BOOKS, Etc., RECEIVED The Case of Thérèse. Seumann. By Hilda C. Graef. Cork : Mercier Press. Price 12s. 6d. False Colours. A Comedy by W. D. Hepenstali. Dublin : Gill and Son. Price 2s. 6d. The Catholic University of America Studies in Christian Antiquity. Edited by Johannes Qua»ten : No. 10.—The Function of Faith and Reason in the Theology of St. Hilary of Poitiers. By J. E-. Emmenegger. No. 11.—Marriage According to St. Ambrose. By W. J. Dooley. No. 12.—The Monk and the Martyr. By Ed. E. Malone, O.S.B. (Published by the Catholic University of America Press. Washington, D.Î.) biographical Studies ( 1534-1 »2111. Bognor Megis : The Arundel Press. Aquinas Society Paper, So. Id.—Sature as the Ethical Sorm. By D. J. Hawkins, D.D., Ph.D. London : Blackfriars' Publications. .1 pologeticsfor the Pulpit. By Aloysius Hoche. (New edition.) London: Burns Oates. Price 18«. In the Service of Youth. By Paula Hoesl. (Translated by John Carr. C.SS.R.) London : Sands. Price Ute. 6d. Queen of Heaven. By Teresa Lloyd. London : Sands. Price 6«. .·! Confraternity School Year Religion Course. By Sister M. Rosalia. Paterson. Now Jersey : Confraternity Publications. Price $0.75. In the Shadow of Peter. By Heniy' Henry Shaw. Paterson. New Jersey ■ St. Aiith ’-'y 'Judd Press. Price .$2. Quest of Certainty. By John A. Cass. Paterson, New Jersey : rftAnthon·' Guild Press. Price 82·50. par Goodness Sake. By Wm. Lawson, S.J. London: Sheed and Ward· prier S.-·. <5d. portrait of Le'/f·. I.:'.;;. Bv E. i’_ Dubois. London : Sheed and Ward. price 1#· * fhc Gifts of the Holy Ghost. By John of St. Thomas. Translated by lUndiuc fririh*'S. O.P. London : Sheed and Ward. Price IfB. 1 1 ■’ jésuite Go East. By Felix A. Plattner. Dublin : Clonmnre and .Reynoldsprierf ^’· The Catholic Surse. By Brian I). Johnson, M.H.C.S., L.R.CP. f... ··< ■■■■ „ Oates. Pr ·■ ':·. ’· ■! ” ** pjw Glorious Assumptum. By Joseph Duhr, S.J. (Translate. rnelio Fabr>. Turin : Soc. .Edit, IntenMzwmale. tf&lieM Aspswis of Marriage. By John Rvan. M.B., F.R.C.S. London : nfS <>AW*. I’r : ■ I· · ·< '. plarr-Sumes of Rtatrevor. By Rev. B. J, Mœnev. B.D. Chronicle of the WiMd Health Organization. Geneva’: World Health. Falsi» λ !. l;i. \-..4. j ,;îl... , ,95;) hy G;lh,.ay ty Council Public Libraries. C^orUtnission Mrssion ^tariat. 13Î2 ;■,·.. G'd ti > Ren-r. tin-·-*·'”:,:.Λ ,;···>D·''· ν«»·ι· γ/.< > · ■ I U iiis.v «i *y in·.· ( 'Me.·; ^ainb^h- L 1 -v-. -·. w·.·..···· ?4.·ο· ρ.1Λ., - ■ _■ , ‘HUMANI GENERIS’ ITS SIGNIFICANCE AND TEACHING By Rev. PATRICK J. HAMELL, M.A., D.D. N an Allocution in 1946, His Holiness Pope Pius XII referred to the considerable volume of discussion about a " new theology which, with all things in a constant process of evolution, is supposed to be ever evolving, ever advancing, never reaching its term.’’ The tenets of the new system were vague. still fluid. One could scarcely speak of a svstem at all, but rather of tendencies and tentative propositions. The general preoccupation, however, was with the funda­ mental question of the relations between intellect and faith, and the Holy Father gave explicit warning of the gravity of the issues involved when he stated that nothing less than the existence of dogma and the unity and stability of the Catholic faith was at stake. In such a system, he asked. t what will beccvif t,f the unfhangctddi· d-^nui·-·. and -.chat will li'o-r-r !ht unify and ^tfdddi;/ if the (a/hulic faith ? " ! 1 he e.sii— s responsible ihr the ntrempli nt a ' new ta -<-;i»gy ‘ \v< re in rhe main two Hie impart of m -dern nhilosophics. and Hn- ard ut. if imp·rudent, desire to develop m-ï me!hods <:f winning to the true Church of Christ the ■ wh > wer<· onlv nominallv or not even nominally l· Τ' will already aware of th·* tremendous ■ ’■r:ry output of C<·;: rover-ies on general and purtF-dar points of thi< "new theology." Alter a d-cad'· of free discussion had gone on. the Cliief I’·!'··.;· intere· md of;: jal'y to nn-noun i- on errors and ■ι·ι· ·■■ •iGmUii·'·er cor^-'-ûv-s. and to staff· th*· Catholic I •i”‘.h;-. In in an Emy<-u<;d Letter of '•upr-m·.· iin..;.r‘;uicc ior th·- faith. for th>o!