61                    TRUE

Philosophy and the sciences have a proper object and a method distinct from theology. Nevertheless, since divine Revelation is infallible whereas human reason is fallible, scientists and philosophers must take the teachings of the Church, which is the authentic interpreter of Revelation, for a criterion of certitude and as a guide, at least negatively, in their studies and research.

FALSE

Philosophy and the sciences have an object and a method independent from sacred theology. Thus the believer in his philosophical and scientific research, does not have to take into consideration supernatural Revelation.

Explanation: Reason and Faith cannot collide. When an incompatibility seems to exist, it arises from the fact that the teaching of the faith has not been formulated with objective precision, or else, more likely, errors of reason have been made in the research. Moreover, faced with the Church's infallible teaching, the philosopher or scientist must always reject those conclusions which contradict these teachings.

In his encyclical Humani Generis (§35), the Holy Father restates the traditional doctrine in these terms:

...caution must be used when there is some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.¹

62                    TRUE

Until the end of time, men will be disposed to sin against every virtue and so equally against faith. Heresy does not constitute a dishonor for the Church, but only for the heretics. For while sacred theology can reach a certain perfection of expression in the explanation of revealed truths, and achieve genuine progress for the Church, this fact does not prevent there being persons who revolt against the Church's teaching authority.

FALSE

It is insulting to the Church to admit, in our day, the existence of occult heresies or the danger of declared heresy. For, in the current state of progress, the Church has definitively overcome these dangers.

Explanation: Refer to the "Pastoral Letter" [published in The Angelus, Dec. 2002.–Ed.].

Explanation: Refer to the "Pastoral Letter" [published in The Angelus, Dec. 2002.–Ed.].

63                        TRUE

The goal of writing history is to establish an objective reconstruction of the past, and the historical method is destined to preserve that reconstruction from being deformed by the author's subjectivism.

FALSE

History does not provide a knowledge of events in their objective reality, but only an image of them fashioned subjectively by the historian.

Explanation: The refuted sentence destroys the very foundation of the Catholic religion, which is based on the historical fact of Revelation known and transmitted in its objective reality. It was this same principle that the modernists used to propagate their errors, which in the final analysis reduced religion to a mere subjectivism.

64                      TRUE

During the course of the last centuries, the spirit of Revolution has produced constant transformations with the purpose of overthrowing legitimate powers; of reducing to naught authority, be it political, social or economic; of leveling every legitimate inequality. The Church opposes and will continue to oppose this historical process. In the 19th century and the first decades of the 20th, she combated anarchic liberalism. In this second half of the 20th century, she is disposed to fight "with very great energy" socialism, which imperils "the dignity of man and the eternal salvation of souls."³ That is why she edifies the world in the functioning of her hierarchical structure, which is of divine institution and, consequently, immutable. Also, that is why, in her liturgy, discipline, etc., she manifests a spirit of hierarchy in opposition to the spirit of revolution.

FALSE

During the course of the last few centuries, civil society has evolved towards a greater simplicity and equality of morals and of political, social, and economic organization, in accordance with the principles of the Gospel. It would be fitting for the Church in turn, following this evolution, to become more egalitarian in her organization and simpler and more democratic in her discipline, liturgy and morals, and in the exterior deportment of her hierarchy.

Explanation: The refuted sentence accepts as legitimate the different revolutions whose effect was to level social hierarchies: Protestantism, the French Revolution, Communism, which, moved by the spirit of pride and sensuality, have been working to transform the world.³ To wish to conform the Church to a civil society shaped according to such a spirit is to demand the Catholic religion to capitulate. What is more, it is to forget that the Church's organization, in her divinely instituted elements, is immutable.

65                       TRUE

The Catholic must be a man of his time, and, as such, must sincerely accept the changes and progress by which it differs from preceding centuries, insofar as these changes and this progress are in conformity with the spirit and the doctrine of the Church and lead to a truly Christian civilization.

FALSE

The Catholic must be a man of his time and, as such, must sincerely accept, without reservation, the changes and progress by which our century differs from preceding centuries.

Explanation: The refuted sentence is unilateral. At each epoch of history, Catholics have a twofold duty: adaptation and resistance. The faulty phrase considers only adaptation.

At first glance, this double duty is easy to understand. There has never been an age when all the laws, institutions, mores, and ways of seeing and understanding have merited only praise or blame. In the best of times as well as in the worst, there have been, on the contrary, both good things and bad. Wherever good is encountered, our attitude must be that which the Apostle counseled: "Test all things and take what is good." When confronted by evil we must obey this other advice of the Apostle: "Be not conformed to this world" (Rom. 12:2).

