The Bible and the Crisis of Modernism

Tomáš Petráček, Addison Hart, David Livingstone

Description

A detailed study of the Catholic Church’s acceptance of the historical-critical method and modernization through the pivotal work of European theologians and biblical scholars.

One of the few topics in Catholic studies that demonstrates a marked about-face in theological attitudes within the Catholic Church is the reception of the historical-critical method in biblical exegesis and its dramatic rise from outright condemnation in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to its official acceptance by the 1990s. The Bible and the Crisis of Modernism tells the dramatic story of the ultimate acceptance of this modern method by the Catholic Church as it worked out the relationship between faith and reason in view of advances in the social and natural sciences. Particular attention to the contributions of Czech theologians to the field of biblical exegesis foregrounds the tensions at play in the church’s gradual recognition of the value of the historical-critical method to a better understanding of the Christian scriptures.

In this extensive study of the church’s response to the historical-critical method, Petráček broaches wider topics, such as the relationship between the Catholic Church and society in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the modernization of the church in the face of a changing world, the balance between institutional authority and individual freedom of conscience, and the balance between scholarly independence and ecclesial convictions. The attitude of the Catholic Church to modern scholarly research in many ways reflects its complicated relationship to the modern world in general, as The Bible and the Crisis of Modernism shows. Scholars in biblical studies, Catholic studies, and the history of the church in the Czech Republic will find Petráček’s work an enlightening addition to their collections.

The governing attitude among the Catholic elite provided one of the crucial motives for opposing the historical-criticism in exegesis, theology, and other areas. The unprecedented dynamism of historical, political, and social transformation in the so-called ‘long nineteenth century’ prepared the way for conditions in which great changes were no longer conducted under the supervision of traditional elites. Phenomena such as change, development, and historicism suddenly acquired the characters of hostile, threatening foreign powers intent on challenging the traditional salvific vision of history to which Catholic leaders were devoted. The natural, intuitive response to such threats was to reject these dangerous forces en bloc.

This rejection found its justification in the church’s self-conception. In theological thinking, as well as in practical and legal terms, the church envisioned itself as a ‘perfect society.’ The only other such society was the state. But as the church, owing to its supernatural origin and metaphysical finality, was concerned with the eternal salvation of humanity, it was thought superordinate to the state, which was concerned after all only with the organization of earthly affairs for humanity’s immediate good. With all due respect to state authorities, their primary responsibility, as the church conceived it, was to assist their ecclesiastical superiors in guiding souls to eternal salvation by way of education and leadership. The structures and practices of a perfect society, by its very definition, need not and cannot evolve. Therefore, the many movements urging clerical reform in that period—from the French Revolution through the events of 1830 and 1848 to the start of the twentieth century—were rejected as too bold, too sinful, and ultimately heretical in their questioning of the church’s authority, which was indubitably of divine origin.

The governing circles of the church increasingly entertained a gloomy skepticism with regard to human nature, sustained by the heady atmosphere of traditionalism and the Jansenist-infused spirituality that influenced most of its members. No longer was it possible to leave things to themselves, to countenance the opening of new avenues of political and civic exploration; man, allowed to pursue his own course, always grows corrupt in his freedom. It was thus necessary for church and state to escort human beings from cradle to grave, firmly punishing deviation from this procession when necessary. Only this joint custody over the lives of individual persons would guarantee the successful development of human society. Any spontaneous movement of society, state, ideology, and art would, however, equal a disturbance to the status quo, dangerously unbalancing the whole process. Such movements were doubly dangerous when they arose within theology and exegesis.

Nor was it permissible to allow church teachings to undergo change and development. Dogma was perceived as essentially ahistorical; we have already referred to the famous ‘Denzinger’ case, in which the classic handbooks of the Roman Third Scholastics systematically ripped doctrinal statements and decisions out of their historical contexts, rearranging them in a purely mechanical chronological order. By this standard, theology was thought to consist of a perfectly logical system, invariable in its delimitations; yet this system was, in reality, fundamentally incapable of responding to new concepts and impulses. Catholic theologians and exegetes were advised simply to refer themselves to traditional manuals, which were upheld as ideal study tools. The rare attempts to usher in new conceptions of various theological issues resulted in exemplary punishments (as with Rosmini) or chronic scrutiny and interference (as with Newman). In such an environment, the prevailing genre was apologetics.