--gy ίί·! pl;il·-soph_■. hr Γ iblished an exhausrive treatment of the trudi neies ami .1 i . ·. ’. "S I!»46 . r.. II. ; p. 3S4-5. Is Bra· keted numbers bereaà r 290 THE IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD errors of the new system, defined the nature and purpose of theology, the function of reason and philosophy, and marked out the lines of development for the future. Before outlining the teaching of the Encyclical, it may be well to recall a few general notions of the relations between faith, theology and reason. Revelation is a message from God to man, and to reach individual men it must be formulated in human language. It is the divine fact or truth which is revealed, not the proposition which expresses it. The divine truth is immutable, inexhaustible. The instrument which we use to state it. human language, is finite, imperfect, changing. No formula fashioned by man can exhaust or perfectly convey divine truth. Christ appointed the Teaching Authority of the Church to be the guardian and interpreter of revealed truth, and this Teaching Authority, in the infallible exercise of its commission, interprets and formulates the truths entrusted to it. Those revealed truths which the Church proposes to us as such for our belief are dogmas. The choice of tenus and concepts and the construction of the logical proposition to convey the revealed truth are conditioned by a number of factors including the language, culture and philosophical developnu-nt of the time. Thi-oiogy is a science whose directing and underlying principles are the truths revealed by God, but its proper abject is the conclusions, theological conclusions, deduced by n-iboQ from divinely revealed truths. By means of these deductions we are able to gain more knowledge of the faith Than the simple expression of the revealed truth itself gives, and d is the function of theology to penetrate more and mor,· deeply into the mysteries of revelation and so endeavour tn gain a more profound understanding of them. In these processes, the formulation of revealed tru'i'.* and the drawing of conclusions from them, the fun-.·? ior: ar·’* importance of reason are obvious. If the terms and «·'·»“ · ’1}' us- 'l in a Conciliar definition (e.g. person, nature, substance, ^iKi'b-nre. vau^iity ·. and lii·.· philosophical system under­ lying them, are valid permanently. the content of the defini- · ; * i > ■ ? i ‘HUMANI GENERIS’ 291 tion remains the same throughout the centuries, and the same proposition conveys the same truth to us as it did to those who lived at the time of Nicaea or Trent. But if language, concepts and philosophical systems are so much part of and dependent on the experience and culture of an age that they are valid only for that age, and as an expression of the experience of that age. then the words of a Nieene or Tridentine definition do not to-day contain the truth it originally expressed, and new’ terminology and new philosophies must be utilized to express the doctrine of Nicaea or Trent, and the science of theology has brought us no real increase of knowledge of divine truths. Hence the gravity of the whole question of the validity of our knowledge and of the relations between reason and faith. ? w veil»' TOWARDS A * NEW THEOLOGY ’ ' - ·..j In the moral and religious ferment occasioned by the second World War, certain Catholic theologians, considering the striking fact that the Gospel of Christ has effectively come to so few. besan to feel the urgent need of developing new methods to contact the masses outside the true Church and impervious to its influence. The old methods seemed to have failed, thev felt. The saving message of redemption is there for all, is destined for all. but the masses are untouched. There is something wrong with our presentation of God’s word, and our theology and philosophy have lost touch with the people. Those whom we have tn win to n> will not embrace a faith couched in terms and linguae which are ■ lligible to them and are derived from a j ■> ’4"op 5 which thev look upon as archaic, alien and inia.iu. ■ i-ir thought and reasoning are in terms of present-day expcnence and modem philosophies, ami if we are to contact Uwm at a!· ·.»■ ·4ιη fln so vulv through a new approac i an a .,iu«krn, ■■ -r·>.···!<.Pion <‘f th.· fairi-. There m-r «· a nrastic of our the.rie, and methods in theology and _ ' ’ ’ JV».*· ■ ■ ’ ' ■■ .,f thevl .g> is tn put man in contact with G,dN s.t-. ing u^sage. proent the word of God to man m Th:· ■ I'. 