[Catholic Caucus] The Spirit of Modernism: How God Is Purifying His Church

“75. In our day, what is the most insidious enemy of the Church’s constant Tradition? It is Modernism, against which the Magisterium of the Church has warned: “The monstrous errors of ‘Modernism’ . . . Our Predecessor rightly declared to be ‘the synthesis of all heresies,’ and solemnly condemned. . . . As the plague is not yet entirely stamped out, but lurks here and there in hidden places, We exhort all to be carefully on their guard against any contagion of the evil. . . . Nor do We merely desire that Catholics should shrink from the errors of Modernism, but also from the tendencies or what is called the ‘spirit’ of Modernism. Those who are infected by that spirit develop a keen dislike for all that savors of antiquity and become eager searchers after novelties in everything: in the way in which they carry out religious functions, in the ruling of Catholic institutions, and even in private exercises of piety. Therefore, it is Our will that the law of our forefathers should still be held sacred: ‘Let there be no innovation; keep to what has been handed down.’”

The quotation about the evils of Modernism comes from St. Pius X’s successor, Benedict XV, from his 1914 encyclical appealing for peace, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum. With these words, the pope differentiated between the actual errors of Modernism and the “spirit” of Modernism. Those “infected by that spirit develop a keen dislike for all that savors of antiquity and become eager searchers after novelties in everything.” Thus, well over a century ago, Benedict XV provided an outstanding diagnosis of the spirit that animates the Vatican and so much of the Church today.

But it is also worth considering that Benedict XV spoke of this spirit of Modernism (which, again, is distinct from the errors of Modernism) as something that “infected” certain Catholics. As with other infections, this spirit of Modernism does indeed afflict many without their conscious decision to become sick. Also, like other infections, it can be fatal if not cured. This article considers several diagnoses of this spirit of Modernism — from good and bad Catholics alike — that were all made long before Jorge Bergoglio introduced himself to the world as Francis. After seeing these descriptions of what still afflicts the Church today, we can discern a clear picture of God’s Providence: He is allowing for a separation of the infected from the healthy, in which the sick relish in their maladies and the healthy are further purified and strengthened.

From St. Pius X to Michael Davies: Diagnosing the Spirit of Modernism

In the quotation above, Benedict XV referred to St. Pius X’s 1907 encyclical on the doctrine of the Modernists, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, in which the pope defined Modernism as the “synthesis of all heresies.” Due in large part to the heretical and (as St. Pius X termed it) abstruse nature of Modernism, Pascendi is almost certainly one of the most challenging pre-Vatican II encyclicals. A few years later, though, St. Pius X issued his Oath Against Modernism, which frames the core issue in much simpler terms:

“I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously.”

In light of Benedict XV’s differentiation between the errors of Modernism and the infectious spirit of Modernism, we can see that these words from St. Pius X’s Oath Against Modernism were intended to bolster the defenses of Catholics against that spirit that would lead Catholics to disdain antiquity and seek out novelty.

Decades later, Pius XII confronted the same spirit, without explicitly naming it, in his 1950 encyclical concerning some false opinions threatening to undermine the foundations of Catholic doctrine, Humani Generis. Professor Romano Amerio described Humani Generis as follows in his Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the XXth Century:

“The theoretical core of Pius XII’s document is that Pyrrhonism, existentialism, mobilism, and sentimentalism all draw their origin from a principle of independence, opposed to the principle on which Catholicism rests. The censure of particular errors deriving from this fundamental error is purely secondary and accessory, be they the denial of the possibility of metaphysics (whether Thomistic or not), the assertion of a universal evolutionism, scriptural criticism, religious naturalism, and other specific religious errors (among the most important being the denial of transubstantiation); and one should set these apart at a secondary level when one is trying to establish just where the very principle of Catholicism itself is being attacked. That principle is that everything anthropological depends on the divine, and that to deny this dependence is, as the document declares, to dissolve the foundations of every possible axiology.” (p. 44)

So Pius XII was condemning certain errors (which are worse today than in 1950) but also the origin of those particular errors: a “principle of independence,” which is opposed to the foundations of Catholicism. This principle of independence has existed in various forms throughout salvation history, but it is also a defining characteristic of the spirit of Modernism identified by Benedict XV. Those who reject dependence on God will reject antiquity and seek after novelty.

The next diagnosis to consider comes from one of the most lethal and influential heretics at Vatican II, Fr. Karl Rahner. In his Athanasius and the Church of Our Time, Bishop Rudolf Graber wrote the following about Rahner’s diagnosis of a so-called “cryptogamous heresy”:

“No less a theologian than Karl Rahner coined it [a guide to the confusion of our times] in the concept of ‘cryptogamous heresies,’ which in his opinion exist on a considerably larger scale than in earlier times. Rahner has the following to say on this point: the whole ‘sphere of our existence is, however, without doubt also partly shaped by attitudes, doctrines, and tendencies which must be described as heretical and contradictory to the teaching of the Gospel.’ . . . It can even be said that ‘Everyone is today infected with the bacteria and viruses of cryptogamous heresy even if they do not necessarily have to qualify it as being sick with it yet’: ‘this cryptogamous heresy’ is perfectly compatible with ‘explicit orthodoxy.’ . . . ‘It often consists simply in an attitude of mistrust and resentment towards the Church’s Magisterium, in a widespread feeling of being suspiciously and narrow-mindedly supervised in both teaching and research by the Church’s Magisterium’” (p. 59-60)

This is a somewhat difficult passage, but the basic idea is that Rahner had coined the term “cryptogamous heresy” to describe a widespread yet largely undetected attitude about the Faith, in which “infected” souls would distrust and resent the Church’s teaching while nonetheless retaining at least an outward appearance of orthodoxy. Such souls are, in a sense, already primed to abandon the Faith, or transition to cafeteria-Catholicism, at the first real opportunity.

“This cryptogamous heresy is to be found ‘wherever, for example, the word ‘hell’ is studiously avoided, where the Evangelical Counsels, vows, and religious orders are no longer mentioned or at most, if there is no other way out, spoken of in uncertain and embarrassed tones. How often do educated listeners in our country still hear a sermon from their preacher on temporal penalties for sins, indulgences, angels, fasting, the devil (at most they hear of the ‘daemonic’ in man), on Purgatory, prayers for the souls in Purgatory, and similar old-fashioned things?’. . . . The worst effect of this heresy is ‘apathy.’ . . . ‘The Magisterium can proclaim the truth, it can produce abstract formulations of heretical tendencies of this kind as was done for the first time in Pius X’s Modernism encyclical. But it can do little against the mute heresy itself.’” (p. 60)

We can see two things from these ideas of Rahner, taken from a 1961 article. First, he identified many of the same sentiments we see today, in a way that makes it clear that it is truly the spirit of Modernism at work. More importantly, though, he suggested that St. Pius X’s Pascendi was unable to do much to combat the “mute heresy” itself. In the same way, Pius XII’s Humani Generis did even less to combat what Professor Amerio described as the “principle of independence.”

In addition to discussing Rahner’s ideas about the “cryptogamous heresy,” Bishop Gruber discussed why (in the 1970s) the Church was encountering rebirths of heresies from the early Church:

“In his encyclical on Modernism, Pope Pius X called it ‘the repository of all heresies’ (‘omnium haereseon conlectum’). And indeed, if we look back at the early Church, we can see the old false doctrines of those days reappearing in new garb. . . . It is strange how these false doctrines are becoming virulent again. And the reason for this? It is the flight from mystery into man’s reliance on his own powers with his ratio, which finds the Arian solution to the mystery of Christ plausible because it can be understood rationally; it is the proud insistence on man’s will-power, which can achieve anything he wants, so that he does not need to let himself be led about by supernatural power flowing from Grace.” (pp. 24-25)

Here we see an even clearer link between the spirit of Modernism and the principle of independence. If a Catholic is truly determined to follow his own will rather than be led by God, then of course he will disdain the notion that he must cling to Catholic antiquity and avoid novelty. One who is infected with this spirit may, in certain ways, retain the appearance of orthodoxy as Rahner suggested, but he will be ready to abandon it if he can find a false shepherd who can point to a new, more independent, way of being Catholic.

We can see the basic same idea from a very different angle in Professor James Hitchcock’s 1971 book about the aftermath of the Council, The Decline and Fall of Radical Catholicism:

“In the pre-conciliar years, many liberal Catholics deluded themselves into believing that their dissatisfactions with seminary Scholasticism, parish life, Baroque liturgy, benighted clergy, and so on were peripheral to real Catholicism, that in fact it was precisely because they were true Catholics that they were offended by the poor copy of the faith which they were offered. By the end of the 1960s, however, many such progressives were forced to realize that their dislike of Scholasticism, their hankering for liturgical reform, their visits to choice monasteries, were really attempts to overcome a gnawing crisis of faith which they either did not recognize, lacking adequate self-knowledge, or did not want to recognize. However uncharitable, their conservative critics were simply right in postulating weakness of fundamental belief as being at the root of many liberals’ dissatisfaction.” (p. 27)

The progressive Catholics described by Professor Hitchcock wanted to retain their Catholic identity but did not actually want to be Catholic in a true sense. As a result, they were eager to move away from what they considered to be unnecessary remnants of Catholic antiquity in search of the novelties that were already spreading prior to Vatican II.

