Jacques Maritain, French author of “Integral Humanism” (1936)

FROM The Undermining of the Catholic Church (Christian Book Club of America, 2007) by journalist Mary Ball Martinez:

Integral Humanism, not unlike the theories of Teilhard de Chardin, envisions religions of every kind converging toward a single human ideal in a world civilization wherein all men will be reconciled in justice, love and peace. Friendship among men will guide all life toward a mysterious accomplishment of the Gospel. As the French theologian Henri Le Caron explains, “Integral Humanism is a universal fraternity among men of good will belonging to different religions or to none, even those who reject the idea of a creator. It is within this framework that the Church should exercise a leavening influence without imposing itself and without demanding that it be recognized as the one, true Church. The cement of this fraternity is twofold, the virtue of doing good and an understanding grounded in respect for human dignity.

“This idea of universal fraternity”, continues Le Caron, “is neither new nor original. It was already advanced by the philosophers of the eighteenth century and by the French revolutionaries of 1789. It is also the fraternity beloved of Freemasons and Marxists. What distinguishes [philosopher Jacques] Maritain’s humanism [in 1936] is the role it allocates to the Church. Within the universal fraternity the Church is to be the inspiration and the Big Sister, and it goes without saying that if she is to win the sympathy of her little brothers, she must neither be intransigent nor authoritarian. She must learn how to make religion acceptable. She must be practical rather than dogmatic.”

That Fr. Montini’s [the future “Pope” Paul VI] early enthusiasm for Maritain stayed with him throughout his life is described by the novelist and one-time Jesuit, Malachi Martin, “The Integral Humanism of Paul VI permeated the entire policy of his pontificate. What the philosophy has to say is that all men are naturally good, that they will respond to be good and reject the evil if they are shown the difference. The function of the Church is merely to bear witness by service to men in today’s world where a new society is being born.”

Implementation of the Maritain doctrine can be recognized in document after document emerging from the Second Vatican Council and in most of the official exhortations and encyclicals that followed, even though at the time Maritain’s book first appeared, the Council was still a quarter of a century in the future. The thesis can be felt as a kind of ground bass beating right through to our time. It was implicit in the warm welcome Pius XII accorded Maritain when he came to Rome as the first post-war French Ambassador to the Holy See, in the very frequent public homage by Paul VI, in the constant study meetings and symposia dedicated to his work that have proliferated throughout the Catholic academic world and by the glowing tribute paid to Maritain by John Paul II on the centenary of the philosopher’s birth. By the end of the turbulent thirties Vatican acceptance of Integral Humanism made it only a question of how to pass it on to the faithful once the old Pope died.

(The Undermining of the Catholic Church, pp. 72-73)

— Comments —

Teresa Benns of Betrayed Catholics writes:

I have very little respect for Mary Ball-Martinez; Trads love her because she was practicing the sort of journalism then that is rampant today. She was critical of Pius XII which makes me suspicious of her. She had no clue what was going on behind the scenes with him, nor did she seem to especially care. Everything points to the fact that he was the subject of a carefully engineered disinformation campaign, was possibly the victim of coercive persuasion, may have been drugged, was poisoned according to his own physician and may have died of a second poisoning according to witnesses at his funeral. While he was fooled at first by Maritain, a friend of Montini’s, he began to back off of Montini and his coterie beginning in 1952 and oddly enough, that coincided with the first poisoning episode. The following is also reported in other works I have read:

“Although the atmosphere was soon to change, the Holy Office was still preparing an official condemnation of Murray, Jacques Maritain and other Catholic thinkers. It was only the death of Pope Pius XII on October 8, 1958 that prevented this from happening. His successor, Angelo Roncalli, John XXIII, was elected and the ecclesiastical mood changed radically when the new Pope called for an ecumenical council in 1959. After his years of faithful silence, Murray’s opportune time had finally arrived although obstacles still came his way.”

(Rev. Robert Nugent, “The Censuring of John Courtney Murray: Part Two”, The Catholic World, 242, n. 1445 [Mar/Apr 2008])

Laura writes:

Thank you for your comments.