292 THE IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD his concrete environment, in a manner capable of satisfying his needs and bearing on actual problems he encounters on the way to salvation. Man is conditioned in his life and religious thought by the age in which he lives. He has will and emotions as well as intellect, and his will and emotions have a major role in commending God’s message to him. Hence theology should in the main be a matter of exegesis and should occupy itself primarily with the Bible, which contains God’s word. It should take account, too, of the Early Fathers in order to recapture the vitality and freshness of their presentation, which have largely been lost in recent centuries, and of the Liturgy, which is a dynamic expression of the life of the Church. With the assistance and example afforded by these, theology, to fulfil its role, should adjust itself to its age and to living experience, to the cultural, literary and scientific attainments of the time. The return to the Fathers, especially to the Greek Fathers, will stress for it the notion of history which has become so important in our day, and enrich it with categories of thought which they employed and which to our loss are no longer used in our theology and philosophy. Moreover, theology should, they say, address itself to the whole man in his actual surroundings, not merely to his intellect, and should express itself not simply in a series of abstract, intellectual judgments but in terms of values, love and hate. That is. the will and the emotions must be catered for, and given a place corresponding to the vital, and perhaps predominant, part which they play in our acquisition of knowledge. Only through such an ‘ actual ’ presentation of revealed truth can we gain a rem knowledge of God’s word proportioned to the state of human development, and surely men cherish the hope that succes­ sive generations penetrate more and more deeply into the mysteries of Christianity. To cling to the methods and terminology of past centuries is to lose the riches of the progressive knowledge gained by the living experience of faith. By faith we believe the truths revealed by God, and faith is something vital, some­ thing that exist', and is in un ace and enviruiim-'ur. < f * . ‘HUMANI GENERIS’ 293 It concerns itself with revealed truths, gaining an evergrowing realization and knowledge of them. Only secondarily is it concerned with the form in which these truths are expressed, because no human language can adequately express them. Yet they must be formulated by theology, and theology must depend for its terms on human language. The formulae at which theology arrives have only an extrinsic connexion with divine truth, and different formulae can be used to express the same divine facts. The divine truths are immutable, inaccessible, inexhaustible ; the language which seeks to express them, and the philosophical systems which it employs, are changing, inadequate, only approximate, hut ever evolving and ever being perfected, and hence theology must evolve in order to keep pace with the growing realization of the divine truths and with human experience, and ‘ the history of dogma consists in stating the various successive forms that revealed truth has assumed according to the different doctrines and theories which have appeared in the course of the centuries' (15). Theology must adapt itself to changing conditions and new philosophies if it is to remain vital, contemporary, ‘ actual.' A theology which is not ‘ actual ' will be false. Our traditional theology, they say, is concerned not with God's word, but with decluetions from it. and it has tied itself to an arid Scholasticism which is shackled by categories of thought outmoded to-day. It takes no account of history. It neglects the function of the will. It is con­ cerned with immutable essences, not with existence, and pays no attention to human problems and the human drama. Hence it is not an ‘ actual ’ theology, and it cannot be said to give any real knowledge of revealed truth. As the Holy Father sums it up: ‘ this philosophy, received and honoured by the Church, is scorned by some, who shamelessly call it outmoded in form and rationalistic, as they say. in its method of thought. They say that this philosophy upholds the erroneous notion that there can be a metaphysic that is absolutely true : whereas in fact, they say. reality, especially transcendent reality, cannot better be expressed than by different propositions, which 294 t ili 11 1 THE IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD mutually complete each other, although in a way they are mutually opposed. Our traditional philosophy, then, zdth its clear exposition and solution of questions, its accurate definition of terms, its clear-cut distinctions, can be, they concede, useful as a preparation for scholastic theology, a preparation quite in accord with medieval mentality ; but this philosophy hardly offers a