Waterbury evening Democrat., 1908-01-03
SEEKING LIGHT
Father Crowley WaDts Some One 10 Explain Opposition to Pope.
Editor of The Democrat.

Editor of The Democrat:
 . Perhaps this communication ough
 to go into the result producing wan
 column of the Democrat. At least
 want something and that is defini
 tion or explanation of modernism
 Having given some considerable timt
 to the study of the subject,I thought
 was fairly well acquainted with it
 To me the essence of it is contained
 in the sixty-five propositions con.
 read the utterances of men of un'
 doubted ability and scholarship, l an filled with sense of dubiety. Not,
 withstanding that l have read the
 encyclical of Plus X three or four
 times and the syllabus perhaps ten
 times, cant square my understand
 ing of modernism with the public de- { clarationS of others. For instance
 our estimable fellow citizen, Dr
 Davenport, in his sermon on last ] Sunday seems to identify modernism
 with "the tendency to overlook miner differences and come together on a pi ouu pIdbltlh Ol ucNotIo1i lo q Ioh- mon Master" Now modernism is anything but this. It is even more disintegrating and dissociating than was ever Professionalism in it's palm
 jest days; and one of our Catholic
 papers has fittingly described it as "Protestantism run riot" Protest
 antism had some fundamental prin-
 ciple that would hold together for at
 least twenty-four hours. Modernism
 with the solely internal and individ
 ual revelation and the consequent i'm
 pressions resulting therefrom is not
 necessarily stable for one day. Our in-
 ternal impressions vary for many
 causes, nor does modernism offer any
 criterion by which we may know that
 any particular impression is the work
 Of the Holy Spirit. And even if it did, private illumination is no new
 religious tenet. Modernism therefore makes revelation individual and the religion founded on it an individual religion and instead of placing us on a common center is rather centri- fugal in it's tendency and leaves wider open the door to divergence. Indeed, it makes religion matter of individual whims that may vary ac- cording as the internal ''subcon- sciousness' undergoes a change. Nor can I see where the Vatican has put its foot upon one religious or new thought of our day. What are the religious thoughts of mod ernism? think that I will be with in the bounds of truth when I en- umerate the following as the prin- cipal religious thoughts of modern ism: The immanence of God. which as, explained by the modernists, means nothing more than that God, divinity and humanity are the same, | in other words pure panthesm. Then there is the denial of the virgin birth | of Christ. It is as old as the days of Christ Himself, for the Jews of that | day denied it. Again there is the l denial of the divinity of Christ. which l is certainly as old as Arius We have also the denial of the Fall in the l literal sense of scripture. It has an i antiquity reaching back to the days of Philo. one of the writers of the ! school We have also the rejection of the atonement as vicarious unishment, a new thought" that was evidently broach- ed in the days of St Paul. Of course the denial of the existence of he'll was to be expected and every one knows that that is centuries old The last important religious edict is the lenial of the authority of the bible. l position that is comparatively new n christian annals. but one that is much at variance with the older Pro- estantism as it is with Catholicism
 But. yes, there is one new (com- speakingl thought-the application of new historical criteria 0 the bible. But in modernism as a if by any stretch of the it can be called a relig- on, of what practical use is it? To he modernist the bible is nothing If supernatural origin. In fact one If his basic principles makes him leny that it is revelation at all. Revelation with him must be inter- lal. individual and ethical, not ex- ernal and universal. To apply the
 lew historical cTiteria to the bible he an do so logically only in the sense hat he considers it a human history nd even here he contradicts himself or he holds that the bible is but the ecord of the internal impressions of arious writers. And here he is in rror. The hook of Genesis is not lerely the internal impression of the uthOr. but the history of events that ranspired long ages before he was orn. Nor are the four gospels re- ital of the impression Of Matthew. lark. Luke and John. but mainly the elation of what Christ said and i'd. At best. therefore. historical . riteria would be. in the modernist heory. shorn of a great deal of its ' alue
 As social factor modernism is not 3 modern. It is simply trying to do hat has been attempted thousands [ f years ago. viz: To solve the prob- 'm of happiness. to change earth T Ito heaven. It is socialism in one T ,rm or other and as it iz decidedly | azv as to which form of socialism is ( , be adopted VIC are left "in stafu ' IO.' If it can honestly ameIiorate d 10 condition Of mankind have no < Isrrel with ii and though [ don't [ Ossess the confidence Of Plus y.h
 am sure thst he will condemn Il othing that tends to the letierment [ human kind. He is remarkable Il wing Illustration of the wor,IS of Ter I 'nce: Homo sum. et nihiI huirani. T I .e alienum pui". whici. heinz free q . translated means that he is fha pou- r f If human kind.
 MhE Eims \ slLnI,ll r.r.neni tl..-a a.I- Il