BT /00 A'f)l-n g ('.2 What Then Must I Believe ?- I God-The Cosmos-Man By WILLIAM I. LONERGAN, S.J. Associate Editor, "America" PRICE 5 CENTS THE AMERICA PRESS New York, N. Y. ~:.~(~(. __ (~(~() __ (. __ (~() __ () __ t) __ (t __ (I __ t) __ t) __ t).-..) __ () __ (~tl_()~.:. I AMERIC.A A CATHOLIC REVIEW OF THE WEEK What Others Think About It- Someone has sent me a copy of the issue of AMERICA for February 9, enclooing an editorial commenting on my remarks in the Senate against the secret sessions, in which the Senate in- dulges when it takes up the confirmation of appointees of the President, and I write to compliment you on your progressive attitude on this subject. I wish more of our editors would point out the dangers of this secrecy system. I think it is indefensible. Washington. C. C. DILL, U. S. Senator. I have your marked copy of AMERICA of January 26 issue, bear- ing on the edi~orial, "A Grave Menace." I am glad to note that one Catholic publication comes out into the open, unafraid to condemn the idea of contraception. . . Brooklyn. EDWARD P. DOYLE, Member of Assembly. Congratulations on the current issue of AMERICA (February 23). We have been subscribers since the first issue and I do not recall a more interesting number. The editorials, the summary of the Quirinal-Vatican treaty, the articles by Mr. Van Hoek and Mr. Dare, The Pilgrim, and the poety cannot be bettered, and even that list omits many that should be mentioned. From first page to cover it is splendid. Baltimore. MARK O. SHRIVER. The issue of AMERICA for January 26 contained an article headed "A Defense of Headline English," by Arthur D. McAghon, which I read with the keenest of pleasure. Evidently written by one who knew what he was talking about, its style was sprightly amI charming. I am not a Catholic, but have read your publication with in- creasing interest for some time. Such articles as "A Defense of Headline English," written with the accomplished skill of this author, are bound to increase your circulation. Irvington , N. J . HERBERT J. KELLY. $4.00 Yearly in U. S.-$4.50 Canada-$5.00 Foreign Deaddlfie God-the Cosmos-Man WILLIAM I. LONERGAN, S.]. Series One M VCH recent discussion concerning the relations of science and religion has set up a smoke screen tending to obscure the judgments of many men and women regarding the ultimate realities of life. We have become used to pronouncements, more sensational than scientifi c, uttered on the public platform by speakers of the Harry Elmer Barnes type, and to unwarranted gen- eralities about the so-called "facts" of Evolution that our Sunday supplements feature. They make timely a restate- ment of precisely what the Catholic Church requires the ยท Faithful to hold regarding (I) the Creator, (II) the begin- ning of the world, and more especially, (III) the nature and origin of man. To what, it is often asked J does Catholicism actually bind one in these matters? What is authoritatively settled? How far is a Catholic free to link arms with contemporary schools of philosophical, particularly evolutionist, thought without incurring the stigma of heresy? The Code of Canon Law describes a heretic as one who, having been baptized, retains the name of Christian but obstinately denies or doubts a truth that must be believed by Catholic or Divine faith. It may be said at once that, contrary to a popular im- pression among non-Catholics who usually visualize our re- ligion as fIxing most minutely and in detail what Catholics are or are not to believe on every conceivable subject from abiogenesis to zymosis, the Church's dogmas touch only a relatively few points. What has been settled, however, is basic. Moreover, while it leaves plenty of latitude for sci- entific investigation and disputation, it sufficiently covers the ground to afford the Faithful an adequate philosophy 4 GOD- THE COSMOS-MAN of life and also to serve theologians as a norm and guide for the probable or even certain solution of problems not defined as "of faith. " Needless to say, these teachings of the Church do not involve a claim to supremacy in things scientific. Christ founded a religious society, not a scientific academy. Par- aphrasing an ancient apologist 's pithy description of the Bible, the scope of religion is to teach mankind how to go to heaven, not how the. heavens go. The doctrines of the Church, then , are but an authoritative and infallible ex- position of Divine truths solemnly committed to her through Christ 's revelation. Where, then, do we find the truths which are "of faith" ( de fide) ? They may be gathered from any of the follow- ing sources: the clear wording of Holy Writ; definitions of the Roman Pontiffs and of General Councils, or of partiCll- lar Councils solemnly approved by the Holy See; professions of faith formulated by the Church and imposed upon the Faithful; ancient creeds and symbols; and, finally, to quote the Vatican Council, whatever is "proposed by the Church through her ... ordinary and universal teaching as Divine- ly revealed. " The creeds are three: the Apostles', the