method of philosophizing suited to the needs of modern culture. They allege, finally, that our perennial philosophy is only a philosophy of immutable essences, while the contem­ porary mind must look to the existence of things and to life, which is ever in flux. While scorning our philosophy, they extol other philosophies of all kinds, ancient and 'modern, oriental and occidental, by which they seem to imply that any kind of philosophy or theory, -with a few additions and cor­ rections if need be. can be reconciled with Catholic dogma. . . . Finally, they reproach this philosophy taught in our schools for regarding only the intellect in the process of cognition, while neglecting the function of the will and the emotions . . ■ (saying) as these innovators do, indiscriminately mingling cognition and act of will, that the appetitive and affective faculties have a certain pozaer of understanding, and that man, since he cannot by using his reason decide with certainty zchat is true and is to be accepted, turns to his will, by which he freely chooses among opposite opinions ’ (34). Applying these theories to theology. ‘ some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas, and to free dogma id-ilf from terminology long established in the Church and frw philosophica I concepts held try Catholic teachers, and to return in the explanation of Catholic doctrine to the way of sptakiny, used in Holy Scripture and by the Fathers of the Church ' (1-C; The underlying hope in this is to make the acceptance oi Catholic doctrine easier for those outside the Chun.-a. I this new presentation, modem needs will be satisfied, and dogma can be expressed in terms of up-to-date philosophies. Further, the field of revealed truth itself is restricted, because the sense of the Vatican Council's definition that is the Author of ίΐ.,ίν Scripture is perverted, and in< t! is restricted to tlu-e parts of the Bible that treat of Jk I : λ :its t f Îiaitiwii as» ‘HUMANI GENERIS’ 295 of moral and religious matters. There is mention of '■ a human sense of the Scriptures, beneath which the divine sense which they say is the only infallible meaning, lies hidden) and no account is taken of the analogy of faith and the Tradition of the Church in the interpretation of Scripture. And there is a demand for a new, non-literal, but rather symbolic and spiritual exegesis which will for the first time open the treasures of the Old Testament to the faithful and solve the ‘ difficulties which hinder only those who adhere to the literal meaning of the Scriptures ’ (22, 23). So the task of apologetics is made easy, ‘ a way is found to satisfy modern needs ’ (15). and we can look forward to ‘ a more efficacious propagation of the kingdom of Christ every­ where throughout the world among men of every culture and religious opinion ’ (11). TEACHING OF " HUMANI GENERIS ’ The Holy Father’s authoritative analysis and treatment of the errors and dangers inherent in such a new orientation of theology is at once enlightened, paternal and firm. He does not condemn indiscriminately, nor does he confine himself to condemnation. He does not deny that the aims and methods in question spring from motives in part praise­ worthy, that there is a real problem to be faced» and that these new theories can provoke discussions ultimately to the good of theology. He affirms that our theology’, philosophy and apologetics can and should be improved. He does not regard the views propounded as having hardened m'o a system and infected the minds of large numbers (13, -10, 41). He names no one. But. nevertheless, these views contain grave errors and serious dangers, and the Sovereign Pontiff would be failing in his duty if he did not take cognizance of them (to. 11), and he states openly and pkuniy that these dangerous opinions are being held and disseminated by some, a minority indeed of Catholic teachers, but a minority’ that can command a large audience. The errors involve the most serious consequences for faith and theology, and they must be unmasked and oif,et by rhe statement of the true portion. AttW W it; -W W i? ■ ?W: MM ■ tic HI 296 THE IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD Then in bold, clear strokes Pope Pius XII marks out the boundaries of truth and error in the relations of faith and reason, and expounds the functions of revelation, dogma, theology and philosophy. In the domain of theology the errors and dangers arising from these new opinions are mainly three—an imprudent ‘eirenism ’ (11-15), relativism in dogma (16-17), and neglect of the Teaching Authority of the Church (18-21). This imprudent ‘ eirenism ’ takes the form outlined by the Pope (11, 15), of regarding Catholic institutions and methods as obstacles to reunion, and diluting Catholic doctrine to make it acceptable to every mind, and expressing it in terms of modem philosophy ‘ whether of immanentism or idealism or existentialism or any other system ’ (15). This necessarily leads to relativism in dogma (16). The meaning of dogmas will change from generation to generation if definitions and our traditional philosophical system and terms are rejected as invalid. In their place we shall have ‘ conjectures and certain fluid and vague expressions of a new philosophy, which, like the flower of the field, are to-day and to-morrow are withered awayf and dogma will become ‘ a reed shaken by the wind ' (17). A weakening of the whole structure of traditional scholastic theology must follow contempt for its principles (17). From despising scholastic theology it is a short step to despising the Teaching Authority of the Church which officially approves of scholastic theology. Because Scholas­ ticism is seen as a hindrance to progress, the authority which commends it is regarded as a hindrance. The Teaching Authority is neglected and ignored by some in those matters that approximate to heresy, and the authoritative teaching of the Holy Father is disregarded (18, 19, 20) habitually and deliberately on some theory supposedly found in th* Fathers, especially the Greek Fathers, that in matters disputed the Pope is presumed not to decide but to lea^e the way open for research in the early sources (18-21). These three cardinal errors and dangers, with certain erroneous Biblical theories (22, 23), ‘ have already borne thetr ‘HUMANI GENERIS’ 1 y 297 deadly fruit in almost all branches of theology ' (25), and questions subjected to doubt include : the power of reason to prove God’s existence : whether creation had a beginning ; God's freedom in creating ; God’s foreknowledge of free actions ; whether angels are persons ; whether matter and spirit differ essentially ; whether the supernatural order is a gratuitous gift of God ; the concept of sin ; the notion of original sin : the idea of the satisfaction made by Christ ; Transubstantiation and the Real Presence ; the identity of the Mystical Body of Christ with the Roman Catholic Church ; the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to he saved : the reasonable character of the credibility of the Christian faith (26). In the realm of philosophy there are two most serious errors, having grave repercussions on theology. The first is the abandonment of our traditional metaphysics for theories of knowledge which can lead only to relativity of truth and loss of real knowledge. Adoption of these false philo­ sophies means a ‘ denial of the validity of reason in the field of metaphysics,' and consequently the end of knowledge as distinet from successive and changing experiences (32). The second error is an extreme Voluntarism, maintaining that the ultimate ground of reality, of psychical activity or •>f moral value is not rational but affective (will), (Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, W. James, Sartre) (33). ‘ It is rmt surprising that these new opinions endanger the two philo■Mddcal sciences which by their very nature are closely connected udh the doctrine of faith, that is, theodicy and ethics ’ (34). Against this formidable catalogue of errors a general Principle laid down by Pope Pius and function of reason, the vs philosophy, and the reality and ] knowledge we deduce bv reaso e trut fills to reason io demonstrate with certainty the existence of I Personal and one ; to prove beyond doubt from divi very foundations of the Christian faith ; to express law which the Creator has imprimi. in the hearts of 1 ifyt jj; ?j |s ·’· is|s's'i|B ItfliieiiillS II is B !l 298 THE IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD notion, of mysteries. But reason can perform these functions safely and well only when properly trained, that is, when imbued with that sound philosophy which has long been, as it were, a patrimony handed down by earlier Christian ages, and which moreover possesses an authority of an even higher order, since the Teaching Authority of the Church, in the light of divine revelation itself, has weighed its principles and fundamental tenets, which have been elaborated and defined little by little by men of great genius (29). How far can reason