Neoscholasticism, the New Wave, and our Current Theology?

[Alopen]

Ok, definitely not sure at all of this is the right place to put this thread but here goes nothing.

So i’ve read the grand narrative of the great struggle against NeoScholasticism with all the key figures like Henri De Lubac, Karl Rahner, Von Balthasar, Ratzinger, etc.

I’ve also read a bit about the Resourcement and “Transcendental Thomism” alternatives that came out of Vatican II.

But I have a few questions - mainly because i’ve only been reading the history of all this as opposed to the actual documentation.

1.) Does the Church have a systematic theology anymore? From my limited view, it doesn’t seem to be the case.

I mean, can anyone point to a book on theology that won’t cause a rift or argument? IE: Something you can get the Vatican, the Jesuits, Dominicans, Franciscans, and non-Order Theologians to sign onto and say “Yeah…at base minimum we all agree to that.”

2.) Resourcement theology seems to have playing field at the moment - but practically what does this mean?

We’re supposed to be returning to the original writings of the Early Fathers and recovering an Early Christian sense of our religion.

Granted - but well… who should we be reading? The whole Corpus of Early Christian writing? Everyone from Augustine to the Shepherd of Hermas?

Furthermore, what happens to all the non-Fathers? Bye-bye Thomas and Bonaventure?

 

[mizznicole]

**Ok, definitely not sure at all of this is the right place to put this thread but here goes nothing.

So i’ve read the grand narrative of the great struggle against NeoScholasticism with all the key figures like Henri De Lubac, Karl Rahner, Von Balthasar, Ratzinger, etc.

I’ve also read a bit about the Resourcement and “Transcendental Thomism” alternatives that came out of Vatican II.

But I have a few questions - mainly because i’ve only been reading the history of all this as opposed to the actual documentation.

1.) Does the Church have a systematic theology anymore? From my limited view, it doesn’t seem to be the case.**

What do you mean by “systematic theology”? With the shift to the medieval period/scholasticism, greater disagreement could be had among Catholic theologians without the charge of heresy. So you find Bonaventure on one side, Thomas on the other, etc.

I mean, can anyone point to a book on theology that won’t cause a rift or argument? IE: Something you can get the Vatican, the Jesuits, Dominicans, Franciscans, and non-Order Theologians to sign onto and say “Yeah…at base minimum we all agree to that.”

Other than the catechism? I think if you disagree with the Catechism you’ll have a hard time validating your Catholicism. Of course someone like Rahner might agree that only the “idea” (begriff) of the Catechism matters, and the language can be mutated to fit the modern context.

Again I think there can be a range of theological opinions that are valid but various people might disagree with. But then you have a class of true “dissenters” who challenge the creed to such an extent that they’re condemned by the CDF (Roger Haight, eg).

2.) Resourcement theology seems to have playing field at the moment - but practically what does this mean?

We’re supposed to be returning to the original writings of the Early Fathers and recovering an Early Christian sense of our religion.

Granted - but well… who should we be reading? The whole Corpus of Early Christian writing? Everyone from Augustine to the Shepherd of Hermas?

Furthermore, what happens to all the non-Fathers? Bye-bye Thomas and Bonaventure?

Personally I think it means going back through St. Thomas to the Fathers and Scripture; then taking on a Thomistic enterprise of combing through modernity to see if any of it can be retained. It’s such a huge project that it will take hundreds of years and require several St. Thomases.

This isn’t my original thought, but what I’ve gathered from Michael Waldstein’s work on JPII, and Ratzinger.

I think our problem with scholasticism is that we read it with a modern mind, which tends to be mechanistic and superficial. We need a return to Augustine, e.g., in order to break through the Cartesian/Kantian/Humean presuppositions we bring to theology without even being aware of them. The schoolmen read the Fathers without these problems; but we come to the schoolmen and ossify how we perceive them to be reading the Fathers. Hence the “manual theology” of 19th c. that Balthasar couldn’t stomach.

Not sure if I’ve said anything helpful…interesting questions. Keep asking!

 

[Cajetan]

I’m sticking with traditional philosophical and theological Thomism, in the vein of the great Dominican commentators (John of St. Thomas, Cajetan) as well as Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange and Jacques Maritain. This is what we need a return to. Those who reject this system invariably misunderstand it

Frankly, I have little use for the theological systems of de Lubac, von Balthasar, Rahner, Lonergan, or even Ratzinger, and contemporary “mainstream” Catholic theology is just a mess. None of these can communicate with contemporary secular intellectual culture. Traditional Thomism can, at least in serious philosophical circles.

 

[cpayne]

Has the Church ever had “a” systematic theology? Even Thomas was tackled on several fronts, both during his life and after.

