MODERNISM

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXVI, Issue 3, 30 January 1908, Page 10

MODERNISM

# (By His Grace the Archbishop oy Wellington.) - (Continued from last week.) 111.-PSYCHOLOGY OF THE MODERNISTS. As a rule the Modernist is a good man, a sincere, "inteiiiJS '„ Catholic generally a layman-young, intelligent, and educated ; sometimes a priest— young J ' again sinning more for his university success than for ■ the extent and soundness cf his theological learning. ' J-rudite fairly veil up in sciences, criticism, and history, with a lr.ely imaginatun, often at the service of ■ a .degree of warm and stirring eloquence, he is charming to listen to when he unfolchs the enchanting, social perspectives which he dreams for his religion and • ins bod in its most scientific and modern glorification He has two splendid loves in his heart, and in" his •• .mind a lamentable- ignorance which sorely . rrars its • perfect balance. He is passionately fond of his faith and his Church ; passionately also addicted to modern civilisation and , science. It never enters his thoughts that, the -modern mind is not something admirable and excellent, any more than he imagines any blemish or jmperfection in his faith of a loyal Catholic His fixed idea is to wed, at any cost, these two beauties at the risk of exacting from each sacrifices, the importance of which sin s into insignificance compared ' with the grand goal to be reached. Such is his day-dream-and aJso - his mistake. The moment comes indeed, when the two corsorts present- their reasons for disagreement. There lies- the danger. With a correct mental balance, he would have rightly judged the' weight of the arguments pro and con. But that is just what he lacks. - He has no Philosoi hy, - . or so little— unless he has too, much of a kind, which is the same thing, and still less theology. If he has had beforehand a solid habitual forrration of a Catholic mind, the supernatural- instinct of his faith will stop him on the brink of the precipice. Unable to have a sufficient Jnsight into the problem, he will let it alone, and will not consider himself bound to furnish his contemporaries with the solution. He will give up the project of union and keep his- faith and fidelity to his Church untouched. . He will have been only tempted " by Modernism. ■ ■ > >. . Has he, on the contrary, a daring mind, less ' ~ C hnstiairty- tempered, he will risk a judgment in the dispute. The language of his faith is unfamiliar- sea---,thingly brought to his, fascinated eye is the apology of' ■ the modern mind. The cause is "judged. The Church is wrong. She must apologise and show a better temper, be more supple for conciliation, more eager ' to please the modern mind, less tenacious to keep the old ways of Icing and thinking which he deems the great obstacle to the blessed alliance he contemplates. • The following in so' er language, is a snecimen of his argument" progress is a fret, so is the modern mind, a fact henceforth intangible, like civilisation itself, and proof against, any attempt to destroy or reverse it On the other hand, the social triumph of the Church is a -necessity, the goal of a Catholic's holiest aspirations Now, if the Church is ever to hold a -place of honor the first place, in a civilised world, she surely will ' not (he contends) achieve that most desirable consummation, by showing hostility to the modem mdnd> Therefore she must become its ally. But how ? ■ Bv exacting from science such sacrifices as would lead" it to faith ? Impossible. - - Science and Progress o . evidently cannot stop their career, cannot adrrit suppression or distinction, which would be a breach of truth, an, insult to the absolute rights of reason itself. There remains bait the Modernist alternative. The Church must move in< a different plane. She.must modify herself, transform and modernise herself at last in. a ' rational ' ard triumphant fashion, in the midst of civilised society. And lo ! the man is stumbling- right and left in the quagmires mentioned in the preceding

