There is a lot of enthusiasm around at the moment about the ‘Faith Movement’. This is hardly surprising as the Priests who are affiliated with it genuinely seek to conform their teaching to the teachings of the Church and to administer the Sacraments in accordance with the Church’s law. Such obedience is notoriously less common then it should be. I have been to quite a few events and conferences of the ‘Faith Movement’ I have examined some of the writings of its founder and questioned senior members of the organisation about their key ideas. Good friends of mine are involved in this movement and I am sure they are acting in good faith. Nevertheless, it seems very clear that the movement’s central ideas are incompatible with Catholic teaching. They seek to promote a ‘new synthesis’ of the teachings of the Church and ‘reason’. By ‘reason’ is meant the experimental sciences and more precisely the theory of evolution. This is unacceptable. It is contrary to the teaching of the Church to seek to adapt the interpretation of its teachings to the progress of science. The point at issue is not the truth or falsity of one or other theory of evolution but the very idea of using the hypotheses of the experimental sciences as a rule of interpretation for the understanding and expression of the teachings of the Church.
The experimental sciences progress through the formulation of explanatory models which are tested against experience and refined or discarded in the light of experiment. This process is open-ended of its very nature. No final conclusion can be reached. It can never be said that one of these models is definitive and will never be altered or discarded. ‘Science’ in this sense does not proceed from self-evident premises through certain inferences to permanently valid conclusions. It is intrinsically unstable and, though perfectly legitimate within its own sphere, cannot be used as the handmaid of theology. The ‘new synthesis’ which the ‘Faith Movement’ promotes is consequently illegitimate in its very conception, quite apart from the particular conclusions it employs in the pursuit of its misconceived end. This is made very clear by Vatican I which has already ruled out what the ‘Faith Movement’ is attempting.
“If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of science, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.”
Furthermore, and lest there be any doubt concerning the material fact, it is clear that the ‘Faith Movement’ does indeed assign to the dogmas propounded by the Church a sense which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands. Again and again the Church has privileged the teachings and the ‘Christian Philosophy’ of St Thomas Aquinas. In his 1914 Encyclical Doctoris Angelici Pius X made it very clear that,
“The capital theses in the philosophy of St. Thomas are not to be placed in the category of opinions capable of being debated one way or another, but are to be considered as the foundations upon which the whole science of natural and divine things is based; if such principles are once removed or in any way impaired, it must necessarily follow that students of the sacred sciences will ultimately fail to perceive so much as the meaning of the words in which the dogmas of divine revelation are proposed by the magistracy of the Church.”
In order to make the matter even clearer Pius X ordered in the Decree Postquam Sanctissumus on 27th July 1914 the publication of Twenty Four Theses laying out the ‘the principles and more important thoughts’ of St Thomas. These Twenty Four Theses were then enforced by the Code of Canon Law in 1917. This provision and its centrality was reasserted by Pius XII in his 1950 Encyclical Humani Generis §16-18 in a passage cited by Vatican II’s Decree Optatam Totius §15 when it prescribes the Perennial Philosophy for the training of Priests. This passage from Vatican II is reproduced verbatim in the present Code of Canon Law. These Twenty Four Theses provide a minimum definition of what the Church means by the Perennial Philosophy without which “students of the sacred sciences will ultimately fail to perceive so much as the meaning of the words in which the dogmas of divine revelation are proposed”. They are a bulwark against the attempt on the basis of the advancement of science to assign to the dogmas propounded by the Church a sense different from that which the Church has understood and understands them. It is clear from any acquaintance with the ‘new synthesis’ of the ‘Faith Movement’ that it is incompatible with the Twenty Four Theses of Pius X. I have shown them to senior members of the ‘Faith Movement’ who have been unable to deny this.
The God in Whom we believe is the Creator of Heaven and Earth of all things visible and invisible. He has taken upon Himself Human nature in the unity of the Divine Person of the Word. It is necessary for the proclamation of the Gospel that the Church should be able to arrive at a stable definition and understanding of such terms as Person, Nature, Substance, Soul, Form, Species etc. Without this capacity the Church could give no stable meaning to such solemnly defined teachings as the Hypostatic Union, the Trinity, Transubstantiation and the Unicity of the Intellective Soul. Thus the existence of a Perennial Philosophy is a hypothetical necessity for the existence of Divine Revelation and of the Sacred Magisterium. The Twenty Four Theses define the indispensable minimum core of this Perennial Philosophy without which only the verbal form of the Church’s doctrine remains with the content removed. Stat crux dum volvitur orbis…
“St Thomas’s teaching above that of others, the canonical writings alone excepted, enjoys such a precision of language, an order of matters, a truth of conclusions, that those who hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error.” – Innocent VI
“All teachers of philosophy and sacred theology should be warned that if they deviate so much as a step, in metaphysics especially, from Aquinas, they expose themselves to grave risk” – St Pius X
Laodicea 
August 7, 2007 at 8:41 pm
It’s good to see someone taking on the FAITH movement intellectually. They do a lot of good in practice but I have long felt that the theory behind it was doubtful. They are so often decsribed as “conservative” but much seems rather “liberal” to this old traddy!
