En Jaume Aurell & Francisco Crosas (eds.), Rewriting the Middle Ages in the Twentieth Century, Brepols, Turnhout 2005, pp. 183-193. MARIE-DOMINIQUE CHENU (1885-1990) Josep-Ignasi Saranyana* * Instituto de Historia de la Iglesia. Universidad de Navarra. E-31080 Pamplona. 1. The Historical Context of the Theology of Saint Thomas Chenu was born in Soisy-sur-Seine in 1895. He entered the seminary in Versailles (1912-13); the Order of Preachers (Dominicans) in 1913, in Le Saulchoir (Belgium, close to the French border) where the Dominicans of the French Province had established their House of Studies after the 1903 expulsion Le Saulchoir (from saule) can be translated as willow grove or place of willows.. He studied in the Pontifical Athenaeum Angelicum of Rome (1914-20), where he did his thesis under Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange. In 1919, he was ordained priest; went back the following year (1920) to Le Saulchoir, and was incorporated into the Institut historique d’études thomistes established by Pierre Mandonnet in that same year. The Institute put up the “Bibliothèque thomiste” (a collection of monographs on medieval topics) and the Société thomiste which started publishing the Bulletin thomiste in 1924. Together with Étienne Gilson, Chenu founded the Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge in 1926. He published his famous La théologie comme science au XIIIe siècle in 1927. Starting 1930, Chenu would travel yearly to Canada spending two months giving classes at the Institute for Medieval Studies in Montréal. This was a center of medieval studies in a French speaking territory, parallel to the one founded by Étienne Gilson in Toronto in 1928. In 1932, Chenu received the title magister theologiae, the highest intellectual and educational recognition granted by the Order of Preachers. He was appointed regent of studies of Le Saulchoir. On March 7, 1936, he delivered his famous conference Une école de théologie: Le Saulchoir. The booklet was published towards the end of 1937 (Casterman, Tournai). Notwithstanding its narrow diffusion, the text The text used in this article is the reprinted version: Marie-Dominique, Chenu, Une école de théologie: Le Saulchoir, ed. by Giuseppe Alberigo and others, preface by Réne Rémond (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1985), 91-176. was subsequently prohibited by the Dominican authorities. Chenu unconditionally accepted this measure. He signed a document retracting his position, articulated in ten theses. His immediate submission to the Roman decision was followed by his suspension from the professorial chair of Le Saulchoir. In order to understand the disciplinary measures imposed on Le Saulchoir and Chenu in 1938, a short summary of the canonical iter of this academic entity is provided here. The 1907 ratio studiorum of the Dominicans was drawn up by Marie-Joseph Lagrange, Ambroise Gardeil and Paulus von Löe. The document included the provision for the creation –within the studia generalia of the Dominicans- of a biennium of specialization granting the option of the degree of lector in Theology, after having completed the obligatory seven years of institutional studies. The specialization allowed four possibilities: philosophy and the sciences; biblical studies and Oriental languages; historical sciences; Canon Law, Law and Sociology. Since 1921, Le Saulchoir had the Institute for Medieval Studies whose approval depended on the Master General of the Dominicans. It was one of the institutes for specialization foreseen in the 1907 ratio studiorum. This Institute was canonically erected by the Holy See on June 29, 1937, according to the 1931 pontifical constitution Deus scientiarum Dominus. On this same date, the Faculty of Theology and the Faculty of Philosophy of Le Saulchoir were also created. Counting on the pontifical approval, the three academic centers transferred their seat from Le Saulchoir (Belgium) to Paris, retaining the same name which they had while they were in the small Belgian locality of Le Saulchoir. Cf. Marie-Dominique CHENU, Une école de théologie: Le Saulchoir, 101. Later on, the short treatise would be included in the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (Index of Prohibited Books), concretely on February 6, 1942. After the publication of this work in 1937, there was a rapid succession of events. In 1938, Chenu was called to Rome and