La evolución homogénea del dogma católico

1. The title of our work.—It is possible that certain readers, more pious than enlightened, may find fault with the very title of Homogeneous Evolution of Catholic Dogma which we give to our work. Since Darwin employed the phrase Evolution of Species to signify the transformation of one species into another, and much more since heretical modernism applied that transformist doctrine to Catholic dogma, certain excessively timid theologians look with distrust upon the very name of evolution, as if all evolution were necessarily transformist and there were no homogeneous evolution whatsoever; or as if all evolution, even the homogeneous kind, were incompatible with the divine origin and substantial immutability of Catholic dogma.

We recognize that the term evolution applied to dogma can today lend itself to misunderstanding and abuse. But we believe at the same time that this is not sufficient reason to cease using it, unless we intend to close the door of theological vocabulary to the most beautiful and expressive modern terms, leaving our adversaries to monopolize them and abuse them for error. In the matter of terms, as in the matter of ideas, whenever they contain a core of truth and are useful for the defense and explanation of the revealed deposit, we believe that the best course is the one advised and practiced by Saint Augustine, namely, to snatch them from the hands of the enemy and, after having purified them of every false understanding, to make them serve the cause of the integral truth of the Catholic religion¹; all the more so because this term evolution, applied to dogma, is already used without any scruple, even if only in passing, by eminent Catholic theologians, whose learning and orthodoxy are universally recognized. Let us briefly cite, among many others that could be adduced, some

texts by contemporary theologians belonging to various schools:

Let us listen to the most eminent Cardinal Billot: “And this law of evolution, which dominates all living organisms, we see also verified in the Church of Christ, which, attentive and cautious with the dogmas deposited with it, diminishes nothing... but with all diligence strives solely for this, that by faithfully and wisely handling the old, if there are things anciently informed and begun, it may perfect and polish them; if there are things already expressed and developed, it may consolidate and strengthen them; if there are things already strengthened and defined, it may guard them” ².

Let us listen to the Benedictine Janssens: “Beware, however, lest you exclude all evolution of Catholic doctrine, but there is one evolution from within, best expressed by the parable of the mustard seed; another evolution from without or toward the outside, which would better be called a transformation. The former is to be admitted with proper moderation; the latter is to be entirely rejected” ³.

Let us hear the Servite Lepicier: “For that in Catholic dogma a certain progress or a certain evolution ought not to be entirely rejected, is too evident ⁴.”.

Let us listen to the Franciscan Casanova: “For it pertains to the nature of progress that there be something immobile and something that advances, grows, and increases. These two conditions are found in a wonderful way in faith, whose objective element endures, and whose explanation or evolution is perfected in many ways” ⁵.

Let us hear Van Noort: “In the first place, it is certain that the growth which we have explained does not import a change in the doctrine itself, but an organic explanation, or evolution, of the same preaching, of the same faith. Just as, therefore, an adult man is not other than a little child, although each of his members has grown greatly in size and strength, so the preaching of the Church, although in the course of time it has become more explicit and evolved, truly always remains the same” ⁶.

Let us hear the Dominican Berthier: “Hence it is clear that the explanation of the doctrine handed down among us is in no way a change, but an evolution or progress of the same truth, not as to substance, but as to explanation” ⁷.

Let us also hear another Dominican, Fr. De Groot: “Evolutio doctrinae christianae admittenda est. Indeed, the very character of the Church entails continuity and evolution, stability and

It demands movement. The causes for promoting evolution, whether direct or indirect, are assigned; all, however, are subordinate to one principal cause, Christ, who promised His Holy Spirit to His Church... Moreover, we say that the evolution of any doctrine ends when the Church defines it... This is that evolution and life of truth, this is that sacred union of tradition and progress ⁸

Let us hear another illustrious theologian, the Belgian Dominican Fr. Tuyaerts, master of Sacred Theology and current prior of the House of Studies at Louvain: “For about a century, evolution has probably been what has most attracted the attention of all men of science... Protestants pride themselves on having been the first to launch the study of the history of dogmas. Whatever may be said of this claim, it is certain that many centuries before the birth of Protestantism, Catholic writers and doctors pointed out and studied the fact of the evolution of dogmas. Witness Saint Vincent of Lérins, who deals with it at considerable length in his famous Commonitory: witness the Angelic Doctor Saint Thomas Aquinas, who sets forth its Catholic concept and briefly establishes its foundation and laws. One therefore remains entirely within the line of Catholic theology in studying this phenomenon of the evolution of dogmas” ⁹.

