MODERNISM is very bad philosophy indeed. The Pope's Encyclical has ruthlessly exposed its unscientific speculations in the field of philosophy, tinged as it is -- nay, permeated -- with scepticism and doubt as to truth, and lowering the noble faculty of reason with which God has endowed man, that by its light he may find the truth. As so much is written nowadays in certain Anglican papers in praise of Modernist philosophy, as being up-to-date, and in disparagement of the Catholic system of scholastic philosophy, as being medieval and obsolete, or obscurantist, this article is a comparison of the two rival systems, or philosophies. (1) Scholasticism holds the field still, and is not antiquated at all; (2) Modernism, on the other hand, is not the 'philosophy of modern progress and enlightenment.' The shibboleths or party cries of Modernism are about as valueless as the electioneering catchwords used to gain the votes of the gullible crowd at election times. When we hear Modernists prating so much about 'our superior science of modern progress,' it reminds us of the false mottoes on many an election poster: 'Vote for Miller and the big loaf!' 'Don't vote for Chinese slavery by voting for Tomkins!' 'Down with capital!' It is only the ignorant and unreflecting individual that is deceived by such claptrap. Let us examine and see for ourselves, then, and ask: what is the Scholastic system which Leo XIII. and our present Holy Father wish to be studied in Catholic Universities and seminaries? It is called 'the system of science which searches for knowledge of things through their ultimate causes, so far as such science can be attained by the light of reason and created things.' All the experimental sciences deal with principles borrowed from other cognate sciences; philosophy, in the system of Scholasticism, borrows from no other science. It deals with first principles in their widest aspect, such as 'being' in itself; or as connected with our reason, as truth; or as related to our will, when it is called 'moral being,' or 'good.' It deals with the underlying substances of things in being, which it distinguishes from their exterior qualities; with quantity, and space, and time. It tests the solid criteria of truth which it offers to us, and proves their soundness and reliability, refuting false criteria offered by opposing systems; it then considers the world as created, and then discusses man, his body and soul, and senses and faculties, finally proceeding to the ultimate Cause of all being -- namely, God, Whom it proves by reason to exist, and to be one and almighty from the visible creation, arguing from effects to their ultimate Cause -- that is to say, a Cause that is behind and beyond other causes, and from Whom 'all things live, and move, and have their being.' This philosophy leaves all the experimental sciences alone; its principles underlie all of them. Nay, it welcomes all the results achieved by them, which it interprets and uses to illustrate truth, and refutes erroneous conclusions and false principles of so-called science.
Modernists tell us that Scholasticism is medieval, suited to the so-called 'dark ages,' but obsolete and useless for 'modern progress.' That it existed in medieval times is true enough, but so did Christianity; but it is not medieval in origin. Its root principles are as old as human reason itself, comprising those axioms and propositions that are, and must always be, immutably true, just like the first principles of Euclid. Hence Aristotle founds his system on principles as old as human reason. Its foundations date from the days of Plato and his disciple Aristotle, who lived and taught them over 300 years before the Christian era. The term 'Scholastic philosophy' came to be given to it in medieval times, not to denote its origin, but its elaboration and systematic arrangement by the great doctor St. Thomas Aquinas. From the early Christian times Christian philosophy arose. The Fathers of the Church selected from some of the heathen philosophies those sane principles that flowed out from man's rational nature, created by God, and used them to illustrate Divine truths. In so doing, so far from lowering the loftiest standard of Christian wisdom, they elevated and exalted pagan philosophy.
St. Justin found in the second century in the philosophy of his day an acknowledgment of Christian mysteries, and a rational basis to prepare men's minds towards belief. St. Clement of Alexandria, in the brilliant schools of that city, quotes from Aristotle's teacher, Plato, a passage in which he is said to have some knowledge of the Son of God, and declares how his philosophy is 'a friendly power which, partly from the light that enlighteneth every man . . . leads men towards Christ.' St. Augustine of Hippo, the most illustrious doctor of the Church, was well versed in Aristotle's philosophy, which he often used to explain and illustrate and defend the Faith. His famous disputations with Manicheans and Donatists are bristling not only with his true principles, but he uses also syllogisms, closely reasoned out, in refutation of their sophisms. Hence he is called 'the true founder of Christian philosophy' ('Liberatore,' vol i., p. 13, Inst. Philos., Naples, 1875 ed.).
