Amid all the positive excitement within Roman Catholic circles about the renewal of the church, a surprising element of fear is also showing its head, fear lest renewal also bring forth a revival of modernism. The fear of a new modernism is present not only in the very conservative groups but also among the so-called progressives. These progressives, though they take their stand right in the middle of the present renewal movement, are eager to warn against excesses and dangerous tendencies.
The old modernism of the turn of the century is now coming in for review again. At that time, Rome very sharply exercised itself against modernism. Pius X issued an encyclical in 1907 (Pascendi dominici gregis) that denounced modernism as the most dangerous enemy the church had. The roots of this modernism lay, said Pius, in human pride, in lust for novelty, and (N.B.) in ignorance of scholasticism. Modernism was badly infected with agnosticism, atheism, and immanentism. It implicitly or explicitly rejected the infallible teaching authority of the church and undermined the unchangeability of dogma.
When Pius’s encyclical failed to achieve the desired results, he saw to it that opposition to modernism was expressed even more sharply. All who had places of leadership (especially those who taught) had to subject themselves unconditionally to the authority and teaching of the church. With this, the unrest created by modernism seemed to be stilled. Catholicism and modernism were declared to be unreconcilable. The church did not reject science, but it did draw a sharp line of church authority that it forbade science to cross.
As we look back on the conflict centering around modernism in the Catholic Church (see the extensive study by Emile Poulat, Histoire, dogme et critique dans la crise moderniste), we are inclined to wonder whether we can ever expect modernism to rise within it again.
Catholics have often said that the Roman reaction to modernism in the early years of this century was understandable and, in that situation, justifiable. But they add that many problems and questions remained unanswered at that time, and that if these problems are put on the agenda again today their presence does not mean a resurgence of modernism. Rather, the church must accept the task of dealing with them in honest recognition of their validity (as, for example, the question of evolution and other problems of natural science). While it may not have been possible to come to grips with them in the past, it is not possible to avoid them now.
Thus, it is said, we need not return to the anti-modernistic spirit of the early conflict, nor need we accept modernism to see that we must accept the legitimacy of many of the problems it raised. J. Ratzinger sees a bit of reactionary anti-modernism in the 1950 encyclical Humani Generis. But now, he says, the way is open to face the new problems with a sense of responsibility, and without fear, and so to protect the church from the unfruitfulness of isolation.
Now, it is clear that the old modernism of the century’s beginning was also much concerned with “new problems.” There were the problems of natural science and biblical science, for example. The Roman church, with a critical view to these problems, instituted the Biblical Commission in 1902, which issued a great many pronouncements about various problems. But these pronouncements give few answers that Catholic biblical scholars now find acceptable. Many problems remain unanswered as far as today’s scholars are concerned.
This is why it is important to note what John’s aggiornamento means in today’s theology. A new dogmatics of the new theology has just been published in which the renewal of the church can be studied (Mysterium Salutis, I, which has 1,034 pages and is only the first of five volumes). From this volume it is clear that there is no intention in the new theology of being trapped by modernism. But it is just as clear that this theology is truly open to all the new questions involved in the biblical sciences.
In this area of biblical sciences, Pius XII is pointed to as the pope who opened the gates to new paths. Since Pius XII, however, new problems raised by the literary genre of Scripture, form criticism, and the history of traditions have appeared on the table. That openness to such matters has created some tension is not surprising. But in the tensions, it is very important for proponents of the new theology—as well as their critics—to realize that openness to the questions is not a relapse into modernism.
In my own opinion, the position of the new theology on the question of modernism must be clear and definite. There are almost countless questions, questions that are namebranded by such familiar people as Tillich, Bultmann, Robinson, and Van Buren. These questions are directly connected with one’s attitude toward the biblical message.
In the Roman church, answering such questions in the manner of modernism is impossible; a new day has brought new ways of looking at old problems and at new problems, too. But if the answers given by the old modernism are excluded, what answers must be given? The question is urgent and radical, because the authority of the church and the infallibility of dogma cannot be seriously brought into today’s answers. One can ask, indeed: Does a binding authority like that exercised in 1907 have any room for genuine answers to new problems?
All Roman Catholic theologians answer this question affirmatively. In the development of present-day Roman theology—a development that has all sorts of parallels in Protestant theology—it is wholly clear that all who seek to deal with new problems must be bound to the Gospel of him who is the same yesterday, today, and forever. But it is also clear that anyone bound to that Gospel need have no fear of questions arising from the progress of science. Faith and fear are mutually exclusive.
We must not be superficial, however, nor come to hasty conclusions. Above all, we must take care that in our wrestling with problems, the clear sound of the Gospel is not muffled. The questions of our time are too deep and radical to allow for any shadowing of the unquestionable Gospel.
