecules and plants. Allow me to
quote at some length the words of Scheuer:
The principle of proportionality seems, at first sight, paradoxical
and opposed to common sense. Does it not entail pan-psychism?
Shall we say that a mineral possesses life, intelligence, etc.? We
must first remark that words should keep the meaning that they
12 Karl Rahner,
"The Significance in Redemptive History of the Individual
Member of the Church," op. cit., pp. 77-78.
18 C. Armagnac, "Philosophie
de la Nature et Methode chez le Pierre Teilhard
de Chardin," Archives de Philosophie, :w (1957) , pp. 5-41.

THE ANALOGY

OF INDIVIDUALITY

AND " TOGETHERNESS "

509

have in everyday usage. We shall not say that a mineral possesses
life, because life means the perfection of immanence at least in that
degree which is found only from plants upward. Likewise the use
of the word knowledge starts only with the animal, and that of
the term intellect only with the human soul, etc. We only say that,
since all beings are only being, and since being is common to all
of them, there is in none of them an ontological perfection which is
totally heterogeneous to the other beings. Aside from all terminological discussions, we must affirm that there is in the atom something which is to the intellect what the being of the atom is to the
being of a spirit. This formula is above reproach and contains
nothing paradoxical. God is only life, spirit, intellect and love, yet
He sees in Himself, as a very imperfect participation of Himself,
the being of an atom. Would that be possible if the atom were
heterogeneous, entirely alterius rationis [of another sort] than life,
intellect and love? The principle of analogy destroys the basis of
agnosticism and provides us with the only means of escaping it.
It opens the way to that real intelligence of beings which understands the lower ones by means of the higher. The most material
determinations are, in their intimate core, nothing but participations of thought and love. 14

It should be apparent now why we have spoken of the
analogy of " togetherness " rather than of community or communion, for we would run the risk of being misunderstood if we spoke of the community of atoms, molecules,
flowers or animals. " ... words should keep the meaning
that they have in everyday usage." But we do affirm with
Scheuer that there must be something in the atom, molecule,
flower and animal world which is analogous to the community
and communion of beings that is found in the being, man, and
in the supreme being, God.
MAN-STRATIFIED

UNITY

OF INDIVIDUALITY

AND "TOGETHER-

NESS"

Man is a microcosm which mirrors the macrocosm. In man
there is found something proper to the nature of the angel,
something proper to the nature of animal, plant and mineral.
But man is not an angel, nor is he a plant or mere matter. He
14

Pierre Scheuer, op. cit., p.

510

DANIEL J. SHINE

is none of these, yet he is all of these. In the foregoing sections
we have attempted to point out that there is an analogy of
individuality on the various strata of being all the way from
the atom to God. Likewise, too, there is found an analogy of
" togetherness." In this present section we will endeavor to
show that even within man there are various levels of individuality and of "togetherness."
A. Analogy of individuality in a man. In the individual
man there must be considered four levels of individuality. He
is a biological unit, a rational person, an intellectual person,
and he can be a pneumatic person. We shall immediately
consider each of these.
a. Biological unit. For years scientists have been aware of
the total individuality of a person's fingerprints. The evidence
seems to increase day by day to show that not only is this
biological individuality of the configuration of fingerprints
present in man as manifestative of his uniqueness but that
throughout his whole body there is an individuality which
marks him apart from all others. Already this uniqueness of
man as a biological unit has been discovered in the composition of his blood cells and saliva. It does not seem unlikely,
in time, that an absolute uniqueness will be found in every
single cell of man. Yet, granted this unique11ess, there is at
the same time a remarkable degree of lack of individuality in
man at this level. The surgeon's operating table brings out this
fact: this is the standard, universal way to set a broken collar
bone, to remove an appendix.
b. Rational person. Earlier we have distinguished the human intelligence as intellect and understanding. We noted that
by the word " understanding " the human intelligence was
meant insofar as it has a spiritual knowledge of material reality
or, in other words, insofar as it has the quiddities of material
things for its proper formal object. Likewise too, we distinguished rational will from intellectual will. Rational will was
the human will insofar as it sought the material realities presented to it by the understanding and insofar as it also neC'es-

THE ANALOGY

OF INDIVIDUALITY

AND "TOGETHERNESS"

511

sarily had a" turning to the sense appetites." It is the human
soul insofar as it is a spirit which informs matter. It is quite
clear that our two aspects of individuality thus far presented
cannot be separated. Our so-called phenomenal ego, therefore,
necessarily includes both the rational person and man as a
biological unit.
In this aspect of man's individuality he can and must be
considered as a member of the human species, that is, he is an
individual example of the universal which has been identified
as " man." Our understanding of the phenomenal ego seems to
be the same as Maritain's explanation of the human individual
as opposed to the human person.
Man, insofar as he is material individuality, has but a precarious
unity, which wishes only to slip back into multiplicity; for matter
as such tends to decompose itself. Insofar as we are individuals,
each of us is a fragment of a species, a part of this universe, a
single dot in the immense network of forces and influences, cosmic,
ethnic, historic, whose laws we obey. We are subject to the determinism of the physical world. But each man is also a person and,
insofar as he is a person, he is not subject to the stars and atoms;
for he subsists entirely with the very subsistence of his spiritual
soul, and the latter is in him a principle of creative unity, of
independence and of freedom. 15

c. Intellectual person. Previously we explained the human
intelligence as intellect with being as its common formal object.
We have pointed out, too, the parallel aspect of the human
will to which we gave the name intellectual will. These are the
aspects of intelligence and will as they are in man insofar as he
is a spirit. The intellectual person is identical with what we
have previously called a noumenal ego. On the human person,
Maritain remarks:
The notion of personality does not refer to matter, as does the
notion of individuality apply to corporeal things. It refers to the
highest and deepest dimensions of being; personality is rooted in
the spirit, in so far as the latter stands by itself in existence and
10 Jacques
l\1aritain, "The Human Person and Society," Challenges and Renewals, Selected readings-edited by J. W. Evans and W. R. Ward. (Notre Dame:
University of Notre Dame Press, 1966), p.

512

DANIEL

J. SHINE

super-abounds in it. Metaphysically considered, personality, being
in one's substance a signature or a seal enabling one freely to
perfect and freely to give this substance, evidences in each of us
that expansiveness of being which, in a corporeal-spiritual being, is
linked to the spirit, and which constitutes, in the secret depths
of our ontological structure, a source of dynamic unity and inner
unification. 16
Maritain has a comment about individuality and personality
which we repeat here and apply to our own explanations of
phenomenal ego and noumenal ego.
Such are, if I have succeeded in describing them correctly, the
two metaphysical aspects of a human being: individuality and
personality, each with its own ontological physiognomy. Let us
note that we do not represent two separate things. There is not
in me one reality called my individuality and another called my
personality. It is the same entire being which, in one sense, is
an individual and, in another sense, a person. I am wholly an
individual, by reason of what I receive from matter, and I am
wholly a person, by reason of what I receive from spirit ... .U
Man as noumenal ego is not one example of the universal
called " man." As noumenal ego man is absolutely unique.
We have risen to a yet higher level of individuality. Just as
in the Thomistic synthesis Gabriel is a unique angelic species
and totally exhausts the extension of that species-there cannot be another Gabriel-so, in an analogous manner, the
individual human soul as spirit exhausts the extension of this
type o£ noumenal ego.
Karl Rahner has written well of this aspect of the human
soul as spirit which we have called noumenal ego.
Now we must, however (even for ontological reasons), hold fast
absolutely to the fact-even if this is not obvious to everyone at
first sight-that something which is merely a case and a circumscription of something universal, something which as an individual
and concrete something is just sheer negation, also cannot haveas something individual-any real, eternally valid significance.
Man with his mental and moral acts, therefore, cannot be merely
16

Op. cit., p.

u Op. cit., p.

THE ANALOGY OF INDIVIDUALITY

AND "TOGETHERNESS"

513

the appearance of the universal and of what is-in this universality
alone-" eternal " and ever-valid in the negative expansion of space
and time. In him, the individual, there must rather be a given,
a positive reality; expressed differently: his spiritual individuality
cannot be (at least not in his acts) merely the circumscription of
an in itself universal nature through the negativity of the materia
prima, understood as the mere repetition of the same thing at
different points in space-time. We must realize that a contrary
view would be profoundly unchristian, and that anyone who does
not see this, really has no right to protest against a medieval
Averroism or against a modern Idealism. The assertion of something positively individual, at least in man's spiritual personal
acts, does not moreover need to appear unscholastic, indeed not
even really unthomistic. Of course, anyone who cannot rise to
the metaphysical thought that (in good scholastic language) God
cannot even de potentia absoluta create a second Gabriel-in other
words, anyone who cannot rise at all to the notion of something
individual which is not the instance of some universal idea, of
something repeatable-cannot follow our thought here from the
very start. Anyone, however, who can grasp this thomistic thought
of something real which cannot be subsumed unequivocally under
a universal idea or under a law, cannot reject the idea from the
very start that something like this is conceivable-indeed, must
be postulated-also in man as a spiritual person, as the existent
who does not resolve himself completely into forma-materiae-esse .
. . . At least in his actions, man is really also (not only) individuum
ineffabile, whom God has called by his name, a name which is
and can only be unique, so that it really is worthwhile for this
unique being as such to exist for all eternity. 18
d. Grace-given supernatural individuality. The highest level
of individuality is found in the supernatural order when sanctifying grace is given indeed to the whole man, but basically and
formally to man as spirit, as noumenal ego. Karl Rahner
notes:
Furthermore, man is the son of God. That is, if we may bring
theology into this examination of the analogy of individuality,
God his creator values him so highly as a unique individual, that
he has given him the power to enter the community of the most
perfect individuality; by grace he can become the beloved child
18 Karl Rahner, " On the Question of a Formal Existential Ethics," Theological
Investigations, II, pp. 225-227.

514

DANIEL J. SHINE

of the Father together with his only-begotten Son, and with the
Son call the Father his Father; and with the Holy Ghost he can
lovingly embrace both Father and Son, and thus receive an
individuality in grace and glory which is a supernatural sharing
in the individuality of the Trinity. In other words, individuality
(the unum of scholasticism) is a transcendental concept, and goes
together with the concept of "existing being" and, like this concept, has analogical meanings. If, then, an existing being's measure
of individuality is determined by its analogical degree of being,
the degree of being of a man in grace and glory can only be
determined by uncreated grace, that is, by the communication to
him, by grace but really, of God himself in his own reality; and
so this is man's highest and finally determining individuality, and
it is itself determined from within by the individuality of the three
divine persons in the Trinity. 19

As a conclusion to the treatment o£ the analogy o£ individuality we must again assert that man is a unity. Necessarily
one must, in order to discuss these levels at all, speak almost
as i£ these were independent realities in man, and then one must
strain to get man back together again as a unity. Finally, we
note that there is a definite ordination of the lower level to
the higher. The biological individuality is ordered to the
rational person, and the totality which is the phenomenal ego
is ordained to the noumenal ego. The noumenal ego in turn,
granted the supernatural order, finds its true finality as a
grace-given, supernatural individual.

B. Analogy of "togetherness"

in a man.

a. Analogy of natural "togetherness."
Civil community. Civil community is composed o£ many
phenomenal egos. At the risk o£ tiring by repetition we say
19 Karl Rahner, "The Individual
in the Church," Nature and Grace. (New York:
Sheed and Ward, 1964), pp. 15-16. Cf. Rahner also in The Christian Commitment,
p. 83: "For if the concept of individuality is an analogical concept, a transcendental characteristic of an existent thing, itself varying according to the level of that
thing's being, then it follows that individuality as such will attain a higher degree
and more radical intensity if the thing to which it belongs is raised to a higher
ontological order. But this is what happens when man, while keeping his spiritual
nature as such, by which he is and remains ' man,' is raised to the supernatural
order."

THE ANALOGY

OF INDIVIDUALITY

AND "TOGETHERNESS"

515

that this would be men insofar as they are spirit in matter
whose intelligence operates on the plane of understanding and
whose will acts as rational will. Civil community is made up
of men insofar as they are members of the species " man." On
this level, it seems to us, there is a close to ideal parallel
between our mode of expression about civil community and
what Gabriel Marcel has to say about community and communication.20 We would encourage the interested reader to
recall the richness of Marcel's thought on these two notions.
Communion. Communion is found among spirits in matter.
It involves " togetherness " in which others as " thous," as nonobjectifiable presences or as subjects, meet one another. It is
the encounter of noumenal egos. It is the meeting of persons
on the level of intellect and intellectual will as we previously
defined these terms. Need we state here that this presence can
only come about through the materiality of man? Although
man is spirit, he is spirit in matter. He cannot become
present even to himself as spirit except through matter. Necessarily, too, although there is really a meeting on the level of
spirit between an " I " and " thous," this can only come about
through matter, through man's corporeity. It is necessarily
through their bodies as quasi-objects that subjects can become
present to themselves and to " thous." Teilhard de Chardin
seems to us correct when he claims that we are still in an
evolutionary process whereby in the noosphere we are advancing to higher levels of consciousness. Just as the rational
person as individual was oriented to the intellectual person,
in a parallel fashion civil community has a further ordination
to communion. It is quite clear, since man is spirit in matter,
that we will always need civil communities, despite their
further orientation to the level of communion. Or again, with
Marcel, we can never get along without the" functional" man,
but this is not the highest level of the human person.
b. Analogy of supernatural "togetherness." Earlier in our
2 ° Kenneth
T. Gallagher, The Philosophy of Gabriel Marcel (New York:
ham University Press, 1962), pp. 22 et seq.

Ford·

516

DANIEL J. SHINE

article we acknowledged our indebtedness to Karl Rahner for
much of our thought. In this section we acknowledge our total
indebtedness to
It is hoped that at least one advantage
of our previous presentation will have been to spread out many
of the ideas of Rahner which are, perhaps, too succinctly
presented by him or which, perhaps, are not too clear to a
person not familiar with Rahner's metaphysics of knowledge
and of man. We wish to deal now with the Church as pneumatic society or community and the Church as pneumatic
"cell." It is apparent that we have now left the natural level of
man and are concerned with men meeting socially as members
of a divinely founded and divinely sustained social reality.
The Church as pneumatic society. Here on the supernatural
level we have the Church as the equivalent of civil community.
It is the Church on the level of phenomenal egos, the Church
as an organization, as a true society with all the powers,
liberties, and restrictions proper to such a pneumatic society.
The Church as pneumatic " cell." This is th(" Church on
the level of noumenal egos. Its equivalent on the natural level
is communion as presented above. Just as true communion is
impossible without civil community at the lower level (community is truly oriented to civil communion) , so in a parallel
way the Church does and must exist as an organized society,
but its higher ordination is to pneumatic social communion.
Rahner has given the name "Christian cell" to such a grouping of pneumatic individuals on the level of spirits in matter. 22
CoNCLUSION

In the foregoing essay we have been almost exclusively concerned with principles and not with applications. For the
interested reader who would wish to pursue further and see
some of the consequences which flow from such a point of view,
we can but refer him to the references given above to Maritain
and Rahner. Throughout the writings of Gabriel Marcel there
is likewise, for example, abundant amplification of the differ21 The Christian Commitment, pp. 75 et seq., Nature and Grace, pp. 9 et seq.
•• Th'e Cliristian Ci!mmitm:ent,pp.

THE ANALOGY

OF INDIVIDUALITY

AND " TOGETHERNESS"

517

ences between " communication " on the level of community as
opposed to the level of "communion." We suggest that we
have perhaps given a more or less traditional scholastic framework which would help to integrate Marcel's valuable insights.
Our effort, we hope, may give some further " systemization "
to Marcel's ideas by working them into the Scholastics' metaphysics of man.
Finally, we can only encourage the interested reader to
follow the applications which in particular Rahner himself
makes, e. g.: "On the Question of a Formal Existential
Ethics," 23 wherein Rahner argues for a unique moral imperative for the person as spirit which is above but not contrary to
the individual as a member of the human species and thus
subject to universal law. His book, The Dynamic Element in
the Church, 24 claims that there are individual moral prescriptive norms which are totally unique. In this same book he
spells out different modalities of charisms within the Church,
received by "pneumatic " individuals as such, by the Church
as " pneumatic " society or community and the Christian
"cells" within the Church. Thirdly, he analyzes the unique
moral imperative which is to be discovered in the pneumatic
individual's life as he makes the Spiritual Exercises of St.
Ignatius. Throughout his writings the consequences of one of
his fundamental views of the individual are constantly apparent. We would particularly underline in Rahner's view of the
individual the aspects of intelligence which we have called:
intellect and understanding. This is the source of so many of
his profound observations consequent on the notions of unthematic and thematic knowledge. One instance of this is his
"Dogmatic Reflections on the Knowledge and Self-Consciousness of Christ." 25
It is the present writer's opinion, perhaps not too humbly
expressed, that in the above presentation of the analogy o.f
individuality and " togetherness " we have a matrix pregnant
Op. cit., footnote 18.
•• New York: Herder and Herder, 1964.
25 Theological Investigations, V, pp. 193-215.

23

518

DANIEL J. SHINE

with vast potentialities for developing truths about the individual alone and as a social being, both in the natural and
supernatural order. Likewise too, it can serve to correct errors
or apparent tensions or contradictions which may exist between
man as an individual and man as a social being on the various
strata of man's being. We have previously quoted Rahner 26 to
the effect that individuality and sociability increase and decrease together. The opposite view, he claimed, "lies at the
root of all the errors and heresies that have arisen in the study
of relationships, of' social being.'" Hence an understanding of
the analogy of individuality and " togetherness " is not only
a source of truth but a corrective of error.

Note. After this article was submitted for publication, the
author devised phrases which perhaps would have made for
simplicity and unity in terminology. The new terms would be
the following. Those actually used in the article are in parentheses. Transcendental person (noumenal Ego) , categorical
person (phenomenal Ego); transcendental intelligence (intellect), categorical intelligence (understanding); transcendental
will (intellectual will), categorical will (rational will); transcendental person (intellectual person), categorical person (rational person); pneumatic transcendental
and categorical
person (pneumatic intellectual and rational person) ; transcendental community (communion) , categorical community (civil
community); pneumatic transcendental community (pneumatic " cell ") , pneumatic categorical community (pneumatic
society).
DANIEL

Boston College
Newton, Mass.

•• Cf. text given for footnote 12.

J. SHINE, s. J.

THE QUEST FOR METAPHYSICS

PART

I.

'' THE OLDEST as well as the most recent ontological
claim is that the truths ontology gives us are about
Being-about Being as such." 1 Professor Hook in
disputing the existence of metaphysics here refers to the traditional concept, which originated in the works of Aristotle. 2 The
term itself, " metaphysics," was apparently first applied by the
disciples of Aristotle to a group of books which were to be
studied after the Physics. The metaphysical books explained
the "science which investigates being as being and the attributes which belong to this in virtue of its own nature." 3
The study of being as being was intended to attain a knowledge of the first principles and highest causes of things. This
knowledge, wisdom or philosophy in the fullest sense, was
called first philosophy since it was highest in dignity, although
it came after physics in the order of learning. The study of
first philosophy was united by Aristotle with the study of
theology. 4 For him theology was the study of immaterial and
immovable substances and so an extension of first philosophy,
which dealt with being as being in relation to substance in
general. The adequacy of the unification of first philosophy
with theology has been widely discussed and disputed. 5 How1 Sidney Hook, The Quest for Being (New York:
Dell Publishing Company,
1963)' p. 147.
• Takatura Ando, Metaphysics: A Critical Survey of Its Meaning (The Hague:
Martinus Nijhofi, 1963), pp. 3-16.
• Metaphysics, IV, 1, 1003a20.
'Ibid., VI, 1, 1026a30.
• Cf. Joseph Owens, C. Ss. R., The Doctrine of Being in the Aristotelian Metaphysics (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1951); J. D. Beach,
" Separate Entity as the Subject of Aristotle's Metaphysics," The Thomiat, XX,
(January, 1957), 75-95; Augustin Mansion, " Philosophie premiere, philosophie
seconde et metaphysique chez Aristotle," Revue Philosophique de Louvain, XVI
(Mai, 1958), 165-221.

519

520

JAMES

COUNAHAN

ever, there is no doubt that Aristotle himself made this unification and that it entered the common tradition of metaphysics.
Conforming to the thought of Aristotle the ancients divided
philosophy into practical and speculative branches. The latter
was subdivided into physics, mathematics, and metaphysics or
theology. This division was taken over by the Arabian philosophers, notably both A vicenna and Averroes, and it was passed
on to the Scholastics by them. It was Avicenna who made the
distinction between the subject of metaphysics and its goal (id
quod quaeritur) . The subject of metaphysics was being as being but its goal was the knowledge of immaterial being. In this
way the unity of metaphysics and theology was maintained. 6
Modern thought tends to be shy of being, and metaphysics has
been in difficult straights since Kant. 7 However, to defend the
existence of metaphysics as originally and traditionally understood we must claim that the truths it gives are about being as
being.
" Yet despite the enormous literature which has been written
about Being, it is extremely difficult to find anything clear or
intelligible in writings which contain that expression," Professor Hook rightly remarks. 8 Certainly "being" is hard to
define. It does not refer to a species. Being cannot be contrasted to its opposite, non-being, because non-being is nothing.
Nor is being a genus. The limitless variety of things in being
defies the discovery of any common trait. Everything from a
glorious being to just being funny is "being." The use of
analogy hardly improves matters if God be taken as primary
in being. Introduction of the Infinite into" being" only makes
the notion more foggy and burdens the discussion with theological overtones.
Must we then agree with Professor Hook that " there is no
such thing as 'Being,' i.e., it is a word that neither designates
nor refers to anything observable or discernible in the world,
• Takatura Ando, op. cit., pp. 17-39.
7 Ibid., pp. 40-70.
8 Ibid., p. 147.

THE QUEST FOR METAPHYSICS

521

and has neither a substantive nor attributive character? " This
study will answer this question in the negative. We shall show
that traditional metaphysics does have a subject, being as such,
sufficiently definite to be worthy of scientific study. We shall
not attempt to define being in terms of the really real or of its
ultimate causes or of any of the other ways in which metaphysics has been developed. This study will be confined solely
to the question of whether traditional metaphysics has enough
internal consistency to give hope of an orderly growth toward
solutions of the more ultimate questions.
The Subject of Metaphysics. The general opinion today
accords with the Aristotelian position in regarding science as a
process of research rather than as a static body of doctrine.g
The purpose of scientific inquiry is to produce a special kind of
knowledge. Scientists differ on what exactly constitutes the
special character of their knowledge, but most would agree that
more is required of science than simply collecting and cataloguing the data observed. Most scientists attempt to give
some sort of explanation for the data acquired from experience
and experiment. However, few today would insist on the strict
demands made by Aristotle for scientific knowledge. 1 ° For him
scientific knowledge meant finding a reason for the data so
cogent that it would show both why the facts are as they are
and why they could not be otherwise. Today scientists are
usually satisfied with the simpler relevant explanation for the
data. In any case science is regarded as research into the facts
in pursuit of reasons of some sort.
For fruitful research a clearly defined subject is required at
the outset. No one can delve at random into the sea of facts
with which he is surrounded with any reasonable hope of
coming up with a meaningful explanation. Astronomy, for instance, takes the celestial bodies for its subject. Early observations of their movements led to some hypotheses as to their
causes. Fuller observations by telescope destroyed the early
9 Cf. Reginald Breton, Encyclopedia Britannica (1966 ed.), XX, 114, and the
Posterior Analytica, I, 1, 7lal-10.
10 Posterior Analytica, I, 2, 7lb8-12.

