Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:17:36.316Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

French Politics and Alfred Loisy's Modernism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Harvey Hill
Harvey Hill
Affiliation:
Harvey Hill is assistant professor of religion and philosophy at Berry College.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The first decade of the twentieth century was a time of great theological ferment in the Catholic church in France. In order to reconcile Catholic teaching with the latest findings of historical criticism, Alfred Loisy (1857–1940) and other “modernists” proposed sweeping reforms in the Church. From the perspective of Rome, however, these reforms seemed to threaten the very heart of the faith. In Roman eyes, Loisy and his theological allies had adopted the scientific methods of the anticlerical university. Like their secular colleagues but less openly, they then used these methods to subvert the Catholic tradition and the institutional structure of the church. The Vatican defended its embattled faith with a series of measures designed to crush this movement.

Type
Articles
Information
Church History , Volume 67 , Issue 3 , September 1998 , pp. 521 - 536
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Leo XIII, “Aeterni Patris,” in Actes de Léon XIII (Paris: Maison de la Bonne Presse, n.d.), 1:44–45. This edition of Leo's acts includes the Latin originals and facing French translations.Google Scholar

2. Leo XIII, “Aeterni Patris” 70–71.Google ScholarAmong its other virtues, in Leo's eyes, Thomism offered a firm foundation for papal authority and a justification of the place of the Church in modern life.Google Scholar See Hennesey, James, “Leo XIII's Thomistic Revival: A Political and Philosophical Event,” in Celebrating the Medieval Heritage, ed. Tracy, David (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978), 185–97, especially 189–90;Google Scholar and Thibault, Pierre, Savoir et pouvoir: Philosophic thomiste et politique cléricale au XIXe siècle (Quebec: Presses de l'Université Laval, 1972), especially 163–79.Google Scholar On the Thomist revival more generally, see McCool, Gerald, The Neo-Thomists (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1994), 25–40Google Scholar; idem, From Unity to Pluralism (New York: Fordham University Press, 1989), 5–38; and Boyle, Leonard E., “A Remembrance of Pope Leo XIII: The Encyclical Aeterni Patris,” in One Hundred Years of Thomism, ed. Brezik, Victor (Houston: Center for Thomistic Studies, 1981), 7–22.Google Scholar

3. X, Pius, “Lettre circulaire,” in Actes de S.S. Pie X (Paris: Maison de la Bonne Presse, n.d.), 2: 290–92. This edition of Pius's acts includes the Latin originals and facing French translations. Where I cite the French title, as here, the original work was in French.Google Scholar

4. X, Pius, “Lettre aux évêques protecteurs de l'lnstitut catholique de Paris,” in Actes de S.S. Pie X, 3:56–59.Google Scholar

5. Loisy, Alfred, Choses passées (Paris: Émile Nourry, 1913), 42–43.Google Scholar

6. Loisy, , Choses passées, 44.Google Scholar

7. Loisy, , “L'Avant-propos,” in “Essais d'histoire et de philosophie religieuses,” in Loisy papers (Bibliothèque nationale de France), 3:17 (18)Google Scholar, quoted in Loisy, Mémoires pour servir à I'histoire religieuse de notre temps (Paris: Émile Nourry, 1930), 1:447. Three versions of the “Essais” exist in the Loisy papers. My references are to the typed version in volumes 3–5. I will cite the individual chapters of the “Essais,” give the volume number of the Loisy collection, Loisy's own page number, and finally the page number of the Bibliothèque nationale in parentheses.Google Scholar

8. Loisy, , “La Religion et la vie,” in “Essais,” 5:1010 (317).Google Scholar

9. Loisy, , “La Religion et la vie,” 5:1080 (387).Google Scholar

10. Loisy, , “La Religion et la vie,” 5:1082–85 (389–92)Google Scholar, partially quoted in Loisy, Mémoires, 1:476.Google Scholar See also Loisy, , “Le Passé et l'avenir,” in “Essais,” 5:1131 (438)Google Scholar, quoted in Normand Provencher, “Un Inédit d'Alfred Loisy,” Église et Théologie 4 (1973): 411.Google Scholar