August 7, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Is his a Scottish, even British thing?
August 7, 2007 at 11:53 pm
@CT, yes.
@Aelianus: Can I suggest breaking this article into smaller chunks. That way it is more likely to get read more. Don’t take this the wrong way; I mean it kindly. I just think people tend to skim over longer things, but do keep their attention held when things are split up.
August 8, 2007 at 12:08 am
Err… I’m not quite sure what you have in mind.
August 8, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Points taken, but I think the Church also encourages us not to bury our heads in the sand with regard to the massively pervasive theory of the evolution of man. And so I think the statement:
“It is contrary to the teaching of the Church to seek to adapt the interpretation of its teachings to the progress of science.”
is not strictly true. This statement of yours is not the same as the Vatican I anathema, which, as far as I can deduce, is not incurred by the Faith Movement merely by the fact that it wishes to see whether the theory the evoltuion is compatible with the Magisterial teachings of the Church. (N.B. not vice versa)
I say that the Church encourages us to take seriously the theory (ies) of evoltuion in as far as they appear to impact on doctrines of the faith based on some things I have read from Popes John Paul II and Pius XII:
“Taking into account the scientific research of the era, and also the proper requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis treated the doctrine of “evolutionism” as a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and serious study, alongside the opposite hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions for this study: one could not adopt this opinion as if it were a certain and demonstrable doctrine, and one could not totally set aside the teaching Revelation on the relevant questions.”
“Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.”
John Paul II, Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 1996
“The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter – for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.”
Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis – 36
“The essential mark of the Faith Movement is a new synthesis of contemporary Science and divine Revelation which re-vindicates the primacy of Jesus Christ over all creation, throughout history, culture and society, and within the individual mind, heart and body.”
“To the glory of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit we commit this work, to the protection and prayers of the Mother of the Word made flesh we commend it. If it is of God may it flourish and be blessed. If it is not may God’s will be done.”
Faith Movement Constitution
August 8, 2007 at 4:01 pm
There is an absolutely fundamental difference between the statements of Pius XII and John Paul II that you have quoted and the project of the ‘Faith Movement’. The Papal statements concern the acceptability of the theory of evolution as a hypothesis not of sacred theology but of the experimental sciences. The Popes admit this possibility so long as it does not touch upon points of Doctrine, specifically the immediate animation of the soul, the physical decent of all human beings from one first couple and the special creation of the body of Eve from material taken from the body of Adam. Theories propounded by the natural sciences which contradict these revealed doctrines are unacceptable. Beyond that the natural scientist is at liberty. The ‘Faith Movement’ in contrast is attempting something entirely different something condemned as heresy by the First Vatican Council. It is attempting to alter the presentation and content of the Gospel in order to synthesise it with a theory of the experimental sciences. The experimental sciences are intrinsically provisional and cannot be synthesised with the demonstrative sciences or sacred theology. Their central claims change all the time. It would have been wrong to attempt such a synthesis at any time whether the fifth, thirteenth, twentieth or twenty fourth century. This is what the Faith movement attempts and this is what is condemned by Vatican I. That this forbidden project has had the predicted results is shown up by Pius X litmus test. He laid down Twenty Four Theses adherence to which was necessary to insure the stable meaning of the articles of faith, no one who subscribes to the ‘Faith Synthesis’ can consistently subscribe to the Twenty Four Thesis. Pius X and Vatican I are vindicated.
August 8, 2007 at 4:55 pm
I’ll leave it to someone with a better grasp of philosophy to deal with the point about the 24 theses, as I’ve tried to understand them on numerous occasions without success.
I think it would suffice to say that it seems a useful aid to catechesis in our time that we should tackle one of the major intellectual challanges to the Faith. I’ve never met anyone in Faith who denies the main points of doctrine you mention i.e. that we are all physically decended from Adam and Eve, or that God specifically creates each indiviudal human soul.
