i

H

292

Μ

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

about God’s being present everywhere, the temptation is to speak
of God’s ubiquity.

*
;
ί
4
{
!
J
I
'■i
ÿ
>
!

Yes, that is the challenge to the priest-speaker. He must use
all the knowledge and learning at his command, but he must keep
it simple and accurate and to-the-point.
He must be prepared to limit his talk almost in a strait-jacket so
far as time is concerned. Radio is the most time-conscious medium
in the world. It works on split seconds. Five minutes overtime
on the pulpit doesn’t mean too much. On the radio it can blow
up the whole program and, if it is a network program, the show
can be “clipped” before the end. Many of the famous comedians
on the air have had this happen to them in recent months. It can
happen to anybody. The person to whom it happens never likes it,
but unfortunately, that is the way the medium acts.

'

·
;
,

■
i

:

*
■>

'h

£

■,- v-:
>5
.·£·

s
;
;
;
i

?

>
Ί
f;
«
J

Λ
’4,
7
|
ζί

ί

ÿ-, ■;■■■
:
·

.

.

;

. And yet the priest has the greatest sources of inspiration at his
beck and call. We referred to the Breviary a few moments ago.
Think of how many pithy sayings there are in the Lessons of
Matins—excerpts from St. Augustine, for instance. Any one of
them could be the spring-board for a strikingly different radio talk.

The great spiritual writers, the lives of the saints, the many
books of meditation that the priest uses abound in inspirational
ideas. His very life is glamorous; for it is he who visits the sick
and sees the dying into eternity ; he is the kind physician who heals
troubled souls in confession; it is he who stands outside the joys
of marriage and yet is the wise counselor for countless marriage
problems.
His background and training fit him, then, to be truly a father
to his radio audience, but his message must be couched in terms
the audience will understand, and he must project his personality
with all its force for spiritual good to his listeners. But this he must
do not only as a priest, but as one wise in the ways of radio.

(To be continued)

;

William C. Smith

?

J

h
.

The National Council of Catholic Men,
Washington, D. C.

Mt

TWO CURRENTS IN CONTEMPORARY
CATHOLIC THOUGHT
In his lenten pastoral for 1947, published in this country as
Growth or Decline f The Church Today,1 the venerable Cardinal
Archbishop of Paris has focussed the attention of Catholics through­
out of the world on the existence of two distinct and in some ways
even divergent viewpoints within the Church today. Bishop Wright
brought this same situation even more forcefully to the notice of
American priests by his brilliant appreciation of Cardinal Suhard’s
book in last month’s issue of The American Ecclesiastical Review.2
The question to which these divergent answers have been given is
tremendously important. The fact that there are two opposite
responses to this question is no less important.
The two distinct viewpoints described in Cardinal Suhard’s
pastoral are alternative resolutions of a problem presented to Cath­
olics of our age. The two viewpoints are built around diverse
opinions about the manner in which the Church as a whole and
Catholics as individuals ought to react to what we may call the
challenge of the new civilization. The technical and scientific prog­
ress of the last century, and particularly of the last two decades,
has been such as to give a world-wide extension to certain atti­
tudes quite out of harmony with the traditional Catholic mentality.
Cardinal Suhard believes that one group of Catholics urges a pre­
dominantly “defensive" attitude with reference to the contemporary
world-civilization. The other group is represented as seeking rather
to “permeate” the world so as to bring about a new culture along
Catholic lines. These men are convinced that the definitive modern
mentality is now only in an emergent status, and that the completed
product can be made a Catholic thing if sufficient Catholic contribu­
tion is brought into its making.
Cardinal Suhard insists that the basic problem demands a recog­
nition of two distinct characteristics of the Catholic Church. This
society is at once transcendent and human, superior to the vicis­
situdes of history and of human activity, yet bearing the marks of
history upon itself. As the kingdom of Jesus Christ on earth, the
Church is an infallible and indefectible reality. No created agency
will or can destroy it or make it cease to be the assembly of the

;

’The book was published this year by the Fides Publishers of South
Bend and Montreal.

