for some time, of which the condemnation of certain books of the Abbé
Loisy, and other incidents, had been the warning rumblings. Loisy's
condemnation let loose an outburst in the rationalist, anti-clerical
and Modernist press. "The old shadowy images of Rome gagging her
progressive men will be revived with added venom to poison the mind
of the public," prophesied a writer in the _Ecclesiastical Review_,
and the prophecy was certainly fulfilled. In vain did the Abbé
Monchamp point out, after close analysis of Loisy's book, the
impossibility of escaping a conclusion which places the writer in
direct opposition to the authoritative teaching of the Church. The
authoritative teaching of the Church was to the minds of many a much
less important thing than the retaining of a few intelligent men
within her fold. Yet even among those outside of the Church there
were men who saw more clearly. "From the paternal standpoint of the
Church of Rome," wrote Professor Sanday, "it seems to me, if I may
say so, that the authorities have acted wisely. It is not an
insuperable barrier placed in the way of future progress, but the
intimation of a need for caution."
The storm of abuse which had arisen at the condemnation of Loisy,
which had been increased by the publication of the decree
"Lamentabili," reached its climax at the appearance of the encyclical
"Pascendi," which tore the veil from Modernism and exposed its errors
with ruthless precision. Modernism, like Jansenism, had made up its
mind to remain in the Church and to mould her teaching to its will;
and now it was only one more of the many heresies that had fallen on
the rock of the promise and been broken in the falling. The pope and
Cardinal Merry del Val, who as secretary of state had the honour of
sharing in all the attacks that were levelled at his illustrious
chief, were denounced as intolerant fanatics. The one idea of Pius X,
cried the Modernists, was to repress by violent means every
indication of originality of thought and independence of judgement
within the Church; he had attempted to stifle a movement with which
some of the best thinkers of the age were in sympathy. He was a "good
country priest," perhaps; but utterly incapable of dealing with the
questions which were at issue. "The Modernist movement had quickened
a thousand dim dreams of reunion into enthusiastic hopes," wrote
Father Tyrrell, the leader of Modernism in England, "when lo! Pius X
comes forward with a stone in one hand and a scorpion in the other."
To many Christians the encyclical "Pascendi" revealed a danger that
they themselves had never suspected; and the account of the Modernist
doctrines which it so lucidly gave was for them a lesson more
eloquent than any censure. It was no empty accusation, much less a
travesty, as the Modernists themselves allowed, that masterly
analysis of a system which claimed the right to substitute itself for
the Catholic conception of a teaching authority established by Jesus
Christ. "Yes or no, do you believe in the divine authority of the
Church?" asked Cardinal Mercier. "Do you accept outwardly and in the
sincerity of your heart what she commands in the name of Christ? Do
you consent to obey her? If so, she offers you her sacraments and
undertakes to guide you safely into the harbour of salvation. If not,
then you deliberately sever the tie that unites you to her, and break
the bond consecrated by her grace. Before God and your conscience you
no longer belong to her; don't remain in obstinate hypocrisy a
pretended member of her fold. You cannot honestly pass yourself off
as one of her sons; and as she cannot be a party to hypocrisy and
sacrilege, she bids you, if you force her to it, to leave her ranks.
. . . The Modernism condemned by the pope is the negation of the
Church's teaching."
What _is_ Modernism? is a question that has been often asked. It is
not easy to put the matter in a nutshell, and various answers have
been given. For a complete analysis of Modernism we must go to the
encyclical itself. After condemning Modernism as "a meeting-ground of
all heresies," the pope denounced in it a group of errors which
included: the separation of an "historical" from a "religious"
Christ; the reversal of the Incarnation by the denial of the entering
of the Divine into the temporal sphere; the reducing of faith to a
matter of feeling; the reducing of religious authority from its
apostolic basis to a sort of "chairmanship," and the throwing over of
the Bible and revelation in favour of a personal inward
enlightenment. The encyclical proceeded to deal with the subject in
three parts, First came the analysis of Modernist teaching, with
agnosticism as the basis of its philosophy and immanence as its
positive side, thus placing the explanation of religion in man alone,
and lifting conscience to the same level as revelation. Faith and
science to the Modernist are separate, the latter being supreme, and
religious dogmas are not only inadequate but must be changeable to be
adapted to living needs. Everything must be subject to evolution, and
these principles were being applied to the deformation of history and
of apologetics.
