INTEGRITY
25« A COPY

'

March,1951
Vol. 5, No. 6
$ umecT-AnAPTATi on
r

in regard to modern “conveniences/* hygienic or otherwise. If
they serve as instruments to further the aims of religious life they
should be adapted without hesitation; if their only purpose is to
pamper the body or satisfy the passions, they should be rejected.
Certainly personal caprice or a desire for novelty cannot be
the guiding spirit in the delicate task of adaptation; only the
desire to live more faithfully according to the primitive ideals in
the midst of new conditions can bring it about successfully. In
practice, only the constituted authorities, moved by prudent zeal
and a deep love of real perfection, can bring about a renewal of
an institution without changing its spirit.
If those on whom this responsibility for the future of reli­
gious life rest know how, in the words of Pope Pius XII, “to make
their institutes seem new,” then every order and every congrega­
tion will become a seedbed of apostles, a nursery of doctors, a
flowering field of sanctity. Novitiates will be thronged with fresh
and confident youths, anxious to run in the way of the counsels in
order to find Christ more easily and sacrifice themselves more com­
pletely for the redemption of their brothers.
Gaston Valtornino, O.P.
(This article was translated and abbreviated from the Italian by James M.
Egan, O.P. It orginally appeared in a special number of Vita Cristiana, which bore
the general title: Problems attuali dello Stato Religioso, Florence, 1950.)

PRAISE, NOT SATIRE
Straight, with crooked lines He writes,
A pattern of new approaches,
Francis prevails without his birds.
And Dominic rides in coaches.
30 - integrity

Isn't Thomism Outmoded?
In view of recent admonitions issuing from Rome that the
Church in her varied fields of influence must adapt herself to
modern needs and conditions, it would seem paradoxical that the
encyclical Humani Generis should reiterate the ordinations of
previous Popes that Thomism, both as a philosophical and theo­
logical system, is to be steadfastly maintained and faithfully
taught. For if Catholic doctrine must be restricted within the
confines of a medieval system of thought, how can anyone possibly
conceive of an application of that doctrine which will be effica­
cious and in harmony with present-day systems of thought? In
facing this dilemma, certain modern theologians, while manifest­
ing the greatest zeal for an adaptation of the Church’s doctrine
to modern times, have shown an equally strong disdain for the
traditionally honored scholastic philosophy and theology.
Let it be understood at the outset that the proponents of this
new trend in theology are by no means numerous nor do they
represent a universal tendency in the Church. The beginnings
can be traced to certain intellectual groups in France but unfor­
tunately they have found eager disciples in England, Germany,
and the United States. By this time it is known to all that these
persons were the occasion of the new encyclical Humani Generis.

The Argument Against Scholasticism
The apparently harmless proposition advanced by this group
is that Catholic doctrine must be brought to modern man, whether
he be intellectual or no, and in order to effect this, the doctrine
must be presented in modern man’s language. More than that,
it must be adapted to modern man’s cultural and emotional back­
ground because religion is an immanent and vital thing which is
constantly changing with man himself. Now if the language of
Catholicism is not intelligible to the man of today, how can we
reach him unless we speak his tongue? If we further take into
account the many non-Catholic sects, both Protestant and schis­
matic, which will not admit the parlance of scholasticism in any
discussion, what recourse is left but to return to Scripture itself
and the Fathers of the Church? Many non-Catholics will hear the
words of an Augustine, a Jerome, or a John Chrysostom, but will
close their ears and hearts to an Aquinas or a Bonaventure.
There is, of course, a great deal of truth in this new tendency
and many of the men who support it are among the best thinkers
and most zealous workers in the Church today. No theologian
worthy of the name would deny that sound doctrine alone is not
INTEGRITY - 31

enough; the theologian must also be coefficient with his age, being
keenly aware of the temper of the times and the condition of man.
But through their vague and obscure terminology one can see that
the modern reformers are striking at something much more pro­
found than language and methods. The Holy Father points out
that if they only aimed at adapting ecclesiastical teaching and
methods to modern conditions and requirements, there would
scarcely be any reason for alarm.