..‘ΐ'^ί·ΐί
:’i
; -

2Pp. 229 ff.
293

f·?-.·:.
^>'·χ··:ΐ·.<ί,·

·, 1
I
1

·

—

·

294

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

living God. But, because it is a living society of living men, this
same Church manifests within itself certain definite characteristics
which can be traced to individual civilizations and even to individual
men.
The Cardinal warns his flock against two errors, both of which
must be avoided if the problems of the present day are successfully
to be solved. The first is the error of modernism, the second oi
“integralism.” The true Catholic response to the problem of the
day will avoid both of these tendencies. It will be the work, not of
any one individual, but of the corps of Catholic scholars and workers
in the apostolate. By reason of this synthesis, the Church will
come to permeate every department of human life.
Taking cognizance of the two viewpoints, the Cardinal Arch­
bishop of Paris deplores the resultant division among Catholics.
The discussion itself is a good thing, since it manifests the interest
of Our Lord’s disciples in His Church. Nevertheless, the mutual
opposition of the proponents of the two viewpoints can tend to pro­
long itself, and thus to constitute a scandal and a hindrance to the
Church itself.
Cardinal Suhard’s pastoral was addressed to the faithful of his
own archidocese. Hence he describes primarily the conditions and
the opinions existent among his people. But, as Bishop Wright has
pointed out, approximately the same conditions and precisely the
same two viewpoints are to be found among our American Catholics
today.
These two tendencies or attitudes are by no means new, even
though certain individual problems may be peculiar to our own cen­
tury. Fr. Edgar Hocedez, S.J., in his brilliant Histoire de la
théologie au XIX' siècle, points to a conflict between the forces
of conservatism and those of a progressive tendency as one of the
outstanding characteristics of Catholic thought during the reign
of Pope Leo XIII.3 Those who are familiar with the literature of
that period, as well as with the writings of the earlier portion of the
nineteenth century, will have no difficulty in recognizing the two
tendencies now manifest in American Catholic thought as the
developments of attitudes which had come into existence during the
previous century.
3 The third volume of this work, that which deals with the reign of Pope
Leo XIII, was published last year by L’Edition Universelle at Brussells
and by Desclée De Brouwer at Paris.

CURRENTS IN CONTEMPORARY CATHOLIC THOUGHT 295

Since these two viewpoints are existent among us, and since
the division so deplored by Cardinal Suhard can affect American
Catholicism, it is certainly the business of our people to under­
stand these two attitudes as clearly as possible. We must try to see
if either of the two attitudes is wrong in itself, whether either or
both can be abused, and whether there is any particular danger to
be noted in the implications of either. The answers to these ques­
tions are very important and not too difficult to obtain.
In the first place, it is clear that neither of these tendencies or
viewpoints, as it exists in itself, is objectively reprehensible.
Neither militates directly against fidelity to Our Lord, to His
Church, and to His teachings. The first attitude, the one usually
designated as “conservative,” centers around a zeal for Catholic
orthodoxy. The men and the writings that embody this viewpoint
act primarily to preserve the accurate presentation of divine revela­
tion in current teaching by members of the true Church. They enter
into polemic only in order to indicate and reprove what they regard
as incorrect or misleading expositions of the Catholic message.
Certainly there is nothing in any way objectionable in this
purpose, and nothing reprehensible in the attitude governed by it.
In itself, an inaccurate presentation of the divine message is one of
the most lamentable evils in the world. It is an evil thing to hand
out, as the authentic teaching of Jesus Christ in the Catholic Church,
some body of doctrine which is in reality only a perversion or a
mutiliated form of that teaching. The school of Catholic writers
which sets itself against this evil is manifestly worthy of commenda­
tion.
But, on the other hand, the “progressive” viewpiont in modern
Catholic writing is likewise blameless in itself. It is certainly the
business of the Church and the responsibility of Catholics as indi­
viduals to see to it that the truth of Jesus Christ is presented to man­
kind as effectively as possible. Catholics would be recreant to their
duty, were they to allow any disaffection for what are termed
modern methods of learning or the modem findings of true science
to stand in the way of an active and efficacious manifestation of
Catholic truth to the world. It is surely the business of the Catho­
lic to strive to influence as many people as possible to love and to
be guided by the truth of Jesus Christ.
Basically, that is the purpose underlying tbe “progressive” view­
point among loyal and intelligent Catholics. This attitude reacts

k ■'