Nicene and the Athanasian. The principal professions of faith are the Tridentine, so named because it summarizes the defintions and declara- tions of the Council of Trent (Tridentum); the one pre- scribed for the Greeks by Pope Gregory XIII; that im- posed upon the Orientals by Popes Urban VIII and Bene- dict XIV; and that which Pope Pius X ordered all the clergy to make in order to safeguard the Church against Modernism. I. The Creator IT is an article of faith (l.) that a personal God exists; more definitely, that there is one God whose one Divine Nature exists in three Divine Persons. This God is, more- over, a Spirit, eternal, omniscient and omnipotent. Any theory, therefore, how popular soever it may be, which GOD-THE COSMOS-MAN 5 rules God out of the picture by denying His existence, or limits Him by denying anyone of His attributes, cannot be reconciled with Catholicism. (2.) It is a further Divinely revealed dogma, whose re- jection implies shipwreck of the Faith, that God has cre- ated whatever exists outside of Himself. As Catholic the- ology expresses it, the Adorable Trinity is the efficient cause of all things that are. :True, creation is often attributed as His distinct work to God the Father, as in the Apostles ' Creed ; and not improperly. But in reality it is the joint, common work of all three Divine Persons. They form one principle of creation, as the Scholastics say. This general truth is contained in our various professions of faith and in the decrees of any number of Ecumenical Councils. Thus the very first canon accompanying the Constitutions of the Vatican Council reads: " If anyone shall deny the one true God, Creator and Lord of all things visible and invisible , let him be anathema. " This declaration is but a repetition of the doctrine expressed by the Council of Florence in the middle of the fifteenth century: " The Church most firmly believes, professes and teaches that . the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, is the Creator of all things visible and invisible." In the Catholic sense creation means that God pro- duced the universe from nothing, that for the Divine ac- tivity which resulted in the general creation there was no pre-existing material with which or on which to work. Creation , St. Thomas explains, " is the production of the whole substance of a thing, with nothing presupposed. " As one of his commentators notes: The last three words r of this definition] are merely declarative. The sense of them is contained in the words that precede them . . . . . The formal object of creation is being .. .. Creation makes that to be, which was not. Hence, another definition [also of the Angelic Doctor's], " creation is the production of being as being." Against Dualism and Pantheism, to which most of the heretical systems that attempt to explain the origin of the universe are reducible , Catholicism has time and again launched her anathemas. Though their forms vary, Dual- 6 GOD-THE COSMOS-MAN ism would maintain that the universe, particularly matter, is uncreated and on the same plane with God, while Pan- theism would identify the creation with God as an emana- tion from His essence. Catholicism recognizes a duality of beings, but One is infinite and the other finite: it also rec- ognizes that God is immanent in His creation, but He re- mains transcendent to it at the same time; He is not iden- tifted with it. The Fourth Lateran Council, the Ecumenical Council of Florence, and the late Vatican Council, not to mention others, all unqualifiedly condemn the opposing errors. Mod- . ern evolutionary theories which attempt to account for nat- ural phenomena by excluding Divine causality are substan- tially reaucible to either of these two anathematized philos- ophical schools bf thought. It might profitably be noted that they are no novelty under the sun but as old as Chris- tianity, and older. (3.) Once, to use our limited human way of phrasing a simple but sublime fact , only God Himself had being. In time or, more accurately, along with time, He produced th~ things that are. Faith teaches that creation is not eternal. It had a beginning. Time and the universe are coexistent. In the Fourth Lateran Council (A. D. 1215) it was solemnly defined against the Albigensian heretics that "from the very first beginning of time [God] created ... both the spiritual and the corporal nature," a definition that was literally embodied in the decrees of the last General Council in 1870. This dogmatic definition is based on solid Scriptural grounds. Moreover, the Fathers of the Church, if Origen be excluded, are unanimous in supporting it. (4 .) As for the nature of the Divine creative act, it is de fide, hence to be believed as a revealed truth, that it was wholly free on God 's part. He was in no sense neces- sitated to create, much less to make this particular type of world rather than some other possible one. The Sev- enteenth Ecumenical Council, held during the pontificate of Eugenius IV, explicitly defined in its "Decree for the Jacobites," that God