| |
 Chapter 5 : 49-63
The Magisterium's intervention in philosophical matters
CHAPTER V
THE
MAGISTERIUM'S INTERVENTIONS
IN PHILOSOPHICAL MATTERS
The Magisterium's
discernment as diakonia of the truth
49. The Church has no philosophy
of her own nor does she canonize any one particular
philosophy in preference to others.(54) The underlying
reason for this reluctance is that, even when it engages
theology, philosophy must remain faithful to its own
principles and methods. Otherwise there would be no
guarantee that it would remain oriented to truth and that
it was moving towards truth by way of a process governed
by reason. A philosophy which did not proceed in the
light of reason according to its own principles and
methods would serve little purpose. At the deepest level,
the autonomy which philosophy enjoys is rooted in the
fact that reason is by its nature oriented to truth and
is equipped moreover with the means necessary to arrive
at truth. A philosophy conscious of this as its
“constitutive status” cannot but respect the
demands and the data of revealed truth.
Yet history shows that
philosophy—especially modern philosophy—has
taken wrong turns and fallen into error. It is neither
the task nor the competence of the Magisterium to
intervene in order to make good the lacunas of deficient
philosophical discourse. Rather, it is the Magisterium's
duty to respond clearly and strongly when controversial
philosophical opinions threaten right understanding of
what has been revealed, and when false and partial
theories which sow the seed of serious error, confusing
the pure and simple faith of the People of God, begin to
spread more widely.
50. In the light of faith,
therefore, the Church's Magisterium can and must
authoritatively exercise a critical discernment of
opinions and philosophies which contradict Christian
doctrine.(55) It is the task of the Magisterium in the
first place to indicate which philosophical
presuppositions and conclusions are incompatible with
revealed truth, thus articulating the demands which
faith's point of view makes of philosophy. Moreover, as
philosophical learning has developed, different schools
of thought have emerged. This pluralism also imposes upon
the Magisterium the responsibility of expressing a
judgement as to whether or not the basic tenets of these
different schools are compatible with the demands of the
word of God and theological enquiry.
It is the Church's duty to
indicate the elements in a philosophical system which are
incompatible with her own faith. In fact, many
philosophical opinions—concerning God, the human
being, human freedom and ethical behaviour— engage
the Church directly, because they touch on the revealed
truth of which she is the guardian. In making this
discernment, we Bishops have the duty to be
“witnesses to the truth”, fulfilling a humble
but tenacious ministry of service which every philosopher
should appreciate, a service in favour of recta ratio,
or of reason reflecting rightly upon what is true.
51. This discernment, however,
should not be seen as primarily negative, as if the
Magisterium intended to abolish or limit any possible
mediation. On the contrary, the Magisterium's
interventions are intended above all to prompt, promote
and encourage philosophical enquiry. Besides,
philosophers are the first to understand the need for
self-criticism, the correction of errors and the
extension of the too restricted terms in which their
thinking has been framed. In particular, it is necessary
to keep in mind the unity of truth, even if its
formulations are shaped by history and produced by human
reason wounded and weakened by sin. This is why no
historical form of philosophy can legitimately claim to
embrace the totality of truth, nor to be the complete
explanation of the human being, of the world and of the
human being's relationship with God.
Today, then, with the
proliferation of systems, methods, concepts and
philosophical theses which are often extremely complex,
the need for a critical discernment in the light of faith
becomes more urgent, even if it remains a daunting task.
Given all of reason's inherent and historical
limitations, it is difficult enough to recognize the
inalienable powers proper to it; but it is still more
difficult at times to discern in specific philosophical
claims what is valid and fruitful from faith's point of
view and what is mistaken or dangerous. Yet the Church
knows that “the treasures of wisdom and
knowledge” are hidden in Christ (Col 2:3) and
therefore intervenes in order to stimulate philosophical
enquiry, lest it stray from the path which leads to
recognition of the mystery.
