Talk:Modernism in the Catholic Church

message: I’m glad that you have put a lot of effort into writing about Catholic Modernists, which are a very important topic.  But I’m afraid that because of historical inaccuracies and what seems to be a bias toward the official Catholic position at the time, this article needs to be heavily modified if not rewritten.  I would suggest reading the works of Loisy, Tyrrell, and Blondel to round out a more objective view.  I might be wrong, but it does not seem that the authors of this Article have read these works. Careful study of these writers can be very rewarding, especially Blondel's work on History and Dogma.  I would also recommend reading Alec R. Vidler's excellent study The Church in an Age of Revolution, which has an excellent chapter on Catholic Modernism, as well as Vidler's The Modernist Movement in the Roman Church.
I will list some of my objections and would be interested in other’s thoughts:
(1) First off, Hans Küng is listed under the Catholic Modernists at the end of the article.  He was not born until 1928, long after Pascendi dominici gregis in 1907.  Although the Modernists influenced Küng's theology, they influenced everyone's theology, more so de Lubac than Küng.  It is an anachronism to single out Küng as a modernist, and makes the article seem ideologically motivated.  Why not list Karl Rahner as a “Modernist”; he used “Modernist” philosophy, specifically Heidegger’s revisions of Being from Hegel and Western Metaphysics generally?  Or why not Yves Congar, who used “Modernist” notions of history?  Or Teilhard, who used “Modernist” notions of science?  Or de Lubac, who used “Modernist” notions of nature and grace and “Modernist” exegesis?  Also Küng’s trouble with the Vatican came about because of his critique of infallibility, which uses Church history and biblical exegesis to critique that teaching. 
(2) De Lubac is not mentioned under the "New Theology" / nouvelle théologie?
(3) It is accepted among non-biased Church historians (Alec R. Vidler, for instance) that Pascendi dominici gregis is a caricature, at best, of the Modernist position.  Pius X lacked the intellect to understand the "Modernist" understandings of exegesis, history, and nature and grace.  It seems clear from Pascendi dominici gregis that he hadn't even read much of what he was critiquing. 
(4) The information included under "Modernism in the Catholic Church might be described under the following broad headings:" is a reiteration of Pius X's Pascendi dominici gregis, which is not an accurate description of the Catholic "Modernist" position (though it would be inaccurate to speak of them as adopting one monolithic position).      
(5) "Modernism involved the evolution of dogma — a notion distinct from Cardinal Newman’s teaching on the 'development of doctrine,' which he characterized in acceptably orthodox fashion as an unfolding in time of what was already implicit in Christ’s initial teaching."  As an earlier contributor mentioned, this claim is unsubstantiated.  The term "acceptably orthodox fashion" sounds like an evaluation of orthodoxy and could be read as an ideological bias.  Jim and/or Wetman, I would refer you to Blondel's History and Dogma, which is a very nuanced understanding of how Dogma evolves/develops over time.  
(6) The following definition of heretic is simplistic and historically inaccurate: "a heretic (someone who believed and taught something different than what the rest of the church believed)."  This definition would include Augustine, Aquinas, von Balthasar, John Paul II, the current Pope, and many, many others.  An understanding of heresy requires a detailed concept of what it means to be "Church" and what the conditions, limits, and extensions of authority are.  
(7) "Catholic historians and theologians have social explanations as to why Modernism developed as it did and became so popular."  I'd be interested in which "historians and theologians" you're thinking of here?  Could you please cite them?  I would point out that the irony of this statement is that it deploys what Pius X claimed was a “Modernist” position, using social contexts to understand the development of religious doctrines, to understand the “Modernists” themselves.
(8) At the beginning of this article, the author(s) write(s) that "The Modernist crisis took place chiefly in French and British intellectual Catholic circles, to a lesser extent in Italy, and virtually nowhere else."  Then under "Social/Anthropological causes of Modernism," they list conditions in the United States as explaining the rise of Modernism.  Also, Friedrich von Hügel, the intellectual sponsor of the “Modernists,” is Austrian.
Jndudley 17:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just go ahead and present the views of the authors you've been reading, with references to their titles? --Wetman 20:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (8) "and virtually nowhere else" is no longer in the article. So I have removed the dubious tag on this one.Tommy Pinball (talk) 22:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