In the second part Modernism was traced to its causes. "The proximate
cause," said the pope, "is without any doubt an error of the mind.
The remoter causes are two: curiosity and pride. Curiosity, unless
wisely held in check, is of itself sufficient to account for all
errors. But far more effective in darkening the mind and leading it
into error is pride, which, as it were, dwells in Modernism as in its
own house. Through pride the Modernists have overestimated
themselves. They are puffed up with a vainglory which lets them see
themselves as the sole possessors of knowledge, and makes them say,
'We are not as the rest of men'; which leads them, lest they should
seem as other men, to embrace and to devise novelties of the most
absurd kind. It is pride which . . . causes them to demand a
compromise between authority and liberty. It is owing to their pride
that they seek to be the reformers of others while they forget to
reform themselves."
"If from moral causes we pass to the intellectual, the first and most
powerful is ignorance. These very men who pose as teachers of the
Church, who speak so highly of modern philosophy and show such
contempt for Scholasticism, have embraced the one with its false
glamour precisely because their ignorance of the other has left them
without the means of recognizing the confusion of their ideas and of
refuting sophistry. Their system, full of so many errors, has been
born of the union between faith and false philosophy." "Modernism is
inclined to pantheism by its doctrine of divine immanence--i.e., of
the intimate presence of God within us," continues the pope. "Does
God declare Himself distinct from us? If so, then the position of
Modernism must not be opposed to that of Catholicism, nor exterior
revelation be rejected. But if God declares Himself not distinct from
us, the position of Modernism becomes openly pantheistic."
In the third part are set forth the remedies for the evil, amongst
which are the study of scholastic philosophy in seminaries and by
clerics at the universities; ceaseless activity and watchfulness on
the part of the bishops by a diocesan censorship of books, and the
tendering of an oath to clergy and professors by which they were to
bind themselves to reject the errors denounced in the encyclical and
decree.
The danger was indeed a serious one. The Modernists had put
themselves forward as the champions of science, led to the
conclusions they defended by anxiety for scientific truth. Their
movement from the point of view of many marked a religious reaction
against the materialism and positivism which had failed so signally
to satisfy longings of the human soul. It was a reaction in the right
direction which had taken the wrong road, which threatened to land
its votaries in a deeper ditch than that from which they had set out.
There was therefore an attractive side to its teaching, especially
for the young.
The storm raged hotly for a while round the pontiff who had spoken so
fearlessly; but a deep thanksgiving was in the hearts of those who
could see the issues at stake. "In his dealings with France," wrote
one of these, "the Holy Father saved, so to speak, the body of the
Church, but now he has saved her soul." "The pope has spoken,
Modernism has ceased to be," wrote Paul Bourget a year or two later.
"Five years ago," wrote Monsignor R. H. Benson on the death of Pius
X, "it was proclaimed that by his action thought was once more thrown
back into the fetters from which it was shaking itself loose, and
that Rome henceforward must be considered as finally out of the
struggle; that once more she had feared to face the light, and held
back or cast out those of her children who honestly desired it. And
now there is practically not a Christian anywhere--a Christian, that
is to say, in the historic sense of the word, who believes that
Christ's mission lay in the revelation which He promulgated, and not
merely in the impulse which His coming gave to spiritual aspiration--
there is not a Christian in this sense, however far his sympathies
may be from the Catholic interpretation of the contents of that
revelation, who does not acknowledge that Pius stood firm where their
religious leaders faltered or temporized; and that Rome, under his
leadership, placed herself on the side of plain Gospel truth, of the
authority of Holy Scripture and of the divinity of Christ."