So far is the name evolution applied to dogma from being censured, that there are not lacking Catholic theologians who label as anti-Catholic the opinion that denies all dogmatic evolution. “Optime therefore Mausbach notes that it is an acatholic opinion which holds that in the Christian religion a true progress or evolution is not to be admitted.” ¹⁰.

We could add many other contemporary theologians; but we believe that nine, of the stature of those we have just cited, will suffice to dispel every scruple, even from the most timid reader, regarding the title of HOMOGENEOUS EVOLUTION OF DOGMA given to our work.

2. A SUBTITLE THAT CAN BE ADDED.—To the title Evolution of Dogma we could have added the subtitle of Homogeneity of all Catholic doctrine to indicate that our objective is twofold. First, to demonstrate that with regard to dogma, properly and rigorously speaking, true evolution is possible, although always homogeneous evolution. Second, to show that this evolution is so broad that it extends to all degrees of Catholic doctrine, to the point that there is no truth that belongs rigorously to the

Catholic doctrine and cannot come to be a true dogma of faith, within the most perfect and substantial homogeneity with the divinely revealed deposit.

3. FOUR DEGREES OF CATHOLIC DOCTRINE.—The whole scope of Catholic doctrine can be distributed into four degrees: a) revealed datum; b) dogmas; c) infallible truths; d) theological conclusions.

The first degree encompasses all and only the truths or propositions expressly revealed or inspired by God to the Apostles, and delivered by the Apostles to the Church, but just as they came from the pen or mouth of the Apostles or sacred writers; and before, therefore, the Church or human reason had done any work or speculation upon them. It therefore encompasses two kinds of propositions: first, all the propositions of Sacred Scripture just as they came from the pen of the inspired authors; second, all the propositions of divine tradition, just as these came from the lips of the Apostles. This first degree is usually called the revealed datum or explicit revelation, and it is the starting point of the other three degrees and of all progress, both dogmatic and theological.

The second degree, called dogmas of faith, comprises all propositions defined by the Church as revealed or as of divine faith, or whose contradictories have been condemned with the note of heretical.

The third degree includes all propositions defined by the Church in an infallible manner, but without being expressly defined as revealed, and also all those whose contradictories have been infallibly condemned with a note lower than that of heresy.

Finally, to the fourth degree belong all propositions that are necessarily connected with any of the three previous degrees, which is what is commonly understood under the name of theological conclusions, and to which the so-called dogmatic facts are reduced.

4. IMPORTANCE OF THE FOURTH DEGREE.—These four degrees completely encompass the entire scope of Catholic doctrine, and although they are not all of equal value, all four must be taken into account by anyone who seeks to study the homogeneity of Catholic doctrine or of dogmatic evolution.

If anyone is surprised that the fourth degree, called theological conclusions, is counted by us among the true degrees of Catholic doctrine, he need only consider three things. First, that a great part of the doctrine that the Church teaches the Christian people through the catechism or ordinary preaching belongs to this fourth degree. Second, that all the truths of this fourth degree can pass over to the third, since there is no truly theological conclusion that cannot be infallibly defined by the Church. Third and chiefly, that, in the opinion of very weighty theologians, an opinion that seems to be confirmed by evident facts in the history of dogmas, a great part of the truths of the second degree have issued from this fourth degree, that is, from theological conclusions.

Without the study, therefore, of the nature of theological conclusions, it is impossible to study well the nature of infallible truths, and difficult, if not impossible, to study and understand the nature and evolution of dogmatic truths.

5. Two HISTORICAL FACTS.—Before the view of anyone who studies without prejudice the history of the Catholic Church and its doctrine, two facts clearly stand out.

The first fact is that Catholic doctrine, even in its strictly dogmatic part, has grown or developed, and on a very large scale, from the time of the Apostles to the present day. To see this, one need only compare on any doctrinal point the simple biblical statements with the complicated definitions of the recent ecumenical councils: compare the Apostolic or primitive symbol with the symbol called of St. Athanasius or with the profession of faith of Pius IV; compare any document of the primitive popes with the Syllabus of Pius IX, or with the encyclical Pascendi of Pius X; compare any catechesis or number of catecheses of the Holy Fathers with one of the catechisms of our day. The evidence of such a fact or growth is obvious.