paragraph. Is he conscious of his error, and guilty ? Sometimes yes, sometimes no ; much or little, or not at all, as the case may be. Only God knows— we cannot tell. He may certainly have a strong dose of good faith at the beginning of his dreams, and an unconsciousness of danger which is explained too well by the absence of the philosophical light required for its perception. Then come the timely warnings of the Church and the unavoidable shock of "his modern judgments against the decisions ' of the supreme 'magisterium ' or teaching- authority. What will he do ? There grace awaits him, and so does doubt, together with conscience troubles. If he stops and bows with . loyal simplicity cf mird and heart, he is .saved. He will have proved himself an advanced, a very advanced, guard, of Modernism — a great deal too much, assuredly. He will have ne-ared the brink, but avoided the fall reserved for the radicals of the party. They have no notion of submitting, their ' private mind ' to the authority of a supernatural ' magisterium.' It is theshipwrecis of their faith, whatever they miay say or pretend. The rest is a matter of course. First, Protestantism ; later on, Rationalism', Materialism, or worse still. The ' Moderate ' Modernist, still a Catholic and resolved to so remain, is in reality a friend of the Church, a friend, doubtless, ill-aid<vised and <most compromising, but still- a friend and, * moreover, too loyal and sympathetic not to deserve gentle handling. The Church has long treated him with indulgent longanimity. The severe lesson of the ' Laan'entabili,: on her part, is but an act of condescending charity in .which she mildly recalls to him certainvery old princij les of faith and reason too long forgotten. She does not require him to' entirely renounce his dream of social Catholicism, which is also her own, but in another measure and under another optic angle. She only asks him .to put more theological science into his views about the future of dogma and religion, more philosophy into his hypotheses, more cold reason and reserve into the exaggerated cultus which he too inconsiderately paid to the modern mind. IV..— THE MODERN MIND. What, then, is this mysterious divinity which counts such passionate adorers in its ranks ? Most brave hearts hate it as the very devil; while others claiming equal bravery are bewitched by it to the lengths of being) unconsciously drawn into the sacrifice of their faith— nay, sometimes of their reason. Whence comes, in regard to the modern mind, that asperity of contradictory sentiments which threaten to divide tihe Catholic world into two hostile camps — the ' conservatives ' and the ' progressists ' (so-callod!) ? There must be some terrible misunderstanding and subtle equivocation. What, then, is the modern mind ? * Something undoubtedly very comi lex, since it is the object of such different judgments from men of equal intelligence and sincerity. The only safe and logical method to fix the definitirn of a ' whole ' so vague, is to analyse separately its parts. Let us do a little anatomy. f First, of all, it is beyond doubt that, a master idea " dominates the whole question: the idea of 'progress'; and this idea immediately brings in three others : progress as an accomplished ' fact,' future indefinite progress as an ' ideal,' progress as the ' good ' of humanity. Hence these three basic propositions : progress as a 'fact,' progress as the 'good,' progress as the ' ideal ' of human life. ' ■ In the second line we find subordinated to the idea of progress— as different means or forms of progress— the following ideas :—: — 1. The general idea cf EVOLUTION— aII "progress is a change, therefore an evolution. - 2. The LIBERAL idea' : the evolution of the progress of the human individual, brings him to the more or less perfect and conscious possession of his liberty In the twofold aspect of his intelligence (Rationalism) and of his will (Liberalism properly so called)). 3. The NATURALISTIC idea : the evolution of human progress "is effected on the line of nature in all its orders ; progress is not (they say), and cannot be other than scientific— that is to say, independent and" more and more free from any foreign tutelage, and therefore from any religious tutelage, any supernatural influence. • 4. -The MATERIALISTIC idea : the first and supreme need of man is to live happy here below ; therefore to live in well-being and comfort; now the- unceasing progress of science and evolution increases the well-bring .of temporal life ; it is therefore to this term that the* law of indefinite scientific progress conducts humanity. In ,the third line, we must enumerate ->all the Theories, and Thousands ,of Means which 'gravitate -round" the principal ideas already stated,