JAMES

COUNAHAN

hypotheses, which were supplanted by better explanations.
These explanations in turn will have to be modified or
abandoned in the light of the new data of radio astronomy.
Throughout these changes the subject of the science remains.
No matter how revolutionary the developments in a science, a
researcher can always refer back to the subject to begin anew. 11
A fully satisfactory explanation in any science has to account
for each of the attributes known to pertain to the subject. At
this point the subject of the science ceases to be merely the
starting point of the investigation. The movements of the
celestial bodies are seen in a new light when they are placed
under the principle that all local motions are relative. Here
the subject of the science becomes a principle of explanation
and should be called its object. The material object of a science
is to reach a conclusion which will be a reasoned fact, to explain
the movements observed in astronomy, for instance. The reason
for the fact is found in the formal object, motion as relative,
which is the subject so understood and defined as to function
as the middle term in a syllogism having the reasoned fact as a
conclusion. 12 A science in this strict, Aristotelian sense begins
with its subject and attains its objects.
The methods used in a science are consequent on a decision
regarding its subject. An oceanographer and an astronomer
can hardly use the same methods to investigate their differing
subjects. Nor does a mathematician resemble either of them
in his procedure. Moreover, the abstractions and generalizations of mathematics and natural science do not contain the
only truth, and science need not be confined to subjects from
which truth can be extracted. 13 Any discipline which has a
subject with sufficient consistency to allow orderly development toward reasoned conclusions may be called a science.
The first question in metaphysics is whether being as being
is such a subject.
Ibid., I,
87a37-87b4; cf. In Post. Anal., I, xli,
(7).
Post. Anal., I, 9, 75b36-76a4.
13 Gabriel Marcel, The Mystery of Being, I. Reflection and Mystery
Henry Regnery Company, 1960), p. 23.
11

19

(Chicago:

THE QUEST FOR METAPHYSICS

The difficulty of this question lies in the excess of information on being. No subject could be more abundantly available
for study. We are inundated by being to such an extent that
great difficulty arises in finding a central point on which to
unify the discussion. Yet the natural grouping of experience
does indicate that some beings are more fundamental than
others. The qualities of a man or his quantity is more basic
to his being than his relations. His very substance as a man
is the most fundamental predicament of all. I£ being were
unified by a reference to substance, the metaphysician could
approach the ultimate by beginning with common experience.
" The goal of metaphysics is the knowledge of the cause of
being-common-to-the predicaments, but its subject is that common being itself," as Maritain said as early as 1948. 14 This view
of metaphysics is at least as old as Dominic of Flanders, who
taught it in the fifteenth century, as Thomas C. O'Brien, 0. P.,
has shown in his important study. 15 However, this view runs
counter to a highly respectable tradition possibly traceable to
John of St. Thomas and still alive. This position would try to
include both God and creatures in the subject of metaphysics. 16
Some of the authors who would agree with Maritain that the
subject of metaphysics is only common being still begin with
the existence of God. Joseph Owens, C. Ss. R., for instance,
views the act of existing as the formal object of the science.
Since the proper principle of existence is God, he holds that
metaphysics " may commence its main work of dealing with
H Jacques
Maritain, Existence and the Existent (New York: Image Books,
1956), p. 41, n. 15; cf. H. Renard, "What is St. Thomas' Approach to Metaphysics?" The New Scholasticism, XXX (January, 1956), 64-83.
15 Dominicus de Flandria, 0. P., Perutilis atque praeclarae Quaestiones Dominici
Flandrensis ... In Duodecim Metaphysicae Libros Aristotelis (Venice, 1499), I,
q. 1, a. 8, cited by Thomas C. O'Brien, 0. P., Metaphysics and the Existence of
God (Washington: The Thomist Press, 1960), p. 23.
16 John of St. Thomas, The Material Logic of John of St. Thomas, trans. Yves
R. Simon, John J. Glanville, G. Donald Hollenhorst (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1955), q. 27, a. 1, p. 562; cf. George M. Buckley, M. M., The
Nature and Unity of Metaphysics (Washington: Catholic University of America
Press, 1946), p. 130; Charles A. Hart, Thomistic Metaphysics: An Inquiry into
the Act of Existing (Englewood Cliffs·: Prentice-Hall, 1959), pp. 10-11.

524

JAMES

COUNAHAN

its subject in terms of creation, conservation, and concurrence "
only in the light of the divine existence. 17 William A. Wallace,
0. P., has attacked this view rather vigorously/ 8
Another complication was introduced by Vincent E. Smith
at the national convention of the American Catholic Philosophical Association in 1954.19 Dr. Smith held that the opening
to metaphysics was made by St. Thomas through the demonstration of the existence of a Prime Mover on strictly physical
grounds. This position was opposed by Joseph Owens, C. Ss. R.,
and by George P. Klubertanz, S. J., who thought that metaphysics can open with a reflexion on the existential judgment. 20
On the other hand, Dr. Smith was supported by William H.
Kane, 0. P., and by Melvin A. Glutz, C. P. 21 Fr. Kane mentioned the immaterial soul as additional evidence for opening a
metaphysical inquiry. 22
The idea that metaphysics could be based on an affirmative,
existential judgment had previously been developed by Robert
J. Henle, S. J. 23 He was subsequently supported by Frs. Owens
and Klubertanz in thinking that metaphysics could be derived
17 Joseph Owens, C. Ss. R., Review of Thomas C. O'Brien, 0. P., Metaphysics
and the Existence of God, The New Scholasticism, XXXVI (April, 1962), 25053; cf. Etienne Gilson, Le Thomism (cinquieme edition; Paris: Vrin, 1948), p. 28,
et "L'Etre et Dieu," Revue Thomiste, XLII (Avril-Juin, 1962), 181-202.
18 William A. Wallace, 0. P., "Metaphysics
and the Existence of God," The New
Scholasticism, XXXVI (October, 1962), 529-31; cf. Joseph Owens, C. Ss. R., "Existential Act, Divine Being, and the Subject of Metaphysics," ibid., XXXVII ( July,
1963), 359-63; John L. Yarden, C. S.C., "Some Remarks on Metaphysics and the
Existence of God," ibid., XXXVI (April, 1963), 213-19.
19 Vincent E. Smith, "Prime Mover:
Physical and Metaphysical Considerations,"
Pmceedin(fs of the American Catholic PhilMophical Association, XXVIII (1954),

78-94.
20 Joseph Owens, C. Ss. R., "Note on the Approach to Thomistic Metaphysics,"
The New Scholasticism, XXVIII (October, 1954), 454-76; George P. Klubertanz,
S. J., "Being and God According to Contemporary Scholastics," The Modern
Schoolman, XXXII (November, 1954), 1-17.
21 William H. Kane, 0. P., "Abstraction
and the Distinction of the Sciences,"
The Thomist, XVII (1954), 43-68; Melvin A. Glutz, C. P., "The Formal Subject
of Metaphysics," ibid., XIX (January, 1956), 59-74.
22 William H. Kane, 0. P., op. cit., p. 62.
23 Rob'ert J. Henle, S. J., Method in MetaphySics
(Aquinas Lecture, 1950; Milwaukee: Marquettll University Press, 1!)51).

THE QUEST FOR METAPHYSICS

5'l5

from the experience of being as we find it. 24 At the same time
Frs. Kane and Glutz had strengthened their own position. 25
The latter position also seems to be supported and developed
by Antonio Moreno, 0. P. 26
The remarks cited above do not exhaust the diversity of
opinion, but we cannot here do justice even to the authors
mentioned. Each of these distinguished scholars is a follower of
St. Thomas, a " Tho mist " in some sense. Yet they obviously
do not agree among themselves regarding the subject of metaphysics. The existence of such diversity, although a sign of
vitality for the Thomists, may be a cause of some uneasiness
for metaphysicians generally. If distinguished scholars and
skilled researchers cannot reach agreement even when they
follow a common master, perhaps the fault lies not in themselves but in their topic. Metaphysics does not lack opponents,
such as Professor Hook, who claim that it has no subject to
study. But if the diversity of opinion among the Thomists
could be reduced to a degree that would permit a clear statement of the subject of metaphysics, a great medieval thinker
could with greater confidence be ranked among those who
have effectively supported metaphysics.
For one who appreciates the charm of the medieval worldview the temptation is strong to attempt an adaptation which
will retain the positions of St. Thomas in the face of contemporary views. However, the medievals hold their charm only
when they are seen in their own setting. The fresh vigor with
which the Western tradition was animated when the joys of
the intellectual life were first discovered cannot last in more
•• George P. Klubertanz, S. J., "St. Thomas on Learning Metaphysics," Gregorianum, XXXV (1954), 3-17, and "The Teaching of Thomistic Metaphysics,"
ibid., 187-Q05; Joseph Owens, C. Ss. R., "The Intelligibility of Being," ibid., XXXVI
(1955), 169-93; cf. George P. Klubertanz, S. J., " Comment on 'The Intelligibility
of Being,' " ibid., p.
•• William H. Kane, 0. P ., " The Subject of Metaphysics," The Thomist, XVIII
(October, 1955), 503-Ql; Melvin A. Glutz, C. P., "Being and Metaphysics," The
Modern Schoolman, XXXV (May, 1958), Q71-85.
•• Antonio Moreno, 0. P., "The Nature of Metaphysics," The Thomist, XXX
(April, 1966), 109-35.

526

.fAMES COUNAHAN

mature times. Human truth is not absolute, though partisanship may try to make it so. A strained and distorted philosophy results when the great medieval thinkers are lifted from
their own times and required to respond to questions which
they did not ask. We shall rather seek to evaluate the truth
and relevance of the Thomistic positions in the light of present
knowledge and contemporary needs.
This study will concentrate on the texts themselves of St.
Thomas. Its principal aim is not historical or literary, which
are values in the higher criticism. Ours is the task of simple
textual study in the hope of laying a more adequate foundation
for the current discussion of the subject of metaphysics. The
more important texts are quoted directly; the English version
is given and the Latin original placed in footnote. Through
this method the texts will speak for themselves as clearly as
may be. Every effort will be made to determine the meaning
of a text only by what it actually says. Further determinations
belong to higher criticism and doctrinal development and not
to a simple textual study. This approach has already been
used with regard to analogy, but no such work has been done
on the subject of metaphysics. 27
The search for the texts used in this study has ranged over
the entire body of the works of St. Thomas. It has been facilitated by the use of many articles each citing a number of texts
on the subject of metaphysics. The Catena Aurea of Peter of
Bergamo was of some help since it is an index of the entire
body. The indices of the Leonine and Marietti editions of the
individual works proved invaluable. These indices, along with
A Lexicon of St. Thomas Aquinas, 28 were consulted under the
following headings: metaphysica, philosophia prima, scientia
divina, subiectum, obiectum, ens, ens commune, and substantia.
The number of texts brought forth gives a good cross section of
the statements of St. Thomas on the subject of metaphysics.
•• George P. Klubertanz, S. J., St. Thomas Aquinas on Analogy (Chicago: Loyola
University Press, 1960).
•• Roy J. Deferrari, Sr. M. Inviolata Barry, C. D.P., and Ignatius McGuiness,
0. P., eds. (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1948).

THE QUEST FOR METAPHYSICS

5'27

In this brief presentation the texts will be grouped in a topical order designed to explain the teaching of St. Thomas. This
organization requires the work of a responsible scholar. Philological systems are too mechanical to substitute for intelligence and judgment. 29 In Part I we deal with the notions of
common being, substance, and divine being in connection with
the subject of metaphyiscs. In Part II we shall evaluate this
teaching on three critical points: faith and reason, matter and
spirit, and mind and matter. A longer study would permit
treatment of each text in its original literary and historical
context before placing it into this doctrinal context. 30 Here we
must take the responsibility of a more summary treatment.
Common Being. The prooemium of Aristotle to his Metaphysics makes a number of interesting points regarding the
pursuit of wisdom, the dignity and order of the science, and its
concern with the causes of things. Finally it shows that wisdom
is sought in first causes and principles. However, this treatment does not explore the subject of metaphysics directly. The
matter is summed up in the statement that this science is
speculative not practical, liberal not servile, and more divine
than human in character. It intends to seek out the firat and
universal causes of things so that ignorant wonderment may
give way to knowledge.
From the foregong, therefore, it is clear
what the nature of this science is,
that it is speculative, liberal,
and not human but divine
and what the aim is
about which it raises questions
and employs its entire skill and method.
This science aims
at the first and universal causes of things
concerning which it both inquires and decides.
29 See Ralph
M. Mcinerny, Review of St. Thomas Aquinas on Analogy by
George P. Klubertanz, S. J., The New Scholasticism, XXXVI (January, 1962),
128-34.
3 ° Cf. James
Counahan, 0. P., The Quest for Metaphysics: A Study of the
Subject of Metaphysics in the Texts of St. Thomas Aquinas (unpublished dissertation, Aquinas Institute of Philosophy, River Forest, TIL, 1967), 151 pp.

JAMES

COUNAHAN

Through the knowledge of these causes
it comes to its stated term,
that wonder be eased.30 "
Thus Aristotle establishes that there is a universal science
having all being for its subject. This consideration leads to
the distinction of metaphysics from any of the particular or
special sciences. No particular science considers universal being
as such. Special sciences only consider some part of being cut
off from the rest, and they study only what properly belongs to
their own part. 31 The practical sciences are obviously not universal, so they may be set aside. However, if there is anything
immobile in actual existence and consequently sempiternal and
separable from matter when existing, it will be studied by a
speculative science, since the practical disciplines deal with
change. The study of this immaterial being is not physics, for
physics deals only with certain beings, those with motion.
Similarly, the study of this being is not mathematics because
mathematics does not study anything separate from matter
in actual existence; the mathematicals are separate only in
definition. The study of actual immaterial being must belong
to another science, which is prior to both mathematics and
physics.
He next points out the way to this science.
He says that if there is anything immobile in being
and so sempiternal
and separate in being from matter,
obviously its consideration
belongs to a speculative science
and not to the sciences of doing or making,
whose studies concern some change.
But physics does not study such being.
30 " Patet igitur ex praedictis quae 8it natura huius scientiae, quia est speculativa,
Iibera, non humana sed divina: et quae est eius intentio qua oportet habere quaestionem et totam methodum et totam hanc artem. Intendit enim circa primas et
universales rerum causas, de quibus etiam inquirit et determinat. Et propter harum
cognitionem ad praedictum terminum pervenit, ut scilicet non admiretur cog11itis
causis. In Metaphysicorum, I, iii, 68.
31 Ibid., IV, i, 532.

THE QUEST FOR METAPHYSICS

Physics considers some being only,
those which are mobile.
Similarly the study of such being
does not belong to mathematics.
Mathematics does not consider
things which are separate in being from matter.
It only considers things
which are separable in the mind,
as has been said.
So the consideration of such being
must belong to another science
prior to both physics and mathematics. 31 "
Physics is concerned with inseparable and mobile things. At
least some mathematics deal with immobile things, which,
however, are not separate from matter in existence but only in
idea. In actual existence the mathematicals are in sense matter,
and in astronomy or modem, mathematical physics some
mathematicals are actually applied to moving things. The first
science studies things which are separable from matter in actual
existence and altogether immobile. Since the immaterial and
immobile things are greatest in being, they are the causes of
the sense objects, which are more manifest to us. 32 So the same
science treats of the separate beings and of being as being.
The universal science is metaphysics and not natural science
or mathematics. The subjects of both the latter sciences are
limited to material being. 33 Some material things depend in
being upon matter and can neither be nor be defined without
it. Other things cannot exist without matter, although sensible
matter does not come into their definitions. This distinction is
31 " Ostendit modum proprium scientiae huius; dicens quod, si est aliquid immobile
secundum esse, et per consequens sempiternum et separabile a materia secundum
esse, palam est, quod eius consideratio est theoricae scientiae, non activae vel
factivae, quorum consideratio est circa aliquos motus. Et tamen consideratio talis
entis non est physica. Nam physica considerat de quibusdam entibus, scilicet de
mobilibus. Et similiter consideratio huius entis non est mathematica; quia mathematica non oonsiderat separabilia secundum esse, sed secundum rationem, ut dictum
est. Sed oportet quod consideratio huius entis sit alterius scientiae prioris amabus
praedictis, scilicet physica et mathematica. Ibid., VI, i,
32 Ibid., VI, i, 1163-64; 1169-70.
33 Ibid., XI, vii,

530

JAMES

COUNAHAN

illustrated by the difference between " curve " and " snub."
Snub can only be defined as curvature of a nose. The notion of
curve, however, can be defined without regard to whether it
is a nose or a noose which is curved. 34 There may also be some
things which do not depend upon matter either in being or in
definition. Some of such immaterial things are never in matter,
for instance, God and the other separated substances. Others,
substance, potency and act, or being itself, are sometimes found
in matter and sometimes not.
Keep in mind therefore
that there are some things
whose being depends on matter
and which cannot be defined without matter
and that there are also some things
into whose definitions no sensible matter falls
although they cannot have being
except in sensible matter.
These differ as do the curve and the snub-nose ...
There are also some things
which depend on matter
neither in being nor in the mind
either because they are never in matter,
like God and the other separated substances,
or because they are not always in matter,
like substance, potency and act, and being itsel£.344
Metaphysics studies the completely immaterial class of
things 35 Mathematics studies those things which depend upon
sensible matter in being but which retain only " intelligible
matter," substance supporting quantity, in definition. In the
mathematical order the unity which is the principle of number
•• Cf., ibid., VI, i, 1157; ibid., XI, vii, 2256-57.
••• Sciendum est igitur quod quaedam sunt quorum esse dependet a materia, nee
sine materia definiri possunt: quaedam vero sunt quae licet esse non possint nisi in
materia sensibili, in eorum tam definitione materia sensibilis non cadit. Et haec
difl'erunt ad invicem sicut curvum et sinum ... Quaedam vero sunt quae non dependent a materia nee secundum esse nee secundum rationem; vel quia nunquam
sunt in materia ut Deus et aliae substantiae separatae; vel quia non universaliter
sunt in materia, ut substantia, potentia et actus, et ipsum ens. In Physicorum,
I, i, 2.
35 Cf. Ibid., II, xi, for a different division.

THE QUEST FOR METAPHYSICS

531

has being only in matter. The one which is convertible with
being is metaphysical and does not depend on matter in any
way. 36 Natural science or physics studies things which retain
sense matter both in being and in definition. 37
Metaphysics therefore concerns the latter.
Mathematics concerns things
which depend on sensible matter
in being but not in the mind.
Natural science, which is called physics,
concerns things
which depend on matter
not only in being but also in the mind.37 "
Each of the special, limited sciences uses its own principles,
observations, and postulates to reach its own conclusions. The
investigation of the special principles of each science belongs
to no other. However, some principles of demonstration are
used in more than one science. The principle of contradiction,
for instance, runs throughout all scientific thought. These principles derive from common conceptions which everyone has.
Every demonstration works from these principles to the extent
that the conclusions in any particular science are strengthened
by the common principles. The question is whether the study
of the common principles belongs to one science or to many,
and if to one, whether it belongs to the one which studies being
and substance, metaphysics, or to another. 38
The question of where to locate the study of the common
principles of demonstration is decided in terms of being in
common, the subject of metaphysics. 39 This science inquires
into the principles of being as being just as every science must
•• Unum vero quod convertitur cum ente, est quoddam metaphysic11m, quod
secundum esse non dependet a materia, Summa Theol., I, q. 11, a. 3, ad
cf.
In Boet. de Trin., q. 5, a. 1, c, par. 3; a. 3, c, par.
81 Cf. Summa Theol., I, q. 85, a. 1, ad
81 " De huiusmodi igitur est metaphysica:
de his vero quae dependent a materia
sensibili secundum esse sed non secundum rationem, est mathematica: de his vero
quae dependent a materia non solum secundum esse sed etiam secundum rationem,
est naturalis, quae physica dicitur, In Physicorum, I, i, 3.
•• In Meta., III, v, 387-91.

•• Ibid.,

532

JAMES COUNAHAN

seek the proper principles and cases of its own subject. For
instance, health and the recovery from illness have certain
causes, which the medic seeks. Likewise the mathematicals
have principles and elements and causes such as figure and
number, and the mathematician seeks them. 40 The common
principles pertain to being as being. Metaphysics treats them
as directly connected to its own subject. The other sciences
can then take them for granted just as they take being
Although the subjects of the particular sciences are parts
of being, those sciences are not parts of metaphysics. Their
subjects are not parts of being according to the notion under
which metaphysics takes being. Each of the other sciences
takes only a part of being and considers it in a particular
way. 42 Metaphysics takes all of being together with a variety
of considerations on potency and act, the _one and the many,
and substance and accidents. Metaphysics deals with all of
these matters in the same way as it treats being.
As to the sixth say
that although the subjects of the other sciences
are parts of being,
which is the subject of metaphysics,
it does not follow that the other sciences
are parts of metaphysics.
Each science takes one part of being
according to a special consideration
different from the way
in which being is studied in metaphysics.
Hence properly speaking the subject of each science
is not a part of the subject of metaphysics
since it is not part of being under that aspect
according to which being
is the subject of metaphysics.
Seen under this aspect metaphysics
is a special science divided from the others.
Thus the study of potency, of act, of the one,
Ibid., IV, v, 588-9rt; VI, i, 1145 et 1147.
Ibid., XI, iii, rtft04-10; cf. ibid., vii, ft248; In II Sent., d. 8, q. 8, a. rt; In I Sent.,
Prol., a. ft, c.
•• Cf. In Meta., IV, i, 531.
40

41

THE QUEST FOR METAPHYSICS

533

or of others of the sort
can be called part of metaphysics
since they all are considered in the same way
as is being when treated in metaphysics. 42 "
All the parts of being as being come under metaphysics
since they require the same handling as common being itsel£.48
Singular things also and even matter and motion are considered
in metaphysics in so far as they share in the common notion of
being. 44 Metaphysics does not leave anything out because a
science has to treat of all the parts and properties of its
subject. 45
Various questions are ruled out of physics and into metaphysics on the grounds that they do not pertain to moving
being but simply to being. 46 Questions about the very existence of motion 47 or the nature of form 48 belong to the study
of being as being. One might also ask whether "Socrates"
and " Socrates seated " are the same. Since the same and the
different are properties of being as such, this question belongs
to metaphysics. 49 For the same reason the notion of unity is
discussed in the tenth book of the Metaphysics. 50
The problems of space and place make interesting test cases. 51
••• Ad sextum dicendum quod quamvis subiecta aliarum scientiarum sint partes
entis, quod est subiectum metaphysicae, non tamen oportet quod aliae scientiae sint
partes ipsius. Accipit enim unaquaeque scientiarum unam partem entis secundum
specialem modum considerandi alium a modo, quo oonsideratur ens in metaphysica.
Unde proprie loquendo subiectum illius non est pars subiecti metaphysicae, non
enim est pars entis secundum illam rationem, qua ens est subiectum metaphysicae,
sed hac ratone considerata ipsa est specialis scientia aliis oondivisa. Sic autem
posset dici pars ipsius scicntia, quae est de potentia vel est de actu, de uno, vel de
aliquo huiusmodi, quia ista habent eundum modum considerandi cum ente de quo
tractatur in metaphysica. In Boet. de Trinitate, q. 5, a. I, ad 6.
•• Ibid., ad 7.
44 Ibid., a. 4, ad 6.
45 Ibid., a. 4, obj. 6 citans I Post. Anal., 28, 87a38.
•• In Physicorum, I, i, 5.
41 Ibid., VIII, v, 3.
•• Ibid., I, xv, 12.
•• In Meta., IV, iv, 570-71.
50 Ibid., X, i, 1920.
51 In Physicorum, IV, i, 2; cf. ibid., III, vi, 2.

584

JAMES COUNAHAN

On the Newtonian supposition that space extends to all being,
this problem is both physical and metaphysical. On the alternative supposition that immaterial beings do exist, metaphysics
would not consider space and place as such. They would not
belong to being as such since immaterial beings do not have
space and place. They would be studied directly in physics,
and metaphysics would take them only under the aspect of
being. In contrast to the other sciences the subject of metaphysics is simply being. 52
Substance. We must agree with Professor Hook that when
" we are told that ' Being is affirmed of the finite (being) by
its dependence on infinite being,' that infinite being is the
ground or cause of finite being so that the primary analogue
for the proportion is not the Being of finite Being but the Being
of Infinite Being . . . the fogginess of the term Being does not
disappear when it is lifted from the dimension of the Finite to
the Infinite." 53 Since infinite being is outside of common being,
the prime analogate for common being cannot be infinite. But
we must differ when Hook says that being " has neither a
substantive nor attributive character." 54 It would be more
accurate to say that being has both a substantive and an
attributive character, but not equally.
Substantive beings such as wax and cabbages are obviously
prior to attributive beings like the colors, sizes and shapes in
which wax and cabbages may come. In the commentary of
Aquinas on the Metaphysics the priority of substance over
attribute or accident is taken as the basic priority in common
being. "Being" is an analogous term like" health" or" medicine." 55 " Being " is used partly in the same sense and partly
in a different sense in its various applications. The various
usages of an analogous term, however, are unified by reference
to some one which is the principle of the others.
52
53

In Meta., IV, i, 583.
Sidney Hook, op. cit., p. 158, quoting P. Coffey, Ontology (New York: P.