52. It is not only in recent
times that the Magisterium of the Church has intervened
to make its mind known with regard to particular
philosophical teachings. It is enough to recall, by way
of example, the pronouncements made through the centuries
concerning theories which argued in favour of the
pre-existence of the soul,(56) or concerning the
different forms of idolatry and esoteric superstition
found in astrological speculations,(57) without
forgetting the more systematic pronouncements against
certain claims of Latin Averroism which were incompatible
with the Christian faith.(58)
If the Magisterium has spoken
out more frequently since the middle of the last century,
it is because in that period not a few Catholics felt it
their duty to counter various streams of modern thought
with a philosophy of their own. At this point, the
Magisterium of the Church was obliged to be vigilant lest
these philosophies developed in ways which were
themselves erroneous and negative. The censures were
delivered even-handedly: on the one hand, fideism
(59) and radical traditionalism,(60) for their
distrust of reason's natural capacities, and, on the
other, rationalism (61) and ontologism (62)
because they attributed to natural reason a knowledge
which only the light of faith could confer. The positive
elements of this debate were assembled in the Dogmatic
Constitution Dei Filius, in which for the first
time an Ecumenical Council—in this case, the First
Vatican Council—pronounced solemnly on the
relationship between reason and faith. The teaching
contained in this document strongly and positively marked
the philosophical research of many believers and remains
today a standard reference-point for correct and coherent
Christian thinking in this regard.
53. The Magisterium's
pronouncements have been concerned less with individual
philosophical theses than with the need for rational and
hence ultimately philosophical knowledge for the
understanding of faith. In synthesizing and solemnly
reaffirming the teachings constantly proposed to the
faithful by the ordinary Papal Magisterium, the First
Vatican Council showed how inseparable and at the same
time how distinct were faith and reason, Revelation and
natural knowledge of God. The Council began with the
basic criterion, presupposed by Revelation itself, of the
natural knowability of the existence of God, the
beginning and end of all things,(63) and concluded with
the solemn assertion quoted earlier: “There are two
orders of knowledge, distinct not only in their point of
departure, but also in their object”.(64) Against
all forms of rationalism, then, there was a need to
affirm the distinction between the mysteries of faith and
the findings of philosophy, and the transcendence and
precedence of the mysteries of faith over the findings of
philosophy. Against the temptations of fideism, however,
it was necessary to stress the unity of truth and thus
the positive contribution which rational knowledge can
and must make to faith's knowledge: “Even if faith
is superior to reason there can never be a true
divergence between faith and reason, since the same God
who reveals the mysteries and bestows the gift of faith
has also placed in the human spirit the light of reason.
This God could not deny himself, nor could the truth ever
contradict the truth”.(65)
54. In our own century too the
Magisterium has revisited the theme on a number of
occasions, warning against the lure of rationalism. Here
the pronouncements of Pope Saint Pius X are pertinent,
stressing as they did that at the basis of Modernism were
philosophical claims which were phenomenist, agnostic and
immanentist.(66) Nor can the importance of the Catholic
rejection of Marxist philosophy and atheistic Communism
be forgotten.(67)
Later, in his Encyclical Letter Humani
Generis, Pope Pius XII warned against mistaken
interpretations linked to evolutionism, existentialism
and historicism. He made it clear that these theories had
not been proposed and developed by theologians, but had
their origins “outside the sheepfold of
Christ”.(68) He added, however, that errors of this
kind should not simply be rejected but should be examined
critically: “Catholic theologians and philosophers,
whose grave duty it is to defend natural and supernatural
truth and instill it in human hearts, cannot afford to
ignore these more or less erroneous opinions. Rather they
must come to understand these theories well, not only
because diseases are properly treated only if rightly
diagnosed and because even in these false theories some
truth is found at times, but because in the end these
theories provoke a more discriminating discussion and
evaluation of philosophical and theological
truths”.(69)
In accomplishing its specific
task in service of the Roman Pontiff's universal
Magisterium,(70) the Congregation for the Doctrine of
Faith has more recently had to intervene to re-emphasize
the danger of an uncritical adoption by some liberation
theologians of opinions and methods drawn from
Marxism.(71)
In the past, then, the
Magisterium has on different occasions and in different
ways offered its discernment in philosophical matters. My
revered Predecessors have thus made an invaluable
contribution which must not be forgotten.