I’m just reading her book for the first time and am still digesting it. On first reading, much of what she points out about Pope Pius XII seems to be in the realm of incontestable fact, such as the unorthodox nature of his early schooling, his closeness to Montini before he became Pope, his silence on Communism during critical years, his failure (at the urging of others) to support the Cristeros. There is a lot there about his early years not just the period when he was ill or when he was pope. But I will keep what you say in mind.

Mrs. Benns writes:

Biographies of Pius XII mention things that Martinez omits. I believe it was Pope Pius XI who failed to address the Cristeros and Communism early on; he waited until it was far too late to do anything about the slaughter resulting from the Bolshevik Revolution. Pius XII was his secretary then but from all reports had little influence over him. He did object to delays over the Communist situation. Below is Pius XII’s condemnation of Communism from 1949. He scarcely had time to address it during the war years.

ROMAN DOCUMENTS

Holy Office Decree on Communists
This Supreme Sacred Congregation has been asked:
Is it lawful to join or to show favor to communist groups?
Is it lawful to publish, disseminate or read books, periodicals, newspapers or leaflets which uphold communist doctrine and practice, or to write in them?
May the faithful who knowingly and willingly per­form the actions referred to in nn. 1 and 2 be admitted to the Sacraments?
Do the faithful who profess, and above all those who defend and spread, the materialistic and anti-Christian doc­trine of the communists ipso facto, as apostates from the Catholic faith, fall into an excommunication reserved speciali modo to the Holy See?
The Most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, charged with the safeguarding of matters of faith and morals, after having previously received the opinion of the Very Reverend Consultors, in a plenary session held on Tuesday, the 28th of June, 1949, decided the response should be:
In the negative: because communism is materialistic and anti-Christian. Though communist leaders verbally profess not to oppose religion; nevertheless, in fact, both by teaching and action, they show themselves to be the enemies of God and the true religion and the Church of Christ.
In the negative: for they are forbidden by law itself (cf. Canon 1399, C.I.C.)
In the negative, according to the ordinary principles as regards the denial of the Sacraments to those who are not disposed.
In the affirmative.
On the following Thursday, the 30th of the same month and year, his Holiness Pius XII, Pope by divine Providence, in the customary audience granted to his Excellency, the Most Reverend Assessor of the Holy Office, approved the afore­mentioned resolution of the Most Eminent Fathers and ordered it to be promulgated in the official journal, the Acta Aposto­licae Sedis. Given in Rome, July 1, 1949, (Peter Vigorita, Notary).

“No decree of the Holy See has received such lengthy notices in the daily press as that of the Holy Office, regarding communist affiliation and support. We have even witnessed earnest efforts to provide a canonical commentary. The sensational and seemingly political overtones of the Decree should not lead us to overlook its careful wording and the clear-cut distinctions it makes,” (Homiletic and Pastoral Review, Vol. 50, No. 1, Oct. 1949).

Reverend William Conway notes that by indicating to whom the censure is applied, Pius XII definitely included “Those, who by words or conduct externally manifest that they personally accept the doctrine of communism are apostates …and incur excommunication ipso facto, (Problems in Canon Law, p. 322.)

Laura writes:

I’m sorry, that was my error regarding the Cristeros, not Martinez’s. Yes, it was Pope Pius XI and his Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Gasparri– the prime mover, according to Martinez, against the Cristeros.

Martinez has quite a lot to say about Pius XII and Communism —  regarding both his actions as Vatican Secretary of State and in the Holy See. She discusses this statement of his in 1949, making the point that it was far too late. She contends that he regretted his inaction for the rest of his life. Again, I am still digesting it.

Laura adds:

One of her interesting insights is that Giovanni Montini (Paul VI) and Eugenio Pacelli (Pius XII) had similar childhoods (both sheltered and groomed for a Vatican role) and that this was an explanation for their longstanding friendship and Pius XII’s promotion of Montini’s career.

Please follow and like us: