FIDES ET RATIO

by

FR JOHN P. GALVIN

O N 14 September 1998, not coincidentally the Feast of the

Triumph of the Cross, Pope John Paul II issued an encyclical on
faith and reason under the title Fides etratio:' To a much greater extent
than most papal documents, this text has evoked widespread commen-
tary and stimulated intensive discussion of its chosen topic. Seminars
specifically on the encyclical have been announced in Catholic
theological faculties at some universities (e.g. Freiburg and Regens-
burg), and a certain amount of commentary has already been
published in theological journals." Nonetheless, familiarity with the
actual content of the encyclical remains limited.
In view of this situation, this paper seeks to provide an overview of
the encyclical and to draw attention to salient issues pertinent to the
study of theology. J Before turning to the text of Fides et ratio itself, I
will begin with a few introductory remarks on the nature, history and
doctrinal significance of papal encyclicals.

Encyclicals

An encyclical is by definition a circular letter, a letter sent to more

than one person. While the term is attested in Greek for Church
writings as early as the fourth century (Epiphanius, Athanasius) and
in Latin for a papal letter from the time of Pope Martin I (649- 53) ,
it is only since Pope Benedict XIV (1740- 58) that the writing of
papal encyclicals has become common. Over the last 250 years
encyclicals have been frequently used vehicles for the expression of
papal teaching on a wide variety of topics. In the twentieth century
alone, 139 encyclicals have been issued, and Fides et ratio is the
thirteenth encyclical published by John Paul II in his twenty-one years
as pope. Like Fides etratio, most encyclicals have been written in Latin
2 THE DOWNSIDE REVIEW

and addressed to the Catholic bishops of the world; but other

languages have also been used at times, and in some instances the
addressees have been a smaller group (such as the bishops of a
particular country) or a larger one (such as 'all people of good will').
Some encyclicals, like some sacraments, are more important than
others. A list of important encyclicals in the twentieth century would
certainly include Pope Pius X's condemnation ofmodernism (Pascendi
[1907]), Pope Pius XII's encyclicals on the Church (Mystici corporis
[1943]), biblical studies (DiVino ajjlante Spiritu [1943]), and the
liturgy (Mediator Dei [1947]), the same Pope's criticism of recent
trends in theology (Humani generis [1950]), and the encyclicals of
several popes on social and moral questions. As can be seen from this
list, many encyclicals are of great doctrinal and theological signifi-
cance. However, encyclicals are not the only form of papal teaching,
and they were not the form chosen for use in the two solemn papal
dogmatic definitions of the past two centuries. In defining Mary's
Immaculate Conception in 1854 and her Assumption in 1950, Pope
Pius IX and Pope Pius XII expressed their teaching in other forms:
a papal bull in the first case, an Apostolic Constitution in the second."
In general, encyclicals should be understood as documents in which
popes exercise their ordinary teaching authority, though some
passages - such as the citations of Vatican I in Fides etratio - repeat
teaching which has been taught with greater authority at an earlier
time. Apart from such passages or specific indications to the
contrary, the doctrinal content of encyclicals should be received as
authoritative papal teaching, but not classified as definitive or
infallible. 5

Fides et ratio

We can now turn to the text of Fides et ratio itself. Apart from an
Introduction and a Conclusion, the encyclical is divided into seven
chapters. I will go through the text chapter by chapter, though not
always paragraph by paragraph, seeking to accent points which seem
especially noteworthy. No attempt will be made to discuss every issue
that is broached in the text.
 FIDES ET RATIO 3

INTRODUCTION (1-6)