I

-,
B - ’* ,
I ’■ "
F i *
r/
g

'' · S

296

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

against a slipshod presentation of Our Lord’s message. It is op­
posed to the substitution of apocryphal, albeit “pious,” stories, and
accounts of private revelations, for the content of Catholic dogma
in the works of some Catholic publicists. It insists upon the best
possible presentation of Our Lord’s teaching to the men and women
He died to save. Essentially, then, this “progressive” attitude is a
good thing. In itself, it does not call for any polemic against the
men of “conservative” tendency. Indeed, for proper Catholic writ­
ing and preaching in our own day, both of these viewpoints are
equally necessary.
Cardinal Suhard’s pastoral speaks of the viewpoint opposed to
that of the progressives as “defensive” in character. We must
remember that this attitude, however, involves no lack of zeal for
the propagation of the faith. Actually the desire to preserve the
purity of the Catholic faith in all of its integrity and perfection in
no way militates against a zeal for Catholic missionary activity.
Quite the opposite is the case. Catholic dogma describes the
Church as an organization which by its very nature, by reasons of
its very principle of unity and being, necessarily seeks to bring
new members into its fold in order to unite them with God. An
aloofness from the world, in the sense of a lack of anxiety to spread
the kingdom of Christ upon earth, is in no way characteristic of
the men whose attitude in the religious discussions of the day is
motivated primarily by a zeal for orthodoxy.
There is such a thing as a religious attitude which seems to aban­
don any concern for the welfare of the general mass of mankind.
We see this attitude set forth in the manifesto of the “Church of
Jesus Christ (Cutierites),” one of the smaller Mormon subdivisions.
The report of this group, printed in the account of the religious
census for 1936, state that “Missionaries were not necessary as
the gentiles had already rejected the Gospel and, when the Gospel
goes to the world again, it will go to the Jews to the convincing of
nations.” 4 Obviously this attitude has nothing whatsoever in com­
mon with the viewpoint of any Catholic group. Yet, unfortunately,
all too many descriptions of the “conservative” viewpoint in docu­
ments of a “progressive” provenance seem to imply that the Catho­
lic who is primarily interested in orthodoxy has adopted an attitude
quite similar to that of the Cutierites.
4In Religious Bodies: 1936 (Washington: Government Printing Office.
1941), II, 835.

CURRENTS IN CONTEMPORARY CATHOLIC THOUGHT 297

But, we must not forget that both the “conservative” and the
“progressive” attitudes can be twisted and rendered dangerous to
the intellectual well-being of our Catholics today. Cardinal Suhard
speaks of Modernism and integralism as two dangers which we
must avoid if we are to bring about an accurate and effective pre­
sentation of Catholic truth to the modem world. The first is
definitely an abuse or corruption of the “progressive” viewpoint.
The second is described as an undesirable development of the “con­
servative” attitude.
An incautious reader of Cardinal Suhard’s pastoral might pos­
sibly come to the dangerously false conclusion that Modernism
and integralism, as we know them, are two contrary false doctrines,
the one, as it were, to the left, and the other to the right, of genuine
Catholic teaching. Nothing, of course, could be farther from the
truth. Modernism, in the technical language of Catholic doctrine, is
the name applied to the definite series of errors condemned in the
decree Lamentabili sane exitu, in the encyclical Pascendi dominici
gregis, and in the motu proprio, Sacrorum antistitum. Pope Pius
X spoke of Modernism as “a conglomeration of all the heresies.” s
Integralism, on the other hand, is essentially the teaching or the
attitude of those who worked for the presentation of an integral
Catholicism, of Catholic dogma set forth accurately and in its
entirety. Most frequently the name of integralism was applied to the
doctrine and the viewpoint of those Catholic writers who entered
into controversy against the Modernists during the first decade of
the present century. Understood in this fashion, integralism was
nothing else than the contradiction of heretical Modernism. It was
thus basically only the exposition of Catholic truth.
When we see that integralism is set off with Modernism in
Cardinal Suhard’s pastoral letter as a position to be avoided by
Catholics, we must not forget that there were certain happenings
of a primarily national interest in France which have motivated
this terminology. Some of the French writers who had been most
active in their opposition to the Modernist errors were themselves
ultra-conservative in the field of politics. Many of these men were
implicated in or connected with a definite royalist movement. Since
some of these specifically political views were unfortunate, the men
5 In the Pascendi, π. 39. Ci. Codicis turis canonici fontes (Vatican
City: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1933), III, 713.