Finally, Michael Davies provided us with an even clearer diagnosis in his 1984 lectures from Belfast and Dublin (published as The Goldfish Bowl: The Church Since Vatican II):

“Bishop Adrian [of Nashville, Tennessee] then drew attention to the error which lies at the basis of the confusion in the post-conciliar Church. Please pay particular attention to these words: ‘They make the person the center and judge of all truth and morality, irrespective of what the Church teaches. It is the root evil of this disrespect for authority, divine and human.” (p. 21)

The root evil is the willingness to substitute personal judgment for the teaching of the Church when doing so would satisfy personal desires. It is the essence of the spirit of Modernism and the principle of independence. Invariably, this evil opens the door to all of the other evils that we see today, as St. Paul warned:

“For there shall be a time when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.” (2 Timothy 4:3-4)

When a Catholic is no longer committed to holding fast to the unadulterated Faith, he may soon fall prey to the teachers of fables. Worse, this spirit of Modernism offends God because it involves a distrust of the Church, which reflects a half-hearted trust in God’s truth. Today, we are seeing why St. Paul had to warn us against the time when “they will not endure sound doctrine,” and we can also see why this has incurred God’s punishment. But in that punishment there is also a cure for those of good will who seek to be free from the infectious spirit of Modernism.

God’s Providential Cure of the Spirit of Modernism

As Rahner had indicated above, condemnations of the infection do little to actually eradicate the sickness. St. Pius X’s efforts to safeguard the flock against the infection, especially with his Oath Against Modernism, surely prevented many souls from losing the Faith; but for those who become infected, the only hope is for God to mercifully offer a cure.

As we see often throughout salvation history, one aspect of God’s Providential cure for the spirit of Modernism is to allow souls to truly experience the ill-effects of the disease. An observation from Professor Hitchcock’s book provides us with a unique perspective on how the cure was already playing out by the early 1970s:

“Despite the fact that the conservative analysis of pre-conciliar Catholic progressivism was often mean-spirited and fanatical, and that it often ignored logic and apparent plain evidence to postulate hidden realities, the conservatives were correct in virtually every particular of their criticism of reform and their predictions of the effects it would have in the Church.” (p. 18)

The “mean-spirited and fanatical” conservatives were surely trying to uphold the warnings of Pius XII and his predecessors, who told us that the acceptance of errors would undermine the foundations of Catholic doctrine. The progressives resented the conservatives prior to Vatican II, but at least some opened their eyes after the Council to see that the conservatives “were correct in virtually every particular of their criticism of reform and their predictions of the effects it would have in the Church.”

Building on Professor Hitchcock’s observation, we can see how the Council and its aftermath have separated those identifying as Catholic into opposing camps:

This separation of Catholics into different camps has led to a concentration of the spirit of Modernism in Rome. One part of this appears to be God leaving His enemies to feast on their errors so that the grotesque outcome of their unholy spirit can serve as a sign to the rest of the world: this is what happens when, in the words of Benedict XV, Catholics “develop a keen dislike for all that savors of antiquity and become eager searchers after novelties in everything.” Their worst punishment in this life is that God allows them to be what they want to be.

In the other camp, we find a continuous purification of the virtues that were already present in those who would have already embraced St. Pius X’s Oath Against Modernism even without witnessing the scandals of the post-conciliar period. Before, those who sought to adhere to what the Church has always taught were supported by a hierarchy that understood that it had an obligation to safeguard the Faith. Today we find the opposite, as men like Francis and Leo XIV embrace every other set of religious beliefs other than what St. Pius X sought to protect. As a result, faithful Catholics today must fight, suffer, and endure persecutions for the sake of honoring God and saving their souls. Far from a curse, though, this grace to fight for God’s truth is among the greatest possible blessings. Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!

Bishop Gruber continued with a more tangible description of Rahner’s meaning:

We need more citizen historians to bring history to life and pose a challenge to the institutional historians who are ill-serving us.

Especially religiously(religious history) however the deceit from historians is across the board.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.