Really, there is a great deal more openness to theological debate (within catechistic limits) in the Church than many people think there is. For what it’s worth, however, I am definitely a traditional Thomist.

You know, when it comes to working out theological disagreements, the Church just doesn’t seem to be in a great hurry. Sometimes the implications of theological ideas need a few centuries to work out, especially if they are not immediately and obviously dangerous. Even Thomas, after his death, was condemned for a while!

 

[invocation]

1.) Does the Church have a systematic theology anymore? From my limited view, it doesn’t seem to be the case.

I mean, can anyone point to a book on theology that won’t cause a rift or argument? IE: Something you can get the Vatican, the Jesuits, Dominicans, Franciscans, and non-Order Theologians to sign onto and say “Yeah…at base minimum we all agree to that.”

there is not, nor has there ever been, a single systematic theology of the church. even as huge a giant as augustine was, or even given the centrality that thomas was given after aeterni patris, no one has that kind of standing. theology is a description of the faith and practice of the church. it, in that sense, always follows after.

2.) Resourcement theology seems to have playing field at the moment - but practically what does this mean?

We’re supposed to be returning to the original writings of the Early Fathers and recovering an Early Christian sense of our religion.

Granted - but well… who should we be reading? The whole Corpus of Early Christian writing? Everyone from Augustine to the Shepherd of Hermas?

Furthermore, what happens to all the non-Fathers? Bye-bye Thomas and Bonaventure?

what you are describing, for the most part, is the intellectual fruition of the jesuit educational system. all the people you mentioned in the opening, with the exception of ratzinger (and its not clear that he belongs in this group in precisely the same way), are jesuit products: de lubac, von balthasar, the rahners, lonergan, przywara, etc. (b/c the list goes on and on)…

a few points with regards to this

1. even here there is no monolithic position. balthasar and rahner could cooperate on certain projects and differed strongly from one another on others. moreover, karl rahner and longeran are both thomists (of different sorts); de lubac and von balthasar are not (though neither are ignorant of thomas by any stretch).
2. one would not want to narrow balthasar down to any one figure, but certainly, for instance, bonaventure is very influential on his thought. so, again, it is not as if they are rejecting medieval sources. going down another track, again with balthasar: certainly carmelite spirituality is also very important in his work, etc.
3. like i said before, you are discussing a movement that was widely influential, but found its real center in the jesuits. this is not to say other orders, seculars and laity did not participate…but it is safe to say, for instance, that a more traditional reading of thomas remained very influential within dominican circles in a way that was not and is not true for the jesuits. these other forms of thought have not disappeared and certainly have important things to say.

-Another way to look at this is by noticing that there is a kind of augustinian renewal running through (esp.) french catholic thought in various forms beginning with descartes. this strain is resistant to scholasticism, not surprisingly, EVEN WHEN they working with thomas (which some of them are…rousselot for instance).

cajetan says:Frankly, I have little use for the theological systems of de Lubac, von Balthasar, Rahner, Lonergan, or even Ratzinger, and contemporary “mainstream” Catholic theology is just a mess. None of these can communicate with contemporary secular intellectual culture. Traditional Thomism can, at least in serious philosophical circles.

i have difficulty understanding what this might mean given the influence of french catholic thinkers in contemporary continental philosophy: the most prominent of which would be jean-luc marion. these thinkers are having a profound impact on the philosophical conversation and are rather directly influenced by de lubac, et al.

 

[Cajetan]

i have difficulty understanding what this might mean given the influence of french catholic thinkers in contemporary continental philosophy: the most prominent of which would be jean-luc marion. these thinkers are having a profound impact on the philosophical conversation and are rather directly influenced by de lubac, et al.

Continental philosophy just isn’t proper philosophy in my eyes. It’s kind of a joke. While it is generally a lot more open to religious thought and theological ideas than Analytic philosophy, these guys aren’t getting much done in terms of philosophy as traditionally understood. The entire Continental project, in fact, is to move away from philosophy – Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Levinas and Derrida, at least, blamed philosophy for all of the world’s social and political evils. They wanted man to move beyond this kind of thinking; this was their fundamental message. Cont. phil. is experimental and deeply revolutionary by nature.

That’s not to say that I find no fault with Analytic philosophy (the dominant Anglo-American method), but it is much closer in spirit and method to traditional Thomism (in the words of Maritain, “the philosophy of Aristotle and St. Thomas”). Ideally, it is scientific, empirical, exacting. The relatively recent phenomenon of “Analytic Thomism” – G.E.M. Anscombe, Peter Geach, John Haldane, Brian Davies, Alasdair MacIntyre, Barry Miller, et al – shows how well these two worlds can meet.