X
PIUS X AND THE PRIESTHOOD
A personal friend of Pius X was speaking to him one day with
indignation of the abuse levelled at him by a Modernist writer. The
pope's answer was as characteristic as the smile that accompanied it.
"Come," he said, "did he not allow that after all I was a good
priest? Now, of all praise, that is the only one I have ever valued."
"A man who hid a boundless ambition under a pretence of humility,"
wrote another opponent. And in one sense most certainly Pius X was a
man of ambition, an ambition that had taken shape within him as he
knelt before the altar of the cathedral of Castelfranco to receive
the priesthood with all that it entailed. Study, prayer, labour,
self-denial and unlimited self-devotion; charity, poverty and
loyal-hearted obedience--all these were part of that ambition--the
ambition to be a good and fervent priest, to walk in the footsteps of
his Master. It had been his guiding star through life; he had
sacrificed everything to it; and in a certain sense it was true that
this ambition, realized most perfectly in his holy life, had placed
him against his will on the chair of Peter.
A noble and worthy priesthood, according to his first encyclical, was
to be one of the means towards that restoring of all things in Christ
"which was to heal the wounds of the world." "The priest is the
representative of Christ on earth," he said on one occasion to the
students of the French College in Rome; "he must think the thoughts
of Christ and speak His words. He must be tender as Christ was
tender, pure and holy like his Lord; he must shine like a star in the
world." This was not easy, he acknowledged; it needed a long
preparation of study, of self-discipline and of prayer. The spiritual
weapons must be well tempered for the combat, for the fight would be
hard and long. "A holy priest makes holy people," he said on another
occasion; "a priest who is not holy is not only useless but harmful
to the world."
And it was not only the cultivation of virtue on which he insisted,
but the cultivation of the mind also. The man who all his life had
curtailed his hours of sleep in order to study, had done it to
perfect his priesthood, to fit himself to cope with the dangers that
were abroad, to be armed at every point against error. Although his
enemies were never tired of asserting that he was ignorant and
unlettered, and he himself was quite ready to let the world believe
it, his knowledge and the extent of his learning could not be
concealed. Those who came in contact with him and his personal work
could not be otherwise than impressed with his depth of thought, the
extent of his reading, his literary and classical training, and his
strong grasp of philosophy and theology. His wide and far-reaching
appreciation of men and things in different countries all over the
world was astonishing in a man who had not travelled, as many
statesmen often remarked after conversing with him. He read French
perfectly, although he felt shy at attempting to speak it. He was an
excellent accountant. The delicacy and nobility of his dealings with
others were unequalled.
"In order that Christ may be formed in the faithful," said Pius in
his first encyclical, "He must first be formed in the priest," and
with this end in view he set himself to the task which lay before
him. The first six years of his pontificate were chiefly spent in
work which concerned the priesthood and sacerdotal institutions.
Uniform rules of study, discipline and ecclesiastical education were
given to all the seminaries of Italy, which were to be inspected
carefully from time to time by apostolic men, who had at heart the
perfection of the priesthood. Small seminaries in dioceses incapable
of supporting them on these lines were suppressed. Bishops were
exhorted to further the work by all the means in their power; care
was to be taken in the selection of candidates for the priesthood,
who, after a thorough training in the seminary, were to be wisely
directed in the first exercise of their ministry, safeguarded against
the errors of the day, and encouraged to keep up their studies
without detriment to their active work. The Academy of St. Thomas in
Rome and the Catholic Institute of Paris won special praise for the
excellence and thoroughness of their teaching. Special regulations
were laid down for the examination of those about to be ordained. The
study of Holy Scripture was to be pursued in the seminaries during
the four years of the theological course, while especially gifted
students were to be set apart for more advanced studies. On those who
were already, or about to be ordained, the pope enjoined constant and
fervent prayer, daily meditation on the eternal truths, the attentive
reading of good books, especially of the Bible, and diligent
examination of conscience. The priest was to stand forth as an
example to all by the integrity of his life, his deference and
obedience to legitimate authority, his patient charity with all men.
