Neoscholasticism, the New Wave, and our Current Theology?

[Camron]

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.

No. I am saying that an investigation into how to merge the best of the modern Catholic philosophers without any appeal to love in conjunction with a true conversion to Catholicism is doomed to produce a vacuum that will be filled with a cold existential intellectualism that cannot cope with tragedy.

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

Well, you are asking how do we reach the secular world, are you not? What other standard would you actually use to see if this actually works or not? And by what standard would you measure exactly how effectively our reaching out to the secular world really is?

You start by going to the conversion stories of atheists to Catholicism and see what actually drew them in, what called out to them, which of the philosophers did they heed, which of the early fathers made sense to them, and why did they even seek this truth to begin with?

In most cases, the former atheists were either feeling emptiness inside or else they were afflicted by someone (within the Church) who seriously abused their authority and really hurt the former atheist in the process, leading them toward atheism in the first place.

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.

Right, and this is what the Church sets herself against, the idea that the answers only be found by fulfilling one’s material needs.

To which i quote St. Augustine:

To which I will note no one really cares about when their best friend is dying of cancer. In fact, in these instances anyway, they couldn’t care less about what Augustine, or Aquinas, or Bonaventure, or Scotus actually said hundreds or even over a thousand years ago. They want concrete answers, mostly in the form of comfort, and not a heady philosophical argument.

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.

That’s my whole point in brining this up. Without the love of Monica we would not have the philosophy of Augustine. To ignore this important point (and claim that the philosophy is a bit more important than the love and conversion) really belies the very point that this whole discussion about philosophy should truly be concerned with.

 

[Camron]

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.

Yes, and let’s look at their answers and replies…

While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there.

A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, “What is this babbler trying to say?” Others remarked, “He seems to be advocating foreign gods.” They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection.

Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we want to know what they mean.” (All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)

Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.

"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’

“Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man’s design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.”

When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, “We want to hear you again on this subject.” At that, Paul left the Council. A few men became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others.

Acts 17

It seems to me that he…

1.) Made an appeal to emotion…while backing it up with logic…

2.) Derided their worldly knowledge as being idols…while retaining the knowledge they had which was compatible with the Catholic faith…

…that’s how I see it anyway.

Paul actually made an appeal to emotion by quoting their own poets.to them, parsing what was true from what was not true, in order to lead them toward Christ. And he did this out love-- not because he was intellectually convinced by Christ.

And, by the way, the ultimate success was measured by how many actually converted, was it not?

A few men did indeed become followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others.

One should be asking why these people converted while the others did not. Why did some sneer while others were convinced?

This is the conclusion of this whole section before the Bible talks about Paul leaving Athens and going from there to Corinth. In fact, the entire book of acts is specifically addressing conversion to Christianity, what works and what does not.

 

[Camron]

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

 

[Alopen]

No. I am saying that an investigation into how to merge the best of the modern Catholic philosophers without any appeal to love in conjunction with a true conversion to Catholicism is doomed to produce a vacuum that will be filled with a cold existential intellectualism that cannot cope with tragedy.

I don’t think anyone has ever stated that there shouldn’t be an appeal to love or conversion - we’re still stuck on that phase of “best of Modern Catholic philosophers.”

Which is actually why i started this in the first place - until Invocation started to clear things up, i wasn’t sure at all as to what we were attaching love/conversion/religious practice to.

You start by going to the conversion stories of atheists to Catholicism and see what actually drew them in, what called out to them, which of the philosophers did they heed, which of the early fathers made sense to them, and why did they even seek this truth to begin with?

In most cases, the former atheists were either feeling emptiness inside or else they were afflicted by someone (within the Church) who seriously abused their authority and really hurt the former atheist in the process, leading them toward atheism in the first place.

The problem i’m having with this is that if you ground it too strongly in subjective experience, it becomes much harder to prove your point when its brought to comparison against other subjective experiences.

How does one account for the conversion stories to other religions? Or heck, Catholics who become atheists and express no sense of emptiness but rather liberation.

To which I will note no one really cares about when their best friend is dying of cancer. In fact, in these instances anyway, they couldn’t care less about what Augustine, or Aquinas, or Bonaventure, or Scotus actually said hundreds or even over a thousand years ago. They want concrete answers, mostly in the form of comfort, and not a heady philosophical argument.

And if they can get concrete answers that are easier to digest, serve their own particular needs upfront, and offers something less…demanding than the religious experience? (And here i am freely generalizing beyond the boundaries of our Church, since many others are having the