was asked to approve ten theological propositions (reproduced by Alberigo on p. 35 of the work quoted in footnote 2, supra, ed. facsimile since they were never typed nor printed). In 1940, the Roman Curia began to take measures, publishing an important article in L’Osservatore Romano, written by Mariano Cordovani, O.P., theologian of the Pontifical Palace at that time. Afterwards, Cordovani gave an outstanding conference in the Pontifical Athenaeum Angelicum. Meanwhile, Rosaire Gagnebet expressed his objections against Chenu in Revue thomiste. Finally, the work was placed on the Index of Prohibited Books in 1942, with a clarifying note which appeared in L’Osservatore Romano, signed by Pietro Parente (years later, in 1967, Pietro Parente would retract what he wrote in the Vatican newspaper). A few weeks after the work’s inclusion in the Index, Chenu submitted himself to the dispositions of the Holy Office and was suspended from teaching at Le Saulchoir. This measure was based on a dossier prepared by Mariano Cordovani and Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange. The two persons who were commissioned to inspect Le Saulchoir failed to carry out the job in view of the German occupation of France. Chenu was deprived of the venia legendi, was accused of being semi-modernist, and was placed in the same category as Adam Möhler, Maurice Blondel and others. (In spite all these, Chenu was allowed to teach at La Sorbonne and at Le Collège de France, at the end of the Second World War.) In this work (a didactic and epistemological study of Theology, previously given by Chenu as a conference in 1936), one can find his fundamental philosophical and theological concerns already developed at this early stage. His main concern was to contextualize the theology of Saint Thomas. This is one of Chenu’s principal contributions to modern medieval studies and in a certain sense, it was also the cause of his exclusion from Le Saulchoir. His claims were interpreted –and rightly so- as a critique of neo-Thomism, the dominant school at that time in the Roman Athenaeums. I shall go back on this matter when I present the doctrine of his master Ambroise Gardeil and Chenu’s first great monograph, published in 1927. 2. Theology as inquiry of the signs of the times a) Critique of the codification of Thomism Having seen Chenu’s first concern (the contextualization of St. Thomas Aquinas), I will now pass on to the second one: his objection to the codification of Thomism. Just like his primary concern, this objection would be comprehensible if we take into account some biographical notes which help elucidate the origins of Chenu’s preoccupations. Chenu had a close encounter with the JOC, a movement founded in 1922 in Belgium by the priest Joseph Cardijn (later on cardinal) and in the north of France by the Abbot Guérin in Clichy. In 1928, a group of French chaplains (aumôniers) crossed the French-Belgian border and was welcomed by Chenu at Le Saulchoir. Chenu delivered an important conference regarding the spirit of JOC addressed to the aumôniers and from then on, he became closely linked to this movement. Cf. Jacques DUQUESNE, Jacques Duquesne interroge le Père Cenu. Un théologien en liberté (Paris: Le Centurion, 1975), 57. In his first speech before the JOC chaplains, Chenu made use of a criterion (widely held then in France) which was made popular by professors of the Institut Catholique de Paris: “Theology is born from the light projected on the intelligence by a salvific event –understood in the formal sense-, a salvific event which is taking place today.” “La théologie naît de la lumière que projette sur l’intelligene un événement de salut –au sens formel du mot-, un événement de salut qui se déroule aujourd’hui” (ibidem, p. 58). This was not a mere neutral principle but rather posed some considerable problems. It implied re-thinking the close links between the dogmas of Creation and the Incarnation Cf. ibidem, p. 73-74. as well as considering world history as relevant to God’s designs. Cf. ibidem, p. 72. The crux of the matter rests on the affirmation that the light projected on the intelligence seems to proceed in an immediate way from the salvific event. In other words, the formal object quo seems to move away from reason illumined by faith and on to the believing reason enlightened by the “salvific event.” Thus, the main question lies in determining what is a salvific