created all things "when He willed," a dogma emphasized by the Vatican Council in view of the false teachings of George Hermes and Anthony Guenther. GOD-THE COSMOS-MAN 7 God created, it tells us, "with absolute freedom of counsel." It decrees that " if anyone ... shall say that God created, not by His will free from all necessity, but by a necessity equal to the necessity whereby He loves Himself ... let him be anathema." (5.) The Vatican Council explicitly teaches that God 's sole motive in creating the universe, His purpose as Work- man, so to say, was His own Divine benevolence. "Of His own goodness . . . not for the increase or acquirement of His own happiness, but to manifest His perfections by the blessings which He b2stows on creatures" . . . He created. The world exists for God 's glory. Descartes denied this on the score that it would imply unbecoming egotism and vain- glory on God 's part, but there is an express conciliar . con- demnation of whoever "shall deny that the world was made for the glory of God. " Of the Creator, then , the following is substantially a summary of the doctrines which the Catholic 's act of faith must include: belief that God-one God in three Divine Persons-exists; that He is the Creator of all things visible and invisible; that He made the universe in time from nothing, freely , and in order to manifest His Divine per- fections, so that it exists for His glory. Obviously these truths are suggestive of important cor- ollaries and conclusions which, even though not so explicitly taught or defined, logically compel their acceptance if one would think and believe with the Church. To deny them may not constitute formal heresy but it would certainly be rash, since they have behind them the weightiest ecclesiasti- cal and theological authority , often involving the ordinary teaching authority of the Church. II. The Cosmos IT .is axiomatic with Catholics that once Rome has spoken all discussion in matters of Faith is at an end. In that particular field, as she is the heavenly-appointed teacher of nations, the Church can neither err nor lead others into error. But while she is well aware of the Divine guarantees that she possesses and of her magisterial commission, under 8 GOD-THE COSMOS-MAN the wisdom and guidance of the Holy Spirit she speaks only when God's interests and the welfare of souls are at stake in matters of moment. Then in the fulness of her Christ-given authority she proclaims religious truth so that there can be no mistake or misunderstanding. When the great Einstein recent1y gave to the world his newly propounded electro-gravitation theory it was a matter of special press comment that he should have been able to include so much profound thought in the small compass of a half-dozen pages. It is the achievement of the Church that all Revelation has been reduced to the brief formulas that make up her creeds and professions of faith, with a bit vf supplementary addenda. Hence when one passes from a study of her formal dogmatic pronouncements regarding the activities of the Creator, to a consideration of His handi- work itself, few though the de fide obligations of Catholics were on the Creator Himself, he will find, possibly to his surprise, that, apart from questions that concern the origin of the human race, they are even more circumscribed about the Creator's handiwork . The- story about the actual beginnings of the cosmos, so far as Revelation is concerned, is substantially found in the opening chapters of Genesis. There you have the nucleus of the Christian doctrine. The fact of a creation is pro- pounded, and its method and order , at least so far as their general headings are concerned, are described. Obviously both the fact and its attendant circumstances are really and truly revealed, that is, communicated to man- kind by God. Hence they are necessarily true, for it is intrinsically repugnant that the Deity should utter a false- hood. Theologians, however, draw a clear distinction be- tween truths which are revealed for their own sake, per se, as they say, and others which are revealed only because of their intimate connection with the former, per accidens. So far as the creation of the universe is concerned, the fact, as a dogma of Faith, is per se revealed; its subsidiary truths per accidens. Now Holy Scripture very often pro- poses revelations of the latter kind in such a way that they are susceptible of many interpretations, and these, so long as they do not affect faith or morals, the Church never for- GOD-THE COSMOS-MAN 9 bids. In this category is the mode of creation described in Genesis. Even orthodox commentators are agreed that the narrative occasions more scientific problems than it solves. Naturally man is intrigued, fm curiosity is one of his native characteristics, with knowing just when and how the world was made ; what its age is; over how long a period the actual creative process extended; whether primitive be- ings, especially those that have life, were produced simul- taneously m successively ; in what order things first made