55. Surveying the situation
today, we see that the problems of other times have
returned, but in a new key. It is no longer a matter of
questions of interest only to certain individuals and
groups, but convictions so widespread that they have
become to some extent the common mind. An example of this
is the deep-seated distrust of reason which has surfaced
in the most recent developments of much of philosophical
research, to the point where there is talk at times of
“the end of metaphysics”. Philosophy is
expected to rest content with more modest tasks such as
the simple interpretation of facts or an enquiry into
restricted fields of human knowing or its structures.
In theology too the temptations
of other times have reappeared. In some contemporary
theologies, for instance, a certain rationalism is
gaining ground, especially when opinions thought to be
philosophically well founded are taken as normative for
theological research. This happens particularly when
theologians, through lack of philosophical competence,
allow themselves to be swayed uncritically by assertions
which have become part of current parlance and culture
but which are poorly grounded in reason.(72)
There are also signs of a
resurgence of fideism, which fails to recognize
the importance of rational knowledge and philosophical
discourse for the understanding of faith, indeed for the
very possibility of belief in God. One currently
widespread symptom of this fideistic tendency is a
“biblicism” which tends to make the reading and
exegesis of Sacred Scripture the sole criterion of truth.
In consequence, the word of God is identified with Sacred
Scripture alone, thus eliminating the doctrine of the
Church which the Second Vatican Council stressed quite
specifically. Having recalled that the word of God is
present in both Scripture and Tradition,(73) the
Constitution Dei Verbum continues emphatically:
“Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture comprise a
single sacred deposit of the word of God entrusted to the
Church. Embracing this deposit and united with their
pastors, the People of God remain always faithful to the
teaching of the Apostles”.(74) Scripture, therefore,
is not the Church's sole point of reference. The
“supreme rule of her faith” (75) derives from
the unity which the Spirit has created between Sacred
Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the
Church in a reciprocity which means that none of the
three can survive without the others.(76)
Moreover, one should not
underestimate the danger inherent in seeking to derive
the truth of Sacred Scripture from the use of one method
alone, ignoring the need for a more comprehensive
exegesis which enables the exegete, together with the
whole Church, to arrive at the full sense of the texts.
Those who devote themselves to the study of Sacred
Scripture should always remember that the various
hermeneutical approaches have their own philosophical
underpinnings, which need to be carefully evaluated
before they are applied to the sacred texts.
Other modes of latent fideism
appear in the scant consideration accorded to speculative
theology, and in disdain for the classical philosophy
from which the terms of both the understanding of faith
and the actual formulation of dogma have been drawn. My
revered Predecessor Pope Pius XII warned against such
neglect of the philosophical tradition and against
abandonment of the traditional terminology.(77)
56. In brief, there are signs of
a widespread distrust of universal and absolute
statements, especially among those who think that truth
is born of consensus and not of a consonance between
intellect and objective reality. In a world subdivided
into so many specialized fields, it is not hard to see
how difficult it can be to acknowledge the full and
ultimate meaning of life which has traditionally been the
goal of philosophy. Nonetheless, in the light of faith
which finds in Jesus Christ this ultimate meaning, I
cannot but encourage philosophers—be they Christian
or not—to trust in the power of human reason and not
to set themselves goals that are too modest in their
philosophizing. The lesson of history in this millennium
now drawing to a close shows that this is the path to
follow: it is necessary not to abandon the passion for
ultimate truth, the eagerness to search for it or the
audacity to forge new paths in the search. It is faith
which stirs reason to move beyond all isolation and
willingly to run risks so that it may attain whatever is
beautiful, good and true. Faith thus becomes the
convinced and convincing advocate of reason.