event. Undeniably, the truth of the faith is lived historically. Can it be said then that historical human beings create their own meaning and the meaning of faith? Regarding this delicate question, cf. La unidad de la fe y el pluralismo teológico (1972), in Documentos de la Comisión Teológica Internacional (1969-1996), (Madrid: BAC, 1998), 41-57, concretely p. 44 [thesis 5]). How did Chenu understand this question? One of Chenu’s later statements could help us in clarifying his aspiration during the 1920’s and 1930’s. “Theology is born today when the Word of God enters in touch with the world.” Further on, he writes: “After the Council (Vatican II), it is normal to understand as salvific event what John XXIIII has denominated as the ‘sign of the times.’ During that time (referring to1928), the sign of the times was the evolution of the labor structures which triggered the birth of JOC as an apostolic movement in the Church.” Cf. J. Duquesne, 72. By saying this, Chenu was arguing directly against a type of theology understood as mere deduction of behavioral norms from prior principles or propositions (“theology of conclusions”). In 1975, Chenu claimed that the old Catholic Action (1928) was inspired by this type of theology. The new Catholic Action (the specialized Catholic Action or the JOC of the 1920’s and 1930’s), on the other hand, had reversed this method “a renversé la méthode.” In his 1937 conference Une école de theologie: le Saulchoir, Chenu identified the characteristic signs of the times of the 1930’s: a certain anti-colonial consciousness (still weak then); a greater international solidarity; an increasing awareness of multi-culturalism (plurality of civilizations), such that European culture was considered as one more, albeit of greater importance. This implied giving up the Eurocentrism of the Catholic Church, for example, more openness on the part of the Roman Curia towards Prelates from other sides; and finally, the important development of the labor world. Cf. J. DUQUESNE, 71. Theology understood as a “science of conclusions” (science of what is virtually revealed or the science of construction starting from what is given in Revelation) aimed at pointing out clearly –albeit excessively- the distinction between faith and theology in order to safeguard the transcendence of the faith from the human fallibility of theologians. Cf. José Luis Illanes, Sobre el saber teológico (Madrid: Rialp, 1978), 64-67. Chenu, on the other hand, was concerned with the direct engagement of faith and theology with history. At this point, I will now examine Chenu’s concern regarding the possible codification of Thomism. Chenu understands that for Saint Thomas, the central concern of theology is not its conclusions, although indeed Saint Thomas does not discount the formulation of new conclusions. Theology, for Saint Thomas, is defined as the endeavor aimed at a better understanding of the revealed mysteries and the structuring of all human knowledge in relation to this revelation. The theology of Saint Thomas, therefore, does not represent a centrifugal movement that starts from the nucleus of the faith and goes outwards arriving at far out conclusions. Rather, it entails a centripetal movement, starting from all reality and going towards the center such that all things would be illuminated from the light coming from this central point. This was what Chenu claimed and he was right. However, he failed to articulate well the nuances of his assertions which consequently provoked confusion and hostility towards neo-Scholasticism. b) Critique of the codification of the Social Doctrine of the Church In a conference he gave during the 1947 Social Week of Paris, Chenu talked for the first time about “the determining causes which rule in the mode of a superstructure, understood in the Marxist sense.” Cf. J. Duquesne, 60. Previously, Chenu was opposed to the codification of Thomism in the name of an orthodox Thomism that was at the same time open to new problems and influences. This time, Chenu sets himself against the “Social Doctrine of the Church, understood as a code promulgated by the Church.” This preliminary study would end up in a controversial book Pour une théologie du travail (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1955). Some regarded it as a naïve book while others, on the other hand, considered it as a substantial piece of work which reveals Chenu’s close affinities to Marx and Hegel. Certainly, this is a matter worth considering, but this is not the moment to enter into this question. Nonetheless, to reject the “codification of Thomism” is not the same as to object against a hypothetical “codification of the Social Doctrine of the Church.” The pontifical Magisterium had pointed out that certain teachings of the Social Doctrine are not completely conditioned by historical changes. Thus, one cannot equate a Thomism of the open kind (notwithstanding the difficulties it poses) with a Social Doctrine of the Church that is open to new ideologies, one that does not exclude Marxism. 