Talk:Modernism in the Catholic Church

I have started substantially editing this page, which, in its current form, is simply the Vatican's version of events at the time. The existing material will form an excellent Vatican view section, but the page needs a summary of the so-called "modernists" actual positions, which I will begin shortly.

I have begun to establish some independent neutrality to this article, which represented the official Roman Catholic anti-Modernist dogma as the Wikipedia point-of-view. Anyone will realize that Wikipedia is not an organ of the Roman Catholic Church. If an editor is entering official views, they must be identified as such. Wikipedia does not endorse any dogma. --Wetman 01:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you think my last couple of edits introduced some non-NPOV elements, please be specific, and edit the statements you think non-neutral. It looks like you simply reverted to the previous version, thus losing my correction of the incorrect dates, misspellings, and infelicitous wording, along with whatever non-neutral statements you objected to.

Please see the article on the Syllabus of Errors, as well as the links in that article's reference section, if you think my correction of the statements in this article about the Syllabus was false or non-neutral. --Jim Henry 18:07, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I took Jim Henry's version and changed some of the statements that i'm guessing Wetman had a problem with. Is this an acceptable compromise? Foobaz·✐ 19:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Foobaz, an Edit Conflict prevented me from doing very much the same thing. My apologies to Jim Henry: that was rash. I took offense at a few changes and didn't see the rest. --Wetman 19:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's better, but I think that my statement that the Syllabus of Errors "at first glance appeared to condemn" freedom of religion etc. is correct. If you disagree with this statement, you will probably disagree with my recent edits to Syllabus of Errors as well; but please read the sources cited (Newman's discussion in Difficulties of Anglicans, the Catholic Encylopedia article, and, if you can find it, the relevant chapter in Hales) before reverting or making major changes. The article on Americanism (heresy) contains a factual error of the same kind, which I'm planning to correct after doing some more research, when I have time. --Jim Henry 20:58, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The phrasing "at first glance appeared to condemn," not a statement of fact, has two subtexts, doesn't it? First, that the Syllabus didn't really condemn these things, after all. Which is Catholic enough, but not perfectly truthful. Second, that such a conclusion was superficial, a hasty conclusion "at first glance." Let us all notice that these words add no information: they are designed solely to undercut criticism. I do not disagree: I merely draw attention to the rhetorical tactic and its inferences. In a similarly underhanded way, I might suggest that the article would be more wholesome without them. --Wetman 00:13, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I thought the sources I cited at Syllabus of Errors gave enough evidence that I could objectively say that it "at first glance appeared to condemn" freedom of religion etc. Evidently I was mistaken, if you read these sources and did not come to same conclusion, or if you regard them as unreliable sources. I did not mean it to "add no information, merely undercut criticism"; I meant to tersely convey the same information I had recently added to Syllabus of Errors. I apologize if hasty or careless reading has led me to say something untruthful (and therefore un-Catholic).

Let's continue this discussion at Talk:Syllabus of Errors. --Jim Henry 14:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

I wrote most of the original article. What makes you feel like it wasn't NPOV or that it endorsed the position of the catholic church?

It is hard to guess what version of the article you are referring to, since you are not logged in and there are several different anonymous users (or the same person (you?) with different IP addresses on different occasions) who edited various early versions of the article. I suspect that what sparked Wetman's original comment at the top of this talk page were my edits of 17 February, but he had already been making edits on the article for several days, and I some of his NPOV-related criticism probably related to versions of the article from before I started working on it. It would help a lot if you would identify yourself and identify which older versions of the article [1] you defend as sufficiently NPOV.