The Church's interest in
philosophy
57. Yet the Magisterium does
more than point out the misperceptions and the mistakes
of philosophical theories. With no less concern it has
sought to stress the basic principles of a genuine
renewal of philosophical enquiry, indicating as well
particular paths to be taken. In this regard, Pope Leo
XIII with his Encyclical Letter Ćterni Patris
took a step of historic importance for the life of the
Church, since it remains to this day the one papal
document of such authority devoted entirely to
philosophy. The great Pope revisited and developed the
First Vatican Council's teaching on the relationship
between faith and reason, showing how philosophical
thinking contributes in fundamental ways to faith and
theological learning.(78) More than a century later, many
of the insights of his Encyclical Letter have lost none
of their interest from either a practical or pedagogical
point of view—most particularly, his insistence upon
the incomparable value of the philosophy of Saint Thomas.
A renewed insistence upon the thought of the Angelic
Doctor seemed to Pope Leo XIII the best way to recover
the practice of a philosophy consonant with the demands
of faith. “Just when Saint Thomas distinguishes
perfectly between faith and reason”, the Pope
writes, “he unites them in bonds of mutual
friendship, conceding to each its specific rights and to
each its specific dignity”.(79)
58. The positive results of the
papal summons are well known. Studies of the thought of
Saint Thomas and other Scholastic writers received new
impetus. Historical studies flourished, resulting in a
rediscovery of the riches of Medieval thought, which
until then had been largely unknown; and there emerged
new Thomistic schools. With the use of historical method,
knowledge of the works of Saint Thomas increased greatly,
and many scholars had courage enough to introduce the
Thomistic tradition into the philosophical and
theological discussions of the day. The most influential
Catholic theologians of the present century, to whose
thinking and research the Second Vatican Council was much
indebted, were products of this revival of Thomistic
philosophy. Throughout the twentieth century, the Church
has been served by a powerful array of thinkers formed in
the school of the Angelic Doctor.
59. Yet the Thomistic and
neo-Thomistic revival was not the only sign of a
resurgence of philosophical thought in culture of
Christian inspiration. Earlier still, and parallel to
Pope Leo's call, there had emerged a number of Catholic
philosophers who, adopting more recent currents of
thought and according to a specific method, produced
philosophical works of great influence and lasting value.
Some devised syntheses so remarkable that they stood
comparison with the great systems of idealism. Others
established the epistemological foundations for a new
consideration of faith in the light of a renewed
understanding of moral consciousness; others again
produced a philosophy which, starting with an analysis of
immanence, opened the way to the transcendent; and there
were finally those who sought to combine the demands of
faith with the perspective of phenomenological method.
From different quarters, then, modes of philosophical
speculation have continued to emerge and have sought to
keep alive the great tradition of Christian thought which
unites faith and reason.
60. The Second Vatican Council,
for its part, offers a rich and fruitful teaching
concerning philosophy. I cannot fail to note, especially
in the context of this Encyclical Letter, that one
chapter of the Constitution Gaudium et Spes amounts
to a virtual compendium of the biblical anthropology from
which philosophy too can draw inspiration. The chapter
deals with the value of the human person created in the
image of God, explains the dignity and superiority of the
human being over the rest of creation, and declares the
transcendent capacity of human reason.(80) The problem of
atheism is also dealt with in Gaudium et Spes, and
the flaws of its philosophical vision are identified,
especially in relation to the dignity and freedom of the
human person.(81) There is no doubt that the climactic
section of the chapter is profoundly significant for
philosophy; and it was this which I took up in my first
Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis and which
serves as one of the constant reference-points of my
teaching: “The truth is that only in the mystery of
the Incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light.