Smith, 1988), p. 38.
5 • See above, p.
55 In Meta., IV, i, 584-88; XI, iii,

THE QUEST FOR METAPHYSICS

535

St. Thomas emphasizes that the unit to which the various
members are referred in analogical usage is numerically one.
When unity is achieved by mentally grasping a single aspect
(ratio) of things, the resulting term is univocal. "Being" is
not a univocal term since it is used in many different ways.
Neither is it equivocal since its various applications have a
reference to some one, and this unit is not merely mental.
The reference is to a unit which is some single nature.
Also keep in mind
that in analogical matters the one
to which different possessions are related
is one in number and not merely in the mind
as is the one designated by a univocal name.
So he says that although being is used in many ways,
it is not used equivocally
but with reference to a one
not referring to a one only in the mind
but to one as to some one nature. 55•

In the examples of health and medicine an efficient or a final
cause provides the unit to which the other analogates were
referred. The unit to which beings are referred is substance,
the subject in which they exist or to which they apply mentally.56 The weakest kind of being is one like privations or
56

Ibid., IV, i, 539.

negations, which exist only in the mind (in ratione). These
objects are called beings because the mind treats them as such
when it affirms or denies
equality, inequality, or other
characteristics. The next weakest kind is the one in which
processes of growth and decline are called beings. Since change
is an imperfect act, it always has somthing of privation and
negation mixed with it. A third kind of being has no nonbeing mixed with it, yet it remains weak. Quantities, qualities,
55 • Item sciendum quod illud unum ad quod diversae habitudines referuntur in
analogicis, est unum numero, et non solum unum ratione, sicut est unum illud quod
per nomen univocum designatur. Et ideo dicit quod ens etsi dicatur multipliciter.
non tamen dicitur aequivoce, sed per respectum ad unum; non quidem ad unum
quod sit solum ratione unum, sed quod est unum sicut una quaedam natura. In

Meta., IV, i, 536.

536

JAMES

COUNAHAN

relations and the other properties of substance do not have
enough solid being to stand by themselves. They can only
exist in substances. So there is a fourth kind of being, which
is the most perfect. It has being outside the mind without
admixture of non-being, and it has a firm and solid being
existing by itself. Such being are the substances. 57
Each of the first three kinds of being are referred to substances, which is the first and principal being. Qualities and
quantities are beings insofar as they belong to substances.
Changes and processes tend to produce substances or its accidents. Privations and negations are called beings to the extent
that they remove some of the other three kinds. So it appears
that the variety of usages of " being " has some one, substance,
to which each may be referred. 58
The fourth kind is the one
which is most perfect,
which exists in nature
without any admixture of privation
and with a firm and solid being
almost of itself;
these are the substances.
All the others are referred to this
as to their chief and principal.
Qualities and quantities are called beings
in that they are in substances,
motions and generations
in that they tend toward substance
or toward qualities and quantities,
privations and negations
in that they take away
one of the three preceeding. 58 •
57 Ibid., IV, i, 540-43; IX, i, 1768, XI, i, £155; cf. In De divinis nominibus, V, ii,
n. 655 for a fivefold division.
58 In Meta., IV, i, 534; XI, iii, £197.
58 " Quartum autem genus est quod est perfectissimum, quod scilicet habet esse in
natura absque admixtione privationis, et habet esse firmum et solidum, quasi per
se existens, sicut sunt substantiae. Et ad hoc sicut ad primum et principale omnia
alia referuntur. Nam qualitates et quantitates dicuntur esse, inquantum insunt
substantiae; motus et generationes, inquantum tendunt ad substantiam vel ad
aliquid praedictorum; privationes autem et negationes, inquantum removent aliquid
trium praedictorum. In Meta., IV, i, 543.

THE QUEST FOR METAPHYSICS

587

Evidently St. Thomas has first substance in mind here. First
substance is not predicable of any lesser class although other
things are predicable of it. Whiteness or humanity exist in and
may be said of Peter or John, but Peter is not John nor is
John Peter. The name of each can be said only of himself
because there is no smaller class than one, and each first substance is some one individual existing by himself. Universal
substance on the other hand is applied to lesser classes; animal
applies to man and man to Peter and John. Universal substance is derived from the singulars since it is abstracted
mentally from them. It does not subsist except by virtue of
the first substances, in which universal substance is found. 59
First substance is primary, and it is the principal subject of
metaphysics. 60
The pre-Socratic naturalist would agree with many modern
scientists and philosophers that first substance really means
sensible, material substance only. Consequently the study of
these material beings would be equivalent to the study of being
itself, and natural science would assume the rank and functions
of metaphysics. Questions about material substance would be
the only useful and valid inquiries. Metaphysical questions
either would be treated in terms of natural substance or would
be entirely pointless. Unless there is some being beyond the
physical, metaphysics ceases to be the first philosophy and
physics becomes the first and most universal. The actual existence of immaterial being is necessary to establish a metaphysics.6l
The ancient naturalists may be proven wrong by a full
development of their own science. The eighth book of Aristotle's Physics proves that not all being is of a material sort,
and natural things, which havetheprinciple of their movements
within themselves, are only one kind of being. Immobile being
is superior to and more noble than mobile being, which the
•• Ibid., V, x, 908.
•• Ibid., IV, i, 546; VITI, i,
vii,
61

cf. In Post. Anal., I, ii, 17 (5); xviii,

(7) .

In Meta., lll, vi, 898; XI, ii,

vii,

cf. I Oootra Gentiles, c. 12.

(4);

538

JAMES COUNAHAN

naturalist studies. The same science which studies the first
beings should also study common being. Hence the study of
common being will belong to a different discipline than natural
science. 6 ••
The pre-Socratics did not think
that there was any substance
besides the mobile, corporeal substance
of which the naturalists treat.
Therefore it was held that they alone
decide about all nature and consequently about being
and the first principles also
since they are to be considered along with being.
But this is false because
there is still another science above the natural.
Nature itself, the natural thing
having a principle of motion in itself,
is but one kind of general being.
Not all beings are of this sort.
It was proven in the eighth book of the Physics
that there is an immobile being.
This immobile being is higher and more noble
than the mobile being which the naturalist studies.
Since the study of common being
belongs to that science
to which the study of the first being belongs,
the study of common being
belongs to another science
than to the natural,
and the other science will also consider
this sort of common principles. 61 b
II Cont. Gent., c. 37.
Antiqui enim non opinabantur aliquam substantiam esse praeter substantiam
corpoream mobilem, de qua physicus tractat. Et ideo creditum est quod soli determinent de tota natura, et per consequens de ente; et ita etiam de prinlis principiis
quae sunt simul consideranda cum ente. Hoc autem falsum est; quia adhuc est
quaedam scientia superior naturali: ipsa enim natura, idest res naturalis habens in
se principium motus, in se ipsa est unum aliquod genus entis universalis. Non enim
omne ens est huiusmodi: cum probatum sit in octavo Physicorum, esse aliquod ens
immobile. Hoc autem ens immobile superius est et nobilius ente mobili, de quo
considerat naturalis. Et quia ad illam scientiam pertinet consideratio entis communis, ad quam pertinet consideratio entis primi, ideo ad aliam scientiam quam ad
naturalem pertinet consideratio entis communis; et eius etiam erit considerare
huiusmodi principia communia. In Meta., IV, v, 593.
61 "

61 b

THE QUEST FOR METAPHYSICS

539

Metaphysics treats of sensible substances as well as of
separate, immaterial substances. Any of the things which fall
in one group can be touched by one power or studied in one
science. For instance, the single habit of charity comprises
many things under one formal aspect, divine goodness, as metaphysics studies many things under the aspect of being. 62 To
the extent that all beings fall into the group of substances, they
should be studied by the one, universal science. To the extent
that they are varied by diverse species, they are treated by
one of the special sciences. 63 However, metaphysics discusses
sensible substances mainly for the sake of knowing immaterial
beings since sensible substances belong in a way to physics. 64
Metaphysics deals with sensible substances simply as beings. 65
There are as many parts of metaphysics as there are parts
of substance. Immaterial substances are naturally prior to the
material ones, and so the parts of metaphysics take on a natural
order. The part of the science concerning sensible substance is
first in the order of teaching because instruction should begin
with what is better known. The part of metaphysics dealing
with immaterial substance, however, is first in dignity and
intention as these substances are naturally prior to the sensible
ones. In the seventh and eighth books of the Metaphysics
Aristotle discusses material substances. After that he goes on
to the treatment of immaterial beings in the twelfth book. 65 •
The number of the parts of philosophy
is equal to the number of the parts of substance,
to which being ,and the one mainly apply
and from which this science
gets its main study and purpose.
The parts of substance are ordered among themselves
since immaterial substances are naturally prior
to sensible substances.
Therefore among the parts of philosophy
some one must be first.
In III Sent., d.
q.
a. 4, qn.
c. et ad 1.
In Meta., IV, i, 457.
"'Ibid., VII, xi,
cf. ibid., XI, i,
65 Ibid., VI, i, 1165; XII, ii,
65 • Ibid., VII, i,
xvii, 1648; XI, i, 2146,

62

63

540

JAMES COUNAHAN

The part concerning sensible substances
is first in the order of teaching
because we ought to start learning
from the more known ...
The part concerning immaterial substances
is first in dignity and purpose in this science,

Even though the different parts of metaphysics deal with
different parts of substance, each part of the science unites with
the others in the study o£ common aspects of substances. All
have being and the one for their subject. 66 So the subject of
metaphysics can be taken in two ways. Generally throughout
the science the discussion concerns the notions of being and the
one, but the main intention governing the discussion is substance.
The subject of this science can be taken
either generally as studied in the entire science;
in this way being and the one are studied:
or as the main thing intended,
substance. 66 "

Divine Being. Despite some reference to God as a separate
substance 66 b no text of St. Thomas clearly indicates that the
subject of metaphysics, common being, includes or applies to
divine being. Common being is identical with the essence of
every being and does not exceed the measure of any intellect. 67
No one can avoid knowing that things in general (ens in
65 b Tot sunt partes philosophiae, quot sunt partes
substantiae de qua dicitur
principaliter ens et unum et de qua principalis est huius scientiae consideratio et
intentio. Et, quia partes substantiae sunt ordinatae ad invicem, nam substantia
immaterialis est prior substantia sensibili naturaliter; ideo necesse est inter partes
philosophiae esse quamdam primam. Ilia tamen, quae est de substantia sensibili, est
prima ordine doctrinae, quia a notioribus nobis oportet incipere disciplinam: . . .
Ilia vero, quae est de substantia immateriali est prior dignitate et intentione huius
scientiae. In Meta., IV, ii, 563.
66 Ibid., IV, ii, 563; In Boet. De Trin ... q. 5, a. 4, c., par. 3; q. 6, a. 1, c., ql. 3,
par. 2.
66 " Subiectum
autem huius scientiae potest accipi, vel sicut communiter in tota
scientia considerandum, cuiusmodi est ens et unum: vel sicut id de quo est principalis intentio, ut substantia. In Meta., V, vii, 842.
66 b See above, p. 530, and below, pp. 545 and 546.
67 De Veritate, q. 10, a. 11, ad 10.

THE QUEST FOR METAPHYSICS

541

communi) are. Such being is known of itsel£.68 I£ common
being were to extend to both God and creatures, the essence of
God would be knowable in this life.69 But the first being in the
order of causality exceeds the measure of any human intellect/ 0
Clearly common being is distinct from the first being, God.
In the commentary on the first book of the Sentences a
widely used distinction between divine and common being is
explained. Common being is indeterminate and undifferentiated. Divine being is fully determined and so entirely diverse
from any other. Common being is understood as open to additions, which modify it into one or another distinct kind of
being. Divine being is so complete and perfect in itself that it
is closed to any addition. Both notions are without additions,
common being by its generality and divine being by its perfection.
There is a double sense
in which something may be without additions.
Its very notion may be such
that nothing can be added to it;
thus God is without additions.
He has to be perfect in himself;
hence he receives no additions,
nor can he be common
since everything common is fulfilled
in something proper,
where it adds to itself.
Or a notion may be such
that it neither adds to itself
nor it does not,
and this is the way common being
is without additions. 71 •
68 Ibid., a. 12, ad 3.
•• Ibid., a. 11, obj. 10.
70 Ibid., ad 10.
71 Cf. De Ente et Essentia, c. 5; Summa Theol., I, q. 3, a. 4, ad 1; De Potentia,
q. 7, a. 2, ad 6; I Cont. Gent., c. 26.

na Aliquid esse sine additione dicitur dupliciter:
aut de cuius ratione est ut
nihil sibi addatur: et sic dicitur de Deo: hoc enim oportet perfectum esse in se ex
quo additionem non recipit; nee potest esse commune, quia omne commune salvatur
in proprio, ubi sibi fit additio. Aut ita quod non sit de ratione eius quod sibi fit

JAMES

COUNAHAN

The distinction of divine from common being is more than
a question of the definition of terms. Divine being excludes
common being outside the mind. 72 Common being always has
some addition over and above being alone. Its addition modifies the being into a table, a tree, or a man. The perfection of
God, however, is too great to be confined to any category.
Anything in a genus must have another principle in its besides
its act of being. The other principle renders it similar to some
other beings while its act of being renders it unique. But God
is simply a unique and unlimited act of being, and there is no
composition whatever in him. Hence he cannot be collated
with anything else into a genus, even into the genus of substance.73 He may be called a substance only in a broad sense. 74
Thus the transcendence of God surpasses common being.
The unity of common being is based upon substance as the
prime analogate. If God is excluded from the category of substance, he has no place in common being except as a cause is
in its effect. In fact, common being is the proper effect of God.
As the builder builds, God creates common being. 75 Substance
exists " by itself " only in relation to the accidents. Absolutely
speaking, substance is dependent upon God an dwith substance
all of common being. 76
The most striking text to present the distinction of divine
from common being is found in the commentary of the De
divinis nominibus of pseudo-Denis. Plato had suggested that
the ultimate principle of being was beyond being. "The sun
is not only the author of visibility in all visible things, but of
generation and nourishment and growth, though he himself is
not generation ... In like manner the good may be said to
be not only the author of knowledge to all things known, but
of their being and essence, and yet the good is not essence, but
additio, neque quod non fiat, et hoc modo ens commune est sine additione. In I
Sent., q. 4, a. 1, ad 1.
72 De Pot., q. 7, a. !il, ad 4.
73 In I Sent., d. 8, q. 4, a. !il, et a. 3; Summa Theol., I, q. 3, a. 5, corp. et ad 1.
74 In I Sent., d. 8, q. 4, a. !il, ad 1.
75 Summa Theol., I-II, q. 66, a. 5, ad 4.
76 Ibid., I, q. 105 a, I, qbj. 3.
1

THE QUEST FOR METAPHYSICS

543

far exceeds essence in dignity and power." 77 Denis follows
Plato as well as Plotinus and Proclus in giving the same idea
the following expression: " If, as is indeed the case, the Good is
above all being, then we are bound to say that what itself is
without form gives form; that he who remains in himself without essence is the acme of essence; that, being a lifeless reality,
he is supreme life; that, being a reality without intelligence, he
is supreme wisdom, and so on, since any form denied to the
Good points out his informing power." 78 As a cause is not its
effect, God is not any of the perfections which he produces.
Paradoxically " God himself is not being, but he is the being
of being" as that by which beings are. 79
The task of a medieval commentator faced with texts like
those above was to find the doctrinal context which would
render them true in some sense. In what sense of the term,
" being," can it be denied God? St. Thomas responded that
God is not common being (ens commune) . Where Denis says,
" He is not being," Aquinas adds, " This is understood of
common being as if depending upon it." 80
St. Thomas fully developed the contrast between God and
common being in a text of exact parallelism. Common being
proceeds from the first being, God. From this fact three differences follow in the relationship between God and common
being compared to the relationship between other existences
and common being. Other things depend upon common being.
God does not depend on common being; rather common being
depends upon him. Other things are contained under common
being. God is not contained under common being; rather it is
contained under his creative power, which extends to more
things than are actually created. Finally, other things participate in the notion of being, but God does not participate.
Republic, Book VI, 509b.
De divinis nominibus, IV, 3, cited by Etienne Gilson, Being and Some Philosophers (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1952), p. 34.
79 Ibid., V, 4.
80 "Non ipse Deus est esse, idest ipsius esse communis, tamquam ab ipso dependens," In De divinis nominibus, V, ii, 660; italics a.re the words of Denis.
77

78

544

JAMES

COUNAHAN

Created beings participate in God and are his image. God does
not have being because he is being.
Then where he says, " And itself ... "
he shows how being relates to God.
He says that common "being itself
is from " the first being, which is God.
From this it follows that common being
relates to God differently than other existences
in regard to three:
First, in regard to the fact that other existences
depend on common being.
God, however, does not,
but rather common being
depends on God, ...
Second, in regard to the fact that all existences
are contained under common being.
God, however, is not,
but rather common being
is contained under his power,
since the divine power extends to more beings
than the ones actually created. . . .
Third, in regard to the fact that all other existences
share in this, that they are.
God, however, does not,
but rather created being itself
is a certain share in God
and an imitation of him ... ,80 "
Common being is a technical term denoting the actually
created substances with all that depends on them. It excludes
the infinite actuality o£ the divine being as well as the non80 " Deinde cum dicit:
Et ipsurn ... ostendit, quomodo esse se habeat ad Deum;
et dicit quod ipsurn esse commune est ex primo Ente, quod est Deus, et ex hoc
sequitur quod esse commune aliter se habeat ad Deum quam alia existentia,
quantum ad tria:
Primo quidem quantum ad hoc quod alia existentia dependent ab esse communi,
non autem Deus, sed magis esse commune dependet a Deo, . . .
Secundo, quantum ad hoc quod omnia existentia continentur sub ipso esse
communi, non autem Deus, sed magis esse commune continetur sub eius virtute,
quia virtus divina plus extenditur quam ipsum esse creatum; ...
Tertio, quantum ad hoc quod omnia alia existentia participant eo quod est esse,
non autem Deus, sed magis ipsum esse creatum est quaedam participatio Dei et
similitudo lpsius; ... In De divinis norninibus, V, ii, n. 660.

THE QUEST FOR METAPHYSICS

545

actuality of merely possible beings, which have not, do not,
and will never exist. With common being for a subject
metaphysics is saved from arid speculation about non-existing
essences at the same time as it is rescued from theology. Whoever the authorities may be who may be cited in favor of a
notion of common being which could be divided into created
and uncreated, St. Thomas Aquinas is not one of them. 81
St. Thomas's mundane understanding of common being works
also in the prooemium to his commentary on the :Metaphysics,
although this science is presented there as the most intellectual.
First, from the standpoint of certitude the science which studies
the highest causes is the most intellectual since certitude comes
from the knowledge of causes. Second, from the characteristics
of intellect as compared to the senses it appears that the most
universal science will be the most intellectual. The intellect
grasps the universal whereas the senses know only the individual. Third, from the standpoint of intellectual knowledge
itself the greatest science is the one having an object most
separated from matter. Everything has intelligibility insofar as
it is free of matter. Since God and the intelligences are free of
matter in their actual being as well as in definition, the science
which treats of them is the most intellectual and the chief of
all the sciences.
The three intellectual considerations belong to a single
science since the separated substances are the primary and
universal causes of beings. The same science has a right to
consider the causes of its subject genus as well as the genus
itself. For instance, natural science considers the principles of
natural bodies even when the principles are not bodies. So the
same science can consider the separated substances as well as
common being, which is the genus of which the separated substances are the common and universal causes.
This triple study ought to be given
to a single science not to different ones.
These separated substances
are the universal and first causes of being.
81

See above, p.

546

JAMES COUNAHAN

The same science has to study
the proper causes of any thing
and the thing its.elf,
as the naturalist studies
the principles of the natural body.
Hence it follows
that to study the separated substances
and to study common being,
which is the thing of which these substances
are the common and universal causes,
belong to the same science.81 "

Metaphysics seeks to rise above the multiple and variable
beings of sense experience to find the unified and permanent
realm of intelligible beings separate from matter. How then
can the being of common experience be the subject of such a
science? The response to the difficulty is to insist that, although
(quamvis) common being is the subject of this science, still it
speaks entirely of things which are separate from matter both
in their mental conception and in actual being. Things like
common being, which can exist either with or without matter,
may be said to be separate in conception and in existence as
well as things like God and the intelligences, which can never
exist in matter.
Even though the subject of this science
is common being
the entire discussion concerns things
separate from matter in being and in the mind.
Not only those things which can never be in matter
(God and the intellectual substances)
but also those things which may be without matter
(common being)
are separate in being and in the mind. 8 1b
81 • Haec autem triplex consideratio, non diversis, sed uni scientiae attribui debet.
Nam praedictae substantiae separatae sunt universales et primae causae essendi.
Eiusdem autem scientiae est considerare causas proprias aliciuius generis et genus
ipsum, sicut naturalis considerat principia corporis naturalis. Unde oportet quod
ad eamdem seientiam pertinet considerare substantias separatas, et ens commune,
quod est genus, cuius sunt praedictae substantiae communes et universales causae.
In Meta., Proeemium.
81 b Quamvis autem subiectum huius scientiae sit ens co=une, dicitur tamen tota

THE QUEST FOR METAPHYSICS

547

The insistence on the scientific character of metaphysics
may repel many contemporary thinkers from the thought of
Aquinas. Today many think of science in terms of purely
objective knowledge in the service of an impersonal technology.
Contemporary existentialists and phenomenologists especially
tend to place a distance between the personal, subjective knowledge valued as wisdom and the values of modern science. However, in these pages science simply means a methodical approach to a given subject, not an objective system.
Must we abandon clear thought and logical development
in pursuit of subjectivity? To handle subjective terms like
"being" and "good," which have different meanings for different people, we need a flexible technique. Analogy seems to be
the device to use when the unity of the term is founded
subjectively. Only the divine mind has within itself an objective standard by which to unify all being. As far as we are
concerned (quoad nos), the unity of being will have to be
founded on something which appears important to us. For
those who appreciate the value of a concrete existent, especially
their own person, first substance will retain the primacy which
Aquinas accorded to it.
To relate being to a human person may tend to ally philosophy more with the humanists than with the scientists in
modern culture. History concentrates on what man has been
and done in the manifold of past circumstances. In literature
and humane letters the poets and their critics magnify the past,
symmetrize the present and project into the future an image of
what a man may yet become. In both literature and history
the thought of a humanist bears upon concrete events. In the
face of the present cultural dichotomy a metaphysician may
well find that his advantage lies with the humanists.
In Part II of this article we shall further evaluate the
thought of St. Thomas Aquinas in contemporary terms.
de his quae sunt separata a materia secundum esse et rationem. Quia secundum
esse et rationem separari dicuntur, non solum ilia quae nunquam in materia esse
possunt, sicut Deus et intellectuales substantiae, sed etiam ilia quae possunt sine
materia esse, sicut ens commune. Ibid.

548

JAMES

COUNAHAN

PART

II

Common being is a topic with sufficient unity and consistency to be the subject of scientific discourse. It originates at
the point where being transcends the material and can be
separated from it. Yet common being does not transcend
experience to such an extent that it would be identified primarily with the infinite. Rather, common being should be
related to the concrete existing substances of experience. The
workability of the notion of common being will appear more
fully as we here examine some of the critical points in its
derivation from our experience.
Three distinctions are vital to the quest for the subject of
metaphysics. The sphere of reason has to be distinguished
from that of faith in order to open the way for genuine philosophy. Within the range of reason the spiritual order of
things has to be distinguished from the material so that the
transcendence of metaphysics over physics can be established.
Finally, physical beings have to be distinct from their conceptualizations in the mind in order to ground metaphysics
outside the knowing subject. What the texts of St. Thomas
Aquinas have to contribute on these points needs to be evaluated critically from a contemporary point of view.
Faith and Reason. St. Thomas afforded ample place in his
thought for philosophy as well as theology. Both early and
late he assigned the study of creatures to philosophy and the
study of God to theology. The first problem solved by this
distinction concerns the contemplation of God. "All who have
thought rightly have placed the contemplation of God as the
purpose of human life," is set down in the prologue to the
commentary on the first book of the Sentences. 82 The commentary then distinguishes two kinds of knowledge of God,
one imperfect through creatures and the other perfect and immediate. Aristotle placed the felicity of human life in the first
of these and the entire knowledge of philosophy is ordered to
it. 83 Philosophy, which included much of what is now called
82

83

In I Sent., Prol., q. 1, a. 1, c.; cf. IV Cont. Gent., c. 1.
Cf. I Cont. Gent., c. 4; lii, c. 25.