 

[Alopen]

Wow, lots of good responses - thanks everybody.

I can see we have a lot of Thomists in the audience too. Let me try to organize all this:

Quoting mizznicole: Personally I think it means going back through St. Thomas to the Fathers and Scripture; then taking on a Thomistic enterprise of combing through modernity to see if any of it can be retained. It’s such a huge project that it will take hundreds of years and require several St. Thomases.

and Invocation

what you are describing, for the most part, is the intellectual fruition of the jesuit educational system. all the people you mentioned in the opening, with the exception of ratzinger (and its not clear that he belongs in this group in precisely the same way), are jesuit products: de lubac, von balthasar, the rahners, lonergan, przywara, etc. (b/c the list goes on and on)…

Now you see that’s the part were i’m rather confused about. I mean, that Chenu, Cognar, Schillebeeckx, Lubac, Lonegran, Balthasar, Kung, Wojtyla, Rahners, and Ratzinger (that’s how the “Usual Suspects” list has been described to me at least) participated in the “revolution” to oust “Handbook Theology” seems to be a given.

But oust it in favor of what exactly? As Invocation stated, they have no monolithic position. I feel like i’m looking at a bunch of insurgents who forgot what to do after the “revolution” gets started.

Btw - in what particular way does Ratzinger stick out from that crowd?

Another way to look at this is by noticing that there is a kind of augustinian renewal running through (esp.) french catholic thought in various forms beginning with descartes. this strain is resistant to scholasticism, not surprisingly, EVEN WHEN they working with thomas (which some of them are…rousselot for instance).

Perhaps i’m not drawing the lines between the dots well enough. I always thought the representative of Augustine’s thought in the Medieval era was Bonaventure (well that and he drew off …errgh…Joachim of FIore), even though Chenu did do a few studies showing how St. Thomas drew much inspiration from Augustine’s work as well. And i thought it went the way of the DoDo due to the emphasis placed on Aquinas in later years.

And i guess what i’m wondering about is what the “big picture” implications of this tilt toward Augustine is supposed to produce.

Since theology is a rational discourse about our practices, our use of faith as a methodology of knowing, and our attempts at an understanding of What is God - it has to in some sense engage the secular world on some level.

That’s the part i’m not seeing, or perhaps not understanding.

 

[Cajetan]

Perhaps the Platonic-Augustinian (or Augustinian-Bonaventurian) philosophical/theological tradition is just more “fun” for Catholics and inviting/appealing or interesting for non-believers than is the “boring old” Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition – and Catholic theologians since Vatican II have been feeling this.

Certainly I can see common folk embracing the former over the latter; it is a much more “creative” or imaginative expression of Christian doctrines. It is far easier to imagine a common parishioner digging Augustine’s dialogue On Free Choice of the Will than St. Thomas’ treatise On Being and Essence. It’s more entertaining! (College students almost always enjoy studying Plato more than Aristotle for this reason.) The former system is also less offensively blunt in the eyes of secularists, likely because it is not really empirical or scientific. It doesn’t dare to enter “their realm” like traditional Thomism does, being rather preoccupied with the “mystical” side of things. It aims for the heart, not the head. So does “Transcendental” Thomism, which is Thomism with its balls cut off.

When it comes to the showdown with analytic thinkers, however, the Neo-Augustinians and Kantian Thomists won’t be there. They know how to preach to Christians – and this is great! – but they don’t possess the tools necessary to engage in serious scientific (re: logical, metaphysical, Ethical) discussion with non-believers. They say that faith and reason cannot contradict one another, but they can’t show how. Where is the natural theology of De Lubac, Rahner, Von Balthasar, or Ratzinger, or any of the ex-nun eco-feminists teaching theology in our schools today (not to hoist them to the same level of De Lubac, Ratzinger, etc.)? Where are their Virtue Ethics? Natural Law?

 

[SeekingCatholic]

Perhaps the Platonic-Augustinian (or Augustinian-Bonaventurian) philosophical/theological tradition is just more “fun” for Catholics and inviting/appealing or interesting for non-believers than is the “boring old” Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition – and Catholic theologians since Vatican II have been feeling this.

The truth is, I rather suspect, something else - a recognition that the “boring old” A-T tradition has lost and it is time to try something else.

When it comes to the showdown with analytic thinkers, however, the Neo-Augustinians and Kantian Thomists won’t be there. They know how to preach to Christians – and this is great! – but they don’t possess the tools necessary to engage in serious scientific (re: logical, metaphysical, Ethical) discussion with non-believers. They say that faith and reason cannot contradict one another, but they can’t show how. Where is the natural theology of De Lubac, Rahner, Von Balthasar, or Ratzinger, or any of the ex-nun eco-feminists teaching theology in our schools today (not to hoist them to the same level of De Lubac, Ratzinger, etc.)? Where are their Virtue Ethics? Natural Law?