their appearance ; how much of creation is God's direct handiwork by "special creation" ; how much He left to sec- ondary causes; and a score of similar details. Strange to say, however, though the answer to all these conundrums is expressed or implied in the Mosaic account, there has been no direct dogmatic pronouncement by the Church about anyone of them. She has never defined, for example, as some seem to think" she has, that our earth is only about 6,000 years old, or that it was created in six days of twenty-four hours each, or that God immediately and directly created all the various forms and species that make up universal nature. Time and again she has re- peated her de fide pronouncement that God created the world; that is all. With a basis for their discussions and conclusions in Genesis , ecclesiastical writers speculate on the process and duration of creation and generally distinguish between the creation of primordial matter out of nothing (creation prop- er) and the formation or fashioning of all material ob- jects, heavens and earth , oceans and continents, plants and animals, out of the primitive world stuff. Yet even here the Church has not spoken dogmatically and finally about the points involved, so that Catholic scholars, theologians and scientists alike, are left to follow their own sound judgment. But while neither creeds nor councils nor infallible pon- tifical declarations have completely clarified and finally de- cided for the world the problems which the Genesis history of the beginnings of things creates, they have not left the Faithful without very definite guidance through dogmatic pronouncements regarding the attitude they are to have 10 GOD-THE COSMOS-MAN toward Scripture itself and toward certain schools of thought which have attempted to explain the origin of the cosmos. Thus Modernism with its contention that the Genesis narrative is but a symbol or a myth has been authoritatively condemned. So, too , Rationalism, with its exclusion of Divine Revelation. Likewise, Materialism with its denial of a spiritual as well as a material creation; Dualism and Pantheism as mentioned in dealing with God's creative ac- tivity; Pantheistic Evolution which would explain the uni- verse as an evolution of the Divine substance; Manicheism, Agnosticism, Mechanical Monism and similar heresies. Moreover, it is not without significance that the Roman "Index" bars from the Catholic 's reading list such volumes dealing with the origin of things, as Ferriere 's in France; Frohschammer's in Bavaria, and , in English, Draper 's " His- tory of the Conflicts between Religion and Science." As for Holy Writ, the Church has defined for us so that they must be believed, the truths that the sacred ca- nonical books, of which Genesis is one, are authentic and inerrant , that in their entirety and with all their parts they have God for their author and are inspired, and that they are to be interpreted according to sound exegetical prin- ciples, guided by the general consent of the Fathers and the sense of the Church itself. The Vatican Council makes these truths clear in its Constitution and canons, and the subsequent Encyclical "Providentissimus Deus" of Leo XIII amplifies those teachings. Moreover, the Biblical Commis- sion has supplemented the dogmatic definitions of the Church about the contents of the opening chapters of the Pentateuch with authoritative decisions, which, while they make no pretense to infallibility, are a norm of conduct that command the respectful obedience of the Faithful and in- directly indicate the mind of the Church on the points of Revelation which they touch. So far, then, as the origin of the world is cOhcerned, provided one admits its initial creation by God and the inspirational and inerrant value of the Biblical account, the Church holds him, under censure of heresy, to little more. Whether theologian or scientist, he can investigate and ex- amine those scientific and historical sources of knowledge GOD-THE COSMOS-MAN 11 which are at his disposal, and the Church does not say him nay. She knows that he will not find any contradiction between the correct conclusions of any of the natural sci- ences and the theory of creation proposed as a matter of faith for him. Whether primitive creation was simple or complex, whether it was a very brief or a protracted pro- cess, whether the world is 5,000 or 5,000,000 years old, - these and similar problems are more speculative than practical, and Catholicism has not attempted definitely to solve them. III. Man BARRING the angels who, in a sense, are a whole world by themselves, the truths of Faith, in so far as they relate to the beginnings of things , all center about three great realities, the Creator, the cosmos and man. Hav- ing summarized the de fide teachings of Catholicism on the two first topics, it remains to direct our attention to dog- matic anthropology. . Incidentally it may be remarked that the question of the origin of man is one of the most bitterly disputed of our contemporary problems. On no other do