■h

298

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

who supported them brought a certain amount of discredit upon
their doctrinal attitudes, and caused the name of integralism to be
stretched to cover fields quite distinct from that which it originally
served to designate.
Nevertheless, we must not forget the fact that Modernism, as
such, is a definite heresy or collection of heretical teachings, while
integralism, as such, is nothing of the sort. The true Catholic teach­
ing is not going to be found at any half-way point between the
teachings of such as Tyrrell and Loisy and the doctrines of the
Catholic authors who opposed them. In opposing the dicta con­
demned in the Lamentabili, the Pascendi, and the Sacrorum antis­
tum, the great Catholic authors of a generation ago were perfectly
justified. If, as is usual in our own country, the name of integralism
is applied to this specifically anti-Modemistic teaching, then integ­
ralism is nothing more than a statement of Catholic truth, implied
in a denial of errors which are incompatible with the divine message
of the Catholic Church.
This does not mean, of course, that every theory advanced by
the great opponents of Modernism during the first decade of our
century has to be accepted as Catholic doctrine. Still less does it
imply that any of these individual positive opinions could rightly be
termed as belonging to the essence of integralism. The men who
recognized and denounced the false teachings current in certain
quarters around the turn of the century differed rather sharply
from one another on individual theological conclusions. The points
on which they differed, and on which the men of their time might
legitimately differ, did not constitute the reality which the Modern­
ists at least knew as integralism. The work of the integralists as a
group was the unmasking and the destruction of the Modernist
heresy. It is this common work, and no other, which was and which
still is rightly and commonly designated as integralism.
For our own country, then, it is at best confusing to indicate
integralism as a danger which Catholic publicists must avoid if they
are to present an active and effective statement of divine revelation
to the world which needs this teaching so badly. Modernism very
definitely is a danger. It is a pitfall into which a careless man might
stumble if he were so concerned for the “progressive” viewpoint,
so anxious to present the Catholic Church effectively to the world,
that he had come to forget the essential constituents of Catholic
dogma. Integralism, as such, is not a pitfail at all. Quite another

CURRENTS IN CONTEMPORARY CATHOLIC THOUGHT 299

thing is the danger that threatens a conservative writer, zealous
for the integral preservation of the Catholic faith, yet careless about
the effectiveness of his own presentation of the Catholic message.
The danger from this quarter is that of writing or preaching the
divine and supremely vital message of the Church in an unintel­
ligible fashion. The men who succumb to this danger, and who thus
destroy the value of their own efforts for the Church, are content to
express themselves in what amounts to merely a somewhat crass
transliteration of Latin dogmatic or theological texts. They speak
in commonplaces which were once vital and interesting to hearers
and readers of our language, but which have become thought­
extinguishing catchwords to the men of our own time. They are in­
clined to be men of one book, alertly ready to parrot out the con­
clusions of one theological manual, without any regard for the
fact that no one seminary text can give or hope to give a complete
picture of the teachings they are privileged and commissioned to
impart to the world.
The most serious evils which threaten the intellectual lives of our
people, however, come from the abuse of the progressive view­
point rather than from a perversion of the conservative attitude.
The progressive is concerned primarily with the idea of presenting
the Catholic doctrine effectively to the people of our age. He must
always be on the alert against the temptation to modify the Catholic
teaching or to leave out some of its essential constituents so as to
make it appear more acceptable. The world, using the term in its
basic theological sense, as the congregation basically opposed to the
kingdom of God on earth, has always shown a definite hospitality
to deformations of the Catholic doctrine. The history of Modernism,
with its account of the sympathy given to the teachings of the
Modernists by those outside the fold, is only one example of this
tendency. A great deal of the Catholic Church's teaching would be
highly acceptable to the world, if it were presented other than what
it really is, the one divine and supernatural public revelation which
is necessary for all men because God Himself has raised mankind
to a supernatural destiny. The Catholic Church itself would be
quite a popular institution were it not for the fact that it insistently
proclaims itself for what it really is, the society of Christ, neces­
sary to all men for salvation.
The crass Modernism of the early days of this century does not
represent any immediate threat. The teaching condemned by Pope

p s'‘ i
f

rr
I · ,

Γ
If
L

J
} .