Yes, but the traditional Thomists already went into the showdown with analytic thinkers - and went down in flames - and rightly so - because they insisted on using 13th century worldview and outlook in a 21st century world. They did not have very good answers for the findings of the natural sciences, and the smug “science must bow to philosophy” attitude is just that of a sore loser. And, just because you have a natural theology and natural law in itself doesn’t make it convincing. Atheists and others have their own systems of ethics and explanations.

Just this for an example. In an explanation of the Thomistic First Way, Fr. Garrigou-LaGrange attempted to use gravitational attraction of bodies to show there had to be a unmoved initial center of attraction (as an example of an essentially subordinated series). Now, it doesn’t take a physics Ph.D. to see why that argument is wrong - a freshman physics student would be able to tell you why.

 

[Alopen]

So does “Transcendental” Thomism, which is Thomism with its balls cut off.

May i have your permission to use that phrase.

Anyway, back to the serious notions:

Perhaps the Platonic-Augustinian (or Augustinian-Bonaventurian) philosophical/theological tradition is just more “fun” for Catholics and inviting/appealing or interesting for non-believers than is the “boring old” Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition – and Catholic theologians since Vatican II have been feeling this.

Granted - there’s a strong psychological depth to the Platonic-Augustinian-Bonaventurian tradition that speaks quite well to a person of faith. “My relationship with God” stands right at the center of it, and it does utilize a strong mystical element which is important (less the Church ossify itself into a social club).

And had the Timaeus accurately portrayed reality…well, suffice it to say things might be easier for us.

In reference to what you stated after - I concur that college students prefer reading Plato over Aristotle. To be honest, beyond the Politics and the Nicomachaen Ethics, i can’t really think of Aristotlean tracts that are assigned to the average college student.

When it comes to the showdown with analytic thinkers, however, the Neo-Augustinians and Kantian Thomists won’t be there. They know how to preach to Christians – and this is great! – but they don’t possess the tools necessary to engage in serious scientific (re: logical, metaphysical, Ethical) discussion with non-believers. They say that faith and reason cannot contradict one another, but they can’t show how. Where is the natural theology of De Lubac, Rahner, Von Balthasar, or Ratzinger, or any of the ex-nun eco-feminists teaching theology in our schools today (not to hoist them to the same level of De Lubac, Ratzinger, etc.)? Where are their Virtue Ethics? Natural Law?

Now i wish we had a Neo-Augustinian on this thread - not that i don’t believe you Catejan, but i would like to see how they account for this.

For in many ways, this is probably the crux of the matter.

The Neo-Augustinian and the Kantian Thomist are capable of expressing the internal consistency and feeling of the believer - but i’ve never seen them engage with the problems of the “outside” world if you will.

Well suffice it to say, its a bit problematic.

Amongst the whole spectrum of Christianity and even extending ourselves into the other Abrahamic faiths - there doesn’t seem to be anyone else who is willing to talk about the Elephant in the living room so to speak.

For instance - Judaism and Islam haven’t had a Moses Ben Maimon or Avicenna in a long time. And that’s a telling point - especially since Thomas drew off inspiration from them.

If i understand the current state of Islamic theology (or at least the parts that would be relevant to us) - the Muʿtazilite theological school with its attempt to recouncil faith and reason went out the window a long time ago - the Sunni and the Shi’ite sects pushed it out.

And since Al-Ghazali, no Arab philosopher has attempted to “bell the cat” in the manner that Al-Kindi, Averroes, and Avicenna tried to.

Crossing out all the Salafi/Wahabists - the only ones willing to even engage in such a discussion are people like Hossein Nasr (cis-ca.org/index.php?page=Through_The_Ages#year1400) – who although have a good command of the philosophy of science, seem to address these matters with a distinctly Platonic/Mystical bent (hmm, wonder who that reminds us of).

Heading over to the Jewish faith – They seem to be running into the same issues. You have Reconstructionists who have turned their faith into a Cultural Gathering if you will, the Orthodox on the other end who seem relatively unconcerned about developments of oh say the past 700 years, etc.

Baruch Spinoza’s shadow looms large over them I guess, although some still struggle with questions of Faith and Reason - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Philosophy#Haredi_theology

Of course Kabbalah and Hasidic Judaism is up an about but…oh wait, I think I see them over with the Sufi mystics drinking at Plato’s well.

Our Orthodox Brethren have pretty much either buried their heads in the sand (and they can correct me about this if one is willing to comment) except those of the Alexandrian School that produced Clement and Origen……and happens to be sitting right next to the aforementioned Platonic well.