3. Chenu’s major medieval monographs I have traced the methodological framework of Chenu’s medieval studies: the historical contextualization of Aquinas and his objection to the systematization of Thomism. I will now examine his principal contributions to medieval studies. In chronological order, Chenu’s three major medieval monographs are: La théologie comme science au XIIIe siècle (1927, 1942, 1957); Introduction à l’étude de saint Thomas d’Aquin (1950, 1954); and La théologie au douzième siècle (1957, 1966). I will comment on each of these books, according to the chronological order of each edition, keeping in mind that each edition contained corrections and added texts, and I will also comment on the ensuing inter-connections of each book with Chenu’s other works. a) La théologie comme science au XIIIe siècle This work -theology as a science in the 13th century- which first appeared in 1927 constitutes Chenu’s first study on the contextualization of Saint Thomas Aquinas. An expanded version came out later in 1942. The initial focus of the book was based on a 40-page article that was published in the 1927 volume of the Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge. At that time, Chenu had already been staying in Le Saulchoir for seven years and was then under the influence of his great master Ambroise Gardeil and indirectly was under the shadow of Marie-Joseph Lagrange, founder of the École pratique d’études bibliques of Jerusalem. Cf. Jean GUITTON, Retrato del Padre Lagrange: el que reconcilió la ciencia con la fe (Madrid: Palabra, 1993). As is correctly observed, Lagrange’s 1890 Jerusalem foundation became the principal model for the new ratio studiorum of the Dominicans approved in 1907. Marie-Dominique Chenu: Studi di lessicografia filosofica medievale, ed. by Giacinta Spinosa (Firenze: Leo S. Olschki Editore, 2001), xviii. Fr. Lagrange was born in 1855 and died in 1938. Fr. Gardeil was born in 1859 and passed away in 1931. Pierre Félix Mandonnet, the third protagonist of this intellectual adventure, was born in 1858 and died in 1936. The three were obviously contemporaries. Lagrange introduced the historical method in the study of Sacred Scriptures. Gardeil (who directed Le Saulchoir from 1894 to 1911), on the other hand, adopted the historical method in the study of philosophy, concretely St. Thomas’ philosophy. Gardeil’s program was fashioned after the new journal Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques [=RSPhTh] which was founded in 1907. Note that the journal’s title bears the plural term sciences, referring to the sciences of philosophy and theology. Two points can be clearly deduced from this: first, St. Thomas the philosopher –which he was in fact- could not be dissociated from St. Thomas the theologian; and second, the notion that there is a single philosophical and theological science is outrightly rejected. This stance was plainly an attack on an imposing obstacle during those years: the monolithic rock of neo-Thomism, considered as the sure, definitive, and unappealable interpreter of Thomism (to cite an example, consider the controversy raised by the formulation of the XXIV Thomist theses Cf. Josep-Ignasi Saranyana, Grandes maestros de la teología (Madrid: Atenas, 1994), I, pp. 190-206.). Moreover, the term “philosophical and theological sciences” quieted the suspicions that could have been raised by considering Le Saulchoir as an experimental attempt at historicizing dogmas which in turn would have proved risky just at that moment when the Decree Lamentabili July 3, 1907, DS 3401-3466. and the Encyclical Pascendi September 8, 1907, DS 3475-3500. were about to come out. Gardeil attempted to criticize Melchior Cano’s De locis in three long works published in 1908. Ambroise GARDEIL, 'La notion