Even prior to the Introduction, an opening paragraph sounds

several themes which will be pursued further as the encyclical unfolds.
With characteristic Catholic emphasis on faith and reason (and not
on faith alone), Pope John Paul compares faith and reason to two
wings on which the human spirit rises to contemplation of the truth.
He adds to that comment three succinct observations: the desire to
know truth is itself implanted in the human heart by God; the desire
to know truth is in fact a desire to know God; in knowing and loving
God, human beings also come to full self-knowledge. Just as the
twofold love of God and love of human beings are inseparably linked,
so too are knowledge of God and knowledge of human beings. Both
the anthropocentric focus and the concern with truth are characteristic
of the entire document.
Against this background, the Introduction and Chapter I offer
complementary approaches to the encyclical's themes: the Introduc-
tion begins from the perspective of reason and philosophy, while
Chapter I starts from the perspective of faith and theology." The
Introduction (1-6) touches on several issues worthy of note, which
I mention here in the sequence in which they arise. First, human
history, both in the East and in the West, is presented as a universal
human journey toward truth, including in particular the truth about
human beings in their uniqueness (1). Second, the Church is seen
as having, among its various tasks, a responsibility to serve the truth,
and that in a twofold way. On the one hand, the Church is a fellow
pilgrim sharing in the universal struggle toward a truth that will not
be fully grasped before the final, eschatological revelation of God; on
the other hand, the Church has the duty of proclaiming Jesus Christ
a
as 'the way, the truth, and the life' ohn 14: 6), and thus has the
responsibility of proclaiming the certitudes at which it has already
arrived (2). The tension created by this polarity of simultaneously
seeking truth and being in possession of divinely revealed truth is
characteristic of the encyclical (and of Christian faith) as a whole.
The temptation to abandon one aspect in favour of the other is
omnipresent and not easily resisted - in both directions.
A third theme of this introductory section is an initial discussion
ofphilosophy, though it is explicitly recognized that philosophy is but
one of the many resources available to human beings in their efforts
4 THE DOWNSIDE REVIEW

to achieve greater knowledge of truth and to live more human lives.

Emphasis is placed on philosophy's search for fundamental and
universal elements of knowledge, and attention is directed to a core
of philosophical insights which includes such items as the principle
of non-contradiction and certain basic moral norms. At the same
time, the Pope warns against identifying any single stream of
philosophical thought with the whole of philosophy. The Church's
high estimation of philosophy as a means of coming to know
fundamental truths about human life and as an indispensable help for
deeper understanding of the faith and for communicating the truth
ofthe Gospel is then reiterated. Finally, to conclude the introduction,
the Pope offers a briefassessment of modern philosophy. Like several
other parts of the encyclical, this evaluation is carefully nuanced - far
more nuanced than the Vatican Press Office's brief summary of the
encyclical would suggest. 7 On the one hand, the Pope strongly praises
the anthropocentric orientation which is a hallmark of modern
thought: 'Modern philosophy clearly has the great merit of focussing
attention upon man. From this starting point, human reason with its
many questions has developed further its yearning to know more and
to know it ever more deeply' (5). On the other hand, he criticizes
philosophical systems which unduly restrict the scope ofphilosophical
enquiry, abandon metaphysical questioning and accentuate the ways
in which the human capacity to know the truth is limited and
conditioned (5). This path, in his judgment, leads to agnosticism,
relativism, and scepticism; eventually it produces a situation in which
'a legitimate plurality of positions has yielded to an undifferentiated
pluralism based upon the assumption that all positions are equally
valid' (5). Against such tendencies, he urges philosophy to recover
its higher goals and its original vocation in service of the truth (6).

1. THE REVELATION OF GOD'S WISDOM (7-15)

Though designated as Chapter I, the section on the revelation of
God's wisdom serves in fact as a kind of second introduction to the
encyclical, complementary to the first, as similar matters are now
approached from the perspective of faith. Among the various topics
addressed here, I would note the following. The Pope first identifies
the source of the Church's knowledge as free divine revelation,
received in faith, not acquired through speculation on the Church's
 FIDES ET RATIO 5

8
part (7). This revelation, which has a certain sacramental character and
which alwaysremains charged with mystery (1 3), is described in christo-
centric terms and called 'the absolutely valid source of meaning for
human life' (12) through which all human beings 'are offered the
ultimate truth about their own life and about the goal of history' (12).
Especially in paragraphs 10-12, the christocentric focus of revelation
is interpreted as accenting the fundamental importance of time and
history in Christian thinking; nonetheless, despite the importance of
this issue, there is no extended treatment of the relationship of
Christian faith to historical (as distinguished from philosophical)
reason. Citing Dei Filius (OS 3015), the First Vatican Council's
Dogmatic Constitution on Catholic Faith, this chapter also describes
the relationship of the truth of revelation to the truth of philosophy
as neither identical nor mutually exclusive (9); it argues that
revelation 'impels reason continually to extend the range of its
knowledge until it senses that it has done all in its power' (14) -
echoing here, from a new perspective, one of the major themes of the
encyclical's Introduction. Finally, Chapter I brieHy touches on the
theology of freedom, linking freedom and faith quite closely together
(13). It teaches that freedom is absolutely required for the act of
faith, that faith 'allows individuals to give consummate expression to
their own freedom' (13), and, in a passage worth thinking about in
further detail, that 'freedom is not realized in decisions made against
God' (13), since such acts are closed to the 'very reality which enables
our self-realization' (1 3). The insistence that human freedom is not
neutral toward values but intrinsically oriented toward truth and the
good is an important characteristic of the Pope's thought.

II. CREDO UT INTELLEGAM (16-23)

Chapter II begins another dual section, as a chapter on faith seeking

understanding precedes a chapter on understanding seeking faith.
The chapter title, left with good reason in Latin in the published
translation, is a classical formulation deriving from the tradition of
Augustine and Anselm. Based on the Vetus Latina's productive
mistranslation (based on the Septuagint) of Isaiah 7:9b as 'si non
credideritis, non intelligetis', it expresses a theological programme of faith
seeking understanding."
6 THE DOWNSIDE REVIEW

The first chapter of this section may conveniently be divided into

halves, as different aspects of the relationship of faith and reason are
brought into the foreground. The first half, drawing on Old
Testament wisdom literature and St Paul's Letter to the Romans,
accents the deep harmony between the knowledge conferred by faith
and the knowledge achieved by reason (16). While faith is needed to
understand in greater depth the world and the events of history (16),
faith and reason nonetheless work hand in hand, and there are no
grounds for envisioning any kind of competition between them (17).
As the classic texts of Wisdom 13 and Romans 1 indicate, it is even
possible for reason to stretch beyond material reality, and to infer
'from the greatness and beauty of created things ... a corresponding
perception of their Creator' (Wisdom 13: 5; para. 19). After this
optimistic portrayal of the possible range of reason in such matters,
the second half of the chapter turns to the weakening of reason by the
effects of Original Sin (22) and culminates in an extended reflection,
oriented especially on the first chapter of St Paul's First Letter to the
Corinthians, on the contrast between the wisdom of this world and
the wisdom of God revealed in Jesus Christ (23). Pointing not
simply to Christ, but quite specifically to his crucifixion, the
encyclical here acknowledges the tension between divine revelation and
the'cycle of our habitual patterns of thought' (23). In striking but
somewhat obscure imagery, the preaching ofChrist crucified and risen
is described as the reef upon which the link between faith and
philosophy can break up, but also as the reef beyond which faith and
philosophy can set forth on the boundless ocean of truth (23).
The tension between the wide scope attributed to reason in
principle and its lesser actual accomplishments is inherent in the
subject matter of the encyclical and has consequences in each case for
the relationship of reason to faith. The encyclical seems to presup-
pose that the contrasting elements can be reconciled on a deeper level,
but does not seek to develop a coherent synthesis. The possibility
that biblical and philosophical conceptions of God - classically
expressed by the invocation in Blaise Pascal's Memorial of the 'God of
Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, not of the philosophers and
scholars"? - may be opposed rather than be compatible is not
explored.
 FIDES ET RATIO 7

III. INTELLEGO UT CREDAM (24-35) II

Reversing the procedure of the second chapter, Chapter III follows

a path which leads from reason toward faith. Opening sections accent
the ineradicable desire of the human heart for a fulfilment which only
God can provide (24) and the profound orientation of all human
beings toward truth (25). Questions of the meaning of life and of
our final personal destiny (26) inevitably occur to human beings, and
can be addressed only with reference to universally valid truth and as
a part of a search for certitude (27). In this regard I would draw
attention to two passages which reflect the distinctive status of human
beings within creation and the close association of specifically human
existence with the search for truth: 'Within visible creation, man is the
only creature who not only is capable of knowing, but who knows that
he knows and is therefore interested in the real truth of what he
perceives' (25). 'One may define the human being, therefore, as the
one who seeks the truth' (28). The anthropocentric focus of these
texts will be welcomed by some and criticized by others. In any case,
it reflects a typical characteristic of the thought ofJohn Paul II, 12 with
whom I am in sympathy on this point; it implies a greater affinity on
his part to modern than to pre-modern or post-modern thinking.
Against this background, the remainder of the chapter draws
attention to the social and cultural embeddedness of all human
existence (3 I) and the inevitability of reliance on others, on a human
level, for much of our knowledge. This situation in turn suggests the
importance of the witness of martyrs to the truth of their faith (32- 3;
yet it must also be recognized that many religions and worldviews have
martyrs), and to a final assertion that the human search 'for the truth
and for a person to whom they might entrust themselves' - a
formulation strikingly reminiscent of Karl Rahner's 'searching
christology" - finds its fulfilment in Christian faith (33). The
truth revealed in Christ is not opposed to the truths which philosophy
perceives; on the contrary, the two distinct modes of knowledge lead
to truth in all its fullness (34).

