The Catholic theology and philosophy of the 20th century were deeply marked by the clash against modernism, a movement condemned by Pope Pius X as the "synthesis of all heresies". In this scenario, the figure of the Jesuit priest and Latvian-Brazilian philosopher Stanislavs Ladusāns (1912-1993) emerges as a bulwark of Thomistic orthodoxy. Many theologians, in fact, were influenced by the modernism condemned by Pius X in the encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907) and in the decree Lamentabili Sane (1907), as well as by the Anti-Modernist Oath (1910). The latter required rejecting errors such as agnosticism, vital immanence, dogmatic evolutionism, and historical relativism in the interpretation of Revelation. Pius X viewed modernism as an internal threat to the Church that subordinated faith to modern reason, promoting subjectivism and excessive adaptation to the secular world (DENZINGER, 2007).
🎓 The formation and the ecclesial context of Ladusāns
Stanislavs Ladusāns, ordained in Latvia and settled in Brazil after World War II (arriving in 1947), was formed in rigorous Thomistic realism. He certainly had full awareness of this anti-modernist struggle, as the Anti-Modernist Oath was mandatory for clergy, philosophy, and theology professors until 1967, when it was revoked by Paul VI. Upon integrating into conservative Catholic circles in Brazil, Ladusāns founded institutions fundamental for the preservation of classical thought, such as the Brazilian Society of Catholic Philosophers (1970), the journal Presença Filosófica (1974), and the CONPEFIL (Philosophical Research Joint, founded in 1970 at PUC-Rio). These initiatives promoted neo-Thomism not only as a school of thought but as an intellectual antidote to modernism and theological progressivism gaining strength in Latin America (LADUSĀNS, 1974).
His philosophical work, rooted in St. Thomas Aquinas and methodologically enriched by phenomenology (without falling into subjectivism), explicitly rejected "unidimensional subjectivisms" such as relativism, skepticism, and agnosticism - central errors diagnosed by modernism.
🧠 Awareness of the anti-modernist struggle and gnoseology
Ladusāns operated in the post-modernist context of the Church, where Thomism, promoted by Leo XIII in the encyclical Aeterni Patris (1879), was reinforced by Pius X as an intellectual barrier. His proposal of a "pluridimensional gnoseology" - developed in his magnum opus Gnosiologia Pluridimensional (1992) - emphasized a realistic epistemology, open to the transcendent and the Supreme Truth. This approach contrasted radically with modernist agnosticism, which limits reason to the sensible phenomenon and denies the human mind's natural capacity to ascend to the knowledge of God through visible things (LADUSĀNS, 1992).
He argued that knowledge must be rational and simultaneously open to Revelation, rejecting both fideism (faith without reason) and rationalism (reason closed to faith). By doing so, Ladusāns echoed Pius X's critique of modernism as a form of ecclesial agnosticism. In Brazil, his influence extended to conservative intellectuals; notably Olavo de Carvalho, who worked as a researcher at CONPEFIL in the early 1980s (in the 90s Ladusāns was already preparing his return to Europe). Carvalho saw in the Latvian priest a mentor in the analysis of the "crisis of modernity", identifying the loss of faith and the rise of the secular state as themes aligned with Pius X's vision on the roots of modern heresies.
🛡️ The combat against modernism via Christian realism
Ladusāns fought modernism systematically, albeit often indirectly, through his pluridimensional humanist philosophy. He sought to restore "Christian realism" against distortions such as utopian gnosticism, political progressivism, and cultural Marxism, very present in the Brazilian university environment of the 1970s and 1980s.
In works such as Humanismo Pluridimensional (1974), he promoted an integral cognition, rejecting:
Dogmatic relativism, which views dogmas as evolutionary products of historical consciousness;
Immanentism, which reduces faith to an internal feeling without an objective rational basis.
His phenomenological-Thomistic approach served as an "optimal subsidy" to affirm eternal truths, opposed to the historical evolutionism of modernism. Historically, Ladusāns' activity in Rio de Janeiro and his attempt to expand or protect CONPEFIL (sometimes transferring focuses of activity between Rio and São Paulo between 1981-1983) demonstrate an effort to shield Catholic philosophical research from the influences of Liberation Theology, strongly supported by prominent ecclesial figures in São Paulo, such as Cardinal Paulo Evaristo Arns. Ladusāns aligned himself, thus, with conservative resistances against Marxist interpretations of the Gospel, reaffirming that the human person is a spiritual being ordered to the Supreme Good, and not merely an agent of sociopolitical transformation.
⛪ The question of the Second Vatican Council
A pertinent question is Ladusāns' relationship with the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). There is no textual evidence that Ladusāns publicly criticized the Council or its pastoral and disciplinary innovations. Unlike rupture traditionalist movements, Ladusāns remained in full ecclesial communion and obedience to the Society of Jesus.
His stance can be characterized by the hermeneutic of continuity:
Methodological openness: although conciliar documents like Optatam Totius recommended openness to other philosophical currents besides Thomism, Ladusāns interpreted this not as an abandonment of St. Thomas, but as an opportunity for dialogue. He utilized modern phenomenology to update and strengthen Thomistic realism, demonstrating that tradition could respond to the anxieties of modern man without capitulating to his errors.
Absence of direct criticism: in works like Rumores da Filosofia Atual no Brasil (1976), he dialogues with contemporary thought without attacking the conciliar Magisterium. His focus was combating philosophical error (materialism, subjectivism), and not ecclesiastical authority.
Fidelity to the Magisterium: Ladusāns operated under the pontificate of John Paul II, supporting the line of conservative "restoration" that sought to correct post-conciliar abuses without rejecting the Council itself.
Therefore, there are no indications that Ladusāns fell into modernism. On the contrary, his work is consistently orthodox. He explicitly rejected subjectivism and relativism. His integration of phenomenology into Thomism was organic - a realistic enrichment to systematize Christian knowledge, and not a modernist adaptation to the "spirits of the age".
🏁 Conclusion
As a loyal Jesuit, Ladusāns dissolved CONPEFIL in 1991/1992 and returned to Latvia, newly independent from the Soviet Union, to teach at the Catholic Theological Seminary of Riga, maintaining fidelity to tradition until his death. His disciples and admirers recognize him as a bulwark against "modern degeneration". In sum, Stanislavs Ladusāns not only possessed full awareness of the anti-modernist struggle initiated by Pius X, but actively contributed to it through a robust philosophy, avoiding both the errors of modernism and the schismatic rupture with the post-conciliar Church.
📚 Bibliographical references
DENZINGER, H. Compêndio dos Símbolos, Definições e Declarações de Fé e Moral. São Paulo: Paulinas/Loyola, 2007. (Referencing citations of Pascendi and Lamentabili).
LADUSĀNS, S. Humanismo Pluridimensional. São Paulo: Loyola, 1974.
LADUSĀNS, S. Rumores de Filosofia Atual no Brasil: em Auto-Retratos. São Paulo: Loyola, 1976.
LADUSĀNS, S. Gnosiologia Pluridimensional: Fenomenologia do Conhecimento. Rio de Janeiro: Presença, 1992.
PAIM, A. História das Ideias Filosóficas no Brasil. Londrina: UEL, 1997. (For context of CONPEFIL's activity and philosophy in Brazil).
PIO X. Encíclica Pascendi Dominici Gregis. Vaticano, 1907.
f1descatholica.blogspot.com
[pt] artigos | liturgia |
últimos posts | marcadores
[en] articles |
liturgy