the forces of irre- ligion attempt so vigorously to make orthodoxy look ridicu- lous. Usually, however, this is done by confounding the Catholic position with extreme Fundamentalist theories, for the dogmatic definitions of the Church regarding primitive man , like those concerning the Creator Himself and the be- ginnings of His universe, are but a handful. Thus the rest of the science of man's origin and primitive history are left pretty much to the free investigation and discussion of those who may be interested in its enigmas. (1.) In the first place, it is an article of the Catholic Faith whose denial would constitute one a heretic, that God created the first man, Adam. Scripture is indisputable on this point and any number of councils, especially those treating of original sin and man's redemption, assume or repeat the dogma. The Biblical narrative is impressively simple, yet very definite: And he [God] said: let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion ... over the whole earth .... 12 GOD-THE COSMOS-MAN And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him : male and female he created them .... And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul. (2.) Whether the Divine operation that resulted in the formation of Adam was wholly mediate or immediate, direct or indirect, no Catholic dogmatic declaration has deter- mined. So far as his soul was concerned, Faith teaches that that was God 's own direct handiwork, and Tradition is most explicit on this fact. As for his body, it is Catholic teaching which one would indeed be rash to deny because of the many convincing arguments in its favor even though it be not de fide, that it was God 's "special" creation. _ The whole Scriptural account in its natural and obvi- ous sense teaches this and science has uncovered no con- clusive fact that seriously jeopardizes its truthfulness. "And the Lord God," the inspired writer records, " formed man of the slime of the earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life and man became a living soul. " It would ap- pear that a twofold direct act of the Deity is here reported, one having to do with the matter of which man 's body is made, the other, with his spirit, so that both body and soul were His immediate production. Indeed so unanimous and constant has been the teach- ing of the Fathers and Doctors on the point, that many of the older authorities like Suarez, Valentia , Mazzella, and others, did not hesitate to maintain that it was an article of Faith . Not all modern theologians, however, are pre- pared to stigmatize the opposite opinion as heretical. (3.) As for the origin of mother Eve, Catholic belief on this matter parallels the teaching of the Church about th ~ origin of Adam himself, for everything in Scripture would seem to indicate that like him she too was God 's personal handwork. We read: Then the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam; and when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs, and filled up flesh for it. And the Lcrd God built the rib which he took from Adam into a w" man: and brought her to Adam. And Adam said : This now is bone of my bones and flesh of my fl esh: she sha ll be called woman because she was taken out of man. GOD-THE COSMOS-MAN 13 Here as on so many other occasions the Pontifical Bibli- caJ Commission gives Catholics the official, even if not the authoritatively infallible teaching of the Church. For it answered negatively the foIlowing query: Whether , to take a specific case, the literal historic sense can be called into doubt where there is question of facts narrated in those same chapters [the first three of Genesis] which touch on the founda- tions of the Christian religion, such as, among others, .. . the pe- culiar creation of man, the formation of the first woman from the first man .... (4.) That the entire human family had a common origin and has descended from Adam and Eve is another de fide Catholic doctrine, both because clearly revealed in Holy Writ and because intimately associated with the dogma of original sin. While it is not formally defined, the dog- matic commission of the incompleted Vatican Council had drawn up the following canon: "If anyone shall deny that the entire human race sprang from one single protoparent , ;{"dam, let him be anathema." Obviously, at all events, Catholics may not accept the tribal-evolution idea so prev- alent among modern writers on evolution. The questions are often mooted whether any race of men existed on this earth and perished before Adam or remained as his contemporaries. Certainly there is no evi- dence of either pre-Adamism or co-Adamism. Pre-Adam- ism has never been condemned. It was reduced to a theo- logical system by the French Calvinist, Isaac Peyrere, who later became a Catholic and abjured his error before Alex- ander VII . It has been revamped in modern times by Pro- fessor Winchell and others. It may be said that the question of the existence of a human race which disappeared before the action described in Genesis is as little