THE QUEST FOR METAPHYSICS

549

science, remains distinct from theology because it proceeds
"from the intelligibilities of creatures," whereas heavenly contemplation, which presupposes faith, sees God in his essence.
In seeking this knowledge of God faith uses philosophy somewhat as first philosophy uses the reports of the other sciences.84
There is a double contemplation of God.
One, which is imperfect for the reasons already given,
is through creatures.
The Philosopher in the Ethics, X, ix,
placed contemplative happiness in this one,
which is also the happiness of this life.
All philosophical knowledge,
which proceeds from the aspects of creatures,
is ordered to this contemplation.
There is another contemplation of God
where he is seen immediately through his essence.
This one is perfect.
It is possible for man supposing he has faith,
and it will be achieved in Heaven. 84 "

A second problem solved by the distinction of philosophy
and theology concerns the scientific knowledge of creatures. St.
Thomas opens his prologue to the commentary on the second
book of the Sentences with some remarks explaining how the
study of creatures in theology compares to that in philosophy.
The philosophers study creatures " as they stand in their own
natures." Hence they are concerned with the causes and
properties of creatures. The theologians study creatures as
they come forth from God and return to him as their final
purpose. 85
84 Summa Theol., I, q. I, a. 5, ad fl; In Isaiam, c. 3, (Opera Omnia Parmae,
XIV, p. 441, col. fl).
••• Contemplatio autem Dei est duplex. Una per creaturas, quae imperfecta est,
ratione jam dicta, qua contemplatione Philosophus, in X Ethic, cap. ix, felicitatem
contemplativam posuit quae tamen est felicitas viae: et ad hanc ordinatur tota
cognitio philosophica, quae ex rationibus creaturarum procedit. Est alia Dei contemplatio, qua videtur immediate per suam essentiam; et haec perfecta est, qua':l
erit in Patria et est homini possibilis secundum fidei suppositionem. In I Sent.,
Prol., q. 1, a. 1.
85 Cf. In Ethicorum, I, i, 1-2.

550

JAMES

COUNAHAN

The study of creatures belongs
both to philosophers and to theologians
but in different ways.
The philosophers study creatures
as they stand in their qwn natures,
so they seek the proper causes
and characteristics of things.
The theologians study creatures
as they come forth from the first principle
and as they are directed to the ultimate goal,
which is God. 85 •

The general distinction between philosophy and theology is
entirely objective. It is based on the objects known in the
two sciences and not on the way by which they are known.
Philosophy is possible because existing natures have causes and
properties which can be examined. Theology is possible because God can be known in himself. Philosophy is about
creatures and theology about God. A difficulty arises in applying this distinction to metaphysics. Like theology metaphysics
also considers the highest causes of things. How can these two
wisdoms be distinguished? In response the basis of distinction
is shifted over from the object known to the knower, and
metaphysics is distinguished from theology by the mode or
way of knowing. 86
Philosophers proceed by the light of reason to lift themselves to a knowledge of God through the study of creatures.
Theologians proceed by the light of faith and descend from
God to creatures. The philosophers place the knowledge of
natural things before the knowledge of divine things, physics
before metaphysics. The theologians place the study of the
Creator before the study of creatures and so proceed opposite
to the philosophers. 87
••• Creaturaru:ni consideratio pertinet ad theologos et ad philosophos, sed diversimode. Philosophi enim creaturas considerant, secundum quod in propria natura
consistunt: uncle proprias causas et passiones rerum inquirunt; sed theologus considerat creaturas, secundum quod a primo principio exierunt, et in finem ultimum
ordinantur qui Deus est. In 11 Sent., Prol.
86 In I Sent., Prol., q. 1, a. 3, qn. 1.
87 11 Cont. Gent., c. 4; cf. IV, c. I.

THE QUEST FOR METAPHYSICS

551

Just as the beginning of natural knowledge
is the awareness from the senses of creatures,
so the beginning of the knowledge given from above
is the awareness infused by faith of the first truth.
Hence each of them
proceeds in a different order from the other.
The philosophers,
who follow the order of natural knowledge,
place knowledge of creatures before divine knowledge,
natural science before metaphysics.
Among the theologians the process is reversed,
and the study of the Creator
comes before the study of creatures. 87 •

In the theocentric culture of medieval times the work of
metaphysics was to mediate between philosophy in general and
theology. It was to gather up the findings of all the other
sciences and to dedicate them to the knowledge of God. Even
Aristotle said that metaphysics was not concerned with every
truth but only with that Truth which is the origin of all truths
and which belongs to the first principle of the being of all
things. This Truth, God, is the principle of all being because
the disposition of things in the order of truth is the same as
that in the order of being.
Now the Philosopher decides
that first philosophy is the science of truth,
not just of any truth
but of that which is the source of all truth,
and which is the source of being for all
so that his truth is the principle of all truth.
The disposition of things in truth
is just the same as in being. 87 b
87 • Sicut
ergo naturalis cognitionis principium est creaturae notitia a sensu
accepta, ita cognitionis desuper datae principium est primae veritatis notitia per
fidem infusa. Et hinc est quod diverso ordine hinc inde proceditur. Philosophi enim
qui naturalis cognitionis ordinem sequuntur, praeordinant scientiam de creaturis
scientiae divinae scilicet naturalem metaphysicae. Sed apud theologos proceditur e
converso, ut Creatoris consideratio considerationem praeveniat creaturis. In Boet.
De Trin., Prol. 9, par. 1.
87 b Sed et primam philosophiam Philosophus determinat
esse scientiam veritatis,
non cuiuslibet, sed eius veritatis, quae est origo omnis veritatis, scilicet quae pertinet

55fl

JAMES COUNAHAN

The mediating work of metaphysics was shown especially by
the inclusiveness of its concerns. All beings, both the highest
and the lowest, fall under its consideration. It extends from the
first and supreme being to being in potentiality, which is the
least of all. Thus God is included with creatures in the work
of metaphysics.
Not only the highest things but also the lowest
fall under the science which among us is noblest.
First philosophy extends its study
from the first being clear to being in potency,
which is the ultimate in being.88
Although philosophical theology or metaphysics touches
divine things, the method used is distinct from that of scriptural theology. All of the objects for "theology" in a broad
sense are separate from matter and motion. But there are two
ways in which a thing may be independent of matter. Beings
like God and the angels are separate from matter because their
very definitions exclude it. Things like being and substance
neither require nor exclude matter and motion according to
their definitions. Philosophic theology judges of things separate
from matter in the second way as of its subjects, and it judges
of things separate in the first way as of the principles of its
subject. Scriptural theology is just the opposite. It judges of
things separate in the first way as of its subject, and of things
separate in the second way only as they manifest divine things.
Therefore philosophical theology decides
about things separate in the second sense
as about its subject
and about things separate in the first sense
as about the principles of its subject.
ad primum principium essendi omnibus; unde et sua veritas est omnis veritatis
principium. Sic enim est dispositio rerum in veritate, sicut in esse. 1 Cont. Gent.,
c. I.
88 sub nobilissima enim scientiarum, apud nos, cadunt non solum suprema in
entibus, sed etia:m infima; nam Philosophia prima considerationem suam extendit
a primo ente usque ad ens in potentia, quod est ultimum in entibus. I Cont. Gent.,
c. 70.

THE QUEST FOR METAPHYSICS

553

The theology of sacred Scripture treats
about things separate in the first sense
as about its subject
although some things in matter and motion
are treated in it
to the extent required to explain divine things. 89

Science is achieved when the principles of a subject are
grasped, but there are two kinds of principles. Some are complete natures in themselves, the celestial bodies for example.
They not only explain certain effects taking place on earth,
but they also exist in themselves. The moon is studied in
oceanography as the cause of the tides, and in astronomy as a
nature in itself. Thus one can speak of two lunar sciences.
Other principles do not have complete natures apart from the
things which they explain. Unity, for instance, does not have a
nature apart from number nor the point apart from the line;
matter and form do not exist outside of physical bodies. This
kind of principle can not be studied outside of the science which
treats of the things in which it is.
The common principles of being are of both kinds. Aristotle
says that all beings have the same principles by way of analogy,
act and potency, for instance. Such principles are not complete
natures in themselves and are said to be common " by predication." But being is also explained by " certain things, numerically the same, existing as principles of all things." Accidents
are accounted for by substance, the corruptible substances are
explained by the incorruptible, and so forth. Each higher stage
of these principles is more in act than the one below. The
ultimate stage will be most in act, least in potency, and completely removed from matter and motion. This kind of principle is called common " by causality."
If anything is divine, it is the causal principle of being. So
divine beings can be treated in two different ways. They can
•• Theologia ergo philosophica determinat de separatis secundo modo sicut de
subiectis, de separatis primo modo sicut de principiis subiecti. Theologia vero
sacrae Scripturae tractat de separatis primo modo sicut de subiectis, quamvis in ea
tractentur aliqua quae sunt in materia et motu, secundum quod requirit rerum
divinarum manifestatio. In Boet. De Trin., q. 5, a. 4, c., par. 4.

554

JAMES COUNAHAN

be studied as they are in themselves. As the principles of being,
as the invisible causes of visible effects, they pertain to the
science which has being for its subject and which the philosophers called divine. As divine beings reveal themselves, they
are studied "as they subsist in themselves and not merely as
they are principles of things."
"Therefore theology, or divine science, is twofold. In one
theology divine things are studied, not as the subject of the
science, but just as the principles of the subject. The philosophers sought such a theology, and by another name it is called
' metaphysics.' The other theology considers divine things on
their own account as the subject of the science. This theology
IS handed down in sacred Scripture.''
Thus there is a double theology or divine science.
In one divine things are not studied as the subject;
they are studied as the principles of the subject.
Such is the theology which the philosophers seek;
by another name it is called metaphysics.
The other studies divine things
for themselves as the subject of the science.
This is the theology handed down in Scripture. 90

One of the divine sciences, metaphysics, is proportioned to a
purely human way of knowing. It proceeds from sensible being
to a knowledge of the divine. The subject of metaphysics is
being in general, and God is considered only as the principle
of the subject. God in himself is studied in the theology which
is based on Scripture. Only by revelation, which is transmitted
in the Bible, can men know divine things according to a divine
measure.
From this one gets a double science of divine things.
One following our ways
takes its principles from the sensible
to get notice of the divine.
90 Sic ergo theologia sive scientia divina est duplex. Una, in qua considerantur res
divinae non tamquam subiectum scientiae, sed tamquam principia subiecti, et talis
est theologia, quam philosophi prosequuntur, quae alio nomine metaphysica dicitur.
Alia vero, quae ipsas res divinas considerat propter se ipsas ut subiectum scientiae,
et haec est theologia, quae in sacra Scriptura traditur. Ibid., q. 5; a. 4, c., par. 4.

THE QUEST FOR METAPHYSICS

555

This is the way the philosophers
hand down a science of the divine
calling first philosophy a divine science.
The other following the ways of the divine things .... 91
The subject of metaphysics is proportioned to human reason.
Although divine things are most knowable in themselves, they
are too bright for us " for our intellect is related to them as
the eye of the owl is to the light of the sun." Even Scriptural
theology does not gaze upon its subject directly but argues
from the authority of God revealing. 92 Thus metaphysics is
limited extrinsically by the fact that divine things are the
proper subject of another science, scriptural theology, and it
is limited intrinsically by the fact that its subject is proportioned to human knowing powers.
The medieval supposition that all right-minded men want
knowledge of God more than anything sounds rather thin
today. "Peace and Prosperity" come much closer to indicating our paramount values than any God-talk. The hope for
peace is not founded on religion and the knowledge of God.
Today it seems impossible that all men will ever have the same
religion, and the religious wars at the end of the Middle Ages
have convinced us that we must overcome religion to have
peace. Similarly the hope for prosperity lies in science, technology and an improved organization of the economy, not in
religion. Even when religion attains some relevance by reminding men of their moral obligations to share their wealth in
social justice, the aim of general prosperity remains secular.
The secular city seems to be growing day by day. Although
God is not entirely dead, the paramount values of life today
are not religious.
Some people think that philosophy can best be revitalized
by recovering the theological concerns of the past. Certainly
St. Thomas Aquinas was not a secular man nor did he live in
91 Et secundum hoc de divinis duplex scientia habetur.
Una secundum modum
nostrum qui sensibilium principia accipit ad notificandum divina, et sic de divinis
philosophi scientiam tradiderunt, philosophiam primam divinam scientiam dicentes.
c.,
Alia secundum modum ipsorum divinorum, ... Ibid., q.
•• Ibid., q. 5, a. 4, c., par. 3.

556

JAMES COUNAHAN

a secular society. The main intention behind his pursuit of
learning was to know divine things. But he does say that
philosophy studies creatures as they stand in their own natures
and that the subject of metaphysics is common being. Here
he speaks for the simple truth of the matter and not out of
any cultural determination. For metaphysicians this truth
shows clearly that their discipline is not essentially dependent
on the concerns of past ages. The being of common experience
is built around the concrete, existential being of first substance,
and it is fully secular. Not until we have delved to the ground
of common being will the time come to recover theological
pursuits.
Of course, common being still has to transcend material
things. St. Thomas drew his evidence that there is being
beyond the physical from the theological milieu in which he
lived. We shall see that secular evidence can be adduced on
this point also.
Matter and spirit. The second critical point in the development of the subject of metaphysics gives rise to a rather
paradoxical evaluation. Bringing the mental act of separation
to bear on metaphysics produced a brilliant success for St.
Thomas. At the same time this success is mixed with some of
the most archaic and medieval ideas in the entire body of his
thought. Angels, intelligences and separated substances are
hardly central to modern thought. Fortunately a critical evaluation of these aspects of the thought of St. Thomas can purify
them of medievalism and perhaps render them congenial to
our present outlook.
The problem was to distinguish the two divine sciences from
the profane pursuits of mathematics and physics. The foundation of the distinction is the now famous doctrine of separation.
The term and probably the idea of separation enter the works
of St. Thomas through a cryptic remark of Boethius, " Theology is without motion, abstract, and separate since the substance of God lacks both matter and motion." 93
93 " Theologia est sine motu, abstracta
atque separabilis. Nam Dei substantia et
materia et motu caret," De trinitate, c. II; v. Bruno Decker (ed.), Expositio
librum Boethii De trinitate (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1959), p.
lineae

THE QUEST FOR METAPHYSICS

557

St. Thomas expounded a text which seems to have said that
theology is "not separate" (inseparabilis) .94 He explains his
reading by the fact that divine things never exist in matter.
They cannot be separated from it because nothing can be
separated except what was formerly conjoined. Mathematical
entities do exist in matter and must be separated from it by
an act of the mind. Divine things already exist in " abstraction " from matter before the mind considers them. Boethius
proves this fact with a reference to the divine substance from
which divine science takes its name and main concern.
Divine things are already abstract in being
from matter and motion.
The mathematicals are not abstract,
but are separable in thought.
Divine things are inseparable from matter
because nothing can be separated
unless it was first conjoined.
Hence divine things are not separable in thought
but are abstract in being.
With the mathematicals
it is just the opposite.
He proves all this by the substance of God
about which divine science is mainly concerned
and from which it is named. 95

The various objects of the sciences as grasped by the different acts of the intellect offer the distinctions needed to explain
the doctrine of separation. Not every difference among objects
defines a new power or habit. They are distinguished only by
differences in their objects taken precisely as objects. Both
animals and plants, for instance, are objects of the same power
of sight without dividing it. Hence the speculable, object of a
•• Bruno Decker (ed.), op. cit., p. 160, I. 9.
Res enim divinae sunt secundum esse abstractae a materia et motu; sed
mathematicae inabstractae, sunt autem consideratione separabiles; sed res divinae
inseparabiles, quia nihil est separabile nisi quod est coniunctum. Uncle res divinae
non sunt secundum oonsiderationem separabiles a materia, sed secundum esse
abstractae; res vero mathematicae e contrario. Et hac probat per Dei substantiam
de qua divina scientia considerat principaliter uncle et inde nominatur. In Boet.
De Trin., c. expositio, par. 5.
95

558

JAMES COUNAHAN

speculative science, is divided only by differences in it precisely as knowable.
The immaterial nature of the intellect requires that the
speculable as such be immaterial. Furthermore, the habit of
science requires that the speculable be necessary since science
is concerned with what cannot be otherwise. The mobile by definition could be other than it is, so anything mobile is not
necessary. Immobility is achieved only by removal of matter
and motion. Hence the speculables and the speculative sciences
are divided according to their order of removal from matter
and motion. 96
The intellect has two acts by which it can remove objects
from matter. By one act the intellect grasps indivisibles and
knows the essence of a thing, what it is. This act looks to the
nature of a thing understood according to its degree of being.
The natures grasped by this act may belong either to some
complete individual or to something incomplete, a part or an
accident. The other act of the intellect composes and divides,
forming affirmative or negative judgments. This second act
looks to the being itself of a thing (ipsum esse rei) . The being
grasped in judgment may be the result of a conjunction of
principles, as the being of a man arises from the union of body
and soul, or the being may be concomitant with the nature
itself as in simple substances like the angels.
There is a double operation of the intellect,
one by which it knows of anything, what it is,
called the " understanding of indivisibles," and
another by which it composes and divides
forming affirmative or negative statements.
These two operations correspond
to two aspects of things.
The first operation looks to the nature of the thing
according to which the thing understood
obtains a certain grade of being
whether it is a complete thing
like a solid,
98

Ibid., q. 5, a. I, c. par. !'l; cf. In De sensu et sensato, i, I; In Physicorum, I, i, 1.

THE QUEST FOR METAPHYSICS

559

or an incomplete thing
like a part or an accident.
The second operation looks to the being itself
which results from the union of principles
in a composite thing
or is the concomitant of the simple nature
in simple substances. 97
Some speculables, the objects for the second act of the intellect, can exist without matter and so do not depend upon it
either to be or to be understood. Some things of this sort,
such as God and the angels, never exist in matter. Others, such
as substance, quality, being, potency, act, the one and the
many, and so forth, sometimes exist in material things and
sometimes do not. Divine science or theology is concerned
with all of these things, but it is principally concerned with
God. Another name for this science is " metaphysics."
There are some speculables
which do not depend in being on matter
since they can be without matter.
Either they are never in matter
like God and an angel,
or they are sometimes in matter and sometimes not
like substance, quality, being, potency, act,
the one and the many, and others of the sort.
Concerning all of these
there is a theology or divine science
(God being the main thing known in it),
which by another name is called " metaphysics." 98
97 duplex est operatio intellectus.
Una, quae dicitur "intelligentia indivisibilium,"
qua cognoscit de unoquoque, quid est. Alia vel'o, qua componit et dividit, scilicet
enuntiationem affirmativam vel negativam formando. Et hae quidem duae operatione duobus, quae sunt in rebus, respondent. Prima quidem operatio respicit
ipsam naturam rei secundum quam res intellecta aliquem gradum in entibus obtinet,
sive sit res completa, ut totum aliquod, sive res incompleta, ut pars vel accidens.
Secunda vero operatio respicit ipsum esse rei, quod quidem resultat ex congregatione
principiorum rei in compositis vel ipsam simplicem naturam rei concomitatur, ut in
substantiis simplicibus. In Boet. De Trin., q. 5, a. 3, c., par. l.
•• Quaedam vero speculabilia suut, quae non dependent a materia secundum esse,
quia sine materia esse possunt, sive nunquam sunt in materia, sicut Deus et angelus,
sive in quibusdam sint in materia et in quibusdam non, ut substantia, qualitas, ens,

560

JAMES

COUNAHAN

The fully immaterial objects are first grasped when the mind
judges that they are not material. The act of judgment differs
sharply from abstraction. Abstraction can consider one thing
without another even if the two are united in actual being. A
man can be considered without considering his Negro, Caucasian, or Mongoloid race. Circles can be considered in abstraction from whether they are dollars or doughnuts. The
unity of the things abstracted from each other is not denied; it
is simply ignored. Judgment, however, can tmly separate in
the mind only what is also separate in actual being. The acts
of affirming and denying bear upon being and distinguish two
things by asserting that one of them is actually not in the other.
Hence judgment and not the abstractions is properly called
" separation." 99
Thus the intellect in its different operations
makes different kinds of distinctions
of one thing from another.
In the operation by which it composes and divides
it distinguishes one thing from another
when it understands
that one of them is not in the other.
In the operation by which it understands what something is
it distinguishes one thing from another
when it understands
what this is without saying anything about the other
neither that the one thing is with it
nor that it is separate from it.
This distinction does not rightly have the name,
"separation," but the first only.99 "
potentia, actus, unum et multa, et huiusmodi. De quibus omnibus est thoologia,
id est scientia divina, quia praecipuum in ea cognitorum est Deus, quae alio nomine
dicitur metaphysica. Ibid., a. 1, c., par. 3.
•• Cf. Summa Theol., I, q. 85, a. 1, ad 1, for a different usage.
••• Sic ergo intellectus distinguit unum ab altero aliter et aliter secundum
diversas operationes; quia secundum operationem, qua componit et dividit, distinguit unum ab alio per hoc quod intelligit unum alii non inesse. In operatione
vero qua intelligit, quid est unumquodque, distingnit unum ab alio dum intelligit,
quid est hoc, nihil intelligendo de alio, neque quod sit cum eo, neque quod sit ab
eo separatum. Uncle ista distinctio non proprie habet nomen separationis, sed prima
tantum. In Boet. De Trin., q. 5, a. 3, c., par. 2.

THE QUEST FOR METAPHYSICS

561

The judgment that being is not material requires some
objective evidence. The simple consideration of being apart
from matter would produce only an abstract science reducible
to mathematics. The truth of the judgment that not all beings
are material was established for the medievals by the admitted
fact that immaterial substances existed. In the commentaries
on the natural science of Aristotle the separated substances
were ruled out of natural science by St. Thomas because all of
physics was concerned with mobile beings.100 Metaphysics
would begin with the existence of separated substances and
continue to seek knowledge of them in its pursuit of the first
and highest principles of being .101
For instance, the following argument is in support of the
existence and primacy of metaphysics. This argument proceeds
on the grounds that one truth can be proven, not from something false but only from another truth. Anything which is the
cause of a given characteristic of the members of a group will
take the name of that characteristic mainly to itself, as fire is
the cause of heat and is mainly hot. This principle can be
applied to the name, " truth." Truth is not the property of
any particular species. It belongs commonly to all beings.
Whatever causes the truth of things is the most true being.
It is the source of the truth of the others and agrees with them
in the common name and notion. 102
The medievals thought that the physical changes on earth
were governed by the changes in the stars and planets, which
were thought to be changeless except as to place. Whatever
substances would be the causes of the permanent being and
truth of the heavenly bodies would be even more stable and
true than they. The higher substances would have no causes
themselves, and they would be the causes both of the heavenly
bodies and of other material beings.108 Truth is the act of the
In De caela, ill, ii, 814
In De generatione et corruptione, vii, 58
In Meta., IT, ii,
109 Ibid.,
108 Ibid ..•
cf. ibid., VI, i, 1164.
100

101

562

JAMES COUNAHAN

mind conforming to being, so the cause of the being of a thing
is the cause of its truth. 104
Every material thing, even the supposed celestial bodies,
must have an immaterial cause. Everything which is composite
u.nd participated is reduced to something which is by essence as
to its cause. All bodies are beings in act insofar as they participate in some form. A pure substance, separate from matter,
is by essence form. Hence pure substances must be the principles of bodily substances. If we add that first philosophy
considers first causes, it follows that it studies those things
which are most true. Metaphysics not only exists; it is the
main science of truth.
This is necessary in that it is necessary
that everything composite and participated
be reduced to what is by .essence as to a cause.
All corporeal things are being in act
insofar as they participate in some form.
Hence it is necessary that separate substance,
which is form by essence,
be the principle of corporeal substance.
If we add to this deduction the fact that
first philosophy considers first causes,
it follows that
it considers the things which are most true,
as was said before.
Hence it is the main science of truth. 104 a
Metaphysics holds its primacy among the sciences because it
is directly concerned with pure substances existing apart from
matter. Material things are dependent on an immaterial order
in which the changing world participates. The Platonic overtones of this argument are apparent. However, the pure sub10 '

Ibid., II, ii,

1o<a Et hoc est necessarium:

quia necesse est ut omnia composita et participantia,
reducantur in ea quae sunt per essentiam, sicut in causas. Omnia autem corporalia
sunt entia in actu, inquantum participant aliquas formas. Unde necesse est substantiam separatam, quae est forma per suam essentiam, corporalis substantiae
principium esse. Si ergo huic deductioni adiugamus, quod philosophia prima
considerat primas causas, sequitur ut prius habitum est, quod ipsa considerat ea
quae sunt maxime vera. Unde ipsa est maxime scientia veritatis. Ibid.,

THE QUEST FOR METAPHYSICS

563

stances to which St. Thomas refers are not the ideas of Plato.
They are concrete existing beings linked to the changes in this
world through the existence and movement of the heavenly
bodies/ 05 The first principles of metaphysics are not grounded
merely in the mind. Truth is a function of existing being.
Consequently, i£ there exist any immaterial substance, a third
part, theology or metaphysics, must be added to physics and
mathematics to make up the speculative sciences.106
St. Thomas Aquinas could easily refer to immaterial substances as justification for metaphysics since the spiritual order
of beings was much closer to medieval men than it is to
modems. In religion the existence of angels and saints was a
matter of common belief, and their constant intervention in
human affairs found ready credence. In science most of the
experts held that the earth was at the inmost point of a series
of concentric spheres constituted of material superior to earthly
matter. Each sphere was thought to have its own motion imparted to it by an immaterial mover. Taken together the
motions of the spheres controlled the changes of material things
on earth. 107
St. Thomas attempted to mobilize scientific opinion of both
the philosophical and theological traditions in support of the
real existence of separated and immaterial substances. In the
commentary on the De trinitate he identified the intelligences
of Aristotle with the angels of popular, theological teaching. 108
He accepted the consequence in holding that the angels must
be the causes of the motions of the celestial spheres and the
governors of terrestrial motions. The intelligences or angels
would thus be treated in metaphysics as principles and causes
of its subject, common being. Throughout his life St. Thomas
105 " ••• est aliqua substautia
separata a sensibilibus; non quidem species rerum
sensibilium, ut Platonici posuerunt, sed primi motores," ibid., XI, ii, 2179.
106 Ibid., VI, i, 1166-67; XI, vii, 2262-65; In De generatione et corruptione,
Prooem., 2 (2).
107 III Cont. Gent., c. 28; cf. Thomas Litt, O.C.S.O., Les Corps Celestes dans
l'Universe de Saint Thomas d'Aquin (Paris: Beatrice-Nauwelaerts, 1968), pp.