penetrate into the truths of faith and validly formulate them ? What is the value of con­ clusions drawn by reason from these dogmatic formulae and built into a theological synthesis ? Are the dogmatic definitions and the formulae of theology valid through the centuries ? What is the bond between the dogmatic and theological formulae and the revealed truth, and how far are they conditioned by contingent factors of age and culture In brief, what is the relation between revelation, dogma, theology and reason ? Revelation is the word of God, and ‘ theologians must always return to the sources of divine revelation, for it belongs to them to point out how the doctrine of the living Teaching Authority is to be found either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures and in Tradition.' Besides, ''both sources of "divinely revealed doctrine eantain so many treasures of truth that they can never really be exhausted (21). Formulae cannot adequately express dhdne truth. They can express only aspects of it ; but they express real, though partial, truth. There is more than an extrinsic bond between the divine truth and the formulae. ‘"It is perfectly obvious that the terms used to express these concepts both in the Schools and by the Teaching Authority of the Church can be improved and perfected ; more· over, it is known that the Church has not always made constant use of the same terms. It is clear, too, that the Church cannot be bound to any ephemeral philosophic system : but those notions and concepts which by common agreement have been elaborated through many centuries by Catholic teachers in order to attain to some understanding of dogma, certainly are not based on ■■'■ith ‘HEMANI GENERIS' 299 an insecure foundation. They depend rather on principles and concepts that have been derived from true knowledge of creatures, and in obtaining this knowledge the human intellect has through trie Church been enlightened by divinely revealed truth as by a star. Thus it is not surprising that some of these concepts have not only been employed by Ecumenical Councils, but also so sanctioned by them that it is wrong to discard their use. Hence to neglect, reject or deny validity to so much of such importance, which has been formulated and perfected through many centuries of effort by men of no common genius and sanctity under the vigilance of the Teaching Church, and not without the light and inspiration of the Holy Ghost, in order that there should be substituted for them conjectures and certain fluid and vague expressions ' is imprudent, and is fatal to faith (16, 17). The Holy Father, therefore, teaches that there is an intrinsic bond between the revealed truth and the formulae expressing it. and that there is an intrinsic bond between the formulae expressing revealed truth and the notions and concepts of the formulae, that these notions and concepts have been developed for the purpose of gaining real know­ ledge of dogma, that they have been elaborated by men of great genius and sanctity, under the vigilance of the Church, and with the assistance of the Holy Ghost, and that the Church has officially employed these concepts and so sanctioned them that we are not free to abandon them. This is a clear and official affirmation of the permanent validity of scholastic philosophy for the expounding of revela­ tion. The formulae elaborated in the circiimsmnce* above convey real, if imperfect, knowledge of divine truth and they convey the same knowledge whcm vvr and whervwr they are taught. They are permanently valid in the exact philosophical sense which they had when they were framed, and to abandon them is to abandon a real acquisition of knowledge. They had at the time of their composition, and they still retain, a philosophical significance and a validity which they will never lose, a significance independent of the contingent factors of time and environment. Io hold that III 'Λ 300 IUI ■| THE IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD ‘ the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted . . . and that theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments,'' and that ‘ the history of dogma consists in stating the various successive forms that revealed truth has assumed according to the different doctrines and theories,, is to lead to relativism in dogma and to ‘ make dogma itself a reed shaken by the wind ' il (15, 16, 17). ii’ Hence we may not, without damage to our faith, abandon, or impugn the permanent validity of the metaphysics em­ ployed