The second evident fact is that in that growth the various human philosophies or civilizations have had great intervention or influence, especially Greek philosophy in the Patristic Age and scholastic philosophy in the Middle and Modern Ages. That influence is noticed in the writings of the Holy Fathers, who developed the primitive doctrine; in the conciliar disputes and disquisitions that preceded the definition of each dogma, and even in the dogmatic formulas themselves, which bear the clear mark of the various epochs in which they were defined ¹¹.

6. A PROBLEM.—These two facts, which can be explained in very different ways, but which cannot be denied, have

giving rise to the following most serious problem: is that progress or growth of Catholic doctrine a homogeneous or heterogeneous progress? Does it constitute a simple homogeneous evolution of what was already implicitly contained in the primitive datum, or is it an extrinsic or heterogeneous addition, a true transformist evolution? Are those last three degrees, which we call dogmas, infallible truths, and theological conclusions, or at least that second degree, which we call dogmas of faith, revealed and divine truths like those of the first degree, or are they human doctrines added to the divine deposit?

7. THE MODERNIST SOLUTION.—Modernism resolves this problem by affirming that the current doctrine of the Catholic Church is not a homogeneous evolution of the so-called apostolic doctrine or primitive datum, but a true transformism. Through contact, it says, and under the influence of successive philosophies and civilizations, the primitive doctrine has been mixed and substantially transformed with countless human and perishable elements, giving rise to an amalgam and corruption of the primitive datum. What we call, then, dogmas, infallible truths, and theological conclusions is not, according to Modernism, a simple evolution of the apostolic doctrine, but a true transformation or, better yet, a corruption¹²

8. THE SOLUTION OF CERTAIN CATHOLIC THEOLOGIANS..—Certain Catholic theologians of the seventeenth century and very many among modern theologians find no other solution to this problem than to draw a dividing line at the passage from the second grade of Catholic doctrine to the third and fourth. According to these theologians, the second grade, that is, the dogmas, is a homogeneous continuation of the revealed or apostolic doctrine; but the third and fourth grades are not a homogeneous evolution, but a true transformism, a true mixture of the revealed datum with human science. Therefore, for these theologians, the primitive datum and the dogmas are revealed and truly divine truths, to which assent of divine faith is due; but the so-called infallible truths and theological conclusions are human truths, to which neither should nor can one give any assent except that of human faith, or at most, of ecclesiastical faith, even if the Church defines them.

9. A MOST GRAVE DIFFICULTY.—In this theory not only is the substantial homogeneity of Catholic doctrine denied

in its third and fourth degree, but there also arises a most serious difficulty in defending the homogeneity of the second degree, that is, of the dogmas of faith themselves.

Indeed, the reason these theologians deny the homogeneity of the third and fourth degree is that in the development of these degrees a properly human reasoning has entered, that is, because of the second historical fact we mentioned a short while ago, which is the influence of human reason on the development of the primitive datum.

Now then: history seems to attest clearly that this influence of human reason upon the development of the revealed datum has

If the use, then, of human reason and science in the third and fourth degree destroys homogeneity and induces transformism, as these theologians believe, then modernism seems to be right in also denying the homogeneity of the second degree and in admitting transformism in all of Catholic doctrine.

10. FR. GARDEIL.—Catholic theology owes to this wise and renowned Dominican two of the best monographs that have been written on theological methodology.

In the first, titled Credibility and Apologetics¹³, he managed to shed light on the chaos that reigned over the conception of apologetics, clearly marking the proper object of that auxiliary science of theology. This work, in its fundamental lines, can be considered definitive, and it has been the starting point of everything good that has been written subsequently on the nature of apologetics.

In the second work, entitled The Revealed Given and Theology¹⁴, the author set himself another goal no less important and fruitful, but more complicated and difficult: to show the homogeneity of all Catholic doctrine, making it clear how the revealed given has developed without transformism and in perfect objective continuity through all the other degrees¹⁵.

With his clear mind, Fr. Gardeil immediately saw that this entire problem depended on two things: a historical fact and a philosophical-theological principle.