Also, I can’t say I’ve ever come across anyone in Faith who had the explicit desire to “alter the presentation and content of the Gospel.” On the contrary, I have found that priests of the Faith Movement preach the Gospel in a much fuller and more dynamic way than can be seen in the majority of parishes in the UK. It is precisely their committment to the Gospel which has inspired many (including myself) to take their Catholic faith more seriously, and to take that same Gospel to the world.
August 8, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Let me give two examples. The followers of the ‘Faith Movement’ cannot adhere to its philosophy and simultaneously hold the doctrine of Transubstantiation (because they deny that a substance is anything other than the sum of its attributes and in Transubstantiation it is the attributes which remain and the substance which is transformed). They cannot adhere to the Church’s doctrine that the Intellective Soul is the form of the body (because the phrase ‘form of the body’ means nothing in their system). They repeatedly present the Faith (or attempt to) in evolutionary terms confusing it with a transitory theory of the natural sciences which may not be true. Every other significant hypothesis of the experimental sciences has had to be revised or overthrown at regular intervals. St Thomas and St Augustine never tied their theology to such passing theories why should we do so now in the face of the example of the Doctors of the Church and the doctrine of Vatican I? I have often found Priests of the faith movement reluctant to repudiate polygenism, I seem to remember its founder referred to man as an ‘incarnate angel’ which is the exact opposite of the defined teaching that the intellective soul is the form of the body. They often say that the hominid brain evolved to such a point that it would have been monstrous if man were not given a soul. This clearly reflects a Cartesian understanding of the soul and is irreconcilable with the Church’s teaching. What are they doing anyway telling young people fables about the evolution of the human body and its subsequent ensoulment that are found nowhere in the Scriptures, the Fathers or the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium? Ignoring for a moment that these claims cannot be reconciled with defined dogma, how dare they mingle fashionable theories with the preaching of the Gospel whether or not they happen to be true or compatible or incompatible with revelation. Yes, lots of young people come to these conferences they go to confession and adore and receive the Blessed Sacrament, interspersed with the theories of Fr. Holloway they receive much sound doctrine; but this doctrine has been adulterated with human thinking which not only lacks the approbation of the Church but is irreconcilable with its teaching and with the perennial philosophy. As with certain extremely popular alleged Marian apparitions it is likely that in some souls a confused act of faith is being elicited which is partly directed towards God and partly towards one maverick English Priest and his organisation. Materially this act of faith may be confused but formally it must be in one or the other, if it is in Fr. Holloway and his teachings presented by the ‘Faith Movement’ rather than in Christ and His teachings revealed through the Church then it will not save. If the Church’s doctrine on the Soul or the Eucharist is propounded to such a person and the Cartesian ideas of the ‘New Synthesis’ are preferred, what then? The numbers of people attending these gatherings who actually concern themselves with the ‘New Synthesis’ and ‘The Unity Law of Control and Direction’ may be small but the consequences if they formally adhere to false doctrine or human authority are as serious as it is possible for them to be.
August 8, 2007 at 11:48 pm
Thank you for this post which expresses something I have felt reticent about enunciating. I have heard about Faith mainly through young people who attend their events, and frankly, I find certain aspects alarming. However, we’re so desperate for priests who are faithful and loyal to the Magisterium these days that we’d support anything even if some positions held by the same are antagonistic to traditional (Thomistic) theology.
August 9, 2007 at 4:59 pm
From what little I know of the Faith Movement your criticisms are correct. Perhaps you should take the battle to the enemy and post on the Hermeneutic of Continuity site!
But at least the Faith Movement’s heart is in the right place, if not their head and they are at least attempting to be loyal to the Magisterium. Compare that with the appalling set of essays attacking His Holiness that has come out and it is published by a catholic organisation with a forward by a catholic bishop. See the article below from Damien Thomson’s blog at the Telegraph:
The Catholic Church in England and Wales has helped commission a withering attack on Pope Benedict XVI that also refers to the atrocities of 9/11 as “the ‘terrorist’ attacks” in inverted commas.
The Pope, who “cannot understand the developing world”
Catholic Social Justice, a volume of essays put together by an agency of the Bishops’ Conference, systematically rubbishes Benedict’s first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est (God is Love). The book has been given a glowing foreword by the Bishop of Plymouth, Christopher Budd.
Benedict is accused of taking an ideological position in favour of “the capitalist system and colonialism”.