100-01.
108

In Boet. De trin., q. 5, a. 4, ad 3.

564

JAMES COUNAHAN

held for the identity of the intelligences with the angels even
though many theologians including Robert Kilwardby, O.P.,
and St. Albert the Great disputed him. 109
The immaterial movers today are obsolete. Universal laws
of motion account for the movements of the heavens, and space
travel has eliminated the celestial spheres. All of the matter in
the universe is essentially the same. The physical and chemical
laws discovered on earth apply to the planets and the most
distant stars. The extension of the laws of natural science
has led men to greater confidence in themselves and their
technology. The psychological need for saints and angels is
greatly reduced. Today the difficulties preventing the justification of metaphysics by virtue of the existence of immaterial
substances are more formidable than ever before.
Since cosmic motions no longer establish the existence of
immaterial substances, perhaps an appeal to the general principles of all change is still possible. 110 Once the principles of
matter, form and privation are understood, one can see the
necessity for a transcendent first mover. In this way the full
development of general natural science achieved in the eighth
book of the Physics leads readily to metaphysics. Unfortunately most natural scientists today find matter, form and privation
completely alien ideas, and their elucidation is frequently
entangled in metaphysical difficulties. Metaphysical speculation will likely proceed concomitant with the development of
natural science. Thus the contempor:try metaphysician will
need a starting point which does not presuppose a complete
natural science.
Once in commenting on the Physicsm and again in commenting on the Metaphysics 112 Aquinas touches on the connection
between the subject of metaphysics and the human soul as
109 Vernon J. Bourke, Aquinas' Search for Wisdom (Milwaukee:
Bruce Publishing Co., 1965), pp. 147-55.
110 In Meta., IV, v, 593.
111 In Physicorum, II, iv, 10.
119 " ••• in rebus non solum sunt corporea, sed etiam quaedam incorporea, ut
patet in libro de anima." In Meta., I, xii, 181; cf. ibid., VI, i, 1155 et 1159.

THE QUEST FOR METAPHYSICS

565

an incorporeal substance. In the Physics man is viewed as a
mobile being like many others. Most of the actions of man
are accounted for by the same biological principles which
explain the operations of other living bodies. Yet man has a
few acts, mainly understanding and willing, which cannot be
explained completely by material organs.
The human senses like those of the other animals operate
through material organs. The sensation generated in the sense
organ under the stimulus of a physical agent, light, sound, or
pressure, is not itself conscious. Nor can the percepts accumulated in the internal senses such as memory and imagination
know themselves. Sensations and sense percepts cannot reflect back upon themselves because the act of a material organ
is extended. If the sense percept produces an emotional response, it is strictly determined and not free.
Human understanding can reflect upon itself and can know
itself in the act of knowing some material object presented by
the senses. Through conscious knowledge a human mind can
see the common aspects of diverse individuals and can produce abstract concepts to cover them. It is the intellect which
knows humanity where the senses know individual men. The
attitudes taken on the basis of conscious, abstract knowledge
are free and self determining.
Abstract science and human liberty show that man is not
limited to the direct and determinate operations of the senses.
If understanding and willing are immaterial, they must operate
through immaterial powers. The existence of immaterial powers
argues to an immaterial substance in which intellect and will
are situated. Nothing can be more intimate to man than his
immaterial substance, the human soul.
Unfortunately for the subject of metaphysics a rather sophisticated development of philosophical psychology is needed
to establish the existence of the soul firmly. The problems of
abstract science and human liberty are bound to be difficult.
Often they defy solution for lack of the metaphysical foundation needed for an adequate approach. Consequently, some
thinkers have suggested bypassing the psychological problem

566

JAMES

COUNAHAN

altogether. The immateriality of being can be proven directly
from the same evidence which proves the immateriality of the
soul. 113
A conceptualization is itself an immaterial being. When
passively impressed with the likeness of a known object, the
mind has the capacity actively to form within itself an intention of that object. This reflex intention is the notion signified
by the definition. 114 The notion is formed when the mind reflects upon itself and knows both its own act of knowing and
the notion by which it knows. The notion known is a secondary
object of understanding because the primary object is the being
whose likeness was impressed on the mind originally.
Since the intellect reflects upon itself,
through the same reflection it understands
both its knowing and the notion by which it knows.
Thus the notion understood
is secondarily
that which is understood.
That which is understood primarily is the thing
of which the intelligible notion is the likeness. 1140

Conceptualized being offers an obvious example of immaterial being. Conceptualization results from the act of self
knowing, which is impossible for a material thing. In the course
of human history mental probing into the experience of being
has produced a vast literature in science and in the humanities.
The poet's song and the critic's judgment as well as the coordinates of the mathematician and the schemata of the naturalist represent but a fraction of the world of conceptual being.
113 L.-B. Geiger, 0. P., "Abstraction
et separation d'apres S. Thomas: In De
Trinitate, q. 5, a. 3," Revue de Science Philosophique et Theologique, XXXI
(1947), 3-40; cf. M.-V. Leroy, 0. P., "Abstractio et separatio d'apres un texte
controverse de saint Thomas," Revue Thomiste, XLVIII (1948), 328-39; P. Isaac,
0. P., Bulletin Thomiste, VIII (1947-52), 558, n. 884.
114 I Cont. Gent., c. 53.
114 " Sed quia intellectus supra seipsum refiectitur, secundum eandem refiexionem
intelligit et suum intelligere et speciem qua intelligit. Et sic species intellecta
secondario est id quod intelligitur. Sed id quod intelligitur primo, est res cuius
species intelligibilis est similitudo. Summa Theol., I, 85, 2, c.

THE QUEST FOR METAPHYSICS

567

A student familiar with some of the sciences or the humanities
can be induced to reflect on the contents of his mind through
the study of logic. Then he has only to be convinced that
material beings lack the reflexive kowledge, the "subjectivity,"
needed for conceptualization to see the need for a study beyond
the physical. The phenomenon of culture offers ample, secular
evidence for the reality of immaterial being.
Clearly the fact that the mind can conceive of immaterial
beings would not prove that being is immaterial. One can
think of triangles without steel or of humanity without men,
but such forms merely grasp immaterial aspects of material
things. They are studied in one of the sciences dealing with
material beings. Metaphysics is founded on a solid existing
reality. It is the existence of conceptual being which proves
the immateriality and immortality of the human soul. The
existence of conceptual being also shows the some being is not
rna terial. 115
Mind and matter. The final critical point in our evaluation
of the teaching of St. Thomas on the subject of metaphysics
discloses the gulf which separates him from modern thought.
Far from doubting the reality of conceptualized being, philosophers since Descartes have generally been determined to begin
metaphysics with thought alone. They have sought to encounter being as such in the elaboration of the forms and conditions of clear thinking. I am first a thinking thing, and in
virtue of my thought I am. Material beings are thus an appendage on the mind. The approach of St. Thomas is just the
opposite. For him existing being is prior to and in control o£
thought. No matter how elaborate conceptual beings may
grow, they are always reducible in their elements to the concrete reality of first substance, the basic subject of metaphysics.
The history of philosophy belies the apparent simplicity of
115 " ••• ce n'est pas parce que je con<;ois immateriellement
l'etre que je conclus
a l'immaterialite de l'etre mais parce que rna conception de !'etre est elle-meme de
l'etre et de l'etre immateriel, meme si elle conc;oit l'etre de chose materielle qui
n'est pas immateriel," L.-B. Geiger, 0. P., op. cit., p. 26.

568

JAMES

COUNAHAN

the distinction between physical being and conceptualized,
mental being. Metaphysics has constantly been confused with
logic or dialectics and not without reason. The dialectician
considers all things. He could not do so without seeing them
all under some one aspect since one discipline has to deal with
one subject. All things have no common aspect except being.
Consequently, the material of dialectic is being, which is what
the metaphysician also studies. The sophist similarly imitates
the philosopher in breadth of knowledge if not in depth. A
sophist can speak freely on anything and give the impression
of wisdom. He could not manage his glib speech without something on which to base the appearance of true philosophy. 116
The difference between the philosopher and the dialectician
is that the philosopher works more powerfully on the common
aspects of being. As a result of his demonstrations he develops
genuine science and has complete certitude. The dialectician
works only from probabilities and does not achieve science
about being in general but only opinion. The reason is that
mental being (ens rationis) is different from natural being (ens
naturae). "Mental being" applies properly to the intentions,
such as genus, species and the like, at which the mind arrives
in considering things. These intentions are not found in
physical being (rerum natura) but follow upon the activity
of the mind. Mental being is the subject of logic, and the
logician sees beings only as reflected in the mind. 117 The philosopher and the metaphysician take beings in their capacity
fully to be. 118
The intentions of the mind pair off evenly with natural
beings so that all natural beings can fall under the consideration of the mind. Thus the subject of logic extends to everything of which natural being may be predicated, and logic
pairs off with metaphysics. Regarding the common properties
of being the philosopher attempts to work from his own principles to prove what can be known about them. The dialecIn Meta., IV, iv, 573.
Ibid., VII, xiii, 1576; xvii, 1658.
118 Ibid., XI, iii, 2204 ad calcem.
116

117

THE QUEST FOR METAPHYSICS

569

tician studies them by working from his mental intentions,
which are extrinsic to nature. The conclusions of the dialectician are tentative since he is not working with intrinsic
principles .119
And the reason for this
is that there is a double being,
mental and physical.
Mental being correctly applies to those intentions
which the mind finds in things as studied
(genus, species, and the like)
and which are not found in physical being
but follow upon consideration by the mind.
This sort of thing, mental being,
is rightly the subject of logic.
These intelligible intentions
pair off evenly with physical being
in that all physical beings
fall under the consideration of the mind.
Thus the subject of logic extends to everything
of which physical being is predicated.
So he concludes that the subject of logic
pairs off with the subject of philosophy
which is physical being. 120

In modern metaphysics the attempt to minimize presuppositions has led to the requirement that the distinction between
mental and physical being be proven. If it cannot be proven,
logic and Mind consume all of metaphysics and being. In ancient and medieval metaphysics there were many presuppositions. In the Aristotelian method any science presupposes
the acceptance of one's personal experience as well as the ex11

"In Post. Ana., I, xx, 171 (5); cf. In Meta., IV, iv, 576-77.

Et hoc ideo est, quia ens est duplex: ens scilicet rationis et ens naturae. Ens
autem rationis dicitur proprie de illis intentionibus, quas ratio adinvenit in rebus
consideratis; sicut intentio generis, speciei et similium, quae quidem non inveniuntur in rerum natura, sed considerationem rationis consequuntur. Et huiusmodi,
scilicet ens rationis, est proprie subiectum logicae. Huiusmodi autem intentiones
intelligibiles, entibus naturae aequiparantur, eo quod omnia entia naturae sub
consideratione rationis cadunt. Et ideo subiectum logicae ad omnia se extendit, de
quibus ens naturae praedicatur. Unde concludit, quod subiectum logicae aequiparatur subiecto philosophiae, quod est ens naturae. In Meta., IV, iv, 574.
'" 0

570

JAMES

COUNAHAN

perience o£ others and the data o£ any experiments which may
be devised. Experiences which come with some consistency and
regularity call for an explanation. 121
Experience does not explain itself. In addition to a subject
o£ study a science must presuppose some principles. The basic
principles on which every explanation in a science will be constructed are called " axioms " by Aristotle. The axioms cannot
be proven in the science itself. That equals added to equals are
equal is the basis for explanations in arithmetic and cannot be
proven arithmetically. Besides the axioms certain theses, which
are not so fundamental, are laid down in the course o£ a science. In physiology the definition o£ the heart as an organ
for pumping blood is a thesis. Some progress was possible before its discovery since it does not apply to the entire subject.
A thesis which asserts an existing £act is called an "hypothesis " by Aristotle. The hypothesis that blood circulates is necessary once the definition o£ the heart has been established.
When the axioms, theses, and hypotheses are applied in a
demonstration to the subject o£ a science, they show why
the subject must be as it is and cannot be otherwise. 122
The critical problem for Aristotle did not consist in enumerating the preconditions o£ scientific knowledge. In Aristotle the
principles o£ a science are not limited in number by being
brought forth by the mind out o£ itself as Kant postulated.
Rather they are brought forth by the creative reflection o£ the
mind upon a certain part o£ experience, the subject o£ the
science. The number of principles needed for a science is
unknown until, if ever, the science is completed. Thus the critical problem arises anew at the outset o£ each demonstration.
Once launched into a science a mind frequently cannot follow
the argument because o£ some special difficulty or aporia.
Every teacher is familiar with the unexamined preconceptions
which hinder the free flow o£ a student's thought. A difficulty
Post. Anal., I, 1, 7lal-7lb8.
Ibid.,
see Herbert Ratner M.D., "William Harvey, M.D.:
Modern or Ancient Scientist?"
The Dignity of Science (Washington:
The
121

122

Thomist Press, (1961), pp.

THE QUEST FOR METAPHYSICS

571

is a knot in the line of reasoning which has to be untangled
before further progress is possible. 123 Human experience is so
tangled that difficulties are sure to be encountered at every
point.
By patiently untangling difficulties the Aristotelian method,
which was accepted by St. Thomas, makes gradual progress
toward certainty. Each of the axioms, theses and hypotheses
proposed for a science has to be tested against experience.
Where the Cartesian method of general doubt would withhold
assent from any statement not clearly proven, the Aristotelian
method tries to make an assent proportioned to the state of
the science on the point under discussion. A given point may
be held under difficulties without being doubted.
The distinction of mind and matter involves many difficulties
especially for the modern mind, but it cannot be doubted if
metaphysics is to proceed. Without this distinction the question of the meaning of being becomes senseless. To question
is to push off into the unknown, to push the self off as a rocket
leaves the pad. The center of power and activity goes into
motion through the surrounding being. Of what use is the most
powerful rocket with no space through which to travel, no
guidance system to seek an orbit, no planet or star around
which to define a place in being? A questor is carried along by
the dynamism of his own thought, but he cannot move at all
without some element through which to guide his path. The
quest for the meaning of being is guided by past experience of
existing things, the self and the world. The metaphysical
quest carries the self into the world in search of some grounding point in being. If being is not grounded outside the self,
the mind turns to itself and ends by elucidating its own laws.
Metaphysics is then absorbed into logic as Hegel clearly saw.
The distinction of mind and matter, self and world is axiomatic
to metaphysics in the sense that no progress is possible in the
science without it.
The texts of St. Thomas have little to contribute on this
123

Meta., III, 1, 995a23-995b4.

572

JAMES

COUNAHAN

point beyond remarking that the distinction of mind from
independent beings is vital to the distinction of logic, dialectics,
and sophistry from metaphysics. But once this distinction is
accepted, previous distinction of matter and spirit is readily
established since mind is immaterial. Thus the existence of
separated substances, intelligences, and angels need not be
relevant to the pursuit of metaphysics. We need only to reflect
that minds themselves are immaterial existences. In our experience, however, they are not self existent. Our minds are
subjected in a primary being, personal substance, over which
we exercise free dominion. For us being is found here primarily.
This flesh has to penetrate the mystery of the existing material
world outside the mind in quest for the meaning of being. At
the outset the quest is secular; it does not presuppose religion
or the existence of God. However, some may hope to find a
God at the source of being, and there find rest for the soul.
JAMES CoUNAHAN,

l,oyola University
Orleans, La.

O.P.

WHITEHEAD IN FRENCH PERSPECTIVE:
A REVIEW ARTICLE

T

HERE ARE now a good many books in English on
Whitehead's philosophy. All but one of these were
written by authors now living in the U. S. A. But
important non-English studies are scarce. Indeed the new
French work is the only one I know. 1 By the timing of her
interpretation Dr. Parmentier had the advantage o£ access
to many others. Johnson, Lowe, Hammerschmidt, Shahan,
Palter, Christian, Leclerc, Mays, Sherburne, Cobb, and several
others form a substantial appreciative and critical literature.
Alix Parmentier has diligently and judiciously combed this
literature (perhaps making too little use o£ Cobb, whose book
became available rather late in her inquiry), besides going
through all of Whitehead's writings. Some French and nonFrench continental studies are also taken into account. If, in
addition, she has paid special attention to my own comments
on Whitehead, I do not find that this prejudices me against
her! And I feel honored indeed to stand between Aristotle and
Plato as the most often-cited authors.
Dr. Parmentier has a deep interest in metaphysics and
philosophy of religion and shows intensive knowledge of their
history. She is less iconoclastic than Whitehead, sees more
wisdom in the great traditions of Western philosophy of religion than he did (or than I do) , but this has some advantage
in a writer so subtly appreciative of the genius of the man
she is studying. It gives her more detachment and objectivity
toward the system she is explaining than might otherwise be
possible. But she is determined to give the Anglo-American
thinker every chance to make his way with French readers.
It is exhilarating and encouraging to read her very numerous
and extensive translations and to see how readily Whitehead
1 Alix
Parmentier, La Philosophie de Whitehead et le probleme de Dieu.
Beauchesne, Paris, 1968.

573

574

CHARLES HARTSHORNE

translates into lucid French. Other non-French authors cited
are also always (with one odd exception) translated.
The title is appropriate enough. True, the book deals only
with Whitehead's metaphysical system (and not-she tells us
this at the beginning--with his views on history, politics, and
the like) and treats above all the conception of God in which
the system culminates. The discussion of this conception is
preceded by over fWO pages on the basic categories, prefaced
by a rather extensive sketch-less technical than Lowe's masterly one-of Whitehead's intellectual Odyssey, his development from mathematician to logician to theoretical physicist
to metaphysician. The presuppositions, the background, for
his thought about God are thus adequately given. The exposition of the systematic philosophy is rather largely through
translation of passages from all the later works and is on the
whole one of the best we have in any language.
A French philosopher who wants to understand Whitehead
but does not read English readily now needs only patience and
some capacity for metaphysical speculation to reach the goal.
Whitehead is now available in French, as he was not hitherto
in any European language. The linguistic barrier is to that
extent removed. This is a welcome change, which I hope will
have considerable influence upon the future of European philosophy. The great skill and immense effort which alone made
this book possible should not be allowed to go in vain. But
those at home in English should also take this book into
account. It is mature, deeply meditated, scholarly. There is
an index of names and a valuable bibliography, the most
complete now in print. The 100 pages given to the early
writings and those of the middle years help to dispose of some
absurd views about the changes in Whitehead's thinking, such
as that he became a metaphysician and philosopher of religion
because his son was killed, or that there is grotesque discontinuity between the nonmetaphysical and the metaphysical
works. Whitehead was always aware of philosophical issues.
But the chronological account also sheds positive light upon
the basic intuitions.

WHITEHEAD

IN FRENCH PERSPECTIVE

57l'i

Concerning the "philosophy of organism" I have at least
one apparent disagreement with the author. Like most
students, she seems to construe the " perishing " of actual
entities, or unit events, rather literally. This metaphor, taken
from Locke, seems to me misleading, and I have never employed it. To perish seems to imply becoming lifeless. But
Whitehead says that, thanks to objective immortality in God,
occasions, though "they perish, yet live forevermore." This
metaphor I take more, and the other less, literally than some
do. After all, we are told that actualities become but "do
not change." Perishing as diminution of life would surely be
a change! So I hold that perishing is not, taking God into
account, a loss, something negative, and is wholly positive, an
addition. This, too, we are on occasion told. An entity in
perishing " acquires " additional functions. But this acquisition is no change in the entity itself; nothing is added to it,
any more than something is substracted; but the entity itself
with all the reality or life it ever had, no more and no less, is
added to the de facto sum of entities as prehended in subsequent phases of the divine life. The saying that " subjectivity
is lost" as the entity becomes object for its successors seems
misle.ading-within the system. True, we are told that " indeterminacy has evaporated." But note that indeterminacy is
a negation, a privation. The process of becoming removes, or
rather transcends, this privation, yet by the principle of process
(that an entity includes within itself how it became) even the
indeterminacy is present in the living act of transcending it
which is the entity.
For us, as succeeding actualities, much of the subjective life,
the vividness of past occasions, is indeed lost, our prehensions
being " abstract," " under a limitation," or partly " negative."
But to take this abstractness as holding even for divine prehensions is to make nonsense of the affirmation that " the
truth itself " is only the way all things are embraced in the
Consequent Nature of God. If so, how can it be true that a
certain subjectivity occurred, yet is not contained in God? So
I hold that it spoils Whitehead's system to regard past entities

576

CHARLES HARTSHORNE

as inactual. Actuality, definite reality is pastness. This was
also Bergson's doctrine. The present is only nascent actuality.
I do not say that Whitehead is wholly clear about this. But
some of his commentators seem to me less clear, not more. I
feel this especially of Christian's interpretation of perishing.
Dr. Parmentier sees serious difficulty in the apparent succession of " genetic phases " within the becoming of a single
actuality. Here I agree and incline to cut the knot by denying
that there is any such succession. An entity (a single experience) becomes in a single act, which has aspects of grasping
data and aspects of thinking about them (physical and mental
prehensions), but the data are not "first grasped and "then"
thought about-unless in subsequent actual entities. Rather,
an entity grasps its data thinkingly, in a single act. Perhaps
part of what Whitehead ascribes to a single entity is really
effected by a short sequence of entities, rather than a sequence
of phases within one entity. (Memory, in the broad sense of
intuition of previous actualities, is essential to intellection; but
then, according to Whitehead, it is essential to any actuality or
experience at all.) That a single actuality corresponds to a
finite time rather than an instant is not incompatible with
this view, since time is measured only by comparison, involving
relations to other actualities. Time and space are relational,
a.nd that we experience in units of tenths or twentieths of a
second means that a single experience of ours can be contemporary with millions of successive atomic or subatomic actualities, and probably with a number of actualities of bird experiences. Simply empty time or space have no measure. Thus,
in spite of Chappell, we need not believe that the temporal
finitude of an entity implies internal succession. Rather, it
implies the possibility of external but contemporary succession.
This may be a difficult doctrine; but one of the lessons we can
learn from Bergson, Peirce, Einstein, and Whitehead is that
it is time, even more than eternity, which our intellects tend to
distort and find hard to grasp.
The author notes the range of opinions concerning the utility
of " eternal objects" in the system, and makes a modest

