Dealing with Rahner

[StTommyMore]

In one of my classes we are assigned Foundations of Christian Faith by Karl Rahner, SJ as one of our textbooks. We generally have daily readings and summaries every class (until we are done with it, that is, at which point we will be switching to Hans Urs Von Balthasar). My problem is this: how do I address the heterodox ideas put forth in Rahner? It is one thing to challenge a Protestant text, but my issue is the professor holds Rahner up as the “Greatest Catholic Theologian of the Twentieth Century.” I find Rahner to be self contradictory, confusing, and nigh heretical. This was more of a rant than anything. I guess the big thing is to safeguard my own faith, and not to let myself be dissuaded by the prof.

 

[Freddy_Medina]

FYI,
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=2604&repos=1&subrepos=0&searchid=719580

 

[StTommyMore]

Thanks for that article. Perhaps I can ask Mr. Weigel about this when he visits my campus this week.

 

[Freddy_Medina]

Excellent idea! God bless you!
Peace,

 

[JoanREDirector]

I’m so glad to hear this discussion. I graduated in 2002 in theology from a Jesuit institution. Rahner was “canonized” there too.

I was convinced that I must be stupid because I didn’t get his preocupation with murky German philosphers. I feel much brighter now. Thank you George Weigel.

 

[StTommyMore]

I’m so glad to hear this discussion. I graduated in 2002 in theology from a Jesuit institution. Rahner was “canonized” there too.

I was convinced that I must be stupid because I didn’t get his preocupation with murky German philosphers. I feel much brighter now. Thank you George Weigel.

My school isn’t even Jesuit. It just so happens that one of my profs is in the Rahnerian camp.

 

[Joe_5859]

I admit, I am now very curious which professor you are speaking of. But it’s probably better not to know…

Guys like Rahner and Schillebeeckx seem to have a knack for stating things that aren’t heresy per se, but tend to lead to heresy when followed through to their natural conclusion. That takes a special skill.

 

[StTommyMore]

I admit, I am now very curious which professor you are speaking of. But it’s probably better not to know…

Guys like Rahner and Schillebeeckx seem to have a knack for stating things that aren’t heresy per se, but tend to lead to heresy when followed through to their natural conclusion. That takes a special skill.

That is not information I would like to plaster on a public forum, on the chance that I am misinterpreting the professor.

 

[centurionguard]

I’m so glad to hear this discussion. I graduated in 2002 in theology from a Jesuit institution. Rahner was “canonized” there too.

I was convinced that I must be stupid because I didn’t get his preocupation with murky German philosphers. I feel much brighter now. Thank you George Weigel.

Maybe I’m mistaken but where does it state in the Catholic Church that theologian Karl Rahner was canonized or even made a Doctor in the Church as some claim?

 

[Joe_5859]

That is not information I would like to plaster on a public forum, on the chance that I am misinterpreting the professor.

Absolutely. I think it is great that you’re not mentioning him/her by name.

But that doesn’t stop the weaker part of me from being curious.

I would chalk the Rahner thing up to being part of the educational experience. I kind of wish I was more familiar with Rahner and his ilk than I am. When having to read through guys with questionable ideas, I always hate it at the time, but then I am always grateful for the knowledge gained in retrospect.

In undergrad at a public university, I suffered through an entire semester with a Rhodes Scholar, atheist professor trying to convince us through philosophy that abortion was morally acceptable. At the time, it was awful, but in looking back, I am very glad I took that class. I have an insight into that mindset that I would not have otherwise had. Plus, he spent the first three weeks of class demonstrating how all the popular pro-choice arguments that we encounter in the media are completely illogical. That anecdote alone made it worth it.

Like it or not, Rahner really does encapsulate the thinking of an entire generation of theologians and catechists. There are still many people out there working for the Church that can only say the name “Rahner” with a breathy sigh of admiration and a twinkle in their eye (much the same as others of us say the name “Hahn” ). So I think it would be a useful exercise to learn more about his thought and exactly what it is about him that gives him such a wide appeal in certain circles. Then you will be equipped to intelligently respond to Rahner’s fans point-for-point instead of having to play the “Rahner is a flaming heretic” card.

 

[Joe_5859]

Maybe I’m mistaken but where does it state in the Catholic Church that theologian Karl Rahner was canonized or even made a Doctor in the Church as some claim?

In lieu of the fact that Joan put “canonized” in quotation marks, I think that she was simply speaking hyperbolically. Rahner has not been canonized, of course. It is simply that some people hold Rahner in such high esteem it is as though he is a saint in their eyes.