The historical fact was admitted by Fr. Gardeil without attenuation or distinctions; that fact is the real and profound influence that human reasoning has exercised on the development not only of the third and fourth grade of Catholic doctrine, but also of the second. For Fr. Gardeil, and we believe for anyone who reads history without preconceived theories, it is a patent fact that many dogmas have not been known, nor could they have been known, by human reason except by way of a rigorous and proper theological conclusion, deduced from a major premise of faith and a minor premise of reason.

Once this fact is admitted, the question of the homogeneity or transformism of Catholic dogma depended entirely on the following principle: whether the concurrence of lesser reason with greater faith in a reasoning process destroys or not the dogmatic homogeneity. If every intervention of human reasoning, properly speaking, in the development of the revealed datum results in transformism, then it is a desperate matter to try to defend the objective homogeneity of Catholic doctrine. That homogeneity is evidently destroyed in the third and fourth degree, and also in the second, unless one denies a historical fact that seems evident.

Since in every question as serious as this one concerning the evolution of dogma, all innovation is extremely dangerous, and it is always most prudent to adhere to the traditional opinion of Catholic theologians, Father Gardeil wished to know the traditional opinion well. To that end he read, as he himself tells us, the best that theologians have written on this matter, and from this reading he derived the following conviction: "It seems clear that the generality of modern theologians deny that there can be homogeneity between a revealed principle and a theological con-¹⁶clusion."

clusión de él deducida, cuando esa deducción ha sido hecha mediante un raciocinio propiamente dicho" ¹⁷

While rather transparently revealing his displeasure with that modern opinion, Fr. Gardeil did not dare to combat it head-on, but rather, in order to continue defending homogeneity, resorted to an ingenious resource, introducing into the problem a new extrinsic factor, which he called the social charism of the Christian sense. Through the approval of the conclusions by that common sense of the Church, such conclusions could acquire a value of homogeneity and continuity with the revealed datum that they did not possess on their own.

As Fr. Gardeil himself has later recognized, such a factor, although useful in some cases, does not solve the problem of homogeneity. A sense, however great and effective one supposes it to be, may serve to discern homogeneity, if that homogeneity already exists beforehand, but it can never create it or supply it.

11. OUR ARTICLES IN "LA CIENCIA TOMISTA".—The reading of this book by Fr. Gardeil was what moved us, in 1911, to begin in La Ciencia Tomista a series of articles on The homogeneity of Catholic doctrine ¹⁸. In

Twelve years having passed since that date, we have continued the series, studying the question under a great variety of aspects, and making clear its relations and its harmony with the principal questions of Sacred Theology. In that study we believe we have set forth, among other things, the following four points:

1st. It is a historical fact, beyond all doubt, that many dogmas have developed or evolved by way of theological conclusions properly so-called, and that this fact must be recognized by every modern theologian, just as it was recognized by all traditional theology until the seventeenth century.

2.º It is a philosophically and theologically certain principle that proper and rigorous reasoning can intervene in the development or evolution of the revealed datum without destroying its perfect homogeneity.

3rd. That historical fact, like that philosophical-theological principle, was admitted by all theologians before the seventeenth century, and the contrary persuasion that exists today in some persons comes from a confusion introduced by Suárez concerning the nature of the true virtuality of the revealed deposit, a confusion continued by Lugo and not noticed by the Salmanticenses and Billuart.

4th. Once the true understanding of the revealed virtual has been restored, it is easy to understand how true and proper evolution can exist and does in fact exist in Catholic dogma, but homogeneous evolution, whereby that antinomy which seemed to exist between the teaching of Catholic theology and the facts of history disappears, and the modernist objection regarding the transformation of dogma vanishes completely.

These four points, along with several others, such as the function of the Church in dogmatic evolution, the different paths of evolution of dogma, the nature of ecclesiastical faith, etc., etc., constituted the substance of twenty-eight articles published in these twelve years, during which we have not ceased to study more and more this question of the evolution of dogma, a question infinitely complex, as Fr. Grandmaison calls it, but also a most important question, and to acquire a certain habitus regarding these things. The true intrinsic and a priori foundation of the homogeneity of truly theological conclusions, according to St. Thomas, lies there and nowhere else. What I have called the social sense of the Church directed by the Holy Spirit can very well, in certain cases, be the criterion and, consequently, the extrinsic proof. For no sense has been given the power to discern homogeneity where there is none. It is necessary, therefore, an intrinsic foundation for the homogeneity of theological conclusions. And it is the power of being deduced by a formal reasoning, by way of inclusion and identity, which is the foundation according to St. Thomas” (GARDIL, in the Revue de sciences philosophiques et théologiques, Oct. 1912, pp. 825-27).