It was not by a bitter zeal that they would gain souls to God; they
must reprove, entreat, rebuke, but in all patience; their charity
must be patient and kind with all men, even with those who were their
open enemies. "Such an example," said Pius X, "will have far more
power to move hearts and to gain them than words or dissertations,
however sublime." "The renewal of the priesthood," wrote the pope a
little before the celebration of his sacerdotal jubilee in 1908,
"will be the finest and most acceptable gift that the clergy can
offer to us."
The gift that he himself bestowed on the priesthood on this fiftieth
anniversary of his ordination was the wonderful Exhortation to the
Catholic Clergy, published on August 4th, 1908. Every word of it was
his own, embodying the wisdom and experience of a lifetime spent in
God's service. The exhortation set before the clergy of the world the
model of "the man of God"--the perfect parish priest. Its fervent and
eloquent appeal to the clergy to show themselves worthy of their high
calling, by being truly the "salt of the earth and the light of the
world," is followed by a clear and practical exposition of the means
necessary to attain this great end. His ministry must be in deed as
well as in word. He must remember that he is not only the servant but
the friend of Christ, who has chosen him that he may go and bring
forth much fruit. And as friendship consists in unity of mind and
will, it is the first duty of a priest to study the mind and will of
his Master, so as to conform himself in all things to them. Stress is
laid on the necessity of cultivating the "passive" virtues--those
which perfect the character of the man himself--as well as the more
active ones which are called forth by contact with other people. The
exhortation, written for priests, by one who was a model of all
priestly virtues, and given from the chair of the Apostle, is a
perfect rule of life for every priest who aspires to holiness.
Once more he recommended, as he had so often done before, preaching
to the people plain and simple gospel truths rather than flowery and
rhetorical sermons. Once more, but this time as head on earth of the
Universal Church, he insisted on the necessity of clear and simple
instruction in Christian doctrine to adults and children alike, again
reiterating his conviction that the growth of unbelief was largely
due to ignorance of what Christ's teaching was.
"It is in a time of sore stress and difficulty," he writes in his
encyclical of 1905 on this subject, "that the mysterious counsel of
divine Providence has raised up our littleness to bear the office of
chief shepherd over the whole flock of Christ . . . . It is a common
complaint . . . that in this age there are very many Christian people
who live in utter ignorance of those things, the knowledge whereof is
necessary for their eternal salvation . . . we do not only mean the
masses and those in the lower walks of life . . . but those who,
though not without talent and culture, abound in the wisdom of the
world, and are utterly reckless and foolish in matters of religion.
. . . They hardly ever think of the supreme Maker and Ruler of all
things, or of the wisdom of the Christian faith . . . they in no wise
understand the malice and foulness of sin . . . a great many . . .
fall into endless evil through ignorance of those mysteries of faith
which those who would be counted among the elect must needs know and
believe."
"The erring will of man has need of a guide who shall show it the way
. . . this guide is the mind. But if the mind itself be lacking true
light . . . it will be a case of the blind leading the blind, and
both will fall into the ditch . . . . Only the teaching of Jesus
Christ makes us understand the true and wondrous dignity of man . . .
and is it not the teaching of Jesus Christ again that inspires in
proud man the lowliness of mind which is the origin of all true
glory? From it we learn the prudence of the spirit whereby we may
shun the prudence of the flesh, the justice whereby we may give to
everyone his due, the fortitude whereby we are made ready to endure
all things and may suffer with gladness for the sake of God and
eternal happiness; and the temperance by which we may love poverty
itself for the kingdom of God, and may even glory in the Cross,
despising the shame . . . . Since then such dire evils flow from
ignorance of religion and . . . the necessity of religious
instruction is so great, because no one can hope to fulfil the duties
of a Christian without knowing them, it remains to ask whose duty it
is to destroy this deadly ignorance in people's minds and to teach
them this necessary knowledge."
