Folio 522

Leo XIII, 1878–1903

printed p. 490 · pdf p. 522

since Biblical studies have had a certain continuous progress in the Church, their own honor must likewise be allotted to their commen- taries, and much can be sought opportunely from these to refute contrary opinion and to solve the more difficult problems. But, it is entirely un- fitting that anyone should ignore and look down upon the works which our own have left in abundance, and prefer the books of the heterodox; and to the immediate danger to sound doctrine and not rarely to the damage of faith seek from these, explanations of passages to which Catholics have long and very successfully directed their geniuses and labors.

1946. . . . The first [aid to interpretation] is in the study of the ancient Oriental languages, and in the science which is called criticism.¹ There- fore, it is necessary for teachers of Sacred Scripture and proper for theologians to have learned those languages in which the canonical books were originally written by the sacred writers. . . . These, moreover, for the same reason should be more learned and skilled in the field of the true science of criticism; for to the detriment of religion there has falsely been introduced an artifice, dignified by the name of higher criticism, by which from internal evidence alone, as they say, the origin, integrity, and authority of any book emerge as settled. On the other hand it is very clear that in historical questions, such as the origin and preservation of books, the evidences of history are of more value than the rest, and should be gathered and investigated very carefully; moreover, that the methods

Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter, "Vigilantiae," Oct. 30, 1902; "de studiis s. Scripturae provehendis," among other things wrote the following: "Our own [faithful], with Our strong approval, cultivate the field of scientific criticism, for it is very useful in thoroughly perceiving the mind of the sacred writers. They also sharpen this same skill by applying to a passage the resources of the heterodox with no opposition on Our part. But, let them look out lest from this practice they imbibe intemperance of judgment; for the artifice of so-called higher criticism often deteriorates into this, whose dangerous temerity We ourselves have denounced more than once" (ASS 35 [1902/03] 236). Pius X in a letter given Jan. 11, 1906, to the Bishop of La Rochelle, Le Camus, spoke as follows: "This especially must be granted you in the way of praise, that you hold to that way of explaining the Sacred Scripture, which under the leadership of the Church must be completely held for allegiance to truth and for the glory of Catholic doctrine. For, as in fact the temerity is to be condemned of those who attribute more to novelty than to the magisterium of the Church, and do not hesitate to employ an immoderately free kind of criticism, so is the method of those not to be approved who dare to depart in nothing from the customary exegesis of Scripture, even when with the preservation of faith a good growth of studies demands this. You proceed in the right way between these [extremes], and by your example you show that nothing is to be feared by the Sacred Books from the true progress of the science of criticism, but rather that favorable light can be sought from this; so, surely, if a prudent and honest judgment should be applied to it [L'Unità cattolica, Firenze, February 4, 1906; AE 14 (1906), 99. Versio Lat. ex: Civiltà catt., a. 57 (1906) II 484 f.]. ↩