IV. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FAITH AND REASON (36-48)

In a shift in perspective from thematic to historical considerations,

Chapter IV suddenly takes the form of a compressed and necessarily
8 THE DOWNSIDE REVIEW

selective survey of important moments in the historical encounter of

faith and reason. The patristic period, discussed with reference to
several Eastern and Western authors but with special emphasis on
Augustine, is seen fundamentally as a time of fruitful engagement of
Christian thinkers with classical Greek philosophy, which itself
represented a partially successful attempt 'to purify human notions
of God of mythological elements' (36; 36-41). The complexity of
this engagement and the patristic awareness of divergence as well as
convergence between Christians and philosophers are both emphasized
in appropriate measure (41). On the whole, however, with a bit of
pardonable hyperbole, the Pope concludes that the Fathers ofthe Church
'succeeded in disclosing completely all that remained implicit and
preliminary in the thinking of the great philosophers of antiquity' (41).
A highly positive assessment ofthe encounter of faith and philoso-
phy is also reflected in the presentation of medieval thinking.
Touching first on Anselm, but dwelling at greater length on Thomas
Aquinas, the Pope notes the harmony of the knowledge of faith and
of philosophy in the thinking of these authors. Developments from
the late medieval period onward, however, are viewed more critically
as a progressive separation of philosophy (and scientific reasoning)
from Christian revelation (45-7). While no names are mentioned,
the allusions to Hegel on the one hand and to Feuerbach and Marx
on the other hand (46) are unmistakable. The ultimate results of this
process are diagnosed as a positivistic mentality in scientific research,
nihilism, reduction of reason to instrumental reason, and the
displacement of philosophy from the centre of human inquiry to its
periphery. While deploring these consequences, the important
concluding art. 48 stresses that precious insights may be gleaned even
from the thought of those who helped separate reason from faith; the
criticism of modern thought is also somewhat attenuated by the more
positive comments in earlier (5) and later (59,74) portions of the
text and by the Pope's own anthropocentric orientation. The
concluding paragraph ofthis chapter also stresses the dangers to faith
as well as to reason when the two become separated. While reason is
in danger of losing sight of its high goals, faith runs the risk of
stressing feeling and experience, withering into myth or superstition,
and no longer being able to advance universal truth claims (48).
 FIDES ET RATIO 9

V. THE MAGISTERIUM'S INTERVENTION IN PHILOSOPHICAL

MATTERS (49-63)

Chapter V concerns various aspects of the activity of the Church's

teaching office with regard to philosophical questions. It begins with the
important and by no means superfluous statement that 'the Church has
no philosophy of her own nor does she canonize anyone particular
philosophy in preference to others' (49; cf. also 78). [4 The immediately
following paragraphs are chiefly concerned with the Magisterium's duty
to reject philosophical errors which are incompatible with revealed truth
(52). Giving examples of such errors from the Middle Ages (and thus
modifying Chapter IV's idealized depiction of the relationship of
philosophy and theology in that period) and from the nineteenth century,
the encyclical emphasizes the First Vatican Council's rejection of both
fideism and rationalism as opposing errors (52-4). Turning to the
present, the Pope warns against the current widespread distrust of reason
and the restriction of the tasks of philosophy to mundane matters.
Without giving specific references, he notes the dangers of both
rationalism and fideism at the present time, with special mention of a
type ofbiblicism 'which tends to make the reading and exegesis of sacred
Scripture the sole criterion of truth' (55). In general terms, the thrust
of this section of the encyclical is an exhortation to trust the power of
human reason (56) and to appreciate the value of speculative thinking
in the development of theology (55).
Yet the encyclical goes on to stress in a more positive vein that the
Magisterium's interest in philosophy is not confined to the detection and
correction oferrors; over and above this, it also seeks to promote genuine
philosophical enquiry (57). Here attention is first directed to Pope Leo
XIII's influential encyclical Aeterni Patris which insisted on the value of
Thomistic philosophy and promoted its renewal (57).15 While rightly
observing that the most influential Catholic theologians of the twentieth
century - no names are mentioned - were products of that Thomistic
revival, and stressing the contribution of these authors to the Second
Vatican Council, the encyclical also contains a remarkable paragraph
praising in concrete terms the contributions of non-Thomistic authors
both before and after Leo XIII's encyclicaL Again no names are
mentioned, but the thought ofthe nineteenth-century Catholic Tiibingen
School (johann Sebastian von Drey, Johann Adam Mohler, Johannes
Evangelist Kuhn) and of Maurice Blondel- all of whom were quite
10 THE DOWNSIDE REVIEW