connected with our revealed dogmas concerning Adam as the question whether one or more of the stars are inhabited by rational beings resembling man. As co-Adamism, which maintains that men existing before Adam continued to coexist with him and his progeny, destroys the unity of the human fam- il y and seems to involve a direct denial of the universality of original sin and the Redemption, the more authoritative theologians consider it heretical. i4 GOD-THE COSMOS-MAN (5.) Besides the doctrines of the creation of Adam and Eve by God and of the common origin of the race, it is also a matter of faith that every human being has a spiritual, immortal, rational soul, endowed with free will. Theologi- ans are practically unanimous in holding that every human soul is God 's immediate creation in the fullest sense of the word, and that this takes place at the moment when it is infused into the body prepared for it. The theory of pre- existence which holds that all souls exist prior to the crea- tion of their respective bodies in which they are enclosed as in a prison, is heretical. Attempts to explain its origin by some sort of production or transmission by the parents is well nigh universally rejected by Catholic doctors. (6.) From what has been said the attitude of the Church regarding human evolution about which so much is superficially said and written, is readily deducible. The human soul, let alone the whole man, is not and cannot be the result of evolution. Absolutely speaking, man's body could have evolved from a lower animal form. But from possibilities to realities is quite a span and there is clearly nothing in Scripture to justify concluding to that process, nor has science so far offered any convincing arguments to show that present interpretations of the meaning of Genesis must be abandoned and a change of front on the part of theologians in their traditional teaching occasioned. Hence the Church has officially frowned upon the theory. The distinguished convert-scientist, St. George Mivart, defended it in 1871 , but twenty-five years later a French priest for upholding his view was summoned to Rome and ordered to retract the opinion, which he did. In 1899 a volume by the American scholar, Doctor J. A. Zahm, touch- ing the same topic, was suppressed by order of the Holy Office. Without deciding on the disputed theory, ecclesias- tical authority forbade its defense since, as propounded, it seemed irreconcilable with both Holy Writ and sound phi- losophy. These, of course, are only disciplinary measures, consequently reformable, but nevertheless they point the way for other Catholics to walle They suggest that we always treat possibles as possibles , probabilities as prob- abilities, and actualities as actualities. Life and Letters of Walter Drum, S.J. By JOSEPH GORA YEB, S.J. "Surely, the many friends and admirers of this truly great priest and religious will read his life 's story with more than ordinary interest. And those who were de- nied the privilege of knowing and loving him in life will undoubtedly catch something of his indomitable spirit from these printed pages; a spirit which made him what he was; a loyal follower of his Captain Christ, a fear- less champion of the Church, and a noble ornament to his religious brethren of the Society of Jesus."-Dominicana. "In this beautiful volume, published with all the taste we expect now as a matter of course almost from the America Press , we have a biography of a great soldier of Christ, a real captain of Christian 'shock troopers. ' .. . His biographer has handled his rich material skilfully and giv2n us a book as interesting as any novel."-New Zealand Tablet. " 'The Life and Letters of Walter Drum, S.].,' adds a notable volume to biographical literature."-Franciscan Herald. "The poet's words, so well remembered: 'Lives of great men all remind us . . . ' can be aptly applied to a valiant Catholic soldier and gentleman of our own day, the sub- j ::ct of a fascinating biography by the late Joseph Gorayeb, S.J. "-Boston Pilot . PRICE $3.00 THE AMERICA PRESS 461 Eighth Avenue New York, N. Y. rT~~~-:n~'i~:-~;t I BY WILFRID PARSONS, S.]. .: Editor-in-Chiej, "AMERICA" i TABLE OF CONTENTS I The Roman Question Is Settled I The Temporal Sovereignty Was Historically In- I i evitable The Temporal Sovereignty Is a Logical Necessity I The Temporal Power Is Lost I I The Roman Question Arises The Negotiations Begin The Question Is Settled I Some Misconceptions Are Brushed Away i What of the Future? I I I In Appendices will be found the complete text of the Treaty, the Concordat and the Financial Convention, and thereafter, a translation of a splendid article which appeared in the Osserva- tore Romano, the semi-official organ of the Pope. Price $1.50 Postpaid I I 461 E;ghth Av~~,E AMERICA PRE~w Yo,k, N. Y. I .:.~cl __ () __ C)""C)""I) __ C)~I~)""C)""C)~""'C) __ C,~~~)--.c.-.c~~~.:4f 829727-001 829727-002 829727-003 829727-004 829727-005 829727-006 829727-007 829727-008 829727-009 829727-010 829727-011 829727-012 829727-013 829727-014 829727-015 829727-016