by scholastic theology in the exposition of revealed truth. Reason, ‘ when imbued with that sound philosophy which has long been, as it were, a patrimony handed down by earlier Christian ages and which moreover possesses an authority of an even higher order,' can establish ‘ from divine signs the very foundations of the Christian faith ’ and * attain to son* notion, indeed a very fruitful notion, of mysteries' (29). The ' method, doctrine and principles of the Angelic Doctor ' hold a place of special honour and authority in that ‘ patrimony handed down by earlier Christian ages,' but other teachers, too. of great genius have helped to elaborate and define the tenets the Teaching Authority of the Church upholds. Their work is a rich patrimony which we inherit, a perennial sophy which. ‘ acknowledged and accepted by the Church, wfi " guards the genuine validity of human knowledge. the unsimiable metaphysical principles of sufficient reason, causali'y. awl finality, and finally the mind's ability to attain certain unchangeable truth ’ (29). What. then, of theology and the duty of th to-day ? The Holy Father does not merely condemn erm but points the way to the effective presentation of the divinrevealed truths. Catholic theologians and ph a ‘ grave duty to defend natural and supernatural truth instil it into the hearts of men ’ (9). They ‘ nr fhnvp mnrp It" t7’■ ijf /’-* ·»JtilvC γ’»·ιλί iff ii IqIcIî l/twC tilAJl Uffl'liv'lv» ■II ■111 ■ lilii ■■■ 1ι·ϊ·ΐ|-3 ytvaWiiVu» ‘HUMANI GENERIS’ 301 must come to understand these theories well, both because diseases are not properly treated unless they are rightly diagnosed, and because sometimes even in these false theories a certain amount of truth is concealed, and, finally, because these theories provoke more subtle discussion and evaluation of theological truths ' (9). They must realize that, on the one hand, the concepts used by scholastic philosophy and theology have an endur­ ing validity, and that, on the other hand, the terms used to express these concepts ‘ both in the schools and by the Teaching Authority of the Church, can be improved and perfected ’ (9). The most effective means of gaining true knowledge of revelation and of adapting ecclesiastical teaching to modern conditions and requirements must be employed, and to this end ' we may clothe our philosophy in a more .suitable and richer dress, make it more vigorous with a more effeetke terminology, divest it of certain scholastic aids found less useful, prudently enrich it with the fruits of progress of the human mind. But never may we overthrow it, or contaminate it with false principles, or regard it as a great, but obsolete, relic ’ (29). Progress in theology, and deeper penetration into the divine mysteries, mean, not the substitution of new, dclective concepts for the valid concepts inherited from the past and relating successive but varying forms, but ' building truth upon truth in the same order and structure that exist in reality, the source of truth ' (30). Above and before all, theologians ‘ must always return to the sources of divine retrial ion. ... It is through the study of its sacred sources that it remains ever fresh : on the other hand, speculation which neglects a deeper search into the deposit of faith proves ■derde. . . . ’ In their exploration of the sources of revelation, I f 111 mol explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly. This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic not even to 302 THE IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD Authority of the Church. . . . Hence Our Predecessor of im­ mortal memory, Pius IX, teaching that the most noble of theology is to show how a doctrine defined by the Church is contained in the sources of revelation, added these words, (ini with very good reason : “ in that sense in which it has beat defined by the Church ” ’ (21). Patrick J. Hamell. NOTE Tor an extensive list of the documents of the theological controversies κ ‘ Tentatives françaises pour un renouvellement de la théologie,’ by P. T-i. Deman, O.P., in Revue de TUnirereité d’Ottawa, vol. 20, July-September, 193.'. pp. 129*-67*. See also ‘ Current Theology,’ by Rev. P. Donnelly, S.J.. t Theological Studies, viii. (1947), September !pp. 471-91), December (pp. 66»-.-*9. for a good survey of the literature. The list of books, articles, critical stucitreplies and counter-replies is too lengthy to be given here in full, but the c.u-: relevant works include : Sources chritie nr< es : Collection dirigée jMrH.de Lubar, S.J.,etJ. Dani-lcu.