We are told that the Pope’s views on social justice are “hardly credible” in view of the Church’s historic record of violence, torture and theft. We learn that the Catholic clergy teach that “men are superior to women” because they are more in the image of Christ.
Pope John Paul II is also criticised. According to Fr Tissa Balasuriya, the author of the relevant essay, both John Paul and Benedict lived their lives “in a world dominated by white racism” and therefore could not understand the developing world.
This judgment has been produced under the aegis of Caritas-social action, an agency of the Bishops’ Conference. In other words, Catholics in the pew have helped pay for an attack on the Pope.
But worst of all, in my opinion, is this passage in Balasuriya’s essay: “The 21st century was born in violence, with the ‘terrorist’ air attack on New York on 11 September 2001 and the invasion of Iraq by the USA, the UK and Australia on 18 March 2003.”
Those inverted commas are despicable. Did the Bishop of Plymouth notice them before he recommended the book in his foreword?
The other essays mostly consist of sub-Marxist drivel. Philomena Cullen, one of the editors, attacks “the ideology of the nuclear family” and endorses “the open family ideology rooted in a feminist perspective”.
Cullen – social policy coordinator of the Bishops’ Conference agency – notes that all dominant ideologies entail the misuse of power, “whether manifested as sexism, racism, disabilism, ageism, hetereosexism”.
Need I go on? How much evidence do Catholics need that the Bishops’ Conference has been hijacked by Left-wing activists working under the patronage of bishops who are in many cases doctrinaire socialists?
Pope Benedict is incredibly badly served by his English bishops, at least one of whom – Budd – is undermining the Pope by putting his name to this book.
August 9, 2007 at 9:05 pm
“The point at issue is not the truth or falsity of one or other theory of evolution but the very idea of using the hypotheses of the experimental sciences as a rule of interpretation for the understanding and expression of the teachings of the Church.”
I think the Faith people are more inclined towards using the teachings of the Church as a rule of interpretation for the understanding and expression of the hypotheses of the experimental sciences.
August 10, 2007 at 2:09 pm
James, even if it were true that the ‘Faith Movement’ does not use the experimental sciences as the rule of sacred theology (and I’m afraid it isn’t), the reverse procedure would be just as silly. The Church can declare claims by the natural scientist which directly contradict revelation to be false but it cannot show why they are false or ‘synthesise’ her teachings with these sciences because she has not competence or authority in regard to the experimental sciences.
August 10, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Ooops! That was me not berenike (I’m on her computer and it defaults to her name). P.S. invocante, Fr. F isn’t ‘the enemy’! I’m sad to hear about Miss Cullen I knew her once and she is a good person. She must have travelled a very long way in the wrong direction.
August 16, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Im sorry aelianius but most of what you are saying about the movement simply isnt true: if in todays Church we are spending our time directing criticism at people such as those in Faith then no wonder the Church is dying here.
August 16, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Distinguo
The philosophia perennis is essential. The 24 theses are not imposed as of obligation.
For further details, see this post.
in Domino.
August 16, 2007 at 8:49 pm
With respect to your comment number 9, Aelianus, isn’t that like saying, “They cannot adhere to the belief that the sun rises and sets every day because they believe in the Copernican system and they believe that there is no absolute movement in the universe, as far as is measurable.”?
It seems to me that the question would be: “How do you understand transubstantiation in terms other than those of scholastic philosophy which are yet compatible with it”?
Their proposed understanding might be compatible and it might not.
The post linked to in comment 15 is interesting too as far as the 24 theses themselves are concerned. I wonder if you have a response. Fr. Finigan seems pretty convincing on the face of it…
August 16, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Well, speaking as a bog standard ordinary lay man, I’m delighted that someone has at last raised the issue of whether the “Faith” movement is really acceptable to orthodox Catholics. As much as we can all respect what Fr Finnigan and his friends are trying to do, I remember the words of Blessed Dominic Barberi – “there is the truth and then there are lies.”
August 16, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Following on from Jeff’s comment I always thought that to seek the truth (including those that are outside revealed truth) is a noble pursuit and that there is objectivity to be found there e.g. in some realms of science. Whilst one should not force a false synthesis that is more wishful thinking or compromises truth surely it is a wonderful thing to seek and celebrate the coherence of truths where found? I am no expert on any of this but can’t get to grips with the sections in the blog entry and comments where a defence of Thomism seems to imply negative critique of the Faith Movement. I understood that in his Treatise on the Truth of the Catholic Faith, against Unbelievers (Summa de veritate catholicae fidei contra gentiles)Aquinas argues that no demonstrated truth (which can include some aspects of science) is opposed to revealed truth (faith). If ‘the way, THE TRUTH and the life’ is also He through whom the whole universe was made should we not in fact HAVE AN EXPECTATION that truths of that universe e.g. how it came to be and operates might be discoverable to us?