WHITEHEAD

IN FRENCH PERSPECTIVE

577

suggestion as to the need for them. The suggestion is perhaps
sufficiently qualified to meet certain objections which have
caused me to ignore the doctrine in my modified Whiteheadianism. But I still wonder if there is not a confusion between universals with a relative independence of time and universals with
absolute independence. I suspect that " red," with the meaning we can give to the term, is relevant only to our and subsequent " cosmic epochs " but not to becoming as such, no
matter how far in the past. Definite forms, I hold with Peirce,
are created, not pigeonholed in eternity. Here I am closer to
Bergson and Dewey, and to many "nominalists," than to
Whitehead. Metaphysical principles, including God in his
essential nature in contrast to his contingent qualities, are, I
hold, eternal, but not specific qualities of sensing or feeling.
Dr. Parmentier rightly sees "religious intuition of a complex
kind" as pervasively influential in Whitehead's thinking.
Whitehead himself has indicated this. But she holds that the
physical theory of relativity (and of vectors) and the biological
idea of organism were also basic. No doubt, but I think it
of some importance that the Buddhists long ago adopted quite
a bit of what, according to this author, Whitehead got from
physics. They not only took events as basic terms rather than
substances but also insisted-and sometimes even more strongly or onesidedly than Whitehead-upon the internal relatedness of events to other events and the falsity of the idea that
an event is anything in abstraction from the universe out of
which it has emerged. Dr. Parmentier rightly remarks that
for Whitehead concrete unit-events have external, or nonconstitutive, as well as internal relationships. Such an event
can without distortion be considered in abstraction from its
contemporaries and successors, even though not from its predecessors. Also, as she notes, eternal objects, and God as
primordial, are independent of all particular events (though
not of the general necessary truth that events occur, some
events or other) .
Miss Parmentier is deliberately sparing of critical comments
until her final chapter. Here she brilliantly sums up the basic

578

CHARLES

HARTSHORNE

intuitions embodied in the system and then asks how far the
results agree with what she views as the religious or Christian
truth. The discussion here is admirably done, with learning
and finesse. She wonders i£ the ultimacy o£ love and the
ultimacy o£ relativity and creativity (which, as she points out,
integrally includes relativity) are not subtly in conflict. Without sharing all her convictions on this question, I think they
could hardly be better expressed or more reasonably argued
for. She is troubled by the consideration that God is said to be
an actual entity and not a person. Here I take Whitehead
to have erred. He should have conceived God as analogous to
a society of actual entities not a single entity. If the divine
society is " personally ordered," then it is a person on the
eminent plane; or perhaps, as I now incline to think, a society
of societies, a multiplicity of persons-somewhat, but not by
any means wholly, analogous to classical trinitarian views. God
is the eminent, primordial, everlasting Person, or Society of
Persons. I believe this makes better Whiteheadian sense than
what Whitehead actually says.
Dr. Parmentier takes religious truth to require that God
be eminently Creator in a sense not allowed by Whitehead.
Here I side with Whitehead, except that he might have
emphasized some aspects of his doctrine more. God must, in
the system, be eminently creative, and the Creator in the only
sense which has meaning for Whitehead (or for me). Other
actualities or societies are noneminently creative; they are selfcreative creatures of deity, as Lequier said long ago. That God
is not the same as creativity is not, as the author sees clearly,
at times at least, any subjection of God to something else: for
creativity is only our ultimate perspective upon eminent and
noneminent forms of actuality. There is nothing but the selfcreative, other-creative, actualities of God and creatures.
Nothing "limits" divine freedom-as though God would be
greater solus. That God needs noneminent or free creatures
(some such creatures, not necessarily the ones that are actual)
does not seem to me any derogation to the majesty of God.
What is the use of an ability to choose not to have something

WHITEHEAD

IN FRENCH PERSPECTIVE

579

which it is better to have than not to have? And if it is not
better for God to have noneminent creatures than not to have
them, our lives are meaningless. This Whiteheadian conviction
I owe to my reading and experience at a time when Whitehead
was not even a name to me.
Dr. Parmentier suggests that love does not entail relativity
and that it was physics which led Whitehead to stress the latter
principle. But not only did the Buddhists arrive at a rebtivistic view of reality (not specifically of space measurements, simultaneity etc.), but they saw ethical and spiritual
value in the doctrine. So, and in no lesser degree, did Whitehead. To him it was of prime ethical importance, entirely
regardless of any theory of physics, that the unity of a person
Yvith his own past and future be upon the same ultimate
principle as his unity with the past and future of other
"societies "-the principle of causality or prehension (inheritance from antecedent actualities) plus concern for subsequent
actualities. " Objectification is sympathy," and self-interest is
but one strand of this sympathy, with no metaphysical priority.
This is the old Buddhist insight. The ethical point of view is
only the conscious and wholehearted recognition and acting out
of the metaphysical truth. A Buddhist, but not so many others,
would easily understand Whitehead's only half humorous saying, " I sometimes think that modern immorality is a consequence of the Aristotelian doctrine of substance." Similarly, a
Buddhist document classifies egocentric attitudes as "writhing
in delusion." The self-identical ego is not an absolute term of
reference, and its importance is secondary. A South African
writer, Whiteman, holds that the Christian (Judaic) principle
of loving your neighbor as yourself is a point of agreement
between Christianity (adequately understood) and Buddhism.
It seems subtly contradicted by the standard Western doctrine of substances as the final units of reality. For then selflove would be identity and love for another just nonidentity,
and loving another "as oneself" would be nonsense. Only
if self-identity is but relative can nonidentity with others be
also relative and love in both cases the same in principle and
ideal.

580

CHARLES HARTSHORNE

True, one man's successive experiences are m every suc··
cessive unit distinct from another man's, but the contents,
the sets of data which alone give value to the experiences,
largely overlap. There is no sense whatever in which one must
or should justify the future good one seeks to promote for
others by pointing to probable or certain contributions thereby
made to the future states of that individual which one is. The
only fully rational aim we can have for the future is to have
served God, in whom alone our present reality can have permanent status. Egoism is the unwitting denial of death, and
still more, of the radical abstractness and only provisional
importance of self-identity in its nondivine forms. There is
indeed something ultimate, for me as for Whitehead, and not
merely abstract, about the unity of the divine life. Whitehead
trie_d to safeguard this by terming God an actual entity rather
than a society. Here I think he deserted the tracks of his own
systematic scheme, as well as got farther from trinitarianism
than he needed to.
Does love conflict in principle with relativity? This I cannot see at all! Love of A for B seems clearly to render A in
some genuine sense relative to B. And since what we love in
others is above all their own forms of love, in loving them we
are relativized both to them and to those they love. In the
eminent form we have universal or divine relativity which,
conceived analogically, is divine love. I honestly don't see what
the author's point is here. But, of course, she is in venerable
company in her conviction. An expositor of Hinduism recently
said, " for the disciple the Guru is there, for the Guru the
disciple is not there." Similarly, for Brahman even the Guru
is not there, as distinguishable in any way from Brahman.
This may be Hinduism (in one form?) but it is not what
Dr. Parmentier or I mean by the divine love. So what is the
point she wants to make?
As the author says, there must be some ambiguity or tension
in Whitehead's thought, or such widely diverse interpretations
as those of Hartshorne and Mays (whom she treats more
kindly and, I admit, more intelligently than I did some years

WHITEHEAD

IN FRENCH PERSPECTIVE

581

ago) would not occur. But, as she is also aware, this sort of
thing has happened to all the great philosophers. Ours is too
difficult a subject for there to be simple agreement even as to
what a man means to say, let alone as to what he should say.
I heartily recommend this book. It does honor to Whitehead,
its author, and Anglo-American as well as French scholarship.
CHARLES HARTSHORNE

University of Texas
Austin, Texas

BOOK REVIEWS
The Jerome Biblical Commentary. Edited by RAYMOND E. BROWN, S. S.,
JosEPH A. FITZMYER, S. J., RoLAND E. MuRPHY, 0. CARM. Englewood
Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968. Pp.
Even a first glance can hardly fail to indicate the astounding array of
scholarship which has gone into this impressive collection. As one begins
to probe more deeply into particular sections of the book, this initial
reaction is pleasantly corroborated. What we have in this two-volumes-inone is a verse-by-verse commentary on the whole of Sacred Scripture. In
many ways, it is a " modern " American counterpart of the mammoth A
Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture compiled by British scholars
fifteen years earlier. The structure and format of the two works are
similar, but their contents are notably diverse. In this diversity lies
perhaps the most telling evidence to date of the progress of Catholic biblical
scholars in America during the interim. The earlier commentary employed
only three U. S. and two Canadian scholars; the Jerome Biblical Commentary has been written entirely by representatives of these two countries.
A pertinent sub-title might well read, "North American Catholic Biblical
Scholarship Comes of Age."
The format is tidy and attractive, although the print is not as dark and
clear as the British work. The articles and commentaries are numbered
consecutively and divided into sections headed by large, boldface arabic
numerals. This is, in fact, the only consecutive enumeration in the entire
volume, as the pagination begins afresh with the New Testament portion.
This system of numbered articles is a valuable aid to cross-references;
however, this reviewer was disappointed that scriptural chapter-and-verse
notations are not included at the top of each page to expedite the rapid
finding of comments on specific passages. The Revised Standard Version
has been followed for the titles of the books and the spelling of proper
names. In the matter of titles, however, two exceptions occur to mar the
consistency: Canticle of Canticles is retained for the Song of Solomon, and
Apocalypse is retained for Revelation. The numbering of the Psalms is
consistent with the RSV.
Both scholars and serious students will find an amazing wealth of up-todate information in the assortment of introductory and auxiliary articles,
which would of themselves make the book salable. In these articles, as
also in the commentaries on individual passages, the reader will find the
most recent literary and scientific data available. For example, the article
on Inspiration and Inerrancy includes the opinions of Levesque, McKenzie,

BOOK REVIEWS

583

Benoit, K. Rahner and other modern scholars-as well as a timely warning
not to cling too tenaciously to the erstwhile rigid distinction between
revelation and inspiration but rather to consider the latter term as
containing the total influence of God upon the sacred authors. One is
not surprised to find insights from the Qumran Community reflected in a
variety of ways in the competent treatment of the Dead Sea Scrolls. If
more examples of modernity are needed, the reader may consult the fine
article of Robert North, S. J., on Biblical Archeology, which is accompanied
by an excellent chart of key excavations in the Holy Land and elsewhere.
The use of similar charts is typical throughout the volume.
When the monumental Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible appeared
in the United States in 1963, this translation of a Dutch work was hailed
as a significant sign of the high standards of those American scholars who
did the translating and adaptation. At the time, this reviewer noted a
slight unevenness of quality in the treatment of the Old and New Testaments: the treatment of the latter seemed inferior to the quality of the
handling of the Old Testament. This observation is not true of the Jerome
Biblical Commentary; New Testament scholarship in Catholic circles in the
United States has finally caught up with Old Testament advances. One
verification of this remark is provided by the series of articles under the
general heading Aspects of New Testament Thought by David M. Stanley,
S. J., and Raymond E. Brown, S. S., covering such topics as: " The Titles
of Christ"; "New Testament Eschatology"; "The Kingdom of God";
"Gospel Miracles"; "Parables of Jesus"; "The Resurrection of Jesus",
and "The Twelve and the Apostolate." None of the "sticky" issues are
avoided. In the article on the resurrection, for example, the question of
whether or not the tomb of Jesus was empty is adequately considered.
Yet-and here is one of the glories of this volume-radical conclusions are
scrupulously avoided in favor of authentic scholarship; facts backed up by
clear evidence is the order of the day. After giving various opinions on the
topic Fr. Brown concludes with this parenthetical note: " In this light, we
think it biblically irresponsible to claim that Christian faith in the resurrection is independent of the question of whether or not Jesus lies buried
faith in the resurrection is in continuity with
in Palestine-Christian
apostolic faith in the resurrection, and there is no evidence that the first
witnesses took such a stance of indifference toward the body in the tomb."
(78: 151).
It would be a mistake to conclude from this quotation, however, that the
Jerome Biblical Commentary represents a reactionary or merely
approach to exegesis, albeit a modern approach. This charge was levelednot without reason-against A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture.
In the latter's handling of the question of miracles, the Book of Jonah, etc.,
the lid was still on; editorship was cautious and not markedly venturesome.
Now, with the strictures removed via Pope Pius XII's Encyclical Divino

584

BOOK REVIEWS

Afflante Spiritu of 1943 and, more recently, via the Pontifical Biblical Commission's decree Instruction on the Historical Tndh of the Gospels and the
Vatican II document, Constitution on Divine Revelation, Catholic scholars
have rapidly been bridging the gap between them and their Protestant
brethren. In the introduction to Peter (67:
for example, the Jerome
Biblical Commentary accepts as the probable range for its composition the
period
A. D. This is a far cry from the conservative dating of the
book (in the middle 60's) of a decade ago (cf. A Catholic Commentary on
Holy Scripture,
In reviewing a tome as broad in scope as the Jerome Biblical Commentary it is simply impossible to analyze every section. The best one can
hope to do is to hit the high spots-and the low spots, if any. What strikes
this reviewer is the remarkable consistency of the disparate sections of the
book; consequently, my remarks will be largely an encomium.
Under the editorship of Roland Murphy, 0. Carm., the books of the Old
Testament have been assigned to a squad of capable scholars, most of
whom are also experienced teachers. The introduction to the Pentateuch
provides expert background material on the four Mosaic traditions and
the question of authorship; it likewise approaches the meaning of these
five books in terms of promise, election, covenant and law. The exegesis
of Genesis 1-11 reflects the character of these chapters as an historical
parable. Careful attention has been given to harmonize the treatment of
the other four pentateuchal books with this modern thrust. The historical
and prophetical books are handled by men who have, for the most part,
previously done specialized work in the area assigned them. An example
in point is the fine work on Deutero-Isaiah by Carroll Stuhlmueller, C. P.
Fr. Murphy himself undertook the introduction to the wisdom literature
and the exegesis of three of these seven books: Canticle of Canticles,
Ecclesiastes and Psalms. It is evident that the author of The Seven Books
of Wisdom has poured his wisdom into the effort. The Rector of the
Pontifical Biblical Institute R. A. F. MacKenzie, S. J., has managed to
find time to contribute his rare insights to the Book of Job.
The New Testament section, prefaced by an oversize folding map of
Palestine, has been edited by Joseph Fitzmyer, S. J., and Raymond Brown
S. S. Here some surprises are immediately noticed: John L. McKenzie,
S. J., has done Matthew, whereas the name of David Stanley, S. J., would
have been expected in this area. (Fr. Stanley did the New Testament
Reading Guide Series commentary on Matthew). And whereas Raymond
Brown, S. S., would have been expected to handle St. John's Gospel and
the Johannine Epistles, this assignment has been carried out by Bruce
Vawter, C. M. (Fr. Brown did both the New Testament Reading Guide
Series and the Anchor Bible Series commentaries on St. John's Gospel) .
In both of these instances we get another aspect of American Catholic
biblical scholarship: the versatility of these men, who are at home in

BOOK REVIEWS

585

either Old or New Testament fields. Carroll Stuhlmueller, C. P., handles
his New Testament specialty, the Gospel of St. Luke, while Fr. Fitzmyer's
Pauline expertise is put to work on four of that Apostle's epistles. His
skill in synthesizing St. Paul's thought is illustrated in the section on
Pauline Anthropology (79: 117-123) where he distinguishes the concepts
soma, pneuma and psyche. Throughout both Old and New Testament
areas, copious, up-to-date bibliographies are provided, and the overall
index to the volume seems adequate.
Though the consistency of the tome is (as noted already) admirable,
this reviewer did detect minor weaknesses not at all typical of the whole
work. In Article 11, Excursus: Israel and Her Neighbors, the section on
the Arameans is little more than a rehash (often word-for-word) of the
corresponding article in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible. The
article on the Amorites strangely fails to mention either Mari or Hammurabi
(though these terms are treated in later articles). In the New Testament
section, the exegesis of the Apocalypse was somewhat of a disappointment.
While the scholar deputed to handle this difficult book has dealt knowledgeably with the symbolism involved, I do not think that he has given
sufficient attention to the sound theory of Andre Feuillet regarding the
historical perspective of the Apocalypse. Fr. Feuillet sees chapters 4-11 as
depicting God's judgment on the Jews for their rejection of Christ and
persecution of Christianity. Having gained the confidence of his Christian
audience by means of this pseudo-prophecy, St. John proceeds to launch
into an apocalyptic judgment against the new enemy of God's people, the
Roman Empire, whose destruction he foresees as imminent. An increasing
number of American scholars are adopting this division of the Apocalypse.
It is a source of great pleasure to me to introduce the Jerome Biblical
Commentary to readers of THE TnoMIST. Not only teachers of Scripture
but more advanced students of the Bible will want to own their personal
copy of this auspicious token of the flowing of American Catholic biblical
scholarship. Although the rapid rate of progress in this field precludes the
possibility of any accurate projection of the continued contemporaneousness of the contents of this volume, this reviewer is willing to conjecture
that it will be relevant for at least a generation.
MARTIN HoPKINS, 0. P.
Edgewood College

Madison, Wisconsin

586

BOOK REVIEWS

The First Christian Century in Judaism and Christianity. Certainties and
Uncertainties. By SAMUEL SANDMEL. New York: Oxford Press, 1969.
Pp. 241. $6.00.
This book contains three lectures given originally at the Dubuque
Theological Seminary, February 1967. The book format itself presents
four lectures, amplification of the originals, together with previously unpublished notes. However, the book, according to Sandmel, is substantially the same as the lectures.
Dr. Sandmel does not aim at a definitive work synthesizing the Judaic
and the Christian religio-cultural 5ituations of the first century of our
common era. He considers such a task impossible for one scholar in one
lifetime. Sandmel sets for himself a more modest goal: the delineation of
what can be called certain knowledge and of what must be realized as
presently uncertain, to the end of helping scholars avoid the fruitless
search for more than can be found, as well as the scholarly horrifying
prospect of seeming to find more than is in the sources.
The first lecture considers the significance of the first century C. E. for
the emergence of Judaism into what can be called its modern situation of
being Rabbinic in character. There are many references to Christian frame
work which Sandmd deems relevant or parallel to Jewish development,
but the emphasis is on Judaic religio-cultural growth. Overall, the stress
is upon the limitations on their precise knowledge which the scholars
must find. The result is more uncertainty than certainty about the first
century C. E.
Lecture two develops in detail the growth and change evident in firstcentury Palestinian Judaism. Treated briefly are key elements of a
changing milieu: the rise of Rabbinism, Rabbinic literature as reflective
of first-century Judaic thought, Rabbinism as normative Judaism, the
emergence of the Book as religiously central in late post-exilic Judaism,
the reality and function of the Sanhedrin, the same for the Synagogue,
Judaic universalism and particularism, the meaning and importance of
Jewish sectarian influences (including Qumran) . Thoughout there occur
many references to Christian and Judaic mutualities both of understanding
and misunderstanding.
Lecture three concerns itself with Hellenistic Judaism in the first century.
Much of this deals with Philo and the possibility of a true adapted Judaism
among the Dispersion. Sandmel considers whether Paul, the Apostle, is a
Rabbinic or a Hellenistic Jew and compares him with Philo.
This is noticeably the
Lecture four is simply titled "Christianity."
longest and most intricate of the lectures. One might try to summarize
the vast amount of material presented under the generic heading of
"search for precise history." The author's philosophy of history becomes
evident in the exercise of his critical powers and apparatus. He calls for

BOOK REVIEWS

587

a moratorium on history in the search for understanding of Christian
origins. Then he continues the presentation of his own scholarly, sometimes evidenced, sometimes personal, sometimes intuitional, sometimes
" bunchy " insights into the reality of Christianity through brief estimations
of the Christian canonical literature. He works backward from the
youngest book, II Peter, to the eldest, Mark. He considers the possibility
of bridging the gap between Gospel and Jesus so as to ascertain some
truth with security about Jesus, his milieu, and their interaction. Sandmel
rejects the possibility, reasoning thus: the Gospel pericopes are midrashim
(p. 189); there is no historic reliability in the "developing midrashic tradition" (p. 214, note # 35; cf. p. 188}; midrash is meditative piety, not
history (p. 189}; therefore he is troubled " by this personal inability to
go beyond the Gospels back to Jesus." (p. 191)
Dr. Sandmel is a Reform Jew. (p. 146) He defends in his" Preface and
Apologia " the firm possibility that an objective, scholarly non-Christian
can justly understand Christianity. He believes that in himself that
possibility is actuated. Wherever in his work he consciously believes
himself to be subjective, opinionated, or concluding on a " hunch," he
honestly indicates this. His book is extremely controversial. Time and
again he fires deprecatory critical blasts at scholars he thinks are proceeding
illicitly or subjectively (e. g., p. 101, note # 15 on M. Black's article,
"Pharisees," in Interpreters' Dictionary of the Bible; p. 215, note # 37,
regarding Bomkamm and his Jesus of Nazareth; p. 217, note # 39, he
accuses J. Jeremias of "cultivated fuzziness.") Wherever he finds what he
considers good scholarly work he takes time out to offer his praise. The
notes appended to each lecture (chapter) are informative and important
for the perception of the author's intent, procedure, and conclusion.
The book as a whole seems to be more of an essay than a scholarly
treatise because it is so personal. The personal flavor stems from the
apparently calculated avoidance of extended quotations and detailed references. One must not conclude that the assertions of Dr. Sandmel are not
evidenced. Many are. But there is much use of the first person and a
good amount of indication that many intellectual stances and conclusions
are more personal and "hunchy" (" hunch" is used many times) , backed
by an overall coloration derived from wide scholarship rather than by any
particular substantiating source.
In the selective bibliography many Catholic works are listed. But in
the course of the book very few Catholic critical sources are referred to.
This is undoubtedly due to Sandmel's N. T. education under Protestant
tutelage (p. 147} and to his opinion (as of 1964, see p. 198, note # 3)
that Catholic N. T. scholarship was not very much, an opinion that in
recent years has improved.
For Catholics the books of the N. T. are inspired by God in such a way
that they have taken on a character which makes them the rule of faith

588

BOOK REVIEWS

(which rs true of many other Christian confessions). Faith itself is a
supernatural gift of God to be preserved by active fidelity. The entire
rationalistic presupposition of Sandmel (cf. p. 196) militates against the
Catholic laudatory and grateful acceptance of the author's integral work.
There are many items, insights, conclusions in this work which Catholics
will receive with joy and thanks. But scholarship is not enough to
perceive, or to understand, or to express the integrity of the whole N. T.
as the work of the Spirit operating in the Church and in the churchmen
who wrote the Books. For us to say or think that "Mark ... openly
repudiates and disowns them [the disciples of Christ]" (p.
note #
is ridiculous, unfaithful. For us to perceive that Luke argues against
Matthew and John argues against both Matthew and Luke (p. 185) is an
act of blindness. For us to conceive of Luke and Matthew envisioning
the Church as an entity directed by purely human leadership, while only
John sees divine guidance in the Church, (p. 186) would be the contradiction of the bases (all of them) on which our faith is founded.
Scholarship which reaches such conclusions is really not scholarship, or it
is suffering from a malaise. Dr. Sandmel is honest, learned, and as open
as he can be; all will admit this description. But that Dr. Sandmel is
correct is something else again.
The bibliography is only of those books and articles read by the author,
very extensive indeed. There are subject and author indices. A few
editoral imperfections are present: p.
appears to omit an "is ";
Apollos is spelled Apollass.
p.
Dibelius is spelled Dibelious; p.
THOMAS L. FALLON, 0. P.
Dominican House of Studies
Washington, D. C.

Heresy in the Later Middle Ages. The Relation of Heterodoxy to Dissent,
c. 1250-c. 14/50. By GoRDON LEFF.
vols. New York: Barnes &
Noble, 1967. Pp. 800. $15.00.
Dr. Leff, who has already written good studies of Thomas Bradwardine,
Gregory of Rimini and Richard Fitzralph, as well as a best seller on
Medieval Thought, has now produced a very lengthy survey of heresy in
the latter Middle Ages that is as important as it is impartial. His real
mterests, of course, lie in the fourteenth century, but he is all too aware
that many of the " heresies " in vogue then have their roots in the
thirteenth. Hence his first volume is devoted to the thirteenth century
(and in particular to Joachism, to internal disputes of the Franciscans
and to the heresy of the Free Spirit), while his second is largely occupied
with Wyclif, the Lollards and the Hussite reformation.