du lieux théologique', RSPhTh 2 (1908), 51-73; 246-276; 484-505. Gardeil claimed that Cano’s displacement of history as one of the three auxiliary sources, concretely designating it to the tenth and last place, was largely responsible for the historical de-contextualization so evident in 17th century Theology. Clearly, auctoritas has won over history and reason. The theological sources according to Melchior Cano’s De locis theologicis are: two fundamental and proper ones (Sacred Scriptures and Apostolic Tradition); five proper and declarative sources (the Catholic Church, the Councils, the Church of Rome, the Fathers of the Church, and the Scholastic theologians); and three auxiliary ones (reason, the philosophers and doctors of civil law, history). Gardeil’s opinions may have been exaggerated and provocative. Nonetheless, his views would have a lot of bearing on Le Saulchoir in the 1920’s and 1930’s. Gardeil’s critique of Cano is certainly exaggerated. History was not extremely marginalized in Cano’s work, contrary to Gardeil’s claim. Cano considered the traditions of the Apostles as one of the two “proper and fundamental” sources. Moreover, the Catholic Church, who preserves the great Tradition and the venerable particular traditions, was the first of Cano’s “proper and declarative” sources. History was implicitly included here. However, Gardeil argued that Cano’s concept of history should be the same as the historicists’ notion, implying that historicism would invalidate Cano’s formulations. While Cano considered history as mere material source, historicists, on the other hand, regarded history as the interpretive light of events and documents. Obviously, both positions are complementary because philosophy is within history and it has a history. Nonetheless, a unilateral stance favoring historicism poses a problem which I would put in this way. If philosophy is historical, is there a binding thread that runs through the historical course, one that is external to it? This question clearly comes close to a Hegelian stance, a problem that characterizes some of Chenu's more philosophical views Cf. for example, Gastond FESSARD, De l’actualité historique (Bruges: Desclée de Brouwer, 1960), II: Progressisme chrétien et apostolate ouvrier.. To address this matter, I will go back to Chenu’s first book on theology as a science in the 13th century. Citations are from the following edition: La théologie comme science au XIIIe siècle (Paris: J. Vrin, Paris ³1957). The main thesis of this work is as follows: in the 12th century, sacred doctrine was an organic discipline whose principal subject matter was the Scripture and the articles of the faith. Starting with Saint Thomas, both Scriptures and the articles of the faith would constitute a principle that is previously known and from which an Aristotelian demonstrative method would be elaborated. Ibidem, p. 11. In the second edition of this monograph, Chenu would point out that Saint Thomas was not the first one to apply the Aristotelian demonstrative method to theology. William of Auxerre had initiated it in 1220 and this method would finally culminate a little before 1270 with the writing of the first question of the Summa Theologiae. This theological method entailed a proper epistemology which gave birth to a new and fundamental analytical tool: the notion of “sub-alternate science.” In his first monograph, Chenu applied his doctrine of contextualization. St. Thomas would be unintelligible without the presence of the Stagirite. Neither would he be comprehensible if isolated from the slow maturation process of the professional theological task in the University, a new institution born at a concrete historical period. b) Introduction à l’étude de saint Thomas d’Aquin Citations are from the following edition: Introduction à l’étude de saint Thomas d’Aquin (Paris-Montréal: J. Vrin – Institut d’Études Médévales, ²1954). This monograph was prepared for his students of Le Saulchoir (no reference was made to the fact that while Chenu was publishing in 1950, he was suspended from teaching in this center of studies) and of the Institut d’Études médiévales d’Ottawa in Montreal. It is designed to be an initiation to Saint Thomas for those who afterwards have to read Saint Thomas directly. The main idea is clearly expressed in the “presentation”: there is no solution of continuity, there is no “gap” between “la verité de l’esprit