Still, it behooves us to apply intelligently both recommendations. It is excellent to analyze everything and to keep only what is good. But we must also keep in mind that a thing is good not only if it conforms to the letter, but also to the spirit. Something is not good that favors both virtue and vice, but rather that which always and uniquely favors virtue. Thus if a custom, irreproachable in itself, creates an atmosphere favorable to evil, prudence demands that it be rejected. When a law, even favorable to the one true Church, at the same time favors heresy and incredulity, then it deserves to be combated.

Resistance to the world must also be done with prudence, that is to say resistance must neither fall short of nor exceed the mark. As an example of unintelligent resistance to the world, we have the exaggerated attachment to superficial things, such as the return to "the altar in form of a table." This is a resistance that goes far beyond the mark, which is the defense of the Faith. On the other hand, resistance to the world must not fall short of its object. It is not enough to assent to abstract doctrine with no concrete application in daily circumstances or which is just a matter of platitudes. It is necessary to teach, to know the events of the day in all their living, pulsating reality; it is necessary to organize action so as to be able to intervene significantly in the course of events.

Finally, it is necessary to remember that the physiognomy of an age can not be divided into good and bad aspects that remain independent of each other. Every age has its particular mentality which is the result of both the good and the bad aspects. If the former are preponderant and the latter are secondary, then the epoch deserves to be called good. If, on the contrary, bad aspects dominate and the good exists only in a few details, then it deserves to be called bad. In problems of the relations between Catholics and their time, it is not enough for them to take a stand before the fragmented aspects of the world in which they live. They must consider the physiognomy of their time in its underlying moral unity and take a stand in relation to it. It is especially in light of this principle that the refuted sentence must be rejected. For it does not speak of accepting one or the other aspect of the contemporary world, but of its global totality.

In the Syllabus, Pope Pius IX condemned the following proposition: "80. The Roman Pontiff can and should reconcile and adapt himself to progress, liberalism, and the modern civilization."⁴ Obviously, the proposition would be incomprehensible if it did not suppose that the progress of modern civilization at the time of Pope Pius IX, while presenting some good aspects, was, on the whole, corroded by the errors of the age and especially by liberalism, which is particularly mentioned in Proposition 80. And, indeed, this proposition was taken from the allocution Iam Dudum of March 18, 1861, in which the Sovereign Pontiff depicts the impressive struggle between two irreconcilable forces, one fighting for the so-called modern civilization, "a system invented to weaken and, undoubtedly, to finish off the Church of Christ" and the other defending the eternal principles of Christian civilization. If by modern civilization is meant what Pope Pius IX understood it to mean, that is to say a pagan civilization in the process of being erected on the ruins of ancient Christian civilization, the condemnation of Proposition 80 is entirely understandable.

What is the overall aspect of the age in which we are living? Let us consult the popes. Pope Pius XI says:

...one convulsion following upon another has marked the passage of the centuries, down to the revolution of our own days. This modern revolution, it may be said, has actually broken out or threatens everywhere, and it exceeds in amplitude and violence anything yet experienced in the preceding persecutions launched against the Church. Entire peoples find themselves in danger of falling back into a barbarism worse than that which oppressed the greater part of the world at the coming of the Redeemer.⁵

Pope Pius XII in his discourse of October 12, 1952, to the Union of Catholic Laymen of Italian Catholic Action, is no less explicit:

Today it is not only the Eternal City and Italy which are threatened, but the whole world! Oh! Do not ask us who the "enemy" is, nor under what guise he presents himself. He is to be encountered everywhere and in our midst: he knows how to be both violent and cunning. Over the course of the last centuries he has tried to bring about the intellectual, moral, and social disaggregation of the unity that existed in the mysterious organism of Christ. He wanted nature without grace, reason without faith, liberty without authority, and, sometimes, authority without liberty. It is an "enemy" which each time becomes bolder, with an unscrupulousness that still surprises. First it is Christ, yes; the Church, no! Then: God, yes; Christ, no! Finally, the impious cry: God is dead, and even, God never existed.

And behold now the attempt to build the structure of the world on bases which We do not hesitate to point out as the chief cause of the danger that weighs on humanity: an economy without God; law without God, politics without God. The "enemy" has striven to bring it about that Christ has become a stranger in the universities, in the schools, in the family, in the administration of justice and in legislatures, in the assemblies of nations where are decided peace and war. Currently, he is corrupting the world by a press and entertainments which sweep away all modesty in boys and girls and destroy love between spouses; he inculcates a nationalism that leads to war.

We conclude: 1) the Catholic of our epoch must distinguish carefully between good and evil, upholding and favoring all that is good, and intrepidly opposing all that is evil, and especially utilizing advances in technology to advance the apostolate. 2) He must take a stand against the erroneous principles which exert a preponderant influence in every domain of modern life. Such must be the focus of his action.