either as co-operations- in their practical realisation, or as consequences of the philosophy which inspires their >. The .' fact ' -of the profound transformation of modern civilisation is there, and, like every fact, as; such, ,it cannot help' being t a fact'; it imposes itself. But not only does it impose itself as an accomplished fact, but it " imposes itself also in it® virtual, necessary, incoercible prolongation, and ought to last, because it is the human idea to realise it daily more and' more in its greatest possible proportion. - • - The modern mind, therefore, in its deepest and com- ' monest notion, is a spirit of progress (so called). Whence it assumes .this threefold attitude : SCORN for the past, SYMPATHY for the present,, ENTHUSIASM for the future. That's a matter of course. How could one love the past which has hampered progress ? How wish to preserve "it, since it is already ' overreached ' by the present movement and could only impede its onward march ? How not admire all the good given to man by present progress? A*>d, lastly, how not surrender one's self unreservedly to Ihe hopes of indefinitely increasing progress in -the future ?'. ''- The modern mind goes further,' much further, if it lets itself slide ever so little down the logical slope of the second plane— practical execution— where we saw it take up four famous theories : evolution, liberalism, naturalism, and materialism, until A More' Inexorable Logic pus'hos it, far, from the 'safeguards of faith and the supernatural, into the philosophical aberrations of im"morality, scepticism, and final agnosticism, which is the grave of human reason. We -don't say that e\ery man— especially every Catholic— smitten with the modern mind, goes those lengths ; everyone stoj;s- where he can and as he can. It remains to be seen whether ■it is possible to take one's share in the movement of the r modern mind, and afterwards withdraw from it, when once one has given one's self unreservedly, without precautions or restraints, at the outset,, to its violent impulses. Besides, what matter ? We have to define the'modern mind such as it is almost universally prevalent in contemporary thought. If its complacent admirers find that there are useful distinctions to make, well and good. But why don't they themselves make those restrictions in seasonable time, "instead of Deceiving the Simple and Unwary by an. incessant appeal to that grand, obscure, and monstrous fetich the ' modern mind ' alone ? Under the influence of the cherished idea of the modern mind, our modern society has indeed been greatly transformed. The craving for sensuous enjoyments promised to it by scientific Iprogress quenches . more and more in the . hearts of the people the yearning for virtue. Where faith sinks, pride rises, and with pride repulsion for the yoke of 'authority in any shape. It is, so to> spealo, the triumph of nature over grace — of nature with the whole train of all its original corruptions. It is also, from 1 tap- to- bottom of the social scale, the triumph of ' literalism ' (as defined above), until it becomes eventually the universal apotheosis of egotism — not even in its more ideal and acceptable form, but of egotism of flesh and lust unbridled. . Such is modern society, and _such, in any -case, the dominant features," daily, more accentuated, pi the civilisation in store for humanity'.. Such '-the modern mind has willed and made it. Science, liberty," pleasure, and a full stomach— to any extent. God, faith, religion, morality— as little as possible, and in-the end,logically, none at all. The least severe observation -we" can make is that the modern mind exhibits all sorts of things, 'good and bad, true ajnd false, old and new. What antic^iity, for instance, old- 'as the world, old as the angels, appears in the liberal' Error of ' Non Serviam ' (' I Will not serve '), in our contemporaTies' rebellions-, against God and His law, a simple perpetual echo of the first sin hurled by a created will against the Creator L What antiquity again' in the fierce race for the improvement of the pleasures of the. body; in that conception of the ■ scientific perfection of human -life by the increase of material well-being, regardless of the soul, of morality, of a future life— the practical ecKo of all the materialistic philosophies of past times ! What, in fine, is so ancient — twenty centuries old— as that effort, so-called critical, of free thought, of pure reason, striving to evade the authority of supernatural faith, of revealed dogma ?"' What is truly and genuinely modern is (1) the scientific • philosophy ' of progress— iproigress material, evolutive, indefinite, in^ which modernists put the ideal last end of mankind (ar.d yet how many old ideas here) ; a'nd (2) the ' present social state ' which this philosophy has begotten, a.nd which future civilisation ' must in the same order of ideas still -more accentu- , ate. This being said, we now

Define the Modern Mind : • A mentality (or general disposition of mind and 'heart) , sympathetic with all the - efflorescences present and future of "scientific progross " 'considered, not only" as a fact already partially accomplished and " inviolable,' "< but also as an "-ideal", good to which humanity ought to incessantly and indefinitely tend, with the duty to strenuously rerr6-\e every obstacle capable of hampering its " evolutions." ' We say designedly : 'an ideal,' and not ' the ideal ' good (the sole last end), in order to leave an open door to those upright Catholic thinkers, .still to-day included in the definition, but who would dread to be made prisoners in it, without all the free breathable air required by their faith and their reason. Ihe, definition is broad ; it had to be so 'in order to avoid the charge of being fabricated solely under the inspiration of the exigencies of a prejudice or a school. It remains exact, however, as the logical expression of a regularly drawn induction ; and, as was right, it leaves sufficientlytransparent, pn the essential point, the ' equivocation ' which we must now dispel once for all and/for ever. {To be concluded next week.)