et les conditions de son élaboration.” Ibidem, p. 6. Saint Thomas, although he was a genius, was clearly in solidarity with the community. “Truth is not less true just because it is recorded in time.” “La verité n’est pas moins vraie, pour être inscrite dans le temps” (ibidem). Here, the reader will find Chenu’s aim of contextualizing Saint Thomas’ work within the medium where it sprung and developed, i.e., the spiritual medium (the evangelism of the mendicants and the discovery of Aristotle) as well as the institutional medium (university, literary and social media). The work certainly fulfills its goals. It is now considered a classic of medieval studies. The didactic aims are clearly achieved. A complementary bibliography and “notes de travail” are included at the end of each chapter. The book is divided into two parts. The first part is entitled “the work” (the historical and social context, the literary genres of Saint Thomas, vocabulary, documentation and redaction). The second part corresponds to the writings of Saint Thomas (with a short but brilliant presentation of each work, the exceptional quality of which has not diminished with time). c) La théologie au douzième siècle Citations are from the following edition: La théologie au douzième siècle (Paris: J. Vrin, ²1966). This book is a collection of Chenu’s unpublished and previously published works that have been revised for this edition. As Étienne Gilson writes in the preface, the work has two aims. First, to point out that the usual division between the 12th and 13th centuries employed in the manuals, as typified in volume 217 of Jean-Paul Migne’s Patrologia latina, should be revised and that a fundamental continuity be established between the 12th and 13th centuries, between the patristic and medieval periods. This monograph underscores the fact that Saint Thomas did not only incorporate the best achievements of the patristic age and the 12th century into his speculative synthesis but that both (patristic and 12th century) form a unity whereby Theology, Philosophy, Spirituality and Mysticism cannot and should not be separated. The divisions established in the Middle Ages had a didactic purpose. If the researcher or the teacher is not careful, such divisions would end up being fixed divisions with no possibility of introducing new lines. In such case, the understanding of the historical course would be distorted. Ibidem, pp. 8-9. Chenu acknowledges his debt to the specific studies and monographs of Étienne Gilson, Arthur Landgraf, Odo Lottin, and especially Joseph de Ghellinck. Chenu presents an “organic history” of the 12th century considered to be a great theological century and the hinge of Western Medieval period. In this work, the references to Ghellinck, pioneer and master in the study of medieval literary genres, clearly reflect Chenu’s preference. Through the analysis of language and literary styles, Chenu overcomes the inadequate division found in the manuals between history of theology and history of spirituality, considered as if they were two immovable spheres during the High Middle Ages. Ibidem, p. 13. Chenu dismisses the charge that he was inspired by ideological prejudices in writing this monograph. He admits that he was moved by the overriding passion of repairing “les liaisons internes” between facts and texts. This subjective re-construction is unavoidably risky as it could lead to fanciful results. Nonetheless, Chenu insists that the risk should be taken. He evokes the historical interpretation of the Aufklärung which ended up in dissolving the uncompromising originality of the religious phenomenon. With respect to this, he proposes his own hypothesis that “the history of theology is, in a certain way, intrinsic to theology itself. A perfect history of theology would be heading towards a theology of history.” Ibidem, p. 14. Chenu points out that La théologie au douzième siècle was written during the second stage of the Annales (the first edition came out in 1957). The “total history” started to be interested in the religious phenomenon, thereby changing the orientation of Les Annales. In 1956, Lucien Febvre passed away. Previously, he was responsible for orienting Les Annales towards economic topics and steering clear of political history. Fernand Braudel succeeded him as editor of the journal. 