♦>/; .

300

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

Pius X was so manifestly a contradiction of Catholic dogma that
no one could slip into it under the impression that he was forward­
ing the welfare of the Church. But, in attempting to popularize the
presentation of Catholicism in a world impregnated with secularism,
it is possible for a well-meanig progressive to adopt the false tactics
of “adaptation” or of “minimizing.”
Because the secularist is exclusively concerned with this world,
there is always the danger that an over-zealous and under-instructed
Catholic apoligist may fall into the danger of leaving out the super­
natural and other-worldly content of Catholic teaching when he
appeals to the modern mentality. In his Testem benevolentiae, Pope
Leo XIII expresses himself strongly on the tactic of presenting the
Catholic message without including those elements which may ap­
pear to be opposed to modem tendencies.
Pope Leo’s words on this subject are of tremendous importance
to theologians of our own day. He is speaking of certain “new
opinions,” against which he deems it his duty to protest “in order
to provide for the integrity of the faith, and to guard the security
of the faithful.” e
The principles upon which the new opinions We have mentioned are
based may be reduced to this : that, in order the more easily to bring
over to Catholic doctrine those who dissent from it, the Church ought
to adapt herself somewhat to our advanced civilization, and, relaxing
her ancient rigor, show some indulgence to modern popular theories
and methods. Many think that this is to be understood, not only with
regard to the rule of life, but also to the doctrines in which the deposit
of faith is contained. For they contend that it is opportune, in order
to work in a more attractive way upon the wills of those who are not in
accord with us, to pass over certain heads of doctrines, as if of lesser
moment, or so to soften them that they may not have the same meaning
which the Church has invariably held. On that point the Vatican Council
says: “The doctrine of faith which God has revealed is not proposed
like a theory of philosophy, which is to be elaborated by the human
understanding, but as a divine deposit delivered to the Spouse of Christ
to be faithfully guarded and infallibly declared. . . . That sense of the
sacred dogmas is to be faithfully kept which Holy Mother Church has
once declared, and is not to be departed from under the specious pre­
text of a more profound reasoning.7

8 In The Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII (New York*.
Benziger Brothers, 1903), p. 442.
·· Tlfcid. .

CURRENTS IN CONTEMPORARY CATHOLIC THOUGHT 301

The “softening” of doctrine to which Pope Leo referred comes
as an inevitable consequence of the system of “minimizing.” Origin­
ally a man was supposed to “minimize” Catholic dogma legitimately
if, to avoid making undue difficulties for prospective converts or
for educated Catholics of extraordinary sensibility, he set forth
the least possible amount of dogma consistent with divine truth.
The term itself was always a source of trouble, since the preaching
of Catholic truth was never anything to be judged in terms of either
a minimum or a maximum. As the ambassadors of Christ, it is our
business to see, not how much or how little we can preach as divinely
revealed. It is our affair to see to it that our teaching is exactly and
only what Our Lord has prescribed for us in and through His
Church.
Pope Leo has given, in the Testem benevolentiae, a teaching
upon which the necessary reconciliation of the two viewpoints
mentioned in Cardinal Suhard’s pastoral must be based. He insists
upon the effective preaching of the entire Catholic message. Above
all, he stresses the fact that men must be brought to Our Lord only
in the way which He has prescribed.
Far be it, then from any one to diminish or for any reason what­
soever to pass over anything of this divinely revealed doctrine. Who­
soever would do so would rather wish to alienate Catholics from the
Church than to bring over to the Church those who dissent from it.
Let them return ; indeed nothing is dearer to Our Heart ; let all those
who are wandering far from the sheepfold of Christ return; but let it
not be by any other road than that which Christ has pointed out.8

Pope Leo spoke of one effect of false doctrine upon the Church of
Christ. He said that such teaching would tend to drive Catholics
out of the Church rather than to bring new converts into the fold.
He thus adverted to the fact that heresy, considered not merely as
a sin but as a teaching, has ever been the cause of schism, of dis­
unity in the company of Christ. The unity among Catholics which
he desired and which is the result of Christ's prayer for His Church
comes only in and through the true presentation of the divine
revelation.
Joseph Clifford Fenton
The Catholic University of America,
Washington, D. C.
8 Ibid., p. 443.