August 16, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Cappadocian Sister, I agree with the spirit of what you are saying. There should indeed be an expectation that the findings of empirical science will not disagree with revealed truth. However, these are not demonstrated truths but models of the world constantly revised in the light of experimentation. It is part of the method of the empirical sciences that they should always open to revision and overthrow. It is only demonstrated truths of the natural order such as those enumerated in Pius X’s 24 Theses that we can be sure will not conflict with revealed truth, because it is only such theses we can be sure are true.
August 28, 2007 at 6:04 pm
I recently stopped attending a Tridentine Rite Sunday Mass in Ashford, Kent because the priest who said it (who claims he is part of the Faith Movement) specifically suggested that Original Sin was committed by a tribe of hominids at some point in their evolutionary spin-cycle and not by two original parents Adam and Eve (which Catholics are bound to believe, de fide).
The theory of evolution in any normally scientifically accepted format which those in the Faith Movement would surely believe, is incompatible with the Catholic Faith.
No evolutionary biologist in the world believes that the human race descended wholly from two Original parents, and neither do people in the Faith Movement.
Yet Humanis Generis 1950 specifically tells us that as Catholics we MUST believe this.
37.37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.
August 28, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Thanks Greg. Another good two part article on this heresy here.
http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/daylight/faith1.html
August 29, 2007 at 1:50 am
It is important to examine the idea of evolution critically and to be aware that certain persons seek to reconcile the Church’s teaching to this theory in a manner which injures the integrity of those teachings. Such projects are rightly condemned. Certainly, from anecdotal evidence and personal experience I can say that members of the ‘Faith Movement’ attempt this and should be censured for doing so. However, this is not the essence of the problem with the ‘Faith Movement’ which is far more fundamental. We must not get hung up on the theory of evolution. It largely doesn’t matter whether this theory is true or not. There are versions of the theory of evolution or elements of some of those theories which, whether or not they are true, are reconcilable with the Church’s teaching. It seems to me that the evolution of the lower animals and plants is not irreconcilable with the Church’s teaching. St Augustine interpreted Genesis in this way. It is also possible to hold that, in the miraculous creation of the body of Adam by God, He used pre-existing organic matter. I am far from supposing these things to be the case. I do not think we need dwell upon the fact that these are licit opinions it suffices merely to observe the fact. It is far from clear that they are compatible with the intentions of Moses in the first chapters of Genesis. It is for the Church to make final judgement on this and we are free to hold private theological opinions until then. Even if these evolutionary interpretations of Genesis were true it would remain illegitimate to interpret Genesis in this way if we do so in order to reconcile Scripture with the findings of natural science. This would be to make the progress of the natural sciences the rule of interpretation of Scripture. This means that our assent is first to the natural sciences and then to Scripture. This cannot be. It is heretical and incompatible with the theological virtue of faith in which we must assent to God alone and to the Church because of her divine authority to teach. The Church has no authority to pronounce upon the theories of the natural scientists insofar are they do not touch upon faith and morals. Therefore, to include these theories in the content of the faith or as the rule of its interpretation is to adulterate theological faith with human authority. If it is adulterated in this manner it ceases to be Theological Faith, it become mere human belief. This human belief does not save. That is the problem with the ‘Faith Movement’ next to that polygenism (though certainly a heresy) is almost irrelevant. It is merely one symptom of a much more serious disease.
August 31, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Mr Panov,
That article is interesting but ultimately an extremely biased and error strewn presentation of the movements ideas. It’s interesting that the ‘daylight’ organization refuses to countenance the idea that evolution is the most probable explanation of where the world is today. So they are making a scientific assertion. The Faith movement on the other hand does not rely on the theory being true – it matters not either way, but it does look as though it’s true and it does fit in with Holloway’s philosophy.
AGAIN Aelianus, the Faith movement DOES NOT attempt to ‘reconcile Scripture with the findings of natural science.’ Also i would like you to find many groups in the Catholic world that are more loyal to the teachings of the Church than Faith.
Your basic reasons for wanting to censor Faith are fundamentally misinformed. I suggest you read the literature.
August 31, 2007 at 8:50 pm
I suggest you read the literature…