sharply criticized by their Neo-Scholastic opponents'" - can easily be

recognized in the formulations used in the text (59). Further paragraphs
note the contribution of the Second Vatican Council on these matters,
strongly emphasize the need for philosophy in the education of candi-
dates for the priesthood (62), criticize those contemporary theologies
which are uninterested in philosophical issues (61) and lament the
disregard of modern thought and culture which can result from inatten-
tion to philosophy (62).

VI. INTERACTION BETWEEN PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY (64-79)

The lengthy sixth chapter discusses the interaction of philosophy
and theology. The Pope begins by insisting in an important passage
that he has 'no wish to direct theologians to particular methods, since
that is not the competence of the Magisterium' (64). He argues,
however, that philosophy is needed by dogmatic, fundamental and
moral theology if these disciplines are to attend to certain aspects of
their respective tasks (65-8). Other types of human knowledge and
culture are acknowledged as important (69), but ought not to be seen
as substitutes for properly philosophical enquiry. Underlying this
section and the following paragraphs on the relationship of faith and
culture, especially in India, is a particular interest in affirming the
universality of Christian claims to truth (70) and in insisting that no
culture can as such legitimately claim to be the criterion of truth (71-2).
After a rather abrupt transition, the final sections of this chapter
suggest that the relationship of philosophy and theology is best
conceived as circular - as the structure of the early chapters of the
encyclical itself suggests - for believers use their powers of reason
in the search for truth (73). The fruitfulness of this approach is seen
confirmed by several patristic and medieval theologians, but also by
various modern authors (Eastern and Western), who are mentioned
by name. I 7 That these lists are not intended to be exhaustive is
evident from the encyclical's haste in adding that other names could
also have been cited. I 8 Despite the observation that reference to an
author does not imply endorsement of every aspect of that scholar's
thought, the inclusion of several Orthodox authors - some of whom
were quite critical of the papacy's claims to jurisdictional primacy-
and of the nineteenth century Italian theologian Antonio Rosmini
(1797-1855) is worth noting, especially since several of Rosmini's
 FIDES ET RATIO 11

works were placed on the Index of Forbidden Books in 1849 and forty
propositions excerpted from his writings were condemned by the Holy
Office in 1887 (OS 3201-41). Concluding paragraphs (75-9),
somewhat repetitious ofmaterial discussed earlier, recapitulate several
ways in which a close relationship of philosophy and theology is
mutually beneficial to both disciplines. Examples include alerting
philosophy, in light of the Incarnation, to the importance of history
(76), and providing theology with a reason formed and educated to
concept and argument (77). The thought of Thomas Aquinas is
specifically praised at this point, and it is alleged that the Magist-
erium's repeated commendation of Thomas 'has not been in order to
take a position on properly philosophical questions nor to demand
adherence to particular theses' (78). While indefensible as an
historical claim.l" this statement can nonetheless be welcomed as a
declaration of present papal intentions.

VII. CURRENT REQUIREMENTS AND TASKS (80-99)

The seventh and final chapter begins with a short summary of
biblical anthropology and christology (80), and then notes current
problems related to the crisis of meaning and the increasing fragmen-
tation of knowledge in contemporary society (81).
To address rhese issues successfully, the encyclical envisions a
philosophy which must first recover 'its sapiential dimension as a
search for the ultimate and overarching meaning of life' (81), an
element whose importance is enhanced by the immense modern
expansion of technological capabilities. In order to perform this
urgent task, philosophy must 'verify the human capacity to know the
truth' (82), a matter of ultimate importance in both dogmatic and
moral theology as well as in other areas of human enquiry. These
requirements in turn imply the need for a philosophy of genuinely
metaphysical range (83), which recognizes human ability to transcend
the factual and empirical. The contributions of contemporary
developments in hermeneutics and language analysis are explicitly
recognized (84), but concern is expressed that some scholars in these
fields stop short of further enquiry into reality. An insistence on the
need for continuity between contemporary philosophy and the
Christian philosophical tradition (85 -6) leads to a criticism ofcertain
currents in contemporary thought; mention is made of an unsystem-
12 THE DOWNSIDE REVIEW