I can't speak for Wetman, but the original stub version of the article seemed, to me, more confusing and incomplete than non-neutral. The version from shortly before I made my edits on 17 February was more complete. It seemed fairly neutral to me, except for the bit about "the Syllabus of Errors (which condemned most of the ammendments [sic] in the Bill of Rights)" - but if that is a biased statement (Wetman and I apparently disagree), it was anti-Catholic rather than pro-Catholic bias. -- Jim Henry 14:54, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

User:67.180.61.179 wrote (in HTML comments in the article itself):

"To the outside observer? What does this mean exactly. I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that the term "modernist" used to describe certain Catholic theologians and Clergy was invented by other Catholic theologians and clergymen. Now, from what I understand about how those people defined it, they were really applying a name to a series of interelated ideas that became popular at the time within the catholic church (ideas mostly from without), and which were fundamentally rationalized as being ok by the idea of dogmas "evolving" or constantly being updated)

I agree that this "to the outside observer" is a confusing and unnecessary bit of framing. I might even venture to call it "weasel wording". The earlier version, or something like it, would be clearer: "Modernism was a term used by ... to describe ..."

I think we should make clear that I don't think Pius the X intended to say that modernism was the "synthesis of all hersies" because it attempted to combine all heresies (for example a super-heresy which said that matter was evil, jesus wasn't human, jesus wasn't divine, the bible is the only source of truth, the bible isn't divinely inspired), but rather, as the article explains further down, that the evolution of the dogmas paridigm allowed someone to hold all of those ideas at different times and be correct, and not outside of the church

Yes, this is an important thing to say. Modernism was called the synthesis of all heresies because it denied any idea of authority or objctive, unchanging truth at all, unlike earlier heresies which contradicted church authority on a particular point (e.g. Arianism, Nestorianism), or set up another source of authority (Islam, Protestantism) while accepting the basic idea of objective revealed truth.

This is sort of a warped, possily non NPOV version of what I had written before. "catholic thinkers joining protestant theologians?". But the phrase "the crisis took place chiefly . . ." is very hard to defend from my standpoint. There are two elements, there are the places which modernism was a point of contention, which might be those limited countries, and there are places where modernistic ideas or memes spread throughout semenaries, theologians, clergy, or laity, which would be far wider (although in these places it didn't attract contraversy)

There are some parallels between Modernism and liberal Protestantism, but according to Hales 1958 the modernists (or, to be maximally NPOV, those-theologians-whom-Pius-X-called-modernists) were, except for their ideas about evolution of dogma, strongly attached to the unity of the church and disliked liberal Protestantism. Hales also supports the statement about the limited geographic extent of modernism.

In addition simply eluding to Newman's idea of the "development of doctrine" makes it hard for a newbie reader to understand what that means, he has to read that article to understand the difference)

This is a hypertext encyclopedia; links allow us to mention things without having to explain them every time. Putting in a long paragraph here about how Newman's ideas are distinct from Loisy and Tyrrell's would just slow things down for the reader who already knows Newman; putting in a link allows the reader who is not familiar with Newman to easily look up "development of doctrine". I think it is important to distinguish the two ideas here, since they have such similar names and are so different in other respects. But I need to get around to writing at least a stub about development of doctrine. --Jim Henry 19:19, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A thank you is in order to Jim Henry and two anonymous editors who have reshaped this entry in the last month, to the credit of us all! --Wetman 13:12, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Wilkinson 2002"?

Who is this Wilkinson cited at the bottom of the introductory section?

-- I agree. This Wilkinson should stand up and be counted.

what are the main goals

I would just like for someone to plainly state what roman catholics as an interest group in politics has as their main goals.

This Article Needs to Be Rewritten

I’m glad that you have put a lot of effort into writing about Catholic Modernists, which are a very important topic. But I’m afraid that because of historical inaccuracies and what seems to be a bias toward the official Catholic position at the time, this article needs to be heavily modified if not rewritten. I would suggest reading the works of Loisy, Tyrrell, and Blondel to round out a more objective view. I might be wrong, but it does not seem that the authors of this Article have read these works. Careful study of these writers can be very rewarding, especially Blondel's work on History and Dogma. I would also recommend reading Alec R. Vidler's excellent study The Church in an Age of Revolution, which has an excellent chapter on Catholic Modernism, as well as Vidler's The Modernist Movement in the Roman Church.

