ORIENTATIONS TO ROMAN CATHOLIC MODERNISM


C. J. T. Talar, Alvernia college, Reading, PA 19607

In an as yet unpublished paper ("Theological and Philosophical Modernism") Gabriel Daly has observed that, "Defining modernism is a political act, in that it commits one, if not to a position, at least to a perspective from which to launch one's investigations. . . . The condemnation of modernism cannot be allowed to set the agenda, for the very good reason that it is itself a major part of the problem to be resolved. Rome did much to create the monster it slew."

Daly's comments provide a good context from which to consider what is becoming an increasingly used way of introducing graduate students (and others) to modernism: Marvin O'Connell's Critics on Trial: An Introduction to the Modernist Crisis (Catholic University of America Press, 1994). The author's attempt to provide a straightforward narrative account of the movement cannot really avoid the hard "political" issues raised by Daly. The attempt to do so undermines the project, in ways suggested by Lawrence Barmann in his mini-review (which he has kindly allowed to be reproduced here): "Father Marvin O'Connell of Notre Dame's history department has written what he calls a straightforward narrative account of the so-called modernist movement in Catholicism from about 1890 to 1910. He says that he is more interested in modernists than in modernism, and he feels that he has been scrupulous in trying 'to avoid the biases unavoidably present in books' such as his. He has relied entirely on printed sources and on printed scholarly interpretations.

"The modernist phenomenon within Roman Catholicism was an important moment in the development of Catholic thought and life, and it was a missed moment in that Vatican authoritarianism destroyed the modernists rather than engaged them so as to integrate what was usable in their work. The repressive measures authorized by Pius X and Merry del Val to control Catholic thought and expression resulted in a narrowness and self-censorship which finally exploded in the Second Vatican Council half a century later. In the Council ideas about Scripture and concepts of the church for which Loisy and Tyrrell had been excommunicated were freely articulated and embraced in Council documents. The modernist phenomenon, then, can only be understood from the perspective of the late twentieth century; and it is precisely the issue of perspective, the very characteristic which distinguishes genuine historical writing from that of the chronicler or antiquarian, which is mostly lacking in O'connell's book.

"Father O'Connell's efforts to avoid biases have been singularly unsuccessful, and primarily because he has eschewed the interpretations which historical perspective makes possible and demands. Never does he attempt a critique of Catholic biblical studies, of theology, and ecclesiological authoritarianism at the end of the nineteenth century. Yet these are precisely the realities which called forth the modernist critique. Always the ecclesiastical authorities are given the presumption of good will; rarely are the modernists, unless they are also pious, like Blondel, von H gel, and Ward. O'Connell's interest in modernists rather than modernism has resulted in the creation of caricatures, often dependent on the interpretation of one or another earlier writer. Loisy becomes 'le petit Loisy,' von H gel a bumbling buffoon, and Tyrrell a volcanic Irishman. This may make amusing and easy reading, but it is not good history. And the modernist crisis is too important a cautionary tale in Catholic history to be turned into a pathetic joke." I have reproduced Barmann's comments at length, precisely because the growing influence of O'Connell's book needs tempering.

Before suggesting more viable alternatives, let me reproduce Daly's definition of modernism, from the same paper referenced earlier: "'Modernism' was the term employed by Pius X and his curial advisers in their attempt to describe and condemn certain liberal, anti-scholastic, and historico-critical forms of thought occurring in the Roman Catholic Church between c. 1890 and 1914. I am therefore contending that, although Catholic modernism was a belated attempt to respond to the challenge to modernity, it cannot be defined merely in terms of its responsiveness to modernity but must be related to the scholastic lineaments of Rome's understanding of orthodoxy."

First, for an intelligent survey of R.C. theology from the outset of the 19th century through Vatican II, it is difficult to improve upon T. M. Schoof's A Survey of Catholic Theology, 1800-1970 (Paulist 1970). Schoof avoids the pitfalls of a names and summaries of principal works approach by dividing the historical survey into two major parts. In the first he examines movements, notes their central tendencies and principal figures, and traces some connections among them. In the following section he travels over the same ground, but centering on the development of dogma. This provides a thematic coherence and avoids losing the reader in a welter of book summaries. To flesh out the "scholastic lineaments of Rome's understanding of orthodoxy" see Gerald McCool, Catholic Theology in the Nineteenth Century: The Quest for a Unitary Method (Seabury, 1977; republished as Nineteenth-Century Scholasticism: The Quest for a Unitary Method by Fordham University Press, 1989).