The roots of Scholastic philosophy, then, are not medieval; they existed centuries before. It is, to speak more accurately, ancient, medieval, and it is also modern. This is its peculiar advantage that it can be adapted to modern just as much as it was formerly to medieval and early Christian thoughts. What, however, is the Modernist so-called 'philosophy of modern progress'? Why, there is nothing at all original about it from top to bottom. It is simply, as the most superficial analysis of it will show, the obsolete and effete system of a German philosopher, named Immanuel Kant, who invented it in the beginning of the eighteenth century at Konigsberg, to compromise in the hopeless effort to reconcile Christianity with Rationalism and Positivism. Kant's system unites agnosticism with an element called transcendentalism, which is the exact likeness of the Modernist amalgamation of agnosticism and immanence. The names are slightly altered, but the thing is the same article, 'made in Germany.' Let us compare them together, and we shall see they are not only unphilosophical twins, but a par nobile fratrum.{1} Kant taught that we have no real and objective knowledge of anything that is beyond the ken of the senses (Phenomena). We have, however, an interior rational faculty for investigating our sense-perceptions, by investing them with qualities and dimensions, comparing them, and classifying them, etc.; but all these things cannot be proved to exist outside the intellect itself. Armed with these 'mental categories,' as Kant calls them, and which he enumerates as quantity, quality, relation, and mode, with many subdivisions of each and redundancy of repetitions, the mind, as it were, transforms the objects present to the senses, by means of these mental categories, existing in the mind alone. Of the reality of these we have no real knowledge. They are beyond us, these mental syntheses a priori and we cannot prove them. So God is unknown to human reason, since He is not, and cannot be, an object of sense.
Now, this obsolete system Modernism has plagiarized, and given it new Modernist terms. But beneath the thin covering of this vague verbiage we can see the real thing. It is Kant redivivus. The Modernist talks of reason being unable to know anything except the things of sense. Outside these nothing is scientifically, philosophically, or historically real. Any notions we may possess over and above, as to God or other matters pertaining to faith and the supernatural, we evolve or spin for ourselves from within ourselves by the continual exercise of a wonderful faculty which they call 'vital immanence.' This evolves and improves for us both faith and revelation in every detail, and the Church in time makes some of the collective results of this process into dogma, liable to variations. What a miserable simulacrum of philosophy this! They call it 'modern thought,' in keeping with the 'progress of the human intellect.' 'Modernist nonsense' would be a better description. It is neither real thought nor intellectual progress. Its agnostic basis is a confession of ignorance, while its immanent aspect leads inevitably to pantheism. It is no compliment to the noble faculty of reason, given man to seek and find intellectual certitude, to lower its dignity and power, as Modernism does to the position of a superior sense, and unable to rise from visible things to the knowledge of their Creator. Indeed, this system differs from the Scholastic system of Catholic philosophy as light from darkness and ignorance from wisdom.
Modernist writers make satirical and sneering allusions to the terms used in the Scholastic philosophy. Now, surely the same might be done in regard to the technical language of all the experimental sciences, to medicine and law. They employ, and rightly employ, technical terms which, though not of classical purity, are most expressive of meaning conveyed to those studying these subjects. Surely Scholasticism has as much right to employ its terms as any other science or art, especially since, like them, they are founded on reality and express intellectual truths. Again, the syllogistic method may be crude, but it possesses many great advantages. It condenses reasoning processes from solid principles to their inevitable conclusions, leaving no loophole for sophistry. We do not see, then, any foundation for this. Modernist ridicule. Yet, strange and inconsistent for Modernism, it does not hesitate to coin new terms of its own, not only couched in very pedantic and inflated language, but expressive not of realities, but only inanities and sheer nonsense. So we have 'vital immanence' and 'vital emanations'; 'inner sentiments' and 'soul 'impulses'; 'inward manifestations of the Divine in man,' and what they call 'the faith content' and 'prophetic utterance.' All these mean utter nonsense in the sense Modernism gives to them. Though these Modernists deride unjustly Scholastic syllogisms and methods of dialectics, they use a spurious kind of logic of their own, known to real philosophy as sophistry. Indeed, there is nothing in all their process of reasoning out their system that could with any propriety be called logic.