atic eclecticism (86), a historicism which denies the enduring validity

of truth (87), a scientism which restricts true knowledge to the
positive sciences and thus leads to an impoverishment of human
thought (88), a pragmatism which precludes judgments based on
ethical principles (89), and a nihilism which denies all foundations
and all objective truths (90). While acknowledging that this account
is not a complete presentation of the present state of philosophy, the
Pope concludes by criticizing some types of postmodernism as
destructively critical of every certitude (91).
The final segment of this chapter (92-9) notes certain current tasks
for theology. Based on the possibility of knowing universally valid truth
(92), theology has for its chief purpose the provision of 'an understand-
ing of revelation and the content of faith' (93). Among the issues
stressed in the following paragraphs are the relationship of meaning and
truth, particularly in the interpretation of theological sources, the need
to reconcile the 'absoluteness and universality of truth with the unavoid-
able historical and cultural conditioning of the formulas which express
that truth' (95), and the problem of the enduring value ofthe conceptual
language used in conciliar definitions (96). In addition to its contribu-
tion to addressing these tasks, philosophy is also judged essential to the
successful achievement of the tasks of moral theology (98) and of
catechesis (99). At this point, the encyclical conveys the impression of
having exhausted the discussion of its major themes and of engaging in
the listing of subsidiary topics for the sake of completeness.

CONCLUSION (100-108)

The concluding section of the encyclical re-emphasizes the impor-

tance of philosophy, summarizes the main themes of the encyclical,
and provides some practical exhortation to philosophers, theologians,
and scientists. As might be expected, no significant new material is
introduced at this final stage.

Conclusion
My purpose in this paper has been to provide an overview of Pope
John Paul II's encyclical Fides et ratio and to accent aspects of its
content which are important for theology. Let me mention four items
by way of conclusion.
 FIDES ET RATIO 13

First, the chief purposes of the encyclical are to express confidence

in the power of the human mind and to appeal that this power be used
to the fullest possible extent, without self-imposed restrictions. In
this respect, the encyclical stands firmly in the tradition of both
Anselm and Thomas Aquinas. This point of the encyclical should be
taken quite seriously and perhaps quite personally by teachers and
students of philosophy and theology. In comparison to this funda-
mental emphasis, the more detailed comments of the encyclical on
particular philosophies or on various periods in the history of
philosophy are secondary in importance.
Second, the encyclical reflects a great and legitimate concern with
the universality of Christian truth and a deep conviction that both
philosophy and theology are needed if that universality is to be
effectively safeguarded and communicated. In the context of
contemporary theological discussion, in which appropriate recognition
of the values inherent in non-Christian religions threatens at times
to relativize inappropriately central Christian convictions about Christ
and the Church, these points are also worthy of special emphasis."
Third, the chief deficiency of the encyclical is, in my opinion, its
failure to address explicitly the relationship of faith to historical
reason. As it stands, the relationship of faith and reason is all too
quickly subsumed under the rubric of the relationship oftheology and
philosophy. The problems raised and the insights gained by the
development of modern historical-critical methods of enquiry into
texts from the past (especially, but not exclusively, in the field of
biblical exegesis) warrant serious consideration in this context beyond
that provided in this encyclical."
Finally, the issue with which the encyclical is concerned - the
relationship of human reason and Christian faith- is both broader and
more significant than the encyclical itself. Calling attention to that issue
- an implication of the fundamental Christian assertion that salvation
is the fulfilment ofhuman nature, not a substitution for it-is the most
important Petrine service which Fides etratio offers to the Church and to
the world.
14 THE DOWNSIDE REVIEW

NOTES

I For the Latin text see AA5 91 (1999) 5-88. The citations in the paper are taken
from the English translation published in Origins 28 (1998-9), 317-47. Unless
otherwise indicated, the numbers in parentheses refer to paragraphs of Fides a ratio.

z In addition to the works cited below, I would draw attention to a recently

published three-part series: John Montag, 'Philosophy's Human Face', The Tablet
253 (1999),842-3; Anthony Kenny, 'The Pope as Philosopher', The Tablet 253
(1999), 874-6; and Jean Porter, 'Let Down the Drawbridge', The Tabla 253
(1999),922-4.