I will list some of my objections and would be interested in other’s thoughts:

(1) First off, Hans Küng is listed under the Catholic Modernists at the end of the article. He was not born until 1928, long after Pascendi dominici gregis in 1907. Although the Modernists influenced Küng's theology, they influenced everyone's theology, more so de Lubac than Küng. It is an anachronism to single out Küng as a modernist, and makes the article seem ideologically motivated. Why not list Karl Rahner as a “Modernist”; he used “Modernist” philosophy, specifically Heidegger’s revisions of Being from Hegel and Western Metaphysics generally? Or why not Yves Congar, who used “Modernist” notions of history? Or Teilhard, who used “Modernist” notions of science? Or de Lubac, who used “Modernist” notions of nature and grace and “Modernist” exegesis? Also Küng’s trouble with the Vatican came about because of his critique of infallibility, which uses Church history and biblical exegesis to critique that teaching.

(2) De Lubac is not mentioned under the "New Theology" / nouvelle théologie?

(3) It is accepted among non-biased Church historians (Alec R. Vidler, for instance) that Pascendi dominici gregis is a caricature, at best, of the Modernist position. Pius X lacked the intellect to understand the "Modernist" understandings of exegesis, history, and nature and grace. It seems clear from Pascendi dominici gregis that he hadn't even read much of what he was critiquing.

(4) The information included under "Modernism in the Catholic Church might be described under the following broad headings:" is a reiteration of Pius X's Pascendi dominici gregis, which is not an accurate description of the Catholic "Modernist" position (though it would be inaccurate to speak of them as adopting one monolithic position).

(5) "Modernism involved the evolution of dogma — a notion distinct from Cardinal Newman’s teaching on the 'development of doctrine,' which he characterized in acceptably orthodox fashion as an unfolding in time of what was already implicit in Christ’s initial teaching." As an earlier contributor mentioned, this claim is unsubstantiated. The term "acceptably orthodox fashion" sounds like an evaluation of orthodoxy and could be read as an ideological bias. Jim and/or Wetman, I would refer you to Blondel's History and Dogma, which is a very nuanced understanding of how Dogma evolves/develops over time.

(6) The following definition of heretic is simplistic and historically inaccurate: "a heretic (someone who believed and taught something different than what the rest of the church believed)." This definition would include Augustine, Aquinas, von Balthasar, John Paul II, the current Pope, and many, many others. An understanding of heresy requires a detailed concept of what it means to be "Church" and what the conditions, limits, and extensions of authority are.

(7) "Catholic historians and theologians have social explanations as to why Modernism developed as it did and became so popular." I'd be interested in which "historians and theologians" you're thinking of here? Could you please cite them? I would point out that the irony of this statement is that it deploys what Pius X claimed was a “Modernist” position, using social contexts to understand the development of religious doctrines, to understand the “Modernists” themselves.

(8) At the beginning of this article, the author(s) write(s) that "The Modernist crisis took place chiefly in French and British intellectual Catholic circles, to a lesser extent in Italy, and virtually nowhere else." Then under "Social/Anthropological causes of Modernism," they list conditions in the United States as explaining the rise of Modernism. Also, Friedrich von Hügel, the intellectual sponsor of the “Modernists,” is Austrian.

Jndudley 17:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not just go ahead and present the views of the authors you've been reading, with references to their titles? --Wetman 20:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

"Rationalist"

Wrong. How is a rational approach to the Bible heresy? Rationalism: "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification." Try and tell me the Church does not encourage justification of belief through reason. Wikipedia you've done it again! I feel bad for the people who come here and actually use the site in an attempt to gain knowledge.

Edit: I went ahead and changed the article to maintain neutrality. It's not that hard, kids. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.148.21 (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)