text: You are being generous.  Modernism was never strong in America and there are few examples were Modernists made any advances.  The most famous case people point to is Dunwoodie, yet the priests there were educated in Modernist ideas in Europe not America (moreover, it is unclear whether they were Modernists anyway or simple trying to encourage debate, the later in my opinion being more likely).  The next time anyone is in Times Square, look for the Father Duffy Memorial; he was one of the men forced to stop publishing because of the row.Tobit2 (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:   This Article Needs to Be Rewritten 

message: I think that the explanation given in the article for the social causes of Modernism could be improved. It attributes Modernism far too much to the character of American culture rather than the cultural changes brought about by, say, industrialisation and the growth of the working and middle classes in Europe, where the predominant Modernists came from.Luokehao 8:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are being generous.  Modernism was never strong in America and there are few examples were Modernists made any advances.  The most famous case people point to is Dunwoodie, yet the priests there were educated in Modernist ideas in Europe not America (moreover, it is unclear whether they were Modernists anyway or simple trying to encourage debate, the later in my opinion being more likely).  The next time anyone is in Times Square, look for the Father Duffy Memorial; he was one of the men forced to stop publishing because of the row.Tobit2 (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Anthropological causes of Modernism?

message: Wrong. How is a rational approach to the Bible heresy? Rationalism: "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification." Try and tell me the Church does not encourage justification of belief through reason. Wikipedia you've done it again! I feel bad for the people who come here and actually use the site in an attempt to gain knowledge.
:Edit: I went ahead and changed the article to maintain neutrality. It's not that hard, kids.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.148.21 (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rationalist" 

message: "Encyclical Pascendi Dominici gregis, which by broad scholarly consensus, is a caricature of the various "modernist" theologies" - this is dubious; probably true for liberal scholars that themselves tend to modernism (or at least nouvelle theologie) in an attempt to downplay signifficance of pope's view expounded in the encyclical. More traditional-minded scholars, however, wouldn't agree with this opinion. So, at least, some quallifications should be made, and references provided.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PinkPantherZG (talk • contribs) 10:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So what would "more traditionally-minded scholars" say?  I think what you are getting at is that the encyclical is better described as a "composite," rather than a "caricature;" this choice of words has nothing to do with liberal or traditional views; it is about accuracy.  I'll make the change.Tobit2 (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Broad scholarly concensus" 

message: It's interesting/amusing that the cartoon used is by a member of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ, a man who apparently did missionary work in the largely Catholic nation of the Philippines. It seems unlikely he was thinking of Catholic modernism in the cartoon. Not saying it's incorrect to use it, but I think maybe it'd fit better in the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy article. Or at least should maybe be there too.--T. Anthony (talk) 10:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but it fits here too, since this is kind of a Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy too. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 12:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the cartoon is inappropriate; it is talking about an entirely different debate, Protestant fundamentalism vs. developments in the modern world.  Some background on the cartoon: it was drawn by E.J. Pace under the heading "Christian Cartoons" in the book Sunday School Times and was later appropriated by William Jennings Bryan, a noted Protestant Fundamentalist.  My reason for calling the cartoon inappropriate: it appears to be a describing a Protestant debate not a Catholic one.  The cartoon, which is of obvious Protestant origin, given its publication in the "Sunday School Times" and its adoption by Bryan, was drawn more than a decade after the Catholic debate over Catholic modernism had already culminated (in the Oath of 1910).  You can see this in the choice of words used to frame the first point of the debate: "The Bible Not Infallible;" this is a Protestant choice of terms; Catholics would discuss the extent of passive Inspiration, not Inerrancy.  Catholic modernism was really about how one comes to know God; in the end it is a debate on who holds power in the Church.  Sad to say, but the cartoon should be removed from this article and perhaps added to an article about Protestant Fundamentalism.  Tobit2 (talk) 04:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The cartoon 