We will contrast, in conclusion, the Scholastic concept of the position of philosophy to faith with that given to both by Modernism, with the object of showing how the former system gives each its honoured place, while the latter reverses them, turning them upside down. Catholic Scholastic philosophy makes human science the handmaid to Divine revelation, for the obvious reason that it deals with truths of a higher order than those of human reason, and because of the greater certitude, possessed by Divine authority, for believing in revealed truths than belongs to any evidence of created reason. Human reason is not omniscient; its very existence and any light it possesses come from a higher Intelligence. Hence it refuses to allow Rationalists to put human reason and human science as superior to Divine authority and revealed truth.
This subjection of science and reason to God's revealed religion, so far from depriving man of true liberty, wonderfully safeguards it from being captivated by error. True freedom, intellectual and moral, can only coexist with due obedience to superior authority; otherwise we have licence and anarchy. True freedom is only violated by subjecting man to an exterior power that has no right or claim to his faith or obedience; but God has a right to the subjection unto Himself of all His rational creatures.
Scholastic philosophy considers that it is only consistent with common sense that fallible reason should obey God's infallible mind, manifested to our faith by revelation; that human scientific speculations, which, on account of human infirmity, may be mixed with error, none of our speculations being infallible, should be helped and have light thrown upon them from revealed truths, which can never be false, as being the teaching of an infallible God. Man is left free to hold true principles of philosophy, and may explore, and search, and investigate the whole order of Nature. Yet he must so search within his rightly proportioned limits as not to contradict the higher truths of Divine faith that come from God.
Science, then, cannot be opposed to true progress or true freedom of intellect. It is only opposed to false liberty, leading to anarchy in religion. and scepticism. Such is the Catholic teaching, defended and illustrated by Scholastic principles, which are sufficient of themselves to answer the contrary false teaching of Modernism on these subjects of science and religion. Science and faith, according to Modernist 'philosophy,' are independent of each other in everything, and sometimes are opposed; faith is subject to science, and human reason is supreme and free in all its judgments about God and religion. Just the contrary is the truth: 'In matters of religion it is the duty of philosophy, not to command, but to serve; not to prescribe what is to be believed, but to embrace what God wishes us to believe, with reasonable obedience; not to search the depths of the mysteries of God, but to venerate them devoutly and humbly' (Pius IX., letter to the Bishop of Breslau, June, 1857).
From what has been already observed it is clear that Scholastic philosophy is so far from being effete and antiquated that it is the true and most solid philosophy of the time in which we live. It has been vindicated from the unfounded and unjust charges levelled at it by ignorant minds of men that only prove they know nothing about the object they are attacking. By a comparison of Scholastic philosophy with Modernist sophistry, miscalled science, we have seen how, while Scholastic philosophy stands its ground, and is destined to endure, as a valuable aid to faith, Modernism is so transparently unscientific and illogical that it can never claim the allegiance of any serious thinking mind.
There can be no comparison between St. Thomas Aquinas and Immanuel Kant, between the logical system of Aristotle elaborated by the giant intellects of the Catholic Church and the farrago of nonsense and vague nebulosities derived by Kant from the ancient atheists and pantheists Celsus and Pyrrhus, which rusty armour Modernists have tried to refurbish and dignify with the undeserved label of 'modern philosophy.' Modernism is quite a different thing from being modern and up-to-date.
THE END
R. &. T. Washbourne, Ltd., 1, 2, and 4, Paternoster Row, London.
{1} 'Noble brothers, and almost twins to one another.'