4. Back to the past: Le Saulchoir’s significance Le Saulchoir’s history is closely linked to the person of Chenu and more specifically, to a conference he gave on March 7, 1937, feast of Saint Thomas. The contents of this 1937 conference were: Introduction; the first chapter entitled “De Saint Jacques au Saulchoir;” the second chapter “Esprit et methods;” the third chapter “La theólogie;” the fourth chapter “La Philosophie;” and the fifth chapter “Les Études médiévales.” The main thesis can be summed up as follows: The Order of Preachers was founded for the sake of pursuing studies. In its foundational charisma, both contemplation and study are perfectly welded. Hence, since its inception, the Dominicans established universities in different cities, specially in Paris. The teaching and study of philosophy and theology leaned heavily on the great Dominican, St. Thomas Aquinas. If the aspect of study is neglected, the Order would decline. The study of Thomas Aquinas should not be allowed to stagnate or be codified for it is something dynamic. Neither can the theology and philosophy of Saint Thomas be separated from Spirituality and the Mystical. Le Saulchoir attempted to embody these ideals, specified in the 1907 ratio studiorum which included specializations of the studia generalia. Le Saulchoir chose “History” as its specialization. To this day, the proscription of this work within the Order of Preachers and its subsequent inclusion in the Index of Prohibited Books in 1942, remains a mystery. Étienne Fouilloux made a careful research and deep study of the origin of these measures. He did not give definitive conclusions regarding this matter. He did allude to a fight between some Roman theologians and their French counterparts. Cf. Étienne Fouilloux, Le Saulchoir en procès (1937-1942), in Marie-Dominique Chenu, Une école de théologie: Le Saulchoir, 37-59, here p. 55. It should be pointed out that not all historians agree with the thesis of a "fight between friars". The dossier prepared by the Dominicans Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange (1877-1964) and Mariano Felice Cordovani (1883-1950) –the latter being the theologian of the Pontifical Palace at that time- contains the famous ten propositions accepted by Chenu in 1938. The famous ten theses accepted and signed by Chenu in Rome in 1938 are: “1. Formulae dogmaticae enuntiant veritatem absolutam et immutabilem. 2. Propositiones verae et certae, sive in philosophia sive in theologia, firmae sunt et nullo modo fragiles. 3. Sacra Traditio novas veritates non creat, sed firmiter tenendum est depositum revelationis, seu complexum veritatum divinitus revelatarum, clausum fuisse morte ultimi apostoli. 4. Sacra Theologia non est quaedam spiritualitas quae invenit instrumenta suae experientiae religiosae adaequata; sed est vera scientia, Deo benedicente, studio acquisita, cuius principia sunt articuli Fidei et etiam omnes veritates revelatae quibus theologus fide divina, saltem informi, adhaeret. 5. Varia systemata theologica, quoad ea in quibus ab invicem dissentiunt non sunt simul vera. 6. Gloriosum est Ecclesiam habere systema S. Thomae tanquam valde orthodoxum, i.e. veritatibus Fide valde conforme. 7. Necesse est veritates theologicas per S. Scripturam et Traditionem demonstrare, necnon earum naturam et intimam rationem principiis et doctrina S. Thomae illustrare. 8. S. Thomas, etsi proprie theologus, proprie etiam philosophus fuit; proinde, philosophia eius in sua intelligibilitate et veritate non pendet ab eius theologia, nec enunciat [sic] veritates mere relativas sed absolutas. 9. Theologo in processu scientifico suo valde necessarium est metaphysicam S. Thomae adhibere et ad regulas dialecticae diligenter attendere. 10. De aliis scriptoribus et doctoribus probatis servandum est moderamen reverentiale in modo loquendi et scribendi, etiamsi in quibusdam defectuosi inveniantur.” (cf. Giuseppe Alberigo, Christianisme en tant qu’histoire et “théologie confessante,” in Marie-Dominique Chenu, Une école de théologie: Le Saulchoir, 35) It also contains five vague charges: 1) semi-modernism (establishing a continuity between Johann Adam Möhler, Maurice Blondel and Marie-Dominique Chenu); 2) philosophical and theological relativism, undermining the authority of Saint Thomas recommended by the Holy See; 3) dogmatic relativism; 4) incorporating “spiritual experience” to the definition of Theology as a science; and 5) defending the creative protagonism of the Church’s Tradition and a fortiori, of human history, in doctrinal matters (questions of fides et mores). Cf. Étienne Fouilloux, Le Saulchoir en procès (1937-1942), in Marie-Dominique CHENU, Une école de théologie: Le Saulchoir, 57-58. 