BOOK REVIEWS

589

The great strength of Leff's book is that the author is thoroughly
familiar with the vast literature, whether primary or secondary, of his
subject. On some points, of course, he is content, perhaps too content, to
repeat uncritically the conclusions of the many scholars who have worked
on individual topics of his area-a rather obvious instance occurs in the
chapter on Wyclif where, without any recourse to St. Thomas himself,
Leff takes over Workman's rather simplistic presentation of St. Thomas'il
expression of Transubstantiation.
Almost on every page, however, there
is evidence that Leff has read and re-read original sources. From this
point of view his pages on Olivi are the most original, especially pp. 100139, where he uses the unpublished Postilla in Apocalypsim to telling effect
when showing that it was with Olivi that the problem of poverty first
turned into a dispute over the usus pauper introduced by St. Bonaventure.
However, the lengthy treatment (pp. 52-255) of the disputes within the
Franciscan Order is somewhat overburdened with data and tends to sag
H little towards the end.
Perhaps the most interesting pages in this first volume are those on
" The Heresy of the Free Spirit." The origins of the movement are still
uncertain, as Herbert Grundmann, whose Religiose Bewg1mgen im Mittelalter (Hildesheim 1961) is the best study of unorthodoxy before 1300,
has forcefully pointed out. Yet it was one of the most pervasive as well
as subtle of the heretical movements between 1250 and 1450. Generally
it was to be found among, though it is not to be identified with, the
Beguines and Beghards, particularly in Germany where they were less
organized than in the Low Countries and France. The central idea of the
Free Spirit was that of a free intellect incapable of any wrong and
occupied by an all-pervading deity. Margaret Porete of Hainault, who was
tried and condemned at Paris in 1311, is a good example of the movement.
Her Mirror of Simple Souls, written in French, survives in numerous
versions (English included) of the fourteenth and fifteenth century, and an
exhaustive edition and study of it has recently been published by Romana
Guarnieri in Archivio Italiano per la storia della Pieta 4 (Rome 1965),
pp. 353-708. This, as Guarnieri points out, became the " bible " of the
Liberty of the Spirit movement. The dominant theme of the Mirror is
that, when a soul is granted in this present life a full and abiding vision
of the divine nature and becomes one with that nature, it is thereby
set free to enjoy this union and this vision and to do nothing else. Total
passivity was what Margaret taught; the existing hierarchical structures
as well as Scripture and Revelation have no place in her scheme.
Dr. Leff thinks that Margaret's teaching did not go beyond " a mystical
pantheism " which simply despised the distractions of the created world.
But surely it is not the soundness or unsoundness of l\fargaret's teaching
that is of prime importance but rather the fact that her trial and her own
stubborn persistence (ending in a hideous death) led to the persecution of

590

BOOK REVIEWS

the Beghards and Beguines and to the stifling of every aspiration for the
laity and the unlearned in general to emerge as a potent spiritual force in
the Church. Without doubt, the adherents of the Free Spirit were heretical,
and generally they were crafty enough to hide themselves among the
largely unlettered Beghards and Beguines; but it was a tragic mistake of
the Church to root them out at the expense of the latter. Behind the
Beghards and Beguines there lay that genuine desire for spiritual renewal
by a return to evangelical principles that is the basis of any real reform.
The plain truth, however, is that there was not, in fact, any room in the
Church of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries for evangelical movements such as these. For if the lay and monastic movements of the late
twelfth and early thirteenth centuries (those of Francis and Dominic, for
example) had found an outlet for their zeal in the foundation of new
religious orders, that outlet, as Leff rightly points out, was no longer
possible after 1215, when the Fourth Lateran Council banned new religious
orders.
A large part of Leff's second volume is taken up with more than a
hundred pages (498-605) on Wyclif and the Lollards. Leff's obvious
mastery of Wyclif's works makes this the most absorbing part of his
work. Clearly Wyclif did not hold for scriptura sola in the ordinary meaning of the phrase any more then he rejected tradition: for him the
Scriptures plus the sensus apostolicus (more or less the apostolic tradition)
were the norms of the true church. What Wyclif meant by the true church
is another matter. Certainly he did not mean the visible church; indeed
Wyclif's single and most revolutionary step was the rejection of the
ecclesiastical hierarchy-a step that in effect mounted an attack on the
very existence of the Church in this world. In place of the hierarchy,
Wyclif put God's Word as fittingly interpreted. The true church in the
long run is the early church which, pledged to poverty, humility and
charity, continued unbroken the life of Christ and the Apostles. Inasmuch
as the Church of Wyclif's day (in fact the Church from Constantine
onwards) had abandoned that ideal, it could no longer be considered the
true church. Nor could it now have any part in interpreting the Word,
since in fact it had not conformed to the Scriptures for over a thousand
years.
If Wyclif's position on the Church has often been misunderstood
(notably by De Vooght, Les sources de la doctrine chretienne, LouvainBruges 1954, and other writings), his teaching on the Eucharist (in De
eucharistia, De apostasia and the Trialogus) is more often than not
misrepresented. As Leff well shows, the change of the bread and wine into
Christ's real presence remained as axiomatic for Wyclif as for his predecessors and opponents. On that point he was never heretical: his
challenge was not to the accepted truth of Transubstantiation but rather
to the current explanations, whether Thomist or Scotist, of how it

591

BOOK REVIEWS

occurred. Wyclif's teaching, in fact, was simply a corollary of his consistent
position in metaphysics. Holding that it was metaphysically impossible to
have accidents without substance, he concluded that, if the bread and wine
stood for Christ sacramentally, then they must continue to exist as natural
bread and wine. Transubstantiation
for Wyclif therefore meant the
coexistence of the substance of the bread and wine elements with the
sacramental presence of Christ. It is a spiritual transformation which can
only be perceived as a spiritual and not as a physical presence. Of course,
Wyclif never explains or suggests just how this change takes place or
how this coexistence is possible, other than by postulating a miracle.
Christ's presence was, he insisted, independent of human agency and
physical change; the words of the priest were simply the " efficacious
signs " of Christ's hidden, " figurative," sacramental presence. And it was
precisely this that shocked Wyclif's contemporaries. The reaction to it
was immediate. His teaching, indeed, cost him the backing of the Friars,
many of whom were in agreement with him in his attacks on clerical
abuses. It lost him also the support of Oxford where he was then living
and where his teaching on the Eucharist was condemned (albeit narrowly)
by a twelve-man commission in 1381 (a condemnation repeated at the
Blackfriars Synod in London the following year).
Curiously, Wyclif saw himself as saving the Church from heresy. He
was, he believed, protecting the Church both from the Scotist and
Ockamist teaching that the substance of the bread and wine was annihilated to become Christ, the accidents remaining through God's omnipotence, and from the blasphemy (abominatio desolationis) inherent in the
Thomist claim that only the accidents of bread and wine remained after
the consecration. On this matter, as indeed in all his other teaching,
Wyclif was convinced that it was he, and not the Church of his day, who
was on the side of orthodoxy and of apostolic tradition.
LEoNARD

E. BoYLE, 0. P.

Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies
Toronto, Canada

The Judgment of the Dead: The Idea of Life After Death in the Major
Religions. By S. G. F. BRANDON. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons,
1967. Pp. 312. $6.95.
The comparative studies of Professor Brandon, more popularly known
ior his controversial Jesus and the
have multiplied considerably in
recent years. In this work he examines the judgment of the dead and its
obvious corollary, post-mortem existence, in ten world traditions. From
the outset he tells us that he is a historian of religion who employs " the

BOOK REVIEWS

same methods and techniques of research as are used by his colleagues in
other fields of historical inquiry." (p. ix) His focus, therefore, is twoedged: historical and comparative.
It is in Egypt where he first identifies a sophisticated concept of postmortem judgment, and this is probably the most thorough and satisfying
chapter. The selection of texts, the historical development of the concept,
and the interpretation is executed with perception and care. However, the
thoroughness evidenced in this single chapter is not found again in the
book. With Mesopotamia, the Graeco-Roman traditions, the Hebrew
religion, Christianity, and Islam, there is no attempt to consider the
cumulative tradition adequately. The texts are not comprehensive and
seem to be selected frequently at random; most importantly, the historical
perspective is lost as he rapidly generalizes in order to compare the concept
with other traditions. The final chapters dealing with the judgment of the
dead in India, China, and Japan are mere sketches. Indian Buddhism is
covered in three pages and the tradition of Japan in four pages! There is
little effort to trace the concept through the historical and philosophical
stages with the subtle transitions in meaning and significance so necessary
in Eastern thought.
The real concern of Brandon is to show that judgment of the dead
presupposes an established judicial process in the various religious traditions. In the Epilogue this is one of the primary conclusions. (p. 193)
But it does not seem that he clearly proves it in many of the traditions
considered and certainly not in the Eastern world. Nonetheless, the general
conclusions are credible: for example, belief in judgment after death
depends on the conception of what part of the human personality survives
after death. (p. 194) Also, in the theistic traditions judgment is linked
to the concept of the deity to such a degree that it follows from almost
a theological necessity. (p. 195) In those cultures where metempsychosis
or reincarnation dominate, judgment of the dead is not a theological necessity but the termination of a natural process. (p. 194-5)
Brandon has an excellent grasp of the Weltanschauung of the traditions
and, whether consiously or not, uses this as a principle of interpretation.
However, in the process he is unable to retain the historical context of the
material. This book reflects a major problem in the study of the history of
religions: namely, methodology. Brandon quickly loses the historical
methodology with which he began. Since the concept of post mortem
judgment is seen as the result of a world-view, this study is more concerned
with the morphology- the forms, structure, patterns- of the belief and,
consequently, is a systematic and not an historical work.
Is Brandon really doing what the historian of religion does? It depends
first on the validity of his data, and in this case, considering the vast
range of the study, his data is only as good as his sources. Since textual
criticism, moreover, is limited and even absent with some of the major

BOOK REVIEWS

593

religious texts of the world traditions, a comparative study at this stage
seems premature. To determine what is common/different is an arduous
task because lil£e must be compared with like. Ohm has long ago warned
historians of religion that reality must be compared with reality, doctrine
with doctrine, and ideal with ideal. When this is not realized, the comgeneralizations and in many cases highly suspect and
parisons become
possibly misleading and erroneous.
The major problem with Brandon's work is the lack of a hermeneutical
principle by which the data that he has drawn upon from scnpture,
philology, philosophy, history, etc., can be harmonized without destroying
the value of the disciplines' conclusions. In short, this study is too comprehensive to be definitive. It would be more profitable for Brandon and for
many other historians of religion to limit themselves- if they think they
are ready for comparison- to two tmditions at the most .
. . The Judgment of the Dead is not without merit. The few generalizations
that Brandon makes are stated with great caution, which shows that he is
keenly aware that the historian of religion at this stage of comparative
study can only conclude to approximations. Even in comparing common
data, one only approximates the other. Over one hundred pages of notes
permit the reader to delve more seriously into source material and central
ideas. The plates (12) and line drawings (9) enhance the book considerably. Although the bibliography is weak at some points (Christianity and
especially the Eastern traditions), the indices are exceptionally well done.
Above all, Professor Brandon has given us another interesting and attractive book.
WILLIAM

c. CENKNER, 0. P.

Molloy College
Rockville Center, N. Y.

La Trinite et le Mystere de l'existence. By JEAN DANnnwu. Meditations
'fheologiques. No. 3. Bruges: Desclee de Brouwer, 1968. Pp. 120.
75 FB.
This paperback contains a number of lectures on the Trinity given during
a retreat by the now Cardinal Danielou. The author's purpose is to show
how the Trinity is at the center not only of our creeds and theology but
of our very existence and spiritual life. In the first four chapters he
discusses the common life of the Trinity, its manifestation in creation, its
presence within man, as revealed through Christ, the perfection of personality. Then he analyses the mystery of the communication of God's life
to man, taking each divine person singularly in the last three chapters.
This review of the contents of the book cannot express the skill with which
the author introduces theology and then draws out the moral relevance

594

BOOK REVIEWS

for the Christian. His thought is simple, and he avoids overloading the
meditations with modern controversies about the divine indwelling.
Danielou's book is timely for more than one reason. When theology
is being so greatly influenced by what one may call "historicity," Christians
may need to be reminded that Jesus of Nazareth is also the Eternal Word
of God. Moreover, when the Church is initiating dialogue with men of
other faiths, a common ground may be found with Hindus and Buddhists
in this aspect of the Christian faith rather than in presenting the historical
incarnation of Christ. I do not know if this book will be part of the
English edition of the "Theological Meditations." It would be a pity if
it were omitted, for it is an excellent example of theology and meditation.
A. MANLY. O.P.
St. Charles Seminary
Nagpur, India

Theologia Moralis. By ALPHONSUS VAN KoL, S. J. Barcelona: Editorial
Herder, 1968. Vol. I, pp. 8£4, $17.14; Vol. II, pp. 716, $19.£8.
These compendious volumes represent the first appearance since Vatican
II of a complete moral theology manual. In view of the literature that has
been written on the necessity of a renewal of moral theology, seconded by
the Council itself, the present work will not satisfy those who are looking
for a radically new approach in content or in format. This is no such
rewrite or eye-catching presentation. Vol. I treats of General Moral
Theology: de vita theologali-the theological virtues and the virtue of
Christian humanity (a special virtue for the author, distinct from
theological charity, natural in substance and supernatural in mode, whose
object is the proper natural goodness of man) ; de vita cultuali-the virtue
of religion; de vita morali-the cardinal virtues. Vol. II is entirely devoted
to the sacraments, in which the author had the collaboration of his fellow
Dutchman, P. Huizing, S. J., in the tracts on Holy Order and Matrimony.
The use of the Latin language is explained by Fr. Van Kol's intent
to make his text universally usable. Moreover, it has been left to the
reader to apply the moral doctrine to the circumstances and positive law
of his own country, especially in matters of justice. Casuistic considerations
have been reduced to a necessary minimum. Highly technical words have
been also translated into the seven major vernacular tongues. The bibliographies amply diffused throughout the volumes give a sampling of the
pertinent literature up through the early sixties. They contain some
British and American works but more Dutch and European references.
The passages of Vatican II and the recent documents of the Holy See,

BOOK REVIEWS

595

including Pastorale Munus and De Episcoporum Muneribus, are appropriately employed throughout.
Some further improvements over previous manuals of this type may be
listed. An interesting change is the exclusive location of the tract on
marilal and extra-marital chastity in Vol. I under temperance rather than
in connection with Matrimony. A more extensive treatment is given to the
pathological impediments to the freedom of the human act, to situation
ethics, to the Christological aspect of the virtues, to religious liberty, to
cooperation in sacris, to sex education. Following Pius XII the author
rejects the opinion which in principle absolves youths who commit masturbatory acts from all sin or from grave sin. He supports the view that a
woman who is in danger of being raped may take the anti-conception pill.
Written before the publication of Humanae Vitae, the text strictly adheres
to the norms of Paul VI. The author opts for a middle position on
periodic abstinence, justifying it in its relationship to the finality of
marriage and for matrimonial motives. The special question of overpopulation is also considered. A chapter of some fourteen pages is devoted to
the question of war, with notes on the lawfulness of a preventive war and
on the justice of universal conscription and of conscientious objection.
In the second volume we can note the evaluation of the special intention
of the Mass celebrant, e. g., that the intention of a stipend is no more
efficacious than other accompanying special intentions, and that, in lieu
of any other, the celebrant himself is in a way a special intention. Fr.
Van Krol holds that the eucharistic fast cannot be considered to bind
gravely in conscience and that devotion is a sufficient reason to celebrate
Mass without a server. The bibliography of Marriage hardly cites a work
appearing in the 1960's.
These volumes provide a helpful post-Conciliar source book for the
moral professor and useful auxiliary reading for students.
NICHOLAS HALLIGAN, 0. P.
Dominican House of Studies
Washington, D. C.

Religious Trends in English Poetry. Volume VI: 1920-1965, Valley of
Dry Bones. By HoXIE NEALE FAIRCHILD. New York: Columbia
University Press, 1969. Pp. 535. $12.50.
This volume marks the conclusion of a massive work of literary scholarship. Its author, who is Professor of English Emeritus of Hunter College
and who was for many years a distinguished member of the faculty of
Columbia University here concludes the work of more than thirty years.
It is the fruit not only of mature scholarship but also of what still may

596

BOOK REVIEWS

be thought of as Christian wisdom. Professor Fairchild is not simply a
learned critic and literary historian; he is a man who deeply understands
both the distinctions and the close relationships between religion and
poetry, lo say nothing of the same distinctions and relationships that
exist between poetry and theology. It is not a book that will afford much
satisfaction to those who follow fads of either the literary or the theological variety. Nor does it provide easy comfort for any who may be in
search of assurances that in writers like Auden or Eliot there is evidence
that " Christian poetry " can and will survive in a very non-Christian
world.
The book deals with English and American poets who, in the period
between
and 1965, have established some claim to a place in the
history of poetry. The treatment, however, is topical rather than chronological. It begins with an analysis of what its author, who is professedly
an Anglo-Catholic Christian, calls "the Situation": "The modern temper.
Hollow men eating their naked lunches in the Waste Land while awaiting
Godot. ... " The Situation shows itself as widely pervading the thinking
not only of aesthetic nihilists like Allen Ginsberg but the " cool " academic
poets as well.
Fairchild makes a blunt distinction between what he describes as the
antithetical Christian and romantic attitudes towards the Situation: " The
Christian will see it as the inevitable collapse of a false faith in man.
The romantic will see it as the cowardly and perverse abnegation of a
true faith in man, and he will hold the Christian largely responsible for
this apostasy." This latter viewpoint is, for example, represented by
Kathleen Nott in The Emperor's Clothes (1958) -a work which attacks
Eliot, C. S. Lewis, Dorothy Sayers, Graham Greene and others in the
name of science, liberalism, and human progress.
The book, employing this distinction between the Christian and romantic
attitudes towards the Situation, is primarily concerned not with technical
problems of literary criticism but with what " poets think and feel about
the world in which they, and we, are living." And Fairchild is well aware
that this is an approach which will not commend itself to those who still
hold to the outworn fad of " the autonomous poem," which exists as an
artifact in total detachment from all other considerations. He traces the
rise and fall of this curious theory and notes its continued survival in the
graduate schools of some American universities: "No self-respecting
graduate student would dare ascribe a statement by Yeats to Yeats: the
words were uttered by a mysterious Speaker, or better, the Persona. In
my opinion this is nonsense. Yeats wore many masks, but through each
of them he meant to express some aspect of his multiplex nature."
Literature, in Fairchild's view, is very much a part of the history of
ideas; it reflects, and helps to form, the spirit of its age. But poetry in
this century has become "a diminished thing." Fairchild traces the sense

BOOK REVIEWS

597

of alienation and the loss of an audience which is felt in Shapiro, Roethke,
Aiken, and Barker. But he also notes that few of those who see their art
as a diminshed force in the modern world will also regard it as something
which is vanishing. On the contrary, some, like Wallace Stevens, see poetry
as the true surrogate for a vanished religion, while others have sought to
employ the image of the poet as magician and medicine man, as did Hart
Crane or Dylan Thomas. But the experimentation and the autonomy
theories of the twenties, the social consciousness of the thirties, and the
cool academic verse of more recent times have left little fertile soil for the
l'omantic vision of the poet as prophetic genius.
Fairchild explores the socially conscious poetry of the thirties as seen
in such writers as Day Lewis, Hugh MacDiarmid (Christopher Murray
Grieve) and the earlier Auden. This social consciousness, some of which
survives, he finds also in the difficult religious allegories of Charles
Williams and other Christian writers, who grope for a vision of a world
in which men serve one another because they would first serve God. And
in individual chapters he carefully traces the effects of war, science,
technology, and the machinery of urban life upon the poets of the last
forty years. And he finds much to commend in the work of David Jones in
The Anathemata (1952) . Jones, he finds, is one writer who has made a
fruitful attempt to "harmonize the sacramental symbol and the poetic
image and to show that this harmony cannot long survive the art of a
technocratic culture, where there is no real escape for the poet in
McLuhan's philosophy of mass-media communications." As Fairchild's
perceptive observation has it: " It will be difficult for poets to derive much
satisfaction from a philosophy so hostile to the written and spoken word,
so obviously fabricated by a professor of English who has grown sick of
books."
Fairchild concludes that in the modern poets who do not share the
Christian outlook there is no salvation from the Situation in either
nature or love. The end for them is nihilism, and it is left to the
Christian writers to affirm life and the redemption of time. He sees much
modern poetry as nothing less-or more-than a late phase of the
Romantic Movement. Its fountainhead was the tradition of the nineteenth
century which finally blended with the symbolism of the dying years of
the fin de siecle and was followed by the eccentricities of surrealism. In
turn came the movement called " Apocalyse," of which Henry Treece is
an example. This prophetic development preceded the Second World War
and was followed by the " neoromanticism " of people like Francis Scarfe,
who displayed a deep faith in the power of poetry to make a better world.
In his final chapter, Fairchild notes that the list of modern poets
who have become converts to Christianity is impressive: Eliot, Auden,
David Jones, Edith Sitwell, Alfred Noyes, Roy Campbell, Robe1t Lowell,
Thomas Merton, Siegfried Sassoon, C. D. Lewis, Allen Tate, Cleanth

598

BOOK BEVIEWS

Brooks, and Elizabeth Jennings. He also observes that Mark Van Doren,
Elder Olson and Yvor Winters seem to believe everything that a Christian
should believe "except the Christian Faith itself."
But the problem of religious poets is greater now than ever before,
for, as Auden says, there is a lack of belief in the endurance of the physical,
the reality of the evidence of the senses, the perdurance of human nature,
and the loss of the public realm as the sphere in which personal deeds are
actually revealed. Nor does the traditional shoptalk of Catholicism engage
with modern life and the " unbaptized raw material of our time."
After examining the work of professedly Christian poets, most of whom
are either Roman Catholic or Anglican, Fairchild asks what the future
may hold for a Christian poetry that appears to be " often submerged in
the Situation which it seeks to amend." And his conclusion is scarcely
comforting in tone: " Quantitatively it is almost negligible in comparison
with the output of writers who ignore or oppose supernatural religion.
Qualitatively, it is torn between the dread of pious triteness and the dread
of heresy; the desire to edify and the desire to make works of art; the
desire to communicate and the desire to be modishly inexplicit. These
conflicts can be exhausting."
To those who may share Professor Fairchild's devotion to classical
Christian orthodoxy, but not his use of labels and his delight in the abusing
of the various shades of " romanticism," this book will prove at times
irritatingly simplistic in its judgments. But it is nonetheless an imposing
enterprise in apologetics supported by an equally imposing array of literary
historical scholarship in a tradition of which this volume may be the last
example ever to appear.
PAUL VAN K. THOMSON
Providence College
Providence, R. I.