Of burning topicality, as Father Gardell describes it¹⁹. From those articles, recast and arranged in a more harmonious and more concise plan, has come the present work on the evolution of dogma, which today we offer to the public²⁰.

12. DIVISION OF THE PRESENT WORK.—In order to embrace under few chapters the many questions related to the evolution of dogma, we have deemed it advisable to divide the work into only seven chapters, in the following manner: 1. The nature of evolution in general and the various species and degrees of doctrinal evolution. 2. The evolution of dogma and the virtuality of the revealed datum. 3. The evolution of dogma and the authority of the Church. 4. The different ways of the evolution of dogma. 5. The extension of the evolution of dogma to the whole object of the so-called ecclesiastical faith. 6. Solution of the objections against the evolution of dogma. 7. The evolution of dogma and traditional opinion.

With these seven chapters, divided into as many sections as each subject may require, we hope that the question of the evolution of dogma will have been treated, if not with the breadth it deserves, with sufficient clarity to show where the true foundations lie for safeguarding the fact of evolution that history teaches us, and the homogeneity of that evolution which our faith obliges us to believe and which history also testifies to.

13. Two Methods.—The demonstration of the homogeneous evolution of Catholic dogma can be treated by two different methods or ways: first, by the theological-speculative way, showing that such evolution of dogma is possible and how it can come about without prejudice to its divine origin and its substantial unchangeability; second, by the historical way,

demonstrating that this evolution has in fact existed, and in which dogmas and under what circumstances it has been verified.

A study that were limited exclusively to only one of those two paths would, of necessity, be very incomplete. On the other hand, a study that embraced both paths, and embraced them equally, would be perfect. But the historical path applied to each dogma in particular would demand an inordinate extension and also such a sum of historical, critical, and psychological knowledge that it can hardly be carried out by the isolated efforts of a single theologian.

Therefore we have chosen a middle way. We have devoted the principal part to the theological-speculative way, since we address ourselves above all to theologians. But we have at the same time intermingled two historical studies, the one giving ten concrete examples of dogmatic evolution by way of reasoning, and the other studying the traditional opinion on this matter through the centuries. We believe that, with this, our demonstration of the homogeneous evolution of dogma comes out of theory and becomes sensible and tangible; by incarnating itself in facts, it appears concrete and practical ²¹

14. OUR GUIDE IN THIS WORK.—It is a fairly widespread belief today that the great masters of Scholasticism neither perceived nor treated that great fact of the evolution of dogma which so preoccupies modern theologians. At most, it is conceded that they dealt somewhat with the dogmatic evolution of the Old Testament, but not with that of the New Testament after the Apostles.

This is a great mistake. In the course of this work it will become evident that all the principal scholastic theologians dealt with that fact and tried to explain it. In particular, it will be seen how Saint Thomas not only recognized the fact of the evolution of dogma in the New Testament and distinguished it perfectly from that of the Old Testament, but also traced with sound judgment the course and the laws of that evolution.

evolution, while at the same time safeguarding the fact of evolution and the principle of its homogeneity through all the degrees of Catholic doctrine.

The Sovereign Pontiffs have been unceasingly repeating that, in the principles of the Angelic Doctor, there is sufficient potentiality to resolve all the great questions related to dogma that have arisen since. We trust to show that, to resolve this modern question of the evolution of dogma, there is nothing else but to faithfully apply the great and fruitful principles that the Angel of the Schools left recorded concerning faith, theology, human reason, and the Church. Our entire work will be nothing but a perpetual and faithful exposition of the doctrine of the Holy Doctor, as it was always understood by all his classical commentators before the seventeenth century, that is, before the confusion of nomenclature on this question was introduced into the schools, and with it the confusion about the true nature and extent of the implicit virtuality of the revealed datum.

15. PROTEST.—In every question, but much more in so grave and so delicate a question as this one concerning the evolution of dogma, we unconditionally submit ourselves to the judgment of the Catholic Church, the infallible judge in all that pertains to the deposit of faith.

University of Fribourg (Switzerland), 1923.