5. Conclusions During his time, Chenu was an outstanding exponent of contextualized hermeneutics of St. Thomas’ theology and philosophy. His path-breaking views were certainly hard-earned. Some specialists considered his views as shocking in 1937. Étienne Gilson who was also committed to the same medievalist enterprise, remained at his side. Chenu applied the same methodology (aside from being a methodology, it was also a way of understanding the history of philosophy and history of theology) some years afterwards. In the field of “total history,” he tried to posit a dialogue between historical synthesis and the postulates of Marxism. At that time, shortly after the Second World War, the collaboration between communists and Christians of the Resistance was still fresh in everyone’s minds as well as the economic orientation of the Annales. Chenu’s dialogue with Marxism unleashed another important debate in the 1950’s, following his publication of Pour une théologie du travail. Undoubtedly, his attitude (if it was really naïve) was not a mere product of the attraction of the “signs of the times.” The question was more complicated and more profound. Probably dazzled by the rise of the social sciences and economics in the field of historiography, Chenu failed to detect that the underlying presuppositions of Marxism were incompatible with the Christian view of the world and of the person. To conclude, I would say that Chenu was an unrepentant “provoker” and perhaps a bit one-sided although some of his views did break new grounds in medieval studies and in Thomist exegesis. Chronology of Marie-Dominique Chenu 1895 Born in Soisy-sur-Seine (Francia). 1912-1913 Seminarian in Versailles. 1913-1914 Novice of the Order of Preachers in Le Saulchoir (Belgium, near the French border). 1914-1920 Licentiate and doctorate in Theology in the Pontificium Athenaeum Angelicum of Rome. 1919 Ordained priest in Rome. 1920 Professor in Le Saulchoir. 1924 He starts editing the journal Bulletin thomiste. 1926 He founds, together with Étienne Gilson, the Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge. 1928 First contacts with the JOC movement. 1930 He starts his teaching experience in the Institut d'Études Médiévales d'Ottawa, in Montréal (Canada). 1932 He obtains the degree of magister theologiae. Regent of studies in Le Saulchoir. 1936 On the 7th of March he delivers his famous conference Une école de théologie: le Saulchoir, published at the end of 1937. 1938 He is suspended from teaching at Le Saulchoir. 1942 On the 6th of February his book Une école de théologie: le Saulchoir is included in the Index librorum prohibitorum. He is denied the venia docendi. 1953 He starts lecturing at La Sorbonne. 1955 Publication of Pour une théologie du travail, where he develops his theses of the dialogue of Catholic Theology with marxism, which he had presented for the first time during the Social Week of Paris, in 1947. 1962-1965 He takes part as theologian in the Second Vatican Council. 1974 During one of the plenary sessions of the “International Congress of Saint Thomas Aquinas” in Rome he delivers an important conference with the title S. Thomas innovateur dans la créativité d'un monde nouveau. This conference constitutes his rehabilitation as a scholar of Thomas Aquinas. 1990 Death in París. Basic Medievalist Bibliography of Marie-Dominique Chenu: Une école de théologie: Le Saulchoir, ed. by Giuseppe Alberigo and others, preface by Réne Rémond (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1985, pp. 91-176). (First edition: Casterman, Tournai, 1937) La théologie comme science au XIIIè siècle (Paris: J. Vrin [“Bibliothèque thomiste,” 33], 1927; ³1957). Introduction à l’étude de saint Thomas d’Aquin (Paris-Montréal: J. Vrin – Institut d’Études Médiévales [“Publications de l’Institut d’études médiévales”, 11], 1950; ²1954). La théologie au douzième siècle (Paris: J. Vrin [“Études de philosophie médiévale,” 45], 1957; ²1966). Jacques DUQUESNE, Jacques Duquesne interroge le Père Chenu. Un théologien en liberté, (Paris: Le Centurion, 1975). Marie-Dominique Chenu: Studi di lessicografia filosofica medievale, ed. by Giacinta Spinosa (Firenze: Leo S. Olschki Editore, 2001). 11 PAGE 1