Pope Leo XIII issued a letter to James Cardinal Gibbons, the Archbishop of Baltimore, in 1899.
He explained his worry of novel opinions being held among those seeking to reform the Church, that is, those who hold that “the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions,” applying “even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith. They contend that it would be opportune, in order to gain those who differ from us, to omit certain points of her teaching which are of lesser importance, and to tone down the meaning which the Church has always attached to them.”[1]
In light of these challenges to the faith, he expounded that the Church could not take these demands in silence:
We cannot consider as altogether blameless the silence which purposely leads to the omission or neglect of some of the principles of Christian doctrine, for all the principles come from the same Author and Master, “the Only Begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father.”-John i, I8. They are adapted to all times and all nations, as is clearly seen from the words of our Lord to His apostles: “Going, therefore, teach all nations; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and behold, I am with you all days, even to the end of the world.”-Matt. xxviii, 19.
Catholics must follow the doctrines of the Church faithfully, for to have a strong faith binds believers together:
Let it be far from anyone’s mind to suppress for any reason any doctrine that has been handed down. Such a policy would tend rather to separate Catholics from the Church than to bring in those who differ. There is nothing closer to our heart than to have those who are separated from the fold of Christ return to it, but in no other way than the way pointed out by Christ.
Without any ambiguity, he wrote that “The rule of life laid down for Catholics is not of such a nature that it cannot accommodate itself to the exigencies of various times and places.” However, “in regard to ways of living she has been accustomed to so yield that, the divine principle of morals being kept intact, she has never neglected to accommodate herself to the character and genius of the nations which she embraces.”
‘Cafeteria Catholicism’, the picking and choosing of which tenets of faith to adhere to, could not be tolerated:
But, beloved son, in this present matter of which we are speaking, there is even a greater danger and a more manifest opposition to Catholic doctrine and discipline in that opinion of the lovers of novelty, according to which they hold such liberty should be allowed in the Church, that her supervision and watchfulness being in some sense lessened, allowance be granted the faithful, each one to follow out more freely the leading of his own mind and the trend of his own proper activity. They are of opinion that such liberty has its counterpart in the newly given civil freedom which is now the right and the foundation of almost every secular state.
An unfiltered freedom of the press was antithetical to Catholicism if it clashed with Catholic teaching:
These dangers, viz., the confounding of license with liberty, the passion for discussing and pouring contempt upon any possible subject, the assumed right to hold whatever opinions one pleases upon any subject and to set them forth in print to the world, have so wrapped minds in darkness that there is now a greater need of the Church’s teaching office than ever before, lest people become unmindful both of conscience and of duty.
Leo interrupts to say that not everything which modern society has produced is contrary to the faith:
We, indeed, have no thought of rejecting everything that modern industry and study has produced; so far from it that we welcome to the patrimony of truth and to an ever-widening scope of public well-being whatsoever helps toward the progress of learning and virtue. Yet all this, to be of any solid benefit, nay, to have a real existence and growth, can only be on the condition of recognizing the wisdom and authority of the Church.
He goes on to explain the role of the Holy Spirit in the teaching authority of the Church. Further, he condemns those who “prefer natural to supernatural virtues.”
For as the nature of man, owing to the primal fault, is inclined to evil and dishonor, yet by the help of grace is raised up, is borne along with a new greatness and strength, so, too, virtue, which is not the product of nature alone, but of grace also, is made fruitful unto everlasting life and takes on a more strong and abiding character.
Leo deplores who think that virtues must change to the times, especially those who look down on religious vows: “They say vows are alien to the spirit of our times, in that they limit the bounds of human liberty; that they are more suitable to weak than to strong minds; that so far from making for human perfection and the good of human organization, they are hurtful to both.” Rather, “[t]hose who so bind themselves by the vows of religion, far from having suffered a loss of liberty, enjoy that fuller and freer kind, that liberty, namely, by which Christ hath made us free.”
He advises those well-learned in the Church’s teachings to work towards bringing more souls to the faith: “For we think that there are many in your country who are separated from Catholic truth more by ignorance than by ill-will, who might perchance more easily be drawn to the one fold of Christ if this truth be set forth to them in a friendly and familiar way.”
Finally, Leo gives his final condemnation of Americanism: “From the foregoing it is manifest, beloved son, that we are not able to give approval to those views which, in their collective sense, are called by some ‘Americanism.’”
Significant to this document is that Americanism was not yet a prevalent heresy at the time of writing, save for a few outspoken Church officials like Archbishop John Ireland. In France, the republic was becoming increasingly secular and liberalized, just as this encyclical warns of America. Leo feared these heresies would be transmuted to America if these errors were not addressed. It was not until the revolutionary era of the 1960s that Americanism would finally establish itself as a heresy among many.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.