This situation left the Catholic relationship to modernity—with all the associated values, priorities, and approaches implied by that word—in a state of hopeless complexity, irresolution, suspension, and obstruction. Terrified by the awesome cataclysms of the second phase of the French Revolution, with its anti-Christian rampages, and the anti-clerical elements of subsequent revolutionary movements in 1830 and 1848, the Papal See responded with an official rejection of all such manifestations of the modern spirit. Catholics who sought to find common ground and conciliation with the values of this new society (Montalembert and Lacordaire, for instance) were misunderstood and rejected by popes such as Gregory XVI and Pius IX. We may sum up the curial philosophy with the following words: “History opposes us, modernity opposes us, we will oppose them.”

​​Foreword

1. Introduction

2. Catholic Biblical Scholarship and the Beginnings of the Historical-Critical Method

3. Biblical Interpretation and the Teaching Order of the Church

4. The Opponents of Progressive Exegesis

5. The Motives for Opposing Historical-Criticism

6. The Impact and Consequences of the Resistance to Exegesis

7. The Process of Adopting the Historical-Critical Method in the Catholic Church

8. Final Reflections

Bibliography

List of Abbreviations

List of Names

Sujets

• Religion
• Christianisme
• Christian Theology
• Biblical Studies
• Philosophie et théologie
• Exégesis
• Modernization
• Exegesis
• General officer
• Theology
• Higher criticism
• Catholic
• Christianity
• General
• History

Informations

• Publié par: University of Notre Dame Press
• Date de parution: 15 septembre 2022
• Nombre de lectures: 0
• EAN13: 9780268202880
• Langue: English