11. In “Le Dogme et la science,” in “Essais,” 5:882 (189), Loisy made the parallel of church and state with theology and science explicit: “It is in the order of thought as in the political order, where the separation of the Church and the State … seems to be the indispensable provisional condition of religious and civil peace.”Google Scholar

12. Richard to Valansio, M., 21 January 1901, in Maurice Clément, La Vie du Cardinal Richard (Paris: De Gigord, 1924), 426–27.Google Scholar

13. Loisy, , Mémoires, 2:92–93, 96Google Scholar, and idem, Choses passées, 232–34; Houtin, Albert, “La Vie d'Alfred Loisy,” in Alfred Loisy: Sa Vie, son œuvre, ed. Poulat, Émile (Paris: Centre nationale de la recherche scientifique, 1960), 102–112;Google ScholarO'Connell, Marvin, “The Bishopric of Monaco, 1902: A Revision,” The Catholic Historical Review 71 (1985): 26–51Google Scholar; and idem, Critics on Trial (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1994), 237–41, 250, 308.

14. Loisy, , Mémoires, 2:125, 143–44;Google ScholarTurvasi, Francesco, The Condemnation of Alfred Loisy and the Historical Method (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1979), 70.Google Scholar

15. It is worth repeating that Loisy did so in the interests of Catholicism as he understood it. Only by combating the Vatican's mistaken pretensions, scientific but also political, could he help the church to fulfill its role in modern society.

16. Loisy to Cardinal Mathieu, 27 October 1902, quoted in Loisy, Mémoires, 2:145–48, and idem, Chases passées, 235–37.

17. See, for example, Gayraud, Hippolyte, “L'´vangile et I'église,” in L'Univers et le monde, 1, 2–3, 4, 9, 10 January 1903.Google Scholar See also Poulat, Emile, Histoire, dogme et critique dans la crise moderniste (Paris: Casterman, 1962), 125–60;Google ScholarRatté, John, Three Modernists: Alfred Loisy, George Tyrrell, William Sullivan (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1967), 105–112;Google ScholarTalar, C. J. T., Metaphor and Modernist: The Polarization of Alfred Loisy and his Neo-Thomist Critics (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1987).Google Scholar

18. For an account by one of the members of the commission, see Aubert, Roger, “Aux origines de la reaction antimoderniste: Deux Documents inédits,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 37 (1961): 567–72.Google ScholarSee also Loisy, , Choses passées, 249–50, 392–93Google Scholar, and idem, Mémoires, 2:193–94, 199–200; Clément, La Vie du Cardinal Richard, 398–99.

19. Loisy, published their ordinances, along with other hostile Catholic commentaries, as an appendix to Autour d'un petit livre, (Paris: Alphonse Picard et fils, 1903), 261–75.Google Scholar See also Poulat, , Histoire, dogme et critique, 136–42, 244.Google Scholar

20. Loisy, , Choses passées, 249–50Google Scholar, and idem, Mémoires, 2:148.

21. Loisy, to Genocchi, 30 10 1903, quoted in Turvasi, Condemnation of Loisy, 94.Google Scholar

22. Loisy, , L'Évangile et I'église, 3d ed. (Bellevue: by the author, 1904), 277–78. Loisy continued: “It does not enter into the object of the present work to say … how it would be possible to conceive, at the present time, the agreement of dogma and science, of reason and faith, of the Church and society.” These were the topics, and almost the titles, of the last several chapters of the “Essais.” The fact that these questions, including, most relevantly for my purposes, the reconciliation of church and society, were not central to L'Évangile et I'église does not mean that Loisy was uninterested in their resolution. Rather, their resolution was the (sometimes only implicit) point of his modernist works, as the “Essais” make clear.Google Scholar

23. Loisy, , Autour d'un petit livre, xi–xv.Google Scholar

24. Loisy, , Autour d'un petit livre, xxxiv.Google Scholar

25. Clément, La Vie du Cardinal Richard, 399–402; Loisy, Choses passées, 272, and idem, Mémoires, 2:283. See also Poulat, Histoire, dogme, et critique, 245–48.