1 This paper was originally delivered as one offour presentations at a symposium

on Fides a ratio sponsored by the School of Religious Studies at The Catholic
University ofAmerica, Washington, D.C, U.S.A, on 25 January 1999. While some
modifications have been made in preparation for publication, the structure of the
original presentation has been preserved.

• Cf DS 2800-4, 3900-4.
; Cf. Heinrich Baehr, 'Enzyklika', in IThK III C1959), 910-11; Francis A.
Sullivan, Magisurium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church (New York: Paulist
Press, 1983), 154-7; and Avery Dulles, 'Lehramt und Unfehlbarkeir', in Walter
Kern, Hermann J. Pottrneyer and Max Seckler, eds., Handbuch der Fundammtaltheologie
4: Traktat Theologische Erkmntnislehre (Freiburg: Herder, 1988), 168, 171.
6 The importance of this structure, which corresponds to the encyclical's
insistence on the mutual interpenetration of philosophy and theology, is rightly
emphasized by Klaus Muller, 'Der Papst und die Philosophie: Anmerkungen zur
Enzyklika "Fides et ratio"', Herder Komspondmz 5 3 (1999), 12-17. The encycli-
cal's circular movement between theology and philosophy is also stressed by Joseph
Ratzinger, 'Die Einheit des Glaubens und die Vielfalt der Kulturen: Reflexionen
im Anschluf an die Enzyklika "Fides et ratio", Theologie und Glaube 89 (1999),
141-52, esp. pp. 149-50.

7 For this 'Brief Synthesis of Fidesu Ratio' cf. Origins 28 (1998-9),347-8.

8 For a more nuanced understanding of the relationship of revelation and

discovery cf. Avery Dulles, 'Revelation and Discovery', in William J. Kelly, ed.,
Theology and Discovery: Essays in Honor of Karl Rabner, 5]. (Milwaukee: Marquette
University, 1980), 1-29.

9 For informative further discussion of the formula cf. Gottlieb Sohngen, 'Credo,
ut intelligam', in IThK III C1959), 89-91, and Max Seckler, 'Credo, ut
intelligam', in IThK II C1994), 1343-5. Both authors strongly accent the
differences between the Augustinian-Anselmian formula and the Thomistic
conception of the relationship of faith and reason.
 FIDES ET RATIO 15

10 Cf. Emile Caillier and John C. Blankenage1, eds., Grtat Shortt., Works ofPascal
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1948), 177; for the French original cf. Oeuvres
compUus (ed. Jacques Chavalier; Paris: Gallimard, 1954), 554. Pascal's MEmorial
was written in 1654 after an intense spiritual experience and found sewn into his
cloak after his death eight years later.

11 As has been noted by Klaus Muller (op.cir., 13), the twin formulations 'Credo

ut intellegam' and 'Intellego U[ credam' imply (as does the entire encyclical) a
dialectical interplay between faith and understanding. As such, they reflect
Augustine's 'ergo intellege ut credas, crede ut intellegas' (Sermo 43,9), but contrast
sharply with Anselm's disjunction: 'Neque enim quaero intelligere ut credarn, sed
credo ut intelligam' (Proslogion I; Opera omnia vol. I, ed. F. S. Schmitt [Seckau:
Abtei Seckau, 1938], 100).

12 Cf. especially Redemptorhominis, AAS 71 (1979),257-324.

13 Cf. Foundations of Christian Faitb. An Introduction to tbe Idea of Cbristianity (New

York: Crossroad, 1978),295-8,318-21. This is not the only aspect of the

encyclical which reflects an affinity to Rahner's thought - the anthropocentric
focus of both authors is a further case in point. Leo Scheffczyk's analysis of the
encyclical (Theologisches Pladoyer fur die Vernunft: Zur Enzyklika Fides et
Ratio Johannes Pauls II.' [Forum Katboliscbe Tbeologie 15 (1999),48-59]), which
in several places strains to distinguish the Pope's thought from that of Rahner,
misrepresents both authors on the relevant points. Johannes Dormann (Der
tbeologiscbe Weg Jobannes Pauls II. {Um Weltgebttstag detReligionen inAssisi 1.: Vom Zwtiten
Vatikaniscben Kon<Jl bis zur Papstwabl [SendenlWestf.: Sitta Verlag, 1990]) is more
accurate in detecting similarities in the thought of Rahner and John Paul II,
though I disagree with Dorrnann's insinuation that both authors diverge from the
Catholic faith.