At this time, the Thomists seem to be the only ones at the barbecue.

 

[Alopen]

Yes, but the traditional Thomists already went into the showdown with analytic thinkers - and went down in flames - and rightly so - because they insisted on using 13th century worldview and outlook in a 21st century world. They did not have very good answers for the findings of the natural sciences, and the smug “science must bow to philosophy” attitude is just that of a sore loser. And, just because you have a natural theology and natural law in itself doesn’t make it convincing. Atheists and others have their own systems of ethics and explanations.

Just this for an example. In an explanation of the Thomistic First Way, Fr. Garrigou-LaGrange attempted to use gravitational attraction of bodies to show there had to be a unmoved initial center of attraction (as an example of an essentially subordinated series). Now, it doesn’t take a physics Ph.D. to see why that argument is wrong - a freshman physics student would be able to tell you why.

Yeah, that pretty much summarizes the first time the Thomists got invited to the barbecue - they got roasted.

And this kind of feeds back into my initial question - the Neo-Augustinians (for lack of a better term, i shall refer to them as such) seem to be saying “times up, time to move over.”

Ok, fine sure, if that can get the job done for the 21st century - so be it.

But what pray tell what are they doing? Its all nice and good to point out what’s wrong.

However, are they willing to go to the barbecue too? Or are they hanging out at Plato’s well?

 

[invocation]

Now you see that’s the part were i’m rather confused about. I mean, that Chenu, Cognar, Schillebeeckx, Lubac, Lonegran, Balthasar, Kung, Wojtyla, Rahners, and Ratzinger (that’s how the “Usual Suspects” list has been described to me at least) participated in the “revolution” to oust “Handbook Theology” seems to be a given.

But oust it in favor of what exactly? As Invocation stated, they have no monolithic position. I feel like i’m looking at a bunch of insurgents who forgot what to do after the “revolution” gets started.

…And i guess what i’m wondering about is what the “big picture” implications of this tilt toward Augustine is supposed to produce.

Since theology is a rational discourse about our practices, our use of faith as a methodology of knowing, and our attempts at an understanding of What is God - it has to in some sense engage the secular world on some level.

your last line there is a good one, because i think it gets at what is at stake for them. what unites most of those thinkers through all their various differences is their refusal to acknowledge that there is such a thing as the secular. there is no humanity, existence, science, etc. that is independent of grace. all existence is ordered towards god. we are such that we desire god. this is present and implicit in all that we do. because of this, theologically and philosophically this group was interested in examining the dynamic present in human desire, and action (including human knowledge) in order to show the acknowledgement of and need for the infinite that is universally present. (of course this does not mean that this desire cannot take some perverse turns in the way in which it realizes itself concretely in human life; blondel examines those perversions at length in his action, before culminating with the philosophical affirmation that human beings universally desire salvation from god). two good books to look at along this line are delubac’s the discovery of god and the drama of atheist humanism. but it is a similar argument to what you will find in rahner’s hearer of the word and foundations of christian faith. there is no secular in the modern sense of that word.

on the other hand, that means theology and philosophy are free to engage existence at every level because it is all under the call of grace. nothing is outside the interest of christianity; though everything is seen from the standpoint of christ.

this is one reason schillebeeckx really doesnt belong to this group. he is a much more traditional thomist in this regard. he may have sympathies with this group to a degree, but they do not run very deep, especially once he starts down the path of the jesus-christ-church books. ratzinger and wojtyla again are at the edges of this, but they are being nourished at different wells (ratzinger is closest to this group in his dissertation (on augustine) and habilitation (on bonaventure) and some early stuff on eucharistic ecclesiology; but things change for him in the 1970s. he is without a doubt though, a brilliant thinker throughout).

Perhaps i’m not drawing the lines between the dots well enough. I always thought the representative of Augustine’s thought in the Medieval era was Bonaventure (well that and he drew off …errgh…Joachim of FIore), even though Chenu did do a few studies showing how St. Thomas drew much inspiration from Augustine’s work as well. And i thought it went the way of the DoDo due to the emphasis placed on Aquinas in later years.

1. you are right about bonaventure being the paradigmatic medieval augustinian, but he is mostly fighting AGAINST the influence of joachim of fiore in his order. john of parma for instance is removed from being the head of the franciscans and is replaced by bonaventure, who subsequently exiles john for his unrepentant joachite views. <as a side note here, de lubac has a massive study on the evils of joachim of fiore and his influence…which are returning in modern theology and philosophy according to delubac.>
2. its not really thomism’s fault that bonaventure gets overshadowed actually. the fault lies more with his own order. bl. john duns scotus becomes the intellectual standard bearer for the franciscans in the 14th c. and beyond. but bonaventure makes a kind of revival with the rise of the capuchin reform, and is ultimately named a doctor of the church by a capuchin-turned-pope. in any case…duns scotus remains a very important figure within scholasticism for a long time, though obviously playing second fiddle to thomas.