The answer is obvious--that duty falls on the priesthood, and this
the pope clearly points out. "There is nothing nearer or dearer than
this to the heart of Jesus Christ," he continues, "who said of
Himself through the lips of Isaias, 'to preach the Gospel to the poor
He hath sent me'."
Having laid down in urgent words the duty of the shepherds to feed
the flock committed to their care, the pope expounds the mission of
the catechist, and its power for good. He quotes the words of St.
Gregory the Great on the Apostles of Christ. "They took supreme care
to preach to the ignorant things easy and intelligible, not sublime
and arduous," ending with the saying of St. Peter, "as every man hath
received grace, ministering the same one to another, as good stewards
of the manifold grace of God."
To Pius X the Divine Office had always been a work of predilection.
It is said that as a child he had often seen Cardinal Monico with his
Breviary in his hands, and had wondered vaguely what beautiful
stories there could be in the book that so engrossed his attention.
And when in later days he opened it for the first time himself his
childish dreams found their fulfilment. For the Breviary is the story
of the Church and her saints, and the whole Psalter enwraps it like a
glory. It was to the treasures of that great book that he went all
his life for his morning meditation until he knew it as one knows the
heart of a friend. And loving it with the love of a true friend, and
seeing faults amidst its beauties, he would let it also share in "the
restoring of all things in Christ." For over four hundred years a
redistribution of the Psalter throughout the week had been sighed
for, but every scheme had failed. Pius appointed a commission to deal
with this problem, giving certain general lines on which to base the
reform, and in a few years the new Breviary was issued. The
rearrangement secured the recitation of the whole Psalter once a
week, the length of the office on Sundays and ferias was reduced,
while the complexities of the calendar were simplified.
"No one can fail," wrote the pope, "to be stirred by those numerous
passages of the Psalms which proclaim so loudly the immense majesty
of God, His omnipotence, His unutterable justice, His goodness and
clemency . . . . Who can fail to be inspired . . . by those
thanksgivings for God's benefits, by those lowly and trustful prayers
for benefits desired, by those cries of the penitent soul deploring
its sins? Who is not kindled with love for the picture of Christ the
Redeemer so lovingly shadowed forth, whose voice Augustine heard in
all the Psalms, praising or mourning, rejoicing in hope or longing
for accomplishment? With good reason was provision made in past ages
by decrees of the Roman pontiffs, canons of councils, and monastic
laws that both sections of the clergy should chant or recite the
whole Psalter every week." The pope spoke of the many pleas that had
reached him that the old custom might be restored, and of the work
that had been done to this effect, which was but a prelude to a
further emendation of the Breviary and the Missal.
The reform of the Roman Curia was another undertaking, which did much
to simplify the government of the Church. The various Roman
Congregations were founded by Sixtus V to study questions submitted
to the decision of the pope and to deal with any legal questions that
might arise; and as persons of experience and mature judgement alone
should deal with these matters, various committees were formed, each
of which attended to its own particular branch of business. But the
organization of the different congregations needed to be adapted to
the requirements of the present day. Pius X, with the practical
spirit which distinguished all his undertakings, completely
remodelled the curia, fixing the number of congregations at thirteen,
and defining clearly the work of each. The constitution "Sapienti
consilio" on this matter instituted also many other important reforms
in the tribunals and offices of the curia.
The purchase of the Palazzo Mariscotti, assigned to the Cardinal
Vicar of Rome, enabled Pius X to carry out another long-cherished
plan, for the thorough reform of his own diocese, inadequate in its
organization to the needs of the present day. Want of space, which
had been the chief difficulty in the way of reorganization, having
been thus supplied for, the necessary reforms were at once set on
foot. In many other important matters the needs of modern times
called for the simplification and amendment of methods that had
become obsolete. The reform and codification of canon law was another
laborious work carried on by the pope for eleven years, and brought
to a conclusion under his successor Benedict XV.