14 Cf., by wayof contrast, the decree of the Congregation of Studies of27 July 1914,

which contains 24 approved theses of Thomistic philosophy (OS 3601-24). Only

after the death of Pope Pius X did the same Congregation venture to assert that these
theses were proposed simply as 'tutae normae directivae' (AAS 8 [1916]. 157).

15 Cf.ASS 12 (I 879),97-1 I 5. For further treatmenr of the subsequent develop-

ments, cf. Gerald A. McCool, Catholic Tbeology in tbe Nineteentb Century: Tbe Quest for
a Unitary Mttbod (New York: Seabury, 1977), pp. 216-67, and id., Tb« Neo-Tbomists
(Milwaukee: Marquette Ur-iversity, 1994).

16 For examples of harsh polemic by a nineteenth-century Neo-Scholastic theologian

against his non-Scholastic Catholic counterparts see Constantin von Schazler, Natur
und Ubernatur: Das Dogma von drr Cnade und die tbeologiscbe Frage der Gegenwart: Eim
Kritikder Kubn'scben Tbeologie (Mainz: Kirchheim, 1865) and id., Neue Untersucbungen
uber das Dogma von det Gnade und das Wmn des christlicben Glaubens: Mit btSondmr
Rucksicbt auf die detmalige Vmmung der katboliscben Dogmatik an den Ilniversitdten zu
Tubingen, Muncben undFrtiburg (Mainz: Kirchheim, 1867). Von Schazler (1827-80),
a convert to Catholicism in 1850, wasa prolific and influential Nee-Scholastic author.
16 THE DOWNSIDE REVIEW

17 Those mentioned nominatim are John Henry Newman, Antonio Rosmini,

Jacques Maritain, Etienne Gilson, Edith Stein, Vladimir Soloviev, Pavel Florensky,
Petr Chaadev and Vladimir Lossky.

18 In a comparable passage addressed to German theologians at Altotting on

November 18, 1980, Pope John Paul II drew specific attention to Albert the
Great, Nicholas Cusanus, Johann Adam Mohler, Matthias Scheeben, Romano
Guardini and Erich Przywara, but also observed that these German theologians
represented many others, past and present: 'Ich nenne diese hervorragende
Theologen stellvertretend fur viele andere, die in der Vergangenheit wie in der
Gegenwart nicht nur die Kirche des deutschen Sprachraurns, sondern die
Theologie und das Leben der ganzen Kirche bereichert haben und noch standig
bereichern' (AAS 73 [1981], 100). Max Seckler CKirchliches Lehramt und
theologische Wissenschaft: Geschichtliche Aspekte, Probleme und Losungs-
clemente'. in Walter Kern, ed., Dit Thtologit und das Lehramt [QD 91; Freiburg:
Herder, 1982], 54-7) has asserted that this address articulates a new papal
conception of the relationship of the Magisterium to theology.

19 In addition to the previouslymentioned theses ofthe Congregation ofStudies (DS

1601-3624), cf. Pope Pius X's Motuproprio 'Doctoris Angtlici' of 29 June 1914, which
required adherence to the principles and major pronouncements of Aquinas's
philosophy (for the Latin text, which was not published in the AAS, and a French
translation, cf. Pie X, Ecrits doctrinaux [Paris: Editions TEQUI, 1975], 339-49.)

20These points are rightly stressed by Joseph Ratzinger, 'Die Einheit des
Glaubens und die Vielfalt der Kulturen'.

21 For instructive analysis of this issue as it pertains to the resurrection of Jesus

cf. Georg Essen, Historischt Vrrnunjt und Aujtrwtckung [esu: Thtologit und Historik im
Streiturn den Btgriffgtschichtlichtr Wirklichktit (TSTP 9; Mainz: Matthias-Grunewald-
Verlag, 1995). Essen's valuable study includes probing presentations and critiques
of modern historical methodology (pp. 161-294, 386-449).