For treatments of modernism more generally (as opposed to those which center on one or a couple of individual figures) Gabriel Daly's Transcendence and Immanence: A Study in Catholic Modernism and Integralism (Clarendon Press, 1980) is an extremely insightful book. Certainly it is a harder read than O'Connell's. But that's because it does not shirk from the difficult analytical work that modernism requires. Following a survey of Roman fundamental theology in the last quarter of the 19th century, it goes on treat Blondel and Laberthonniere, Loisy, von Hugel, and Tyrrell, and the integralist response to modernism.

Though it centers on von Hugel, Lawrence Barmann's Baron Friedrich von Hugel and the Modernist Crisis in England (Cambridge, 1972) provides a good historical treatment of the succession of issues faced and generated by modernists. Since von Hugel was widely networked it also provides insight into the interrelationships among many of the principal figures involved. And as a treatment of von Hugel gel himself it still remains unsurpassed.

Turning to issues, one of the major areas of controversy centered on "apologetics" (what one would today call fundamental theology). The outstanding name in the camp of those calling for renewal is that of Maurice Blondel. The literature on Blondel is immense, but the best single treatment of him in relation to the modernist movement is Rene‚ Virgoulay's Blondel et le modernisme (Cerf, 1980). With regard to the biblical question, Loisy is far and away the central figure. Bernard Scott's introduction to Alfred Loisy, The Gospel and the Church (Fortress, 1976) surveys Loisy's career, and explains the significance of the book which is considered to have precipitated the modernist "crisis". As with Blondel, the literature on Loisy is extensive. Scott's piece is a good place to start. For a comprehensive treatment of Loisy's modernist writings and the polemics they raised see Emile Poulat, Histoire, dogme et critique dans la crise moderniste (Casterman, 1962, 1979). The book provides a wealth of information but its organization is more apt to confuse than help the reader. I would suggest ignoring the order in which it is written and beginning with I-III, backtracking to I-I & II. moving to I-IV, then I-VII. Next, II-I, II, III. This material covers Loisy's "Firmin" articles, The Gospel and the Church and its polemic, and Autour d'un petit livre (Loisy's 1903 reply to some of the principal criticisms leveled against GC) and its own round of polemics. The final portions of Poulat's book brings Blondel into the discussions. To pursue some of the figures beyond those mentioned here see Alec Vidler, A Variety of Catholic Modernists (Cambridge, 1970) which contains photographs for those interested in visualizing the people behind the writing. It also contains a chapter on what became known as "sociological modernism", associated in France with Marc Sangnier's Le Sillon. (See Paul Misner's Social Catholicism in Europe: From the Onset of Industrialization to the First World War (Crossroad, 1991) for a solid treatment of the larger context into which both Sangnier and Vatican responses to his movement fit.) Helpful for identifying names encountered in the course of reading in this area is the "Index bio-bibliographique" supplied by Emile Poulat in Alfred Loisy, sa vie-son oeuvre (Editions du C.N.R.S., 1960). Lastly some organizational information. I've mentioned earlier the Roman Catholic Modernism Seminar of the American Academy of Religion. It meets for one session at the national meeting and has just completed the papers that will become a book containing material on the contexts of modernism as well as chapters on individual modernists. Its next project will be approaches to modernists/antimodernists through their autobiographical writings. Nonmembers of the seminar are welcome to attend its sessions (next meeting will be in San Francisco in November of 1997). Note that seminar papers are preprinted and familiarity with them is presupposed. To obtain information about the seminar or how to obtain copies of papers, contact George Gilmore, Dept. of Theology, Spring Hill College, Mobile, AL 36608, ggilmore@azaliashc.edu This is Catholic Issues OnLine. Click here for home page