That is certainly proper.
However, this granny is using the context of
Humani Generis.
You are free to play with me or not.
Precisely. The
Humani Generis context is the only context, in fact, in which I myself have ever seen the word eirenism used! That is why I think the dictionary definition “peaceful state of mind” by itself is too general, and potentially misleading.
For one thing, many things can bring a peaceful state of mind besides theological union.
For another, peaceful states of mind (from whatever source) can be justified, or not.
The
Humani Generis context is quite clear, yet the word "eirenism’ itself is so unusual, and sometimes spelled differently (in some dictionaries starting with “i” rather than “e”), it’s not surprising that earlier posts in this thread from others expressed some puzzlement in what you were trying to say, and in how the encyclical could be applied to views on Genesis 2: 15-17.
In any case, grannymh, my simple point is that you have quoted it and applied it quite clearly to mean something much more specific than just any peaceful state of mind. Both you and
Humani Generis are clearly saying that seeking peace (or a peaceful state of mind) by prioritizing on religious unification can be dangerous if important theological realities and distinctions are ignored.
You quoted the two paragraphs in your post 570, where you expressed wonder as to “why people ignore the warning” in the paragraphs where eirenism is used in
Humani Generis.
Another danger is perceived which is all the more serious because it is more concealed beneath the mask of virtue. There are many who, deploring disagreement among men and intellectual confusion, through an imprudent zeal for souls, are urged by a great and ardent desire to do away with the barrier that divides good and honest men; these advocate an “eirenism” according to which, by setting aside the questions which divide men, they aim not only at joining forces to repel the attacks of atheism, but also at reconciling things opposed to one another in the field of dogma. And as in former times some questioned whether the traditional apologetics of the Church did not constitute an obstacle rather than a help to the winning of souls for Christ, so today some are presumptive enough to question seriously whether theology and theological methods, such as with the approval of ecclesiastical authority are found in our schools, should not only be perfected, but also completely reformed, in order to promote the more efficacious propagation of the kingdom of Christ everywhere throughout the world among men of every culture and religious opinion.
Now if these only aimed at adapting ecclesiastical teaching and methods to modern conditions and requirements, through the introduction of some new explanations, there would be scarcely any reason for alarm. But some through enthusiasm for an imprudent “eirenism” seem to consider as an obstacle to the restoration of fraternal union, things founded on the laws and principles given by Christ and likewise on institutions founded by Him, or which are the defense and support of the integrity of the faith, and the removal of which would bring about the union of all, but only to their destruction.
As an outsider, I can offer little to disagreements about distinctive Catholic doctrines. But when I see people talking past each other because of confusion about a word, perhaps I can at least find other examples of the word being used. I have found none other than those using it in the context of political or theological union, and in fact even more specifically, in the context of warning against facile attempts at such union that ignore certain political or theological realities and distinctions.
Posts 572 and 573 grappled quite accurately and helpfully with your post 570. But then in post 574, you chided those who do not look up the word in a dictionary. But Post 572 included an accurate and contextually relevant definition of the word in the variant spelled starting with “i” (irenicism).