A Trilogy on Wisdom and Celibacy. By J. MASSINGBERT FoRD. Notre
Dame & London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1967. Pp. 256.
$7.95.
This attractively-produced
assumptions:

book sets out to challenge four common

1) " that the words bethulah, parthenos and virgo denote virginitas
intacta" (they have, in fact, the author says, wider connotations
than is generally believed, and the contexts in which they appear
must be scrutinized to discover whether they should bear the meaning of " youthfulness " or " celibacy ") .
2) "that from the earliest times these terms in the Latin and Greek

BOOK REVIEWS

599

tongue were used as frequently, or more frequently, in reference to
women than to men" (in fact, linguistic evidence suggests that the
word parthenos was used as frequently for men as for women, and
that the word eunuchos was the most common word for a celibate
man).
3) "that the earliest written record of Christian teaching on celibacy
is found in I Cor. 7, and that the recipients of this epistle included a
group of women (and possible men) celibates who had already
established themselves in the newly founded Christian community
at Corinth " (in reality I Cor. 7 is speaking of young widows and
widowers living in a Jewish-Christian community which clings rather
tenaciously to traditional social patterns, class distinctions and questions that exercised Jewish teachers both before and after Paul).
4) "that numerous Christians contemporary with Jesus (for example,
Paul and some of the disciples) and also those of the sub-apostolic
age embraced lives of consecrated celibacy" (in fact, these do not
appear to have embraced any form of absolute celibacy).
Mrs. Ford's conclusions are based on a striking familiarity with exegetical writings and techniques and with rabbinical sources. There is not, she
states, any clear reference to the practice of celibacy among peoples of the
Jewish faith in the pre-Christian era. (pp. 23-58) As for the Christian era,
celibacy became practical and popular only in the mid-third century,
which is much later than the time usually assigned to it. Chapters on
celibacy in the New Testament (pp. 59-128), in the writings of the subapostolic Fathers and of the Apologists (pp. 129-145), in those of Clement
of Alexandria and Origen (pp. 146-164) and of Tertullian (pp. 165-215),
serve amply to document her point. For Dr. Ford, indeed, the origins of
celibacy are not to be found in any Gnostic aberrations or misogamic
tendencies of these sources. Rather, she finds its beginnings in the attitude
of Jewish teachers of the first and second century to continence. These
teachers, it is clear, adopted temporary continence in order to enable themselves to be free to study and to spread the love of the Torah. This link
between continence and the pursuit of wisdom also appears among the early
Christians, probably under the influence of the rabbinical approach. Just as
the rabbis sacrificed the greater part of their conjugal life for the love of
Torah- Wisdom, so Christian men were prepared, for the love of the living
and new Torah, Jesus, to imitate to the full their Master who had never
married (and Christian women, later, to follow that of Mary). Thus, Dr.
Ford claims, celibacy evolved " not from the influence of pagan superstitions concerning marriage, coition and women, or from heretical Gnostic
teaching, but rather from a love and pursuit after Wisdom that now was
hypostatized in Jesus Christ, the Living Torah."
Mrs. Ford's book is as stimulating as it is tranquil. Here and there,

600

BOOK REVIEWS

however, it is marred by some sloppy proof-reading as well as by one or
two hasty sentences or translations. Thus Tertullian's statement, "Et cum
haec etiam de primis et unis nuptiis praetendi ad causam continentiae
possint, quanto magis secundo matrimonio recusando praeiudicabunt," is
made nonsense of in the translation " Furthermore, since arguments of this
kind can be used to urge abstention from even a first and second marriage,
how much more valid are they against contracting a second." (p. 109)
With respect to Tertullian, indeed, the author also states (ibid.) that
Tertullian does not " admit celibacy as a general practice," citing De
monogamia 3.1, where in fact what Tertullian says is that "complete and
absolute virginity or continence" is not obligatory, but that even if it were,
" such legislation would not be an innovation, since the Lord himself
opened the Kingdom of Heaven to eunuchs and indeed lived as a eunuch
himself." It is curious, too, that there is no discussion of the famous
" Quanti igitur et quantae " in Tertullian's De exhortatione castitatis 13.4:
" How many men, and how many women, among the orders of the Church,
have preferred, in the name of continence, to marry only God .... "
Perhaps celibacy was present in the Church a shade earlier than Dr. Ford
so repeatedly maintains.
LEONARD E. BoYLE, 0. P.
Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies
Toronto, Canada

Kierkegaard. The Difficulty of Being Christian. Texts edited and introduced by JACQUES CoLETTE, 0. P. English version by RALPH McINERNY and LEo TuRcOTTE. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame
Press, 1968. Pp. 3fl6. $5.95.
Another Kierkegaard anthology seemed hardly needed. Several are
available which bring out various aspects of Kierkegaard's thought. Yet
Fr. Colette hit upon a new idea, and a very good one. Instead of covering
a variety of topics or surveying the chronological stages of Kierkegaard's
oeuvre, he decided to retrace in Kierkegaard's words the intrinsic dialectic
which is the moving force of his entire work and which no single work can
convey. Upon completing a study on Kierkegaard's dialectic of Christian
existence some years ago, this reviewer felt how much stronger the impression would be if it could be communicated in the philosopher's own words.
So, naturally, he was happy to see the idea finally realized. Yet a
strange thing strikes the reader immediately. Instead of one development
the author presents two: an intellectual one, from ignorance to revelation,
and an emotive-voluntary one, from anguish to love. Why did he prefer
this dualistic presentation when Kierkegaard's own thought is marvelously
united? The an!lwer is found in Colette's ninety-page introduction which

BOoK n:mvrmws

601

demonstrates the editor's inability or unwillingness to grasp the unifying
dialectic of Kierkegaard's work. He restricts himself to haphazard remarks
on themes essential to this dialectic, often appropriate but mostly extrinsic
to Kierkegaard's own development. He states, by way of conclusion, that
Kierkegaard's thought can be of help to a believer in an a-religious intellectual climate. But he never quite decided whether he wanted to pursue
the religious problematic of the modern Christian or the dialectic of
Kierkegaard (as he promised). The initiated reader will find his way
through these texts without profiting much from presentation or introduction. The beginner will receive an equally small amount of enlightenment from the editor, if he ever attempts to reach, beyond mere" reading,"
an understanding of Kierkegaard's inner dialectic.

Louis DuPRE
Georgetown University
Washington, D. 0.

Moral Knowledge and its Methodology in Aristotle. By J. DoNALD
MoNAN. New York: The University of Oxford Press, 1968. Pp. 163.
$5.50.

The general aim of the book is to focus upon the methodology of moral
knowledge as Aristotle presents it in the Protrepticus, the Nicomachean
Ethics, and the Eudemian Ethics. Dr. Monan abstracts a dual focus in the
three works: on the one side, there is what Aristotle explicitly states moral
knowledge to be; on the other, there is an implicit doctrine of moral
knowledge in the argumentation actually employed.
In the Protrepticus we are confronted with two life-ideals: the intellectualistic (contemplation or thought) and the activistic (civics, politics,
and/or conduct). Each ideal has its basis in a different psychology: thE'
former identifies man with nous; the latter views man as an honorable
animal. The attempt to unify these two teleologically is unsuccessful.
When this work is viewed implicitly, we find that the "justification of a
life-ideal consists in a reflection upon common opinion and upon pre-philosophic, affective experiences of value." (p. 34)
In the Nicomachean Ethics moral k:10wledge is based upon praxis and
phronesis (practical wisdom) which is grounded in demonstration, induction, and intellectual intuition. The general result is that the teleological
unification of action and value is only partially successful. The implicit
doctrine illustrates that an experimental base is employed for value
analysis; it is conveyed through the ordinary use of value-language and its
rationalization.
The same duality of method is encountered in his analysis of happiness.

602

BOOK REVIEWS

Aristotle says that it can be based on the common opmwn of the many
or it can be psychologically deduced from the proper function of man.
In effect, he explicitly bases his argumentation on the former and implicitly
grounds it in the latter.
Since the Eudemian Ethics closely parallels the Nicomachean Ethics,
attention now is given only to the implicit doctrine used in the treatise.
The basic difference is that while the NE defines man in terms of nons,
the EE is less rationalistic, conceiving man in terms of psyche. EE's
analysis of happiness, then, looks towards integrating the intellectual and
moral virtues in a concrete vein.
The style of the book is difficult; the general thesis seems plausible and
should spark some serious discussion.
LAURENCE ZIMMERMANN
St. Mary's University
San Antonio, Texas

Foundations of Theory. By WILLIAM YouNG. Nutley. N.J.:
1967. Pp. 13!i!. $3.75.

Craig Press,

Many a professional philosopher has had the experience, in the reading
of countless articles in philosophical journals, of saying to himself: yes,
you are correct, but only if I grant you your suppressed premises. These
are required by your argument but are questionable. You assume what is
most debatable and beg the question.
Professor Young wants to avoid this, and hence he poses for himself the
problem of the ultimate justification of Theoretical Thought. " This study
envisages the question of logical rather than factual presuppositions of
Theoretical Thought, the warrant for assurance that Theoretical Thought
is valid rather than the de facto conditions of the existence of Theoretical
Thought." (p. VIII)
The book is small, but the quality is excellent. The author always gets
down to fundamentals. He does not use the term " theory " to cover up
problems. He devotes one chapter to the analysis of this term, giving a
careful consideration to the distinction between theories, hypotheses, and
laws, and also to the confusion in contemporary thought, because they are
not recognized. In answering the question as to what is a " Theoretical "
in contradistinction to a "non-Theoretical" language, the author gives one
of the best analyses I have seen of the distinctions which should (but often
are not) made between the "analytic" and the "a priori." (pp. 51, 5!i!)
All philosophers-and who is not guilty?-use the notion of "presupposition," often without regard to what it presupposes. Professor Young gives
an analysis of this idea. His distinction between " presuppose " and
" premise," although not new, is most interesting.

BOOK REVIEWS

608

The most important part of the author's analysis, and that to which
all his work converges, is in the last two chapters, especially the last,
the title of which is " Theory and Theism." There is an ingenious argument that the agnostic's position is coherent only on the supposition of
atheism. And he adds: "If the claim of radical theism is discredited on
the ground that it is open to question, the ground by which it is discredited
is itself discredited." (p. VI)
The author's conclusion, the last sentence in the book, as to the justification of Theoretical Thought is: " If meaning depends on God and the
original awareness of God is non- Theoretical, the presupposition of God
as the Origin of meaning may be reckoned to be the ultimate non-Theoretical factor in the foundations of Theoretical Thought." (p. 117)
Now this conclusion is certainly compatible with the author's "radical
theism," which of necessity denies the " autonomy of Theoretical Thought."
But, it is not clear to the writer how all this is compatible with the task
the author sets for himself, which is (I) to justify Theoretical Thought only
" logically," avoiding all " factual presuppositions " (p. VIII) , and (2) to
limit the argument therefore to the matter of validity rather than truth.
Is the contradiction here apparent or real? Professor Young, in one
place, seems to be sensitive to this question and lays down the " claim "
that " God is the Origin of all meaning " can be translated into " God is
the Creator of the world." He admits that this is an "odd formulation."
Such a translation is possible in terms of Hegelianism, which the author
obviously wishes to avoid. But otherwise, is it possible?
The chapter notes and comments are both interesting and informative
and also reflect the author's linguistic ability in many languages. It is
unfortunate that the publishers did not add an Index.

WM. OLIVER MARTIN
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, R. 1.

The Freedom of Man in Myth. By KEES W. BoLLE. Nashville: Vanderbilt
University Press, 1968. Pp. 213. $5.00.
Biographical references on the cover introduce Dr. Bolle as an author
who " spends his leisure playing the piano and clarinet, doing woodcarving, and teaching Latin to his children." The table of contents
mentions as key topics: myth, humor and mysticism. This is rather a
strange combination. Therefore, one can get the impression that the book
may be more amateurism than real scholarly work.
The first chapters discuss the great publications on myth and religion:

604

BOOK REVIEWS

van der Leeuw, Wach, de Vries, Jockel, Esnoul, Eliade, Long. Further in
the book the author refers to the less well-known philosophical work:
" Mythe et Foe," which is the result of one of the yearly conferences
directed by Enrico Castelli at Rome. This convinces one of the solid
scholarly effort put in the book, although it is still a shame that the
philosophical work on myths by P. Ricoeur, "The Symbolism of Evil,"
is not mentioned.
Part I (pp. 3-93) discusses the myth; Part II (pp. 97-185) discusses the
relation between myth and mysticism. In an appendix (pp. 187-192) we
find a translation of parts of the Ramiiyana, often referred to by the
author. Finally there is an index (pp. 193-199).
In the part on myth the author discusses the classical publications on
myth and argues that philosophical presuppositions are present in the
study of myths. " Establishing their structure means necessarily attributing
more weight to some myths than to others " (p. 19) or ". . . no single
factor is enough to account fully for the myth." The author himself tends
to follow here the basic ideas of Eliade by emphasizing the primacy of the
cosmogenic myth (pp. 14-15) and by accepting some special characteristics
of it. (p. 34)
The originality of the author is that he has seen that the interest in
myths must have something to do with the problems of our own civilization. The link between the world of the myth and our world Professor
Bolle finds in the characteristics of humor. Humor is the capacity to
abolish extremes or untolerable situations in life. Since the romantic period
humor and irony have suddenly been very successful. The same romantic
period revived the interest in ancient religions and in myths. (p. 36) It
is the fundamental thesis of Professor Bolle that the myths are also
abolishing extremes and intolerable situations. It is this capability of the
myths, says the author, which allows the myth to perform its function,
i. e., " to liberate man from the exhausting and deadening order of things
in his common experience." (p. 86)
As such, myths are general orientations for the life of a culture. (p. 178)
Mysticism is the capacity to experience life as presented in the basic
myth, but thereby also interpreting and changing the myth. If the
interpretation is felt by the culture to be what everybody intuitively felt
himself, then we have a popular mystic: Augustine, Francis of Assisi,
Ignatius of Loyola. (p. 98) If the interpretation of the mystic is clearly
a change of the basic myth, the mystic may frighten the culture and
provoke his condemnation, e. g., Jacob Boehme.
At the end the author analyses one particular myth, our myth of
scientism, and refers to one of its most popular mystics, Einstein. Aware
of his limitations as a historian of religion Dr. Bolle ends his book by
appealing to the philosopher " to spell out ... where our mythology should
go .... " (p. 185) Ricoeur has attempted to give us a guideline, but the

BOOK REVIEWS

605

philosophical choice made by P. Ricoeur is fundamentally different from
the one made by K. W. Bolle. Professor Bolle has chosen humor to
explain the myth. Professor Ricoeur has taken the seriousness of the quest
for truth as his guideline.
Having been a student of Professor Ricoeur myself, the reading of
Professor Bolle's book has had a disturbing influence on our vision of the
problem of myth. We find the disturbance, however, very promising and
strangely enough profoundly liberating. The book The Freedom of Man
in Myth has itself a capacity of making free!
WILFRIED VER EECKE
Georgetown University
Washington, D. C.

Sancti Thomae Aq1tinatis Vitae Fontes Praecipuae. Edited by ANGELICO
FERRUA, 0. P., with an introduction by ANTOINE DoNDAINE, 0. P.
Alba: Edizioni Domenicane, 1968. Pp. 411. L.2.500.
The present volume makes conveniently accessible the chief sources for
the life of Thomas Aquinas. Such a volume has long been needed, since
the earlier edition of D. Priimmer and M. H. Laurent (Toulouse, s. d.),
whose texts this volume reproduces, has long been out print and is not
found on the shelves of most libraries. The texts are not critical but will
satisfy all but the professional historian until a critical text can be
produced.
As the title indicates, this volume does not present the full dossier of
early documents for the life of Thomas; nevertheless, it publishes the two
major primary sources that have value: the Historia beati Thomae de
Aquino of William of Tocco, and the Processus canonizationis sancti
Thomae Aquinatis, Neapoli. It also includes one other major work, the
Legenda sancti Thomae Aquinatis of Bernard Gui, which adds nothing to
Tocco's work except better organization and a finer style. Concluding the
volume are four short selections concerning Thomas: a) from the Historia
Ecclesiastica Nova and b) the Annales of Ptolomey of Lucca, c) from the
Vitae Fmtrum of Gerard of Frachet, and d) from the Bonum Universale
of Thomas of Cantimpre. Of these only Ptolomey's passages, coming from
an eyewitness who was a historian, have historical value. These early
sources are preceded by the text of Pius V's bull: Mirabilis Deus, declaring
Thomas a doctor of the Church, 1567. The editor introduces each selection
with a short biographico-historical study, numbers the paragraphs of all
the selections consecutively, and provides several indices and a select
bibliography. The sources omitted are the Life of Thomas (1340) by
Peter Calo (a reworking of Tocco) and the canonization process at

606

BOOK REVIEWS

Fossanova
which dealt solely with posthumous miracles of Thomas.
The documents here published have not only a hagiographical interest
(the major pieces were produced in connection with the canonization of
Thomas, 1323) but also record many passages of great human quality.
The Historia of Tocco and the Naples Process have independent value and
complement each other, despite a few contradictions in minor details, e. g.,
the venue of a cure. The canonization process took place in Naples in
September, 1319, forty-five years after the death of Thomas. Despite this
distance in time, the depositions have an exceptional value by reason of
the quality and character of the forty-two lay and clerical witnesses. Some
of them were men eminent in their professions: the Abbot of Fossanova;
William of Tocco, Dominican prior of Benevento; John of Naples, master
of theology at Paris; John di Blasio, judge and friend of the Queen of
Sicily; John of Gaeta, doctor of laws; Bartholomew, logethete and protonotary of the kingdom of Sicily. Furthermore, seventeen of the witnesses
had either lived with Thomas or heard him preach or teach. Judge John di
Blasio had known him for ten years and conversed with him frequently
during half that time. The Dominican Conrad of Suessa had known him at
Rome and Orvieto. The remaining witnesses relate information they had
received from people who had been close to Thomas. Bartholomew of
Capua got the substance of his testimony from John of St. Julien, the
prior who gave Thomas the habit and was captured with him by the
brothers of Thomas when he joined the Dominicans. Reginald of Piperno,
the friend and faithful assistant of Thomas, stood behind the testimony of
Leonard of Gaeta and John di Buiano.
Reginald was also the chief gurarantor of the llistoria of Tocco. Many
of the details there recorded had been entrusted to Reginald by Thomas
and were known to him alone. The llistoria supplies considerable information not found in the Naples Process. It is punctuated by lengthy pious
reflections that mar the simplicity that otherwise characterizes it. Tocco
had been collecting information about Thomas for about twenty years
before he composed the Historia in 1318. The second part, containing
miracle-accounts, was added between 1318 and 1320. Tocco presented the
first part of the llistoria and a collection of miracles he had made to John
XXII at Avignon, about 1318, in view of the canonization of Thomas.
Father Dondaine enriches the edition with his fine introduction. Drawing
on his own critical sense, he effectively removes the doubt, based on an
unperceptive study of, or failure to study, the documents, that has shrouded
the " Bene-dixisti-de-me Thoma" incident since the 17th century.
Dondaine shows that it is solidly reliable.
WILLIAM

Dominican House of Studies
Washington, D. C.

A. HINNEBUSCH, 0. P.

BOOK REVIEWS

607

Paul Tillich's Appraisal of St. Thomas' Teaching on the Act of Faith. By
THEODORE HALL, 0. P. Rome: Catholic Book Agency, 1968. Pp. 104.
This work is part of a doctoral dissertation from the pontifical faculty
of theology of the University of St. Thomas Aquinas at Rome, better
known as" The Angelicum." The first two sections summarize the teaching
on faith of Paul Tillich and St. Thomas respectively. In the third section
the author gives an evaluation of the teaching of St. Thomas within the
appraisal of Paul Tillich who charges the Angelic Doctor with a voluntaristic distortion of the meaning of faith. Such a charge implies an intellectualistic distortion which is the basis of the voluntaristic. And so Father
Hall replies to both charges before giving his thomistic critique of Tillich's
teaching on faith. The concluding section is his own reply to the responses
made by Paul Tillich to several critics of his theological notions. The
author concludes that the teaching of St. Thomas on the act of faith must
be upheld before Tillich's appraisal for several reasons; for example, the
alleged distortions disappear when the Common Doctor's doctrine is considered adequately in the fuller context of his theology, and Tillich's teaching itself is subjectivistic.
The expository and evaluatory sections are concise and orderly. Within
the confines of this brief review it is impossible to be detailed in our
comments. As a general observation, however, greater clarity would have
been added by a more extensive consideration of certain points, particularly
in regards to Tillich's thoughts and arguments. The reader who is interested in pursuing these might find them in the complete dissertation as the
table of contents would seem to indicate.
FREDERICK M. JELLY, 0. P.
Dominican House of Studies
Washington, D. C.

BOOKS RECEIVED
Barnes & Noble, Inc.: Reason, Truth and God, by Renford Bambrough
(pp. 164, $5.00); Greek Thought and the Rise of Christianity, ed.
by Hugh F. Kearney (pp. 161,
paperback).
Beauchesne: Les Profondeurs de la Grace, by J.-H. Nicolas, 0. P. (pp.
43,50 F.).
Bruce Publishing Co.: An Interpretation of Existence, by Joseph Owens
(pp. 153).
Corpus Books: The Church in the Theology of Karl Barth, by Colm
O'Grady (pp. 376, $10.00); I Saw a New Earth. An Introduction to
the Visions of the Apocalypse, by Paul S. Minear (pp. 411, $10.00).
Desclee de Brouwer: Consultation Internationale sur le Non-Etre. Dialogue philosophique, by Roger Lapointe (pp. 159, 150 FB) .
Duns Scotus College, Southfield, Mich.: Scotus Speaks Today.
Seventh Centenary Symposium (pp.
$4.00 paper) .
Fides Publishers Inc.: The Jahwist. The Bible's First Theologian, by
Peter Ellis, C. SS. R. (pp. 319, $8.95); Teaching High School Religion Through Literature. II (Teachers Manual), by Jane Syburg
paperback); Principles. An Anthology of Readings,
(pp. 61,
paperback).
selected by Jane Syburg (pp.
Harper & Row: Letters to Leontine Zanta, by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
$4.00).
(pp.
Harvard University Press: Concepts of Space. The History of Theories of
Space in Physics, by Max Jammer (pp.
$5.50).
B. Herder Book Co.: As I Loved You, by M. J. Andre (pp. 149, $5.50).
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.: Jewish Philosophy in Modern Times,
by Nathan Rotenstreich (pp.
$6.50); Leo Baeck: Teacher of
Theresienstadt, by Albert H. Friedlander (pp.
$8.95); The
Bhagavad Gita, tr. with Introd. & Critical Essays by Eliot Deutsch
(pp.
$4.95).
Lateran University: Dalla Fenomenologia Pura alla Trascendenza Assoluta,
by Mario Valentino Ferrari, 0. P. (pp. 95); La Verita dell'Uomo, by
Luigi Bogliolo (pp. 313); Filosofia e Cristianesimo. Discussioni
Recenti, by Duilio Bonifazi (pp. 154) ; La Base del Realismo e la
Critica Neokantiana, by Mons. Luigi Chiesa (pp. 163); La Dimensione Trinitaria del Carattere Sacramentale, by Crescenso Sepe (pp.
175) ; Incontro con Cristo. Credibilita della Religione Cristiana, by
Vladimir Boublik (pp. 3U); La Recezione del Diritto Civile nel
Diritto Canonico, by Mons. Ovidio Cassola (pp. 163); De Ieiunio et

608

BOOKS RECEIVED

6(}9

Abstinentia in Ecclesia Byzantina ab Initiis usque ad Saec. XI, by
Joachim Herbut (pp. 143); Vallepietra dalle Origini alla Fine del
Saecolo XIX, by Filippo Carafl'a (pp. 309); La Pontificia Universita
Lateranense nel 1968 (pp.
Liberia Editrice Salesiana: Per Un Nuovo Spi1-itualismo Cristiano. Saggi
di Pluralismo Filosofico-Teologico Ispirato alla Dottrina Essenziale
dei Padri e Dottori, by Giuseppe Muzio (pp. 80).
Liviana Editrice: Del Principia di Creazione o del Significato, by Allessandro Cortese (pp. 168).
McGill University Press: Standing and Understanding. A Re-appraisal of
the Christian Faith, by Stanley Brice Frost (pp. 187, $4.50).
McGraw-Hill: St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologiae. Vol. 51 (Sa
Our Lady, by Thomas R. Heath, 0. P. (pp. 144, $7.00).
Macmillan Co.: A Church Without Priests? by Jacques Duquesne (pp.
$4.95) .
Marquette University Press: Saint Thomas Aquinas. On the Unity of the
Intellect Against the Averroists, Tr. & Intr. by Beatrice H. Zeller
(pp. 96, $3.00); Beyond Trinity, by Bernard Cooke, S. J. (pp. 84,
The Apple or Aristotle's Death, Tr. & Intr. by Mary F.
Rousseau (pp. 96, $3.00).
Martinus Nijhofl': Studies in Analogy, by Ralph Mcinerny (pp. 147, 19.80
guilders).
Northwestern University Press: The Epistemology of G. E. Moore, by
E. D. Kelmke (pp.
$6.75).
Oxford University Press: The Christian New Morality. A Biblical Study
of Situation Ethics, by 0. Sydney Barr (pp.
$4.00); New Essays
on Religious Language, ed. by Dallas M. Hugh (pp.
$5.00,
paper); The Knowledge of Things Hoped For. The Sense of Theological Discourse, by Robert W. Jenson (pp.
$5.75); Experi$8.75); The First Christian
ences, by Arnold Toynbee (pp.
Century in Judaism and Christianity. Certainties and Uncertainties,
by Samuel Sandmel (pp.
$6.00).
Charles Scribner's Sons: In Search of the Historical Jesus, by Harvey K.
McArthur (pp.
$3.95 paper).
Southern lllinois University Press: The Empirical Theology of Henry
Nelson Wieman, ed. by Robert W. Bretall (pp.
$3.45).
University of Notre Dame Press: Covenant and Creation, by Piet Schoonenberg, S. J. ,pp.
$5.50); The Nature of Moral Judgment, by
Patrick McGrath (pp.
$6.50); Contemporary Catholicism in
the United States, ed. by Philip Gleason (pp. 350, $10.00); The
Catholic Church Today: Western Europe, ed. by M.A. Fitzsimmons
(pp. 350, $10.00).
Charles C. Thomas Publisher: The Idea of God. Philosophical Perspectives, ed. by E. H. Madden, R. Handy, M. Farber (pp. 181, $8.50).

tHO

BOOKS RECEIVED

Verlag Friedrich Pustet: Die Einheit von Vita Activa und Vita Contemplativa in den deutschen Predigten und Traktaten Meister
Eckharts und bei Johannes Tauler, by Dietmar Mieth (pp. 335,
DM 39).
The Westminster Press: Evolutionary Philosophies and Contemporary
$6.50); The Future of TheTheology, by Eric C. Rust (pp.
ology. A Philosophical Basis for Contemporary Protestant Thought,
by Frederick Sontag (pp. 155, $4.95).