# 72. Professor Schell

" *Catholicism* as *such* is a principle of *progress*; but what really and truly stands in the way of spiritual progress among Catholic peoples, for example, is *not* essentially *Catholic*. It must be ruthlessly investigated and combated so that Catholicism can unfold its own essence *unhindered*!" ... "The ideal that guides theological research is the conviction that the equation between correctly understood revelation and correctly interpreted reality can be established. If unbelieving scholars, guided by other ideals, judge differently, they associate the words *God* and *Christianity* with a completely different idea than the theologian" . . . So wrote an idealistically-minded German theologian, the Würzburg professor Hermann Schell, a few years ago. ("Catholicism as a Principle of Progress", Würzburg 1897, recently published in its 7th edition). A few days ago, the Pope gave a clear opinion on whether he thinks the same way about the "truly Catholic" as this Würzburg professor. He has placed Schell's writings on the index of books forbidden to the faithful. This means that the professor's teachings are heretical. It is now said that Professor Schell submitted. If this is true, then Schell simply acted as a true and genuine Catholic. And once again, those who hold Cardinal Rauscher's famous words to be the only authoritative statement on Catholicism have been proven right: "The Church knows no progress". Schell is one of those confessors of the Catholic faith who cannot escape the power of *scientific* achievements. They feel the power of the knowledge that man acquires through his free thinking. But they cannot escape their religious beliefs. They seek to unite their faith with science. It must always be emphasized to them that all free science has developed out of the power of the human spirit; and that in truth Catholicism has never conceded any result of free research for internal reasons. It has only ever retreated as far as it could from the power of the human mind. It has *allowed* what it could not eliminate from the world. There is nothing within Catholicism that made it possible for him to harmonize his own teachings with the progress of the human spirit. It is well if this is conceded here and there. The true Catholic must be hostile to everything that the human spirit produces of itself. And the modern spirit must be hostile to what the Church teaches on the basis of her faith in revelation. All bridging of this opposition is a falsification of the facts - not necessarily subjective, but certainly objective. And this falsification is harmful. For it prevents the battle between two world views from being fought out honestly. When Professor Schell says: "Why should it be unchurchly in our time to bring the advanced, deepened and expanded philosophy of modern times into a fruitful alliance with the faith in revelation?", such a standpoint prevents the progress of development that corresponds to the actual factors. It creates an intermediate group between honest supporters of the Church and honest opponents, which prevents the clash and pushes the decision out. *The confessors of free thought prefer the Pope to Professor Schell*. Where they say "yes", the Pope says "no". And that is good. And the Pope has every right to do so. He is infallible in all things that he proclaims ex cathedra. Anyone who speaks about Catholicism must therefore stick solely to the Pope. Since infallibility has become dogma, this must be recognized. - There are certainly naive minds who resent the fact that believers of Professor Schell's kind submit. We would like to ask them: wouldn't non-submission simply be pointless? What should Professor Schell do? Should he continue to claim that his teaching is true Catholicism and that the Roman bishop is wrong? But then Professor Schell would have to say at the same time: Catholicism excludes progress. So he would have to accuse himself of inconsistency. Either Schell remains a Catholic, in which case his teaching is wrong - because the Pope has declared it to be wrong, and anyone who wants to be a Catholic must abide by this declaration - or Schell does not remain a Catholic: then his teaching is *also wrong*, because Catholicism then knows no progress. - Even more naive minds might say: Professor Schell could fight the dogma of infallibility and say that he, and not the Pope, represents the correct Catholicism. But if I may say so, that would be the very worst thing. Because if he thought it was necessary, Professor Schell would have had to do that *long ago*. He has been a true Catholic up to now; in other words, a confessor of the dogma of infallibility. If he now comes into conflict with the Pope through his own teachings, then he can only - renounce it.

This is what happens to all those who surrender to an authority. They are enslaved to it. If they want to get away from it, they first have to get away from their own views.