Shades of Modernism
When one studies the doctrine of these persons on the value
of Patristic writings, the role of philosophy in deducing theological
conclusions, the teaching authority of the Church, and the nature
of the supernatural order, it becomes evident immediately that
the Church today is faced with a mitigated form of Modernism.
The encyclical Humani Generis is easily accessible to all who wish
to see the precise points of doctrine on which the modern reformers
are in error, but it is interesting to recall the words of Pope Pius X,
writing in his encyclical Pascendi in 1907, for they apply very
neatly to the present condition:
It remains for us now to say a few words about the
Modernist as reformer. From all that has preceded,
it is abundantly clear how great and how eager is the
passion of such men for innovation. In all Catholicism
there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten.
They wish philosophy to be reformed, especially in the
ecclesiastical seminaries. They wish the scholastic phil­
osophy to be relegated to the history of philosophy and
to be classed among obsolete systems, and the young
men to be taught modern philosophy which alone is
true and suited to the times in which we live. They
desire the reform of theology: rational theology is to
have modern philosophy for its foundation, and positive
theology is to be founded on the history of dogma. As
for history, it must be written and taught only accord­
ing to their methods and modern principles. Dogmas
and their evolution, they affirm, are to be harmonized
with science and history. In the Catechism no dogmas
are to be inserted except those that have been reformed
and are within the capacity of the people. Regarding
worship, they say, the number of external devotions is
to be reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their
further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers
of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this
32 - integrity

f
,

I
1
!

head. They cry out that ecclesiastical government re­
quires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially
in its disciplinary and dogmatic departments. They
insist that both outwardly and inwardly it must be
brought into harmony with the modern conscience,
which now wholly tends to democracy; a share in
ecclesiastical government should therefore be given to
the lower ranks of the clergy, and even to the laity, and
authority, which is too much concentrated, should be
decentralized. . . . The ecclesiastical authority must alter
its line of conduct in the social and political world;
while keeping outside political organizations, it must
adapt itself to them, in order to penetrate them with its
spirit. With regard to morals, they adopt the principle
of the Americanists, that the active virtues are more
important than the passive, and are to be more encour­
aged in practice. They ask that the clergy should return
to their primitive humility and poverty, and that in their
ideas and action they should admit the principles of
Modernism; and there are some who, gladly listening
to the reaching of their Protestant masters, would desire
the suppression of the celibacy of the clergy. What is
there left in the Church which is not to be reformed
by them and according to their principles?

I

Lack of Docility to the Church

I
J

Not content with the promulgation of dangerous doctrines,
our modern reformers add to their mischief by refusing to accept
the corrections made by the Holy See. Even Humani Generis has
been met with lack of docility in some quarters.
What are we to think of those who, in spite of the papal
decrees, which have been especially numerous since the time of
Pope Leo XIII, have consistently and stubbornly held to their
own opinions? The pronouncements have been crystal clear;
each one more specific. "Nor must it be thought,” says the pres­
ent Pontiff, "that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does
not of itself demand consent, since in writing such letters the
Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching
Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teach­
ing authority, of which it is true to say: ‘He who heareth you,
heareth Me’; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in
Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic
doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents
purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute,

I

integrity - 33

■

‘

■
,

,

■
;

/
1
i
1
l!
-1
Γ
h

[

it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of
the same Pontiff, cannot be any longer considered a question open
to discussion among theologians” (Pope Pius XII, Humani
Generis).
Saint Thomas himself long ago admitted that the authority
of any doctor or theologian must always give way to that of the
Church. But when reprimanded or corrected, our modern re­
formers and non-conformists express a pained astonishment.
"What is imputed to them as a fault they regard as a sacred duty.
They understand the needs of consciences better than anyone else,
since they come into closer touch with them than does the
ecclesiastical authority. Nay, they embody them, so to speak, in
themselves. Hence, for them to speak and to write publicly is
a bounden duty. Let authority rebuke them if it pleases—they
have their own conscience on their side and an intimate experience
which tells them with certainty that what they deserve is not
blame but praise. Then they reflect that, after all, there is no
progress without a battle and no battle without its victims; and
victims they are willing to be, like the prophets and Christ Himself. They have no bitterness in their hearts against the authority
which uses them roughly, for after all they readily admit that it
is only doing its duty as authority. Their sole grief is that it
remains deaf to their warnings, for in this way it impedes the
progress of souls, but the hour will most surely come when further
delay will be impossible, for if the laws of evolution may be
checked for a while, they cannot be fully evaded. And thus they
go their way, reprimands and condemnations notwithstanding,
masking an incredible audacity under a mock semblance of hu­
mility. While they make a pretence of bowing their heads, their
minds and hands are more boldly intent than ever on carrying
out their purposes” (Pope Pius X, Pascendi).

Possible Adaptation of Language and Method
The doctrinal points condemned in the encyclicals Pascendi
and Humani Generis are no longer open to discussion but something remains to be said concerning the adaptation of the theological language and method. When God revealed sacred truth
to man, He did so in a human way; that Js, He spoke in the
language of His hearers. But, as is evident from both Testaments,
He did not reveal all things explicitly and it is the role of theology
to make manifest what is hidden. In either case, whether we are
to expound sacred doctrine directly from Scripture or through
theology, we must use the human medium of language.
34 - INTEGRITY

Now the great difficulty arises, for words are frequently a
source of contention and obscurity rather than a means of clarifi­
cation and definition. This is amply demonstrated by the diffi­
culties encountered in the various sessions of the U.N. To one
nation a word may have an entirely different emotional overtone
and carry with it the association of a host of ideas far removed
from the cultural background of another nation. The same
difficulty does not arise in the discussion of mathematics or the
physical sciences, for these make use of a technical language whose
vocabulary is definitely set and accepted. Philosophy and theology,
too, have their technical language but never in the history of the
Church has there been absolute unanimity in the use and definition
of all the technical expressions. The fundamental reason is, of
course, because sacred doctrine so transcends our created and
limited modes of thought and expression that it cannot be neatly
fitted into the rational categories. Hence the great liberty of
discussion which prevails.
But as early as the Council of Trent the Church has now
and again availed herself of the technical language of scholastic
theologians and philosophers when defining or expounding sacred
doctrine. This declaration by the Church is an external expression
of revealed truth and is an official act of the teaching Church in
her ordinary magisterium and not merely a transitory description
of Christian experience at some particular time in the life of the
Church. But even when adopting the terminology of some school
of philosophy or theology, the Church in no wise intends to canon­
ize any particular system as such. "Even in these fundamental
questions," says Pope Pius XII, "we may clothe our philosophy
in a more convenient and richer dress, make it more vigorous with
a more effective 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, nor con­
taminate it with false principles, or regard it as a great, but obso­
lete relic. . . . Whatever new truth the sincere human mind is
able to find, certainly cannot be opposed to truth already acquired,
since God, the highest Truth, has created and guides the human
intellect, not that it may daily oppose new truths to rightly estab­
lished ones, but rather that, having eliminated errors which may
have crept in, it may build truth upon truth in the same order
and structure that exist in reality, the source of truth" {Humani
Generis ).
"It is perfectly obvious,” the Pope continues, "that the terms
used to express these concepts both in the Schools and by the
integrity - 35

Teaching Authority of the Church, can be improved and perfected; moreover the Church is known not to have 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
terms which by common consent have been composed through
many centuries by Catholic teachers in attaining to some under­
standing of dogma, certainly are not based on such an insecure
foundation. . . . Thus it is not surprising that some of these con­
cepts have not only been employed by Ecumenical Councils, but
also so sanctioned by them that it is wrong to discard their use’*
(Ibid.).

j.
1
j
j

!
'j

Church's Sanction of Saint Thomas
In the same line of thought,Pope Pius X had previously
insisted, in full accord with the papal tradition, that Thomism
is to be the very touchstone of the Church’s declaration of sacred
truth: "The capital theses in the philosophy of Saint Thomas
are not to be placed in the category of opinions capable of being
debated one way or another, but are to be considered as the foundations upon which the whole science of natural and divine things
is based; if such are once removed or in any way impaired, it must
necessarily follow that the students of the sacred sciences will
ultimately fail to perceive as much as the meaning of the words
in which the dogmas of divine revelation are proposed by the
magistracy of the Church. We therefore desire that all teachers
of philosophy and sacred theology should be warned that if they
deviate so much as a step, in metaphysics especially, from Aquinas,
they expose themselves to grave risk. We now go further and
solemnly declare that those who in their interpretations misrep­
resent or affect to despise the principles and major theses of his
philosophy are not only not following Saint Thomas, but are
even far astray from the saintly Doctor. If the doctrine of any
writer or saint has ever been approved by us or our predecessors
with such singular commendation and in such a way that to the
commendation were added an invitation and order to propagate
and defend it, it may easily be understood that it was commended
to the extent that it agrees with the principles of Aquinas or was
in no way opposed to them” (Docioris Angelici, 1914).

■

!
ΐ
ί

!

;
j

|

*
1

,
1

All this is more than enough to substantiate the condemnation by Pope Pius IX of the proposition that "the methods and
principles which have served the ancient doctors of scholasticism
when treating of theology no longer correspond with the exigencies of our time and the progress of science” (Syllabus, prop. 13).

j
|
I

36 - INTEGRITY

i

i

]

The answer to the problem of adaptation, therefore, must in the
mind of the Church be found within the framework of Thomism.

Saint Thomas and the Fathers
It goes without saying, then, that a return to the writings of
the Fathers is not the answer. Indeed, if their teachings have to
a large extent been purified and evaluated by later theologians,
why should anyone want to reject an obvious advancement of
theological thought? For the Fathers had many confused notions
and even contradictory teachings on numerous points of sacred
doctrine, and some points which are important to us today, they
did not discuss at all. This does not mean that there is no place
in. the Church for studies of Patristic literature or that we should
not emulate the zeal and apostolicity of the Fathers, but if there
has been an evolution of dogma, as the modern reformers main­
tain, why surrender the flower of theology for its seed?
Saint Thomas knew the Fathers well and it was unavoidable
that he should have found much help in their writings, above all
in Saint Augustine, Saint John Damascene, and Pseudo-Dionysius.
Nor did he overlook the Greek, the Jewish, and the Arabian
philosophers. All get a hearing and a judgment. For Aquinas
saw all too clearly that theology, as queen of the sciences, must
absorb something from other disciplines and at the same time
judge only according to standards of objective truth rather than
the authority of the one writing. The authority on which theology
rests is not the theology of any Doctor or Father but the authority
of God revealing and the Church proposing for belief.

Theology is a Science
Theology, therefore, is not revelation as such; it clarifies and
develops revealed truth. The unity of theology and its immutability
flow from the principles on which it rests and the very nature of
the human mind in its search for truth. Theology begins with
revealed truth and whatever is logically deduced from the content
of revelation must likewise be true, not for just a generation or
epoch but always. Man’s goal in life is ever the same and the
basic means to reach that goal can never change. Consequently
what is the essence of Christian doctrine and practice in one age
cannot be something different in the next. The clothing may
be changed, it is true, but the theological body of doctrine remains
essentially the same.
At this point we meet the controversy over the distinction
between theology as a science and the theology of the preacher; in
other words, the difference between speculative theology and
INTEGRITY - 37

practical or applied theology. Though it remains substantially
the same sacred truth, the theology which is studied as a science
by the seminarian differs greatly from the theology which is ap­
plied to the art of Christian living from the pulpit or in the
popularized written version. And it is this latter form, the applied
theology, which must have the greatest flexibility and adaptability,
for it is this theology which seeks to make direct contact with the
.faithful.