 

[millersatthefar]

This is a good example of the “shadow magisterium” that some writers have described to illustrate the perceived doctrinal problems in the Church. There are theologians and writers that are more concerned with their worldly success rather than plumbing the depths of the Church’s Tradition and trying to apply it to today’s world. In short, they want to be new, cool and popular. This is a great pain to men like me who just want a clear teaching presented authoritatively so that we can live our lives as God intends.

I have little respect for “theologians” who stray from the Church’s teachings especially when they muddy the waters as adroitly as Rahner. Ours is a simple faith that is true and built on the rock of Peter and the Apostles. It is deep and rich and surprisingly clear. Read Rahner if you must and glean whatever is good, but try not to take him too seriously.

Keep it simple, keep it honest, keep the faith.

 

[JoanREDirector]

Absolutely. I think it is great that you’re not mentioning him/her by name.

But that doesn’t stop the weaker part of me from being curious.

I would chalk the Rahner thing up to being part of the educational experience. I kind of wish I was more familiar with Rahner and his ilk than I am. When having to read through guys with questionable ideas, I always hate it at the time, but then I am always grateful for the knowledge gained in retrospect.

In undergrad at a public university, I suffered through an entire semester with a Rhodes Scholar, atheist professor trying to convince us through philosophy that abortion was morally acceptable. At the time, it was awful, but in looking back, I am very glad I took that class. I have an insight into that mindset that I would not have otherwise had. Plus, he spent the first three weeks of class demonstrating how all the popular pro-choice arguments that we encounter in the media are completely illogical. That anecdote alone made it worth it.

Like it or not, Rahner really does encapsulate the thinking of an entire generation of theologians and catechists. There are still many people out there working for the Church that can only say the name “Rahner” with a breathy sigh of admiration and a twinkle in their eye (much the same as others of us say the name “Hahn” ). So I think it would be a useful exercise to learn more about his thought and exactly what it is about him that gives him such a wide appeal in certain circles. Then you will be equipped to intelligently respond to Rahner’s fans point-for-point instead of having to play the “Rahner is a flaming heretic” card.

I admire your outlook on this subject.

I quickly saw the philosphical and theological lay of the land at my school of theology. I made up my mind to muster up as much humility as I could, earnestly open my mind to what the professor had to say, and demonstrate to him or her that I got it by the end of the course.

The humility part was made easier by the fact that I’m not that bright. Fortunately, I was an older student (in my 50’s) which made me seem like a harmless old gal. WHOOWHEE!! Did I learn some things when the disguises came off. Little did they know that I had a standard Benedictine education in parochial school in the 50’s and early 60’s … an excellent BS decetector.

I actually learned a lot of good stuff, including where these people are coming from. I’m much better armed. I graduated summa cum laude too.

 

[Warrenton]

Gentlemen/Ladies: You might find the following essay interesting. It is probably a bit basic to your level, but for purposes of classroom debate, when time is limited, it might suggest a few lines of attack for which the professor is not quite prepared.

At least the essay is short.

Personally, I find Rahner a bit obtuse. But, then, “the eye sees what the mind gives means of seeing.” My bad.

www.berith.org/pdf/against-karl-rahner-s-rule.pdf

 

[StTommyMore]

Gentlemen/Ladies: You might find the following essay interesting. It is probably a bit basic to your level, but for purposes of classroom debate, when time is limited, it might suggest a few lines of attack for which the professor is not quite prepared.

At least the essay is short.

Personally, I find Rahner a bit obtuse. But, then, “the eye sees what the mind gives means of seeing.” My bad.

www.berith.org/pdf/against-karl-rahner-s-rule.pdf

I do not intend to “attack” my professors use of Rahner. As Rahner was one of the most influential theologians of the 20th century, he is worthy of study.

 

[Warrenton]

I do not intend to “attack” my professors use of Rahner. As Rahner was one of the most influential theologians of the 20th century, he is worthy of study.

Doubtless he is worthy of study. In the classrooms I have sat in, the method of discourse was often “socratic.” The professor either attacked positions we were asked to prepare in advance, or we were required to attack the professor’s opinion.

Attack, in this sense, is rhetorical, or if you rather, academic. I did not mean to infer you had any animus toward your prof, or the position the prof puts forth. Cheers.

 

[StTommyMore]

Doubtless he is worthy of study. In the classrooms I have sat in, the method of discourse was often “socratic.” The professor either attacked positions we were asked to prepare in advance, or we were required to attack the professor’s opinion.

Attack, in this sense, is rhetorical, or if you rather, academic. I did not mean to infer you had any animus toward your prof, or the position the prof puts forth. Cheers.

We are reading Rahner to look at theological method. In essence to learn how to do theology.

 

[Warrenton]

We are reading Rahner to look at theological method. In essence to learn how to do theology.

Deep waters, indeed!

Hope you break the curve!