26. See Loisy, Mémoires, 2:299–369Google Scholar, and idem, Chases passées, 272–302; Houtin, , La Vie d'Alfred Loisy, 120–25;Google ScholarClément, , La Vie du Cardinal Richard, 403–406 The intransigent attitude of Pius, his secretary of state Merry del Val, and Cardinal Richard in these negotiations deeply distressed Loisy.Google Scholar

27. Loisy, , Mémoires, 2:367–69Google Scholar, and idem, Choses passées, 299–302.

28. See Larkin, Maurice, Church and State after the Dreyfus Affair. The Separation Issue in France (London: Macmillan, 1974), 130–33;CrossRefGoogle ScholarPhillips, C. S., The Church in France: 1848–1907. (New York: Russell and Russell, 1936), 275–76;Google ScholarPartin, M. O., Waldeck-Rousseau, Combes, and the Church: The Politics of Anticlericalism, 1899–1905. (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1969), 239–42.Google Scholar

29. Partin, , Politics of Anticlericalism, 134–35;Google ScholarPhillips, , Church in France, 276–77;Google ScholarClément, , La Vie du Cardinal Richard, 430–31.Google Scholar

30. de Chalendar, X., ed., Les Prêtres au “Journal Officiel” (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1968), 1:138–40.Google Scholar

31. Richard, François et al. , “Lettre adressée par les Cardinaux francais au Président de la République touchant le projet de loi sur la Séparation des Églises et de l'État,” Libres Entretiens (1905):433–837.Google Scholar See also Clément, , La Vie du Cardinal Richard, 431–36.Google Scholar

32. X, Pius, “Vehementer nos,” in Actes de S.S. Pie X, 2:140–41.Google Scholar

33. X, Pius, “Vehementer nos,” 2:124–29.Google Scholar

34. X, Pius, “Vehementer nos,” 2:130–33.Google Scholar

35. X, Pius, “Vehementer nos,” 2:132–37.Google Scholar

36. X, Pius, “Vehementer nos,” 2:144–49.Google Scholar

37. X, Pius, “Gravissimo officii munere,” in Actes de S.S. Pie X, 2:220–21.Google Scholar See also Larkin, , Separation Issue in France, 192, 196–201.Google Scholar

38. X, Pius, “Gravissimo officii munere,” 2:224–25.Google Scholar

39. X, Pius, “Une fois encore,” in Actes de S.S. Pie X, 3:31–36.Google Scholar

40. Loisy, , Choses passées, 332.Google ScholarThe three articles were: “Réflexions d'un historien sur la lettre précédente,” Libres Entretiens (1905): 438–52;Google Scholar“Sur l'encyclique de Pie X,” Union pour la vérité (1906): 162–75;Google Scholar and “Lettre aux évêques français à propos de leur derniére assemblée,” in Loisy papers (Bibliothèque nationale de France), 10:1–18.

41. Loisy, , “Lettre aux évêques français,” 10:9.Google Scholar

42. Loisy, , “Sur l'encyclique de Pie X,” quoted in Loisy, Choses passées, 327.Google Scholar See also Loisy, , “Réflexions d'un historien,” 444Google Scholar, and “Lettre aux évêques français,” 10:9.

43. Loisy, , Choses passées, 330.Google Scholar

44. Loisy, , “Réflexions d'un historien,” 443.Google Scholar

45. Loisy, , “Lettre aux évêques français,” 10:9Google Scholar

46. Loisy to Sir R. B., 20 December 1906, in Loisy, Quelques Lettres sur des questions actuelles et sur des événements récents (Ceffonds: by the author, 1908), 58.