Philosophy and Revelation
Yet even in regard to speculative theology or theology as a
science one should clearly understand the role of philosophical
reasoning in the deduction of conclusions from revealed truth.
The philosophical premises used in the theological arguments are
so elevated by virtue of the revealed principle to which they are
annexed that they are no longer purely human products but they
become the handmaids of a divine science. To say otherwise
would be to admit four terms in the argument and thus close off
all possibility of a logical conclusion. If, as some moderns main­
tain, sacred truth is merely the instrument of man’s knowledge,
and this to the extent that the divine is absorbed by the human,
then the supernatural element of revealed truth is annihilated,
faith is destroyed, and sacred doctrine is debased to the level of
purely human science. A destruction of the very thing which the
moderns set out to save! But if theology is a divine science and
true wisdom, then the revealed truth in any theological argument
must necessarily be the active principle while the philosophical
premise is nothing more than an instrument and handmaid.
The Thomist’s position is that the divine truth sheds its
light on the philosophical premise in such a way that the latter
borrows the certitude of the revealed truth. It is nothing more
than an extension of the statement of Aquinas himself that
theology is the study of God and of all things else in their relation
to God. It is this God’s-eye view of things that runs through all
Thomistic theology. But the moderns would look at the same
reality from man’s point of view and hence it is inevitable that
they should manifest the tendency to fit God very neatly into their
own rational categories and make of religion and theology a purely
human phenomenon which changes with succeeding generations.
Then the revealed word of God, instead of being the foundation
and higher light for theology, becomes the instrument and tool
of the human intellect and man himself becomes the sole criterion
of religious truth.
38 - INTEGRITY

Theological Evolution
Here again it is evident that the modern reformers destroy
the very possibility of theological evolution, though they claim
to be its staunchest defenders. The essential pre-requisite to any
kind of evolution is unity because things which are specifically
different cannot evolve; they can only increase by addition. But
if the transformation of theology is intrinsic, then the very unity
of theology is destroyed and theology itself becomes a loosely
connected series of religious conclusions resting on nothing more
stable than a man’s religious feeling and the transitory milieu of
a particular generation. If, on the other hand, the theological
transformation touches only the accidental modifications of that
science, such as terminology, method, and application, then there
can be no argument with the moderns.
Only with these distinctions in mind can one subscribe to
the statement of one of the reformers that a theology that is not
actual is a false theology. Theology, resting as it does on the
revealed word of God, is perennial and manifests a marvelous
unity in spite of its growth; indeed, it grows precisely because of
its unity. It can never, therefore, be considered antiquated or
outmoded; much less, an enclosed system of thought. It is the
pulsating and vitalizing word of God dwelling among us. As the
Vatican Council declared: "Let intelligence and science and wis­
dom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously
in individuals and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole
Church, throughout the ages and the centuries—but only in its
kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the
same acceptation" (Dei Filius, cap. iv).

The Duty of Thomists
But while Thomists rejoice in the renewed papal approba­
tion of the doctrine of Aquinas, they should at the same time
realize keenly the charge that is laid upon them to make this doc­
trine coefficient with our times. Sacred doctrine should be studied
for the sake of truth itself and the good of souls and not for any
love of a system as such. Saint Thomas certainly would not want
anyone to study his works just for themselves, as one would study
history or literature. They were meant to be maps or guides along
the road to God and although their immediate purpose was to
train theologians, no theologian should ever forget the true end
of his knowledge.
If Thomism is considered outmoded and even despicable by
many moderns the fault lies not with Thomism but with certain
Thomists. How many of them are mere sounding-boards, knowintegrity - 39

έ
.
I
;