message: This article is very poorly sourced while making numerous unreferenced claims of fact regarding a contentious subject, which may in turn be a sign of original research. Further, it can lend itself to concerns that the article might not be neutral in its presentation of the subject. I have affixed maintenance tags to the article in the hopes that someone knowledgeable on the subject and with access to good sources will be able to tune this up a bit. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious Problems 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Modernism in the Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050429015315/http://www.sofn.org.uk/DOCTRINE/catholic_modernism.htm to http://www.sofn.org.uk/DOCTRINE/catholic_modernism.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: The article makes it sound as if Pope Leo XIII founded the Vatican Observatory in 1891.  In point of fact, that was only the fourth observatory.  The Vatican Observatory was founded in 1774 under Pope Clement XIV: Vatican Observatory. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_ObservatoryMwidunn (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Vatican Observatory

message: I can't see how the 'Background' and 'History' sections that have been added are relevant to this article on Modernism. -- Jmc (talk) 05:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that these sections could be shortened and more pointed, they seem to me to be critical to the understanding of the Catholic church's reaction to modernism. Jzsj (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant 'Background' and 'History' sections added 

message: The claim that the Second Vatican Council vindicated modernism is highly disputed and a single reference to the National Catholic Reporter hardly seems representative. 83.128.58.198 (talk) 08:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. National Catholic Reporter is an independent paper with at times tense relations with the Church. Now there is some reason to think Nouvelle théologie was somewhat vindicated by the Council, but I believe there are some real differences between Nouvelle theologe and modernism. That said Wikipedia is kind of biased on dealing with religion so I don't expect any improvement would even be allowed. Particularly as some of the hardcore Traditionalists would also agree that the Second Vatican Council supported modernism.--Tibby57721 (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious perspective on the Second Vatican Council 

message: Pius VIII's Traditi humilitati is certainly worthy of mention. However, there's no source given for the preceding statement "During the Conservative Order, the Vatican had harshly condemned liberalism and revolutionary ideals on repeated occasions." I think such a categorical statement as "on repeated occasions" requires a citation to support it. Failing the provision of such a citation, I propose to delete that statement.-- Jmc (talk) 02:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''[[Traditi humilitati]]'' 

message: I've re-assessed this project for Wikiproject Christianity and upgraded it to C Mid. The comprehensiveness and level of citation on the page merits B rating, but it strikes me (even as one decently well versed in these controversies) as too engrossed in its own detail to be helpful to a general reader. It also has the ring of original research and non-neutral POV at a number of points, more like an engaged scholar telling a dramatic story about this history than like a dispassionate recital of the history and historiography. I do think this topic merits a "mid" rather than "low" importance ranking, given the overall significance of these controversies to the shape of modern Catholicism. Brian (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said. -- Jmc (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

text: Agreed—I wouldn't want to see this oversimplified! (And I'm sorry you had to wait so long for a response, @Sylvain Leblanc. It seems like WikiProject Christianity has gone semi-dormant. I'm fairly new to all of this, but I'm trying to breathe some new life into it. If you're interested in helping out, holler at me.) Brian (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Reassessment for Wikiproject Christianity

message: I have just removed Pope Francis from the list because his name does not come up anywhere else in the article, nor was there any reference (Biography of Living Persons). If someone can develop a section based around the current pope's purported involvement, then it would be reasonable to include him, but please either do that or do not include him in this list for now. It seems strange that he was the only pope listed despite half a dozen other popes actually addressing modernism directly in their pontificates, a topic Francis has not made a focal point of in his writings. Nmarshall25 (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I support removal of Francis, for reasons given by Nmarshall25. -- Jmc (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion in the "Notable people involved" section