 

[Camron]

Interesting thread. I will be following this more closely.

For the record, has anyone looked at what writings the atheist converts to Catholicism actually read?

We can lead a horse to water, but we can’t make it drink so to speak. What actually caused them to drink in our modern times?

chnetwork.org/seconv.htm

André Frossard - French journalist who was atheist, but converted to Catholicism in 1935.

Anna Haycraft - Raised as a member of Britain’s Comtist and atheistic “Church of Humanity”, but became a conservative Catholic in adulthood.

Ignace Lepp - French psychiatrist whose parents were freethinkers and who joined the Communist party at age fifteen. He broke with the party in 1937 and eventually became a Catholic priest.

Félix Leseur - Doctor turned priest. His conversion, in part, came by efforts of his wife who was declared a Servant of God by the Catholic Church.

Edith Stein - Phenomenologist philosopher who converted to Catholicism and became a Discalced Carmelite nun; declared a saint by John Paul II.

John C. Wright - Science fiction author and is now a Catholic.

There are other personal testimonies too…

freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1916327/posts

When I started living my life according to Catholic teaching the proof was, as they say, in the pudding. It worked. It worked better than I could have ever guessed it would. And since I’ve been able to receive what they say is really the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, my soul, my entire life, has changed profoundly. But that is whole separate story (and, really, the main subject of this blog). To summarize my experience, I leave you with a quote from G.K. Chesterton, writing about why he converted to orthodox Catholicism:

I do it because the [Catholic Church] has not merely told this truth or that truth, but has revealed itself as a truth-telling thing. All other philosophies say the things that plainly seem to be true; only this philosophy has again and again said the thing that does not seem to be true, but is true. Alone of all creeds it is convincing where it is not attractive; it turns out to be right, like my father in the garden.

Perhaps instead of looking to the past we should look to more contemporary sources who have converted to Catholicism. This, in my opinion, would be more up to date with the most recent writings and thinkers in the Catholic Church and, again, in my opinion, give more of a snap shot for the philosophies that attracted them to the Catholic Church in our modern times.

As I’ve grown older I’ve become much more sympathetic toward those who have converted to the Catholic Church. I used to be more traditionalist but now recognize just how much I take for granted the fact that I was always Catholic as far as I can remember.

I have a cousin who converted to the Catholic Church from Lutheranism who used to come here a lot. He was quite frustrated with his experience here so I decided to come and see what he was talking about. While I think he tends to be overly sensitive toward some topics, I can see his point on some issues regarding some fellow Catholics possibly being too open minded too.

I would not want to have to wade through the deep sewage of anti-Catholic writings he waded through to come to the Catholic Church only to perceive the Church “appearing” to be declining toward a sloppy form of relativism that he had left behind.

I have great difficulty placing myself in his shoes precisely because I’ve never had to go through what he had gone through. I suspect that, regarding the atheistic convert, it may likewise be different to witness to them precisely because we don’t see it from their world-view. And until they take the time to seriously immerse themselves in our Catholic Culture, including openness to the more mystical side of the Catholic Church, they simply won’t see it from our world-view either.

 

[Alopen]

Invocation - thank you for the book suggestions and clarifications of each theologians views.

what unites most of those thinkers through all their various differences is their refusal to acknowledge that there is such a thing as the secular. there is no humanity, existence, science, etc. that is independent of grace. all existence is ordered towards god. we are such that we desire god. this is present and implicit in all that we do. because of this, theologically and philosophically this group was interested in examining the dynamic present in human desire, and action (including human knowledge) in order to show the acknowledgement of and need for the infinite that is universally present.

on the other hand, that means theology and philosophy are free to engage existence at every level because it is all under the call of grace. nothing is outside the interest of christianity; though everything is seen from the standpoint of christ.

:ehh:

I understand their viewpoint - and its admirable that they are trying to achieve that unity of knowledge but there’s a few things that just don’t sit well with me.

1.) The very practical problem that people already acknowledge a Secular/Religious divide.

To carry on with my ridiculous analogy:

Non-Catholics: “Welcome to the barbecue!”

Neo-Augustinians: “What barbecue? The barbecue does not exist.”

2.) That acknowledgement and need for the infinite can be construed in so many different ways.

Everything from man’s innate psychological fear of death to “achieving parinirvana” to borrow the Buddhist phrase.