For Adam, the first man, was a type of him who was to
come, Christ the Lord. Christ, the new Adam, in the very
revelation of the mystery of the Father and of his love,
fully reveals man to himself and brings to light his most
high calling”.(82)
The Council also dealt with the
study of philosophy required of candidates for the
priesthood; and its recommendations have implications for
Christian education as a whole. These are the Council's
words: “The philosophical disciplines should be
taught in such a way that students acquire in the first
place a solid and harmonious knowledge of the human
being, of the world and of God, based upon the
philosophical heritage which is enduringly valid, yet
taking into account currents of modern
philosophy”.(83)
These directives have been
reiterated and developed in a number of other magisterial
documents in order to guarantee a solid philosophical
formation, especially for those preparing for theological
studies. I have myself emphasized several times the
importance of this philosophical formation for those who
one day, in their pastoral life, will have to address the
aspirations of the contemporary world and understand the
causes of certain behaviour in order to respond in
appropriate ways.(84)
61. If it has been necessary
from time to time to intervene on this question, to
reiterate the value of the Angelic Doctor's insights and
insist on the study of his thought, this has been because
the Magisterium's directives have not always been
followed with the readiness one would wish. In the years
after the Second Vatican Council, many Catholic faculties
were in some ways impoverished by a diminished sense of
the importance of the study not just of Scholastic
philosophy but more generally of the study of philosophy
itself. I cannot fail to note with surprise and
displeasure that this lack of interest in the study of
philosophy is shared by not a few theologians.
There are various reasons for
this disenchantment. First, there is the distrust of
reason found in much contemporary philosophy, which has
largely abandoned metaphysical study of the ultimate
human questions in order to concentrate upon problems
which are more detailed and restricted, at times even
purely formal. Another reason, it should be said, is the
misunderstanding which has arisen especially with regard
to the “human sciences”. On a number of
occasions, the Second Vatican Council stressed the
positive value of scientific research for a deeper
knowledge of the mystery of the human being.(85) But the
invitation addressed to theologians to engage the human
sciences and apply them properly in their enquiries
should not be interpreted as an implicit authorization to
marginalize philosophy or to put something else in its
place in pastoral formation and in the praeparatio
fidei. A further factor is the renewed interest in
the inculturation of faith. The life of the young
Churches in particular has brought to light, together
with sophisticated modes of thinking, an array of
expressions of popular wisdom; and this constitutes a
genuine cultural wealth of traditions. Yet the study of
traditional ways must go hand in hand with philosophical
enquiry, an enquiry which will allow the positive traits
of popular wisdom to emerge and forge the necessary link
with the proclamation of the Gospel.(86)
62. I wish to repeat clearly
that the study of philosophy is fundamental and
indispensable to the structure of theological studies and
to the formation of candidates for the priesthood. It is
not by chance that the curriculum of theological studies
is preceded by a time of special study of philosophy.
This decision, confirmed by the Fifth Lateran
Council,(87) is rooted in the experience which matured
through the Middle Ages, when the importance of a
constructive harmony of philosophical and theological
learning emerged. This ordering of studies influenced,
promoted and enabled much of the development of modern
philosophy, albeit indirectly. One telling example of
this is the influence of the Disputationes
Metaphysicae of Francisco Suárez, which found its
way even into the Lutheran universities of Germany.
Conversely, the dismantling of this arrangement has
created serious gaps in both priestly formation and
theological research. Consider, for instance, the
disregard of modern thought and culture which has led
either to a refusal of any kind of dialogue or to an
indiscriminate acceptance of any kind of philosophy.
I trust most sincerely that
these difficulties will be overcome by an intelligent
philosophical and theological formation, which must never
be lacking in the Church.
63. For the reasons suggested
here, it has seemed to me urgent to re-emphasize with
this Encyclical Letter the Church's intense interest in
philosophy—indeed the intimate bond which ties
theological work to the philosophical search for truth.
From this comes the Magisterium's duty to discern and
promote philosophical thinking which is not at odds with
faith. It is my task to state principles and criteria
which in my judgement are necessary in order to restore a
harmonious and creative relationship between theology and
philosophy. In the light of these principles and
criteria, it will be possible to discern with greater
clarity what link, if any, theology should forge with the
different philosophical opinions or systems which the
world of today presents.
|