I
;[
i I
I

ing only what is in Saint Thomas and ignoring everything else.
Their maxim seems to be that if a thing isn’t in the writings of
Saint Thomas, it isn’t true or at least it’s not important. Others,
like trapeze artists in a circus, are so enthralled with syllogisms
and method that they seek to astound rather than teach. Still
others lose themselves in the transcendent order of speculative
principles and seem never for a moment to realize that modern
man is hungering for the bread of truth and groping for a lamp
to light his path. If it takes the threat of relativism and subjec­
tivism to awaken such Thomists from their lethargy, then this
over-zealous and erroneous tendency has been a blessing in disguise.

The Continuation of Saint Thomas
Let us admit once and for all that Aquinas did not say the
last word on everything and that there are numerous things which
he did not even consider at all. Let us ask ourselves what the
Angelic Doctor would do if he were sitting in the professor’s chair
of any large university today. We know from what he did in
I
the thirteenth century what his mode of action would be in the
twentieth. We know from his prologue to the Summa. Theologica
:
that he would seek to avoid the subtleties of certain other teachers
and proceed according to the order of discipline. He would also
study and know thoroughly the modern philosophies, from
!
Descartes through Kant to Dewey and Sartre; he would be abreast
i
of all the tendencies and developments in the various intellectual
!
circles; above all, he would realize profoundly the needs and fears
J
and perplexities of our modern man. He would accept the proved
j
findings of the physical sciences, as he accepted the science of his
!
own day; he would take from Freud or Russell whatever of truth
is in their writings and would profit from their particular view'
point concerning reality. Then, evaluating all, he would make
l·!
precise judgments as truth requires. Should modern Thomists
iI
do less?
P
If Thomism is truth it is also perennial, and if it is perennial
I!
it must be vital, not static. Its very vitality makes it adaptable and
■
subject to growth through evolution. The Church insists on this
''i
adaptation, but always within the framework of the traditionally
Isafe lines of thought. What is needed, then, is not the rejection
of Thomism, not even its popularization, but a prolongation and
I
deeper penetration. In other words, Thomism must be applied to
the needs and problems of today’s children either by an adaptation
and application of Thomistic doctrine already formulated and
’1
j È

1

40 - INTEGRITY

perfected or by further deductions from Thomistic principles in
the various fields of thought as yet uncharted.
If Thomists accept the challenge we can almost certainly
expect great advances in the various branches of experimental
psychology, esthetics, apologetics, Mariology and Christo logy, and
spiritual theology. Each of these branches of learning presents
its own special problems which beckon to the sincere and competent Thomist. The words of Pope Pius X { Jucunda Sane) should
serve as both a challenge and an encouragement to any worthy
Thomist:

The times are indeed greatly changed. But, as we
have more than once repeated, nothing is changed in
the life of the Church. From her divine Founder she
has inherited the virtue of being able to .supply at all
times, however much they may differ, all that is required
not only for the spiritual welfare of souls, which is the
direct object of her mission, but also everything that aids
progress in true civilization, for this flows as a natural
consequence of that same mission.
Truths of the supernatural order, of which the
Church is the depository, necessarily promote everything
that is true, good and beautiful in the order of nature,
and this is accomplished most efficaciously in the
measure that these truths are traced to the supreme prin­
ciple of truth, goodness and beauty, which is God.

Human science gains greatly from revelation, for
the latter opens new horizons and more readily makes
known other truths of the natural order. It opens the
true road to investigation and preserves it from errors of
application and of method. Thus does the lighthouse
manifest many things which otherwise would not be
seen, while it points out the rocks on which the vessel
would suffer shipwreck.
Finally the arts, modelled on the supreme exem­
plar of all beauty, which is God Himself, from whom
is derived all the beauty that is to be found in nature,
are more securely withdrawn from vulgar concepts and
more efficaciously uplifted towards the ideal, which is
the life of all art.
Jordan Aumann, O.P.
INTEGRITY - 41