47. Loisy, , Mémoires, 2:441–42.Google Scholar

48. X, Pius, “Pascendi dominici gregis,” in Actes de S.S. Pie X, 3: 146–47.Google Scholar

49. See Houtin, , Histoire du modernisme catholique (Paris: by the author, 1913), 165–77;Google ScholarRivière, Jean, Le Modernisme dans I'église: Étude d'histoire religieuse contemporaine (Paris: Letouzey et Ane, 1929), 333–48;Google ScholarPoulat, , Histoire, dogme, et critique, 103–112;Google Scholar and Wernz, William John, “The Modernist Writings of Alfred Loisy: An Analysis,” (Ph.D. diss., University of Iowa, 1971), 332–40.Google Scholar For the series of more local measures leading up to the promulgation of the decree, see Houtin, La Vie d'Alfred Loisy, 145–51, and idem, Histoire du modernisme catholique, 143–63.

50. See Houtin, , Histoire du modernisme catholique, 179–84;Google Scholar Rivière, Le Modernisme dans I'église, 349–72; Daly, Gabriel, Transcendence and Immanence: A Study in Catholic Modernism and lntegralism (Oxford: Clarendon, 1980), 165–217, 231–34;Google ScholarWernz, , “Modernist Writings,” 340–45.Google Scholar

51. X, Pius, “Pascendi dominici gregis,” 3: 84–85.Google Scholar

52. X, Pius, “Vehementer nos,” 2:146–47.Google Scholar

53. X, Pius, “Gravissimo officii munere,” 2:224–25Google Scholar, and idem, “Une fois encore,” 3:30–31.

54. X, Pius, “Pascendi dominici gregis,” 3:84–87.Google Scholar See also idem, “Relicturus ecclesiam,” in Actes de S.S. Pie X, 3:200–201: “Here it is in battle ranged and by open war; there one has recourse to ruse and cunning stratagem; but everywhere We see the Church assailed.”

55. X, Pius, “Pascendi dominici gregis,” 3:144–47.Google Scholar

56. X, Pius, “Pascendi dominici gregis,” 3:118–21.Google Scholar

57. X, Pius, “Pascendi dominici gregis,” 3:120–21.Google Scholar

58. X, Pius, “Pascendi dominici gregis,” 3:116–19.Google Scholar

59. X, Pius, “Lamentabili sane exitu” in Actes de S.S. Pie X, 3:234–35.Google Scholar

60. X, Pius, “Pascendi dominici gregis,” 3:158–61.Google ScholarVidler, Alec, The Church in an Age of Revolution (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1961), 187–88, has described the Roman response to modernism as “remarkably severe in… method and manner,” amounting to a “reign of terror.”Google ScholarKurtz, Lester, The Politics of Heresy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986), offers a helpful sociological analysis of Rome's ferocity.Google Scholar

61. Loisy to A. M. l'abbé X., 17 June 1907, in Loisy, Quelques Lettres, 157.

62. Loisy, , Simples Réflexions sur le Décret du Saint-Office “Lamentabili Sane Exitu” et sur L'Encyclique “Pascendi Dominici Gregis,” 2d ed. (Ceffonds: by the author, 1908), 198–99.Google Scholar

63. Loisy, , Simples Réflexions, 150.Google Scholar

64. Loisy, , Mémoires, 1:21.Google Scholar

65. Pius described France as “the diabolical Trinity of Freemasonry, Christian democracy and Modernism,” and called modernism the “mal francese,” an Italian euphemism for venereal disease. See Sforza, Carlo, Makers of Modern Europe: Portraits and Personal Impressions (1930; reprint, Freeport, N.Y.: Books for Libraries, 1969), 136;Google ScholarVidler, Alec, A Variety of Catholic Modernists (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 20–21.Google Scholar