Extrait

THE BIBLE AND THE CRISIS OF MODERNISM
The Bible and the Crisis of Modernism

Catholic Criticism in the Twentieth Century
Tomáš Petráček
University of Notre Dame Press
Notre Dame, Indiana
Initial translation work by David Livingstone, final translation by Addison Hart.
Copyright © 2022 by Tomáš Petráček
University of Notre Dame Press
Notre Dame, Indiana 46556
undpress.nd.edu
All Rights Reserved
Published in the United States of America
Library of Congress Control Number: 2022935748
ISBN: 978-0-268-20289-7 (Hardback)
ISBN: 978-0-268-20291-0 (WebPDF)
ISBN: 978-0-268-20288-0 (Epub)
This e-Book was converted from the original source file by a third-party vendor. Readers who notice any formatting, textual, or readability issues are encouraged to contact the publisher at [e-mail]
CONTENTS Acknowledgments CHAPTER 1. Introduction CHAPTER 2. Catholic Biblical Scholarship and the Beginnings of the Historical-Critical Method CHAPTER 3. Biblical Interpretation and the Teaching Order of the Church CHAPTER 4. The Opponents of Progressive Exegesis CHAPTER 5. The Motives for Opposing Historical-Criticism CHAPTER 6. The Influence and Consequences of the Impaired Exegesis CHAPTER 7. The Process of Adopting the Historical-Critical Method in the Catholic Church CHAPTER 8. Final Reflections List of Abbreviations Notes Bibliography Index
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This book was translated by David Livingstone. The translation was revised by Addison Hart. The translation was made with the financial support of the University of Hradec Králové, and the revision was supported by the Centre for Philosophy, Ethics and Religion, Faculty of Arts, Charles University.
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
There is a strange paradox in the history of Catholic biblical exegesis. Early in the twentieth century, Luis Martín, superior general of the Jesuit Order, instructed his subordinates to beware the mortal dangers inherent in the “historical method” of biblical study and interpretation. 1 Progressive Jesuit scholars were ordered to abandon their studies; further penalties were meted out according to their degree of “guilt.” In some cases, these punishments amounted to a total restriction of their duties to the pastoral sphere. The gentlest and most common sentence was a ban on further scholarly work in the discipline. Similar measures were soon adopted throughout the whole church under the supervision of the Pontifical Biblical Commission (PBC), setting a heavy burden on the backs of Catholic scholars for decades to come. The principal aim of this book will be to examine this conservative response and the reasons it arose, and the transformation in thought that succeeded it almost exactly ninety years later. For in 1993, the Pontifical Biblical Commission—the very same body that had condemned the historical-critical method—issued the Interpretation of the Bible in the Church , a binding document that identified it as the basis for all future Catholic scholarly exegesis. 2
A secondary aim of this study is to address the criticism, found in more than one book on Czech Catholic modernism, that the Czech territories produced no original theologian or philosopher of note in this period, and certainly none to rival the most celebrated thinkers in Europe. It is hard to dispute this claim on the one hand, but some exceptions do exist, especially in the area of biblical exegesis. We will therefore attempt to show how the conflict over modern exegesis played out in the environment of the Czech church, resulting in the emergence of several scholars whose talents rivaled those of most of their Western counterparts. 3 The stories of these individuals, and their varied responses to the limitations placed on biblical scholarship within the church, will provide telling illustrations of the tensions that existed between independent researchers and the institutional authorities. In these various cases, we will find examples of courage, resignation, and conformism. Ultimately, we will see that it is always futile to sweep legitimate problems under the carpet.
The almost sixty-year struggle to incorporate the historical-critical method into the framework of biblical exegesis testifies to the power of faith in scientific inquiry, and indeed to the power of words. The drama and intensity of the conflict resulted from the period conviction that objective knowledge could be acquired, that truth could be attained and expressed, and that it was possible to build upon the truth. Thus, paradoxically, the historical-critical method could be viewed within the church as both a gift (a magnificent instrument for comprehending not only the biblical text but the whole of tradition) and a threat (an enemy weapon capable of annihilating the very basis of ecclesiastical tradition by questioning its origins and authenticity). And even if the fears of its detractors were not realized, a problem remained. How was it possible to provide a legitimate interpretation of scripture using the very tools applied to any other ancient text?
The problem of applying modern research tools to biblical scholarship is still a thorny one in certain quarters. 4 The Protestant and Catholic churches remain divided on the subject, not so much between themselves as internally, or between particular denominations and sometimes also generations. 5 The scientific nature of these investigations is still a source of embarrassment for some Christians, who worry about where they might lead. It is not hard to detect a rift of sorts between the ecclesiastical elites of traditional churches, who typically accept the benefit and necessity of scientifically rigorous criticism, and certain laity for whom such studies are blasphemous and corrosive. There has been, moreover, a resurgence of fundamentalism within Christianity, radically rejecting any form of critical study in favor of a completely literal reading of the Bible. One need only consider the growing influence of extreme evangelicalism around the world, or even the waves of fashionable conservatism lapping at the margins of the Catholic Church. Even now, it would be premature to speak of this chapter in Christian history as definitively closed.
This book will examine an important aspect of Catholic exegetical history: the emergence of modern biblical scholarship in light of the church’s reaction to the dynamic development of the social and natural sciences during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The freedom to pursue new techniques in the study of scripture (including historical-criticism) was only obtained with difficulty. The renaissance in Catholic exegesis came about after a long series of tribulations, victimizations, and tragic errors that slowed its progress for decades. This oppressive atmosphere was gradually dispelled after the adoption of the dogmatic constitution Dei verbum in 1965. Pope John Paul II was to compare this situation to the maltreatment of Galileo: “Some, in their effort to defend the faith, considered it necessary to reject historical conclusions built on solid foundations. This was a hasty and unhappy decision. The work of pioneers like Father Lagrange has made it possible to make distinctions on the basis of dependable criteria.” 6
Our book focuses on the history of Catholic biblical scholarship, Catholic theology more broadly considered, and contributions made to exegetical developments by Czech scholars, but we could well expand the horizon of our attentions to include a host of interrelated issues in historiography: the relationship of church and society at the turn of the twentieth century; the question of modernism in Catholicism; the process of modernizing church teachings and institutions in an era of turbulent social change; the relationship between authorities and the individual; the freedom of individual conscience when compromised by the institution’s demands for loyalty and conformity; the autonomy of theological scholars when their findings appear to question formerly undoubted and undeniable points of ecclesiastical and theological tradition, to name only a few. It can be asserted with justice that the church’s attitudes to modern scholarship epitomize the complicated relationship between the church and modernity in general. The church’s decisions in this problem and others inevitably determined the course of many thousands of lives for decades afterward. Bearing this fact in mind, we should clarify a few basic concepts before examining the particularities of our subject.

BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AT THE TURN OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY
It would not be useful here to provide a comprehensive list of the many characteristics of Catholicism, but it would be a mistake not to emphasize some of the qualities that distinguish it from other Christian confessions, particularly in such instances as those qualities play important roles in the present study. 7
From a very early period, the Catholic Church has been defined by its strict hierarchical structure. Though it has undergone many natural developments over the course of time, with liberal or virtually autonomous power vested in its prelates at certain periods, the basic features of its architecture—the bishops holding the weight of an edifice culminating in the papal crown—have remained firm and steady. 8 What has changed, however, is the church’s degree of political influence and power. The decisive moment in its temporal decline was the traumatic extinction in the nineteenth century of the Papal States that once dominated central Italy and constituted for centuries a core element of the papacy’s sense of self. Throughout the Middle Ages, and again during the sixteenth-century confrontations with Protestantism, the church conceived of itself as an ideal society, an indispensable partner of the state, with which it closely cooperated in the interest of safeguarding the temporal and eternal welfare of its inhabitants. This philosophy foun