^Théologie : Études publiées sous la direction de la faculté de thiologie. cJ. de Lyon-Fourviere. P. Daniéiou, S.J., ‘ Les orientations présentes de la pensée religieuse· Études, cexlix. (1946). P. Labourdette, O.P., ' La théologie et ses sources,' Revue Thomiste, Ai. (1946), pp. 353-71. Critical study of the foregoing. Conversion et grâce chez ri. Thomas d'Aquin, by H. Bcuillard, S.J. (TioOi 5' 1), with reviews : ‘ La théologie et ses sources,’ by P. Labourdette, O.P-, R' Thomiste, xlvi. (1946), pp. 356 if. C. Boyer, S.J., in Gregorianum, xxvii (1946), 139. _ ‘ La nouvelle théologie, où va-t-elle ? ’ by R. Garrigou-Lagrange. 0-?·· Angelicum. 23 (1946). pp. 126 ff. ‘Théologie de la grâce,’ by P. Gillon, O.P., Reçue Thomiste, xlvi il'’4' pp. 603 ff. ‘Théologie de ΓÉglise,’ by P. Nicolas, O.P., Revue. Thomiste, xlvi fiW»· sgfelllli ff I |f lilalliiiililfc. WiillilillSliliiilllflii ‘ La théologie et ses sources : Réponse aux Études critiques de la Thomiste (May-August, 1946;,’ in Recfcercfcee de science religieuse, xxxüi (1®^’ pp. 385-401." Reply to P. Labourdette, O.P., by P. Bouillard. S.J.. Ά propos de h actuelle chez saint Thomas d’Aquin,’ Recherches de science religieuse. ·λ ■ ' (1946), pp. 92-115. Corpus Mysticum : L'Eucharistie et l'Église au moyen age (ThiA*”·'.. Λ by H. de Lubac, S.J. Reviewed by P. Nicolas. O.P., in ‘ Théologie de i l - !' Revve Thomiste, xlvi ( 19461. pp. 385-89; by P. Glorieux in M(langes de religieuse, ii (1945;·, pp. 370 ff. ; and by P. Chenu, O.P., in Dieu Vivante, i (i!4'? ’ pp. 141-43. Surnaturel : Études historiques [ThAhgie. Ss, by H. de Lubac. S.J-. Reviews and critiques of this major work listed by P. Deman, O.P.. ('-«·» those by : J. de Blic, S.J., Mélanges de science religieuse, iv (1947), pp· B. Romeyer. S.J., Archives de Philosophie, vol. 17, cap. 2; L. Male'·** NoureiZe revue thidogique, 79 (1Γ-47 . pp. 3-3 i : C. B, y.-r. S.J.. pAt' v ' ‘HUMANI GENERIS’ 303 ,1947;. pp. 379-95 ; P. Gillon, O.P., Pctv/e Thomiste, xlvi (1947). pp. 304-10; G. Frenaud, O.S.B., La Pensée catholique, cap. 5 (1948), pp. 25-47 ; G. de B.-oghe. S.J., De Fine Ultimo Vitae Humanae, Paris, 1948, app. iii. pp. 245-64 ; Philippe de la Trinité, O.C.D., Éludes carmclitaîfics, xxvii: Satan (1948/. pp. 44-85 ; H. Rondet, S.J., Recherches de Science religieuse, τπν (1948), pp. 481521; R. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., Ai-gelicum. 25 (1948), pp. 294-8 : V. IVLim, O.P., Dominican Studies, il (1949). pp. 62-73. ‘Autour d’une controverse,’ Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique, xlviii (1947), pp. 1-17, by Mgr. de Solages and P. Nicolas, O.P., being an exchange of letters concerning ‘ La théologie et ses sources,’ by P. Labourdette. O.P. Jl. Labourdette, M. J. Nicolas, R.-L. Bruckberger, Dominieams, Dialogue Tl 'jlogique : Piles du débat entre 'La Revue Thomiste’ d'une part et des R.R. P,P. de Lvbac, Daniéiou, Bouillard, Fessard, von Balthasar, S.J., d'autre part. (Les Arcades, Saint-Maximin, Var, 1947), a reply to ‘ Réponse ’ in Richerchrs île science religieuse, xxxiii ( 1946), pp. 385-401. Mgr. B. de Solagos. ' Pour l’honneur de la théologie,’ Bulletin de littiratvre, cP’Antique (January-March, 1947). reply to P. Labourdette, O.P. iRevue Thomiste). Also ' Pour l'honneur de la théologie,’ ibid. (April-June, 1947), pp. 65-84, reply to R. Garrigou-Lagrange's criticism of PP. de Lubac, Teilhard de Chardin, Daniéiou, Bouillard, Fessard, M. Blondel. R. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., 1 Vérité et immutabilité du dogme,’ Angelicum, 24 (1947), pp. 124-139, reply to Mgr. de Solages. ‘ Les notions consacrées par les Conciles,’ Angelicum, 24 (194J). pp. 217-30. ‘Le relativisme et TinmiutaLilité du dogme.’ Angelicum, 21 (19·5Ο,>, pp, 213-46. P. Yves and M. J. Congar, O.P., ’ Bulletin d’ecclésiologie,’ Revue des sciences phUosophiques et théologiques, 21 (1947), a general survey. ENCYCLICAL LETTER HUMANI GENERIS T··» Or R Venerable Brethren, Patriarchs. Primates, Archbishop», Bishops and other. Local Ordinaries with the in Peace and Commlnion Hoey ^ee POPE PIUS Nil V E N ERA B LE B KETH REN. IIeaith and Apostolic Benediction. O.NCERMNG SOME FaLSE OPINION» WHICH THR-tfL'' ■" UNDERMINE THE FoVNDATIONS OF £’ ITHOLIC DOCTRINE Occasion of the Encyclical. (i—13) General observations on errors of our tme regarding religion and morality. L (14). Human reason, morally tacover natural religion and morality (1-3), origin of the Christian religion (4). ration t0 t Xblish the divine to , io matters