3.) To quote one of theology (of any sort, not just our own)'s most vocal detractors:

When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don’t do anything, don’t affect anything, don’t mean anything. What makes anyone think that “theology” is a subject at all?

Placing Mr. Dawkins bombastic language and hyperbole aside, we must at least recognize the staunch opposition to be had against “theology and philosophy that are free to engage existence at every level because it is all under the call of grace.”

 

[Genesis315]

The Second Vatican Council did decree that priests should be trained with a Thomistic approach:
Optatam Totius:

Next, in order that they may illumine the mysteries of salvation as completely as possible, the students should learn to penetrate them more deeply with the help of speculation, under the guidance of St. Thomas, and to perceive their interconnections.

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/v2priest.htm

This was also decreed in regards to Catholic schools:
Gravissimum Educationis:

In those schools dependent on her she intends that by their very constitution individual subjects be pursued according to their own principles, method, and liberty of scientific inquiry, in such a way that an ever deeper understanding in these fields may be obtained and that, as questions that are new and current are raised and investigations carefully made according to the example of the doctors of the Church and especially of St. Thomas Aquinas,(31) there may be a deeper realization of the harmony of faith and science.

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/v2educ.htm

 

[Alopen]

I suspect that, regarding the atheistic convert, it may likewise be different to witness to them precisely because we don’t see it from their world-view. And until they take the time to seriously immerse themselves in our Catholic Culture, including openness to the more mystical side of the Catholic Church, they simply won’t see it from our world-view either.

Carmon, this issue goes a little bit beyond conversion (although that is a rather important topic on its own).

It kind of goes to the heart about the intelligibility of our religion.

“Fides et Ratio” highlights the position we as Catholics (as well as some fallen Islamic schools of theology and scant Jewish schools) have tried to defend. Faith and Reason are compatible.

The problem arises in how to even display that.

 

[invocation]

1.) The very practical problem that people already acknowledge a Secular/Religious divide.

that people want to insist that their world is a fully self-contained reality that is independent of the Absolute does not mean we have to acknowledge that it is true. now, it probably does mean that we have discuss the conditions which make such an experience possible: how does the free rationality of persons become turned in upon itself. this is important. but we do so in order to trace its desire for the Good, even as it turns away from it.

To carry on with my ridiculous analogy:

Non-Catholics: “Welcome to the barbecue!”

Neo-Augustinians: “What barbecue? The barbecue does not exist.”

barbeques are lovely; everyone should have one. and here is what you really wanted when you started the fire. (i.e., the desire for truth is not to be criticized)

2.) That acknowledgement and need for the infinite can be construed in so many different ways.

Everything from man’s innate psychological fear of death to “achieving parinirvana” to borrow the Buddhist phrase.

its true, and they take more or less adequate forms. but ultimately, or so we argue, only One is (beyond-)adequate to our desire (including the desire for knowledge)

delubac also has a very sympathetic study of buddhism, btw. (de lubac: not the most systematic thinker, but brilliant and he had his fingers in everything and there is a unified vision underlying it all).

Placing Mr. Dawkins bombastic language and hyperbole aside, we must at least recognize the staunch opposition to be had against “theology and philosophy that are free to engage existence at every level because it is all under the call of grace.”

dawkins is not a particular attack on catholicism, nor xty nor even religion…dawkins is an attack on anyone who wants to know about the proper direction of human projects: i.e., what is it human beings want when they act. the practical accomplishments of the hard sciences are undeniable. the question is of course, what is the good for which humans act? what makes them true? etc. to eliminate the people who ask those questions is to condemn humanity to forces of nature which they are so desperately trying to master with science (sciences which are themselves products of the human spirit).

 

[Camron]

Carmon, this issue goes a little bit beyond conversion (although that is a rather important topic on its own).

Actually, I think that conversion and salvation are the most important issues at stake here. You can’t actually go “a little bit beyond” them unless you are God Himself and the very author of the salvation which we all seek.

To ignore the influences of our Church which are actually leading people, particularly atheists, into the Catholic faith is quite dangerous in my opinion, precisely because they are the living evidence of what really works. We can certainly seek to harmonize all these things on a philosophical level, something which I applaud. I’m quite interested in Rahner’s thoughts myself. But if the philosophy doesn’t actually bring people into a true and authentic communion with God then it’s virtually a waste of time.

It kind of goes to the heart about the intelligibility of our religion.

“Fides et Ratio” highlights the position we as Catholics (as well as some fallen Islamic schools of theology and scant Jewish schools) have tried to defend. Faith and Reason are compatible.

No doubt.

And secular society seems to be in an internal tug-of-war with itself as it is wrung throughout the extremes of blind-faith and cold logic too. The Church stands poised, delicately balanced as she gracefully walks the tight rope of this secular tug of war.

The problem arises in how to even display that.

The only real way, in the end, is to “display it” in the lives we live out our love of God. Even if we can explain all mysteries, it matters very little if we do not have love. And, ultimately, in this day and age, many people really do not care at all for a good theological argument.

Why?

They want answers to how their children will be fed, where the money will come from to pay the mortgage, how they can comfort their friend who is dying of cancer, and where their futures on Earth will be.

The great philosopher is usually not prepared to actually deal with these issues precisely because they’re usually too busy trying to figure out why it’s happening (and what its worth to help) to actually do something concrete about it and simply help others around them.

The person who really displays God’s love has no intellectual argument to combat the pains and toils of this world. Their own actions in love are their only argument against pain, just as God commanded, even when they don’t understand why they should help or how much it’s even worth.

Perhaps this is why God has allowed the sciences to utterly pulverize the philosophies of long ago, reducing most to simply “hoping” instead of “knowing”. It’s all well and good to have this all worked out in theory on paper. It’s entirely another thing to see someone reaching out to you when you are really hurt and need help. No philosophy will satisfy the needs of humanity when everything has gone all wrong, when everything goes to hell.

And it’s only those who rise to the occasion of offering you true love when you are down that will catch your attention at this time too. This, by the way, if anyone reads their conversion stories, is what I noticed caught most atheist’s attention in their conversion to the Catholic Church.

 

[Alopen]

that people want to insist that their world is a fully self-contained reality that is independent of the Absolute does not mean we have to acknowledge that it is true. now,

Hmm, methinks i detect a Neoplatonist.

Wow its true then, it seems we’ve all boarded the Platonic intellectual life-raft as a means of describing our faith.

And now the question turns to how to even get people to think about the possibility of a greater reality?

it probably does mean that we have discuss the conditions which make such an experience possible: how does the free rationality of persons become turned in upon itself. this is important. but we do so in order to trace its desire for the Good, even as it turns away from it.

Ah yes…the hard part.

Now where did our erstwhile Thomist go, for i wonder what he has to say about the matter.

to eliminate the people who ask those questions is to condemn humanity to forces of nature which they are so desperately trying to master with science (sciences which are themselves products of the human spirit).

I think that’s just it - deep down in each materialists heart is a Dream - same dream the ancient magus had way back when, namely absolute control of one’s circumstances and Nature itself.

Under such a situation, the perceived value of a philosopher is quite low.

 

[Alopen]

To ignore the influences of our Church which are actually leading people, particularly atheists, into the Catholic faith is quite dangerous in my opinion, precisely because they are the living evidence of what really works.

They want answers to how their children will be fed, where the money will come from to pay the mortgage, how they can comfort their friend who is dying of cancer, and where their futures on Earth will be.

Evidence of what really works? I think this is where we’re going to have to part ways Camron.

Your thoughts are practical – but you are essentially creating an appeal out of pragmatism.

Shall we now say truth is dictated simply by the per person conversion rate of a religion?

Our Church does not exist in a vacuum. Frankly, in this day an age because of the problems you’ve cited above, the marketplace of ideas have grown. And in order for children to be fed, money for the mortgage, etc – there’s a whole of other places that people can get those questions answered. They have nationalism, random political ideologies, science, other religions, or just plain old non-reflective “Get Resources” mentality.

And if all that fails, there is still a number of demagogues forming a line to the right selling the “ultimate cure to life’s ills” and some snake oil.

The only real way, in the end, is to “display it” in the lives we live out our love of God. Even if we can explain all mysteries, it matters very little if we do not have love. And, ultimately, in this day and age, many people really do not care at all for a good theological argument.

We can certainly seek to harmonize all these things on a philosophical level, something which I applaud. I’m quite interested in Rahner’s thoughts myself. But if the philosophy doesn’t actually bring people into a true and authentic communion with God then it’s virtually a waste of time.

To which i quote St. Augustine:

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Please do not ignore the fact that there exists People of the Head along with People of the Heart. Even Augustine acknowledged this when he drew comparsions between himself and his blessed mother Monica.

One of St. Paul’s hardest challenges in his prostelyzation of the faith came not from his experiences with those who reflected the same concerns as you raised above - the sick, the dying, the poor. More often than not, they are willing to listen.

No - it came from the Men of Athens - who were at the beating heart of the world’s intelligence, culture, and knowledge.

And if memory serves me correct, he didn’t:

1.) Make an appeal to emotion
2.) Deride their worldly knowledge (well…not completely)

He rolled up his sleeves, half-joked to the good Lord “Never make things easy on me huh,” smiled and went onto the Acropolis with the best he could muster.

Do not mistake my intent Camron, Love is Necessary - but so is Understanding.