« LAMENTABILI SANE EXITU ». — Decree of the Holy Office of 3–4 July 1907 condemning 65 Modernist propositions.
After the condemnation of Loisy’s books (1903), two theologians from Paris (G. Letourneau and P. Bouvier) extracted from them 33 erroneous propositions, which they submitted to the judgment of the archbishop, Cardinal Richard. The list was immediately transmitted to the Holy Office, within which an examining commission was established, consisting of Cardinals Serafino Vannutelli, Augusto Di Pietro, Mariano Rampolla, Girolamo M. Gatti, Domenico Ferrata, Pietro Respighi, Raffaele Merry del Val, Andrea Steinhuber, Francesco Segna, and Calasanzio Vives y Tuto. The Parisian list was discussed, modified, and above all expanded by the addition of 32 propositions extracted from other Modernist authors. The final editor seems to have been the Franciscan David Fleming. During the period of preparation, some information leaked out, and the press used it to formulate the most bizarre hypotheses. Finally, the decree appeared in L'osservatore romano on 6 July 1907, bearing the date of the 3rd and Pius X’s approval of the following day.
The decree begins with two observations: the present age is feverish with novelty, to which certain Catholic writers also give a favorable reception; under the pretext of a deeper investigation of truth in the light of the historical method, they admit a corrupting evolution of dogmas. To oppose these novelties, which had also spread among the faithful, Pius X ordered the Holy Office to examine and condemn the principal errors. What follows is a simple list of 65 propositions, without any external division and without any particular ranking in determining the gravity of the individual errors.
Yet internal examination reveals a latent logic
that holds together the structure of the document, which is composed of seven clearly distinct groups of propositions: 1–8: the authority of the Church’s magisterium in religious matters, especially in the field of biblical exegesis; 9–19: the inspiration and historicity of the Bible, especially of the Gospels; 20–36: fundamental notions concerning Revelation, dogma, and faith; 27–38: the origin and development of Christological dogma; 39–51: the origin and development of the Sacraments in general and in particular; 52–57: the origin, nature, and evolution of the Church and of its constituent elements; 58–65: the general character and value of Christian doctrine as a whole.
From the imposing complex of these propositions there emerge as condemned, including in their particular applications, free inquiry in the religious field, particularly in exegesis; naturalism, which denies the inspiration and divine origin of Sacred Scripture; criticism, which deprives the Gospels of their historical foundation; subjectivism, which makes religion an internal phenomenon of consciousness; evolutionism, applied to Christological, sacramental, and ecclesiological dogmas; and relativism, which denies the absolute value of Christian Revelation and Catholic dogmatics.
A rapid examination shows that all the conceptions of A. Loisy (v.), G. TYRRELL, GEORGE (v.), and E. Le Roy were taken into consideration, although the condemnation is directed against no particular person and aims solely at striking the Modernist system in its principles and in its immediate deductions and applications.
The decree issued by the Holy Office, bearing the approval in forma communi of the Supreme Pontiff, is not an infallible document (cf. L. Choupin, Valeur des décisions doctrinales et disciplinaires du St-Siège, 3rd ed., Rome 1929, pp. 71–75). Nevertheless, it is an authentic document of the Holy See, which must be received with full external and internal submission. Moreover, by rejecting errors that are diametrically opposed to Revelation and Catholic dogma, this decree belongs among those that prepare the way for a more solemn and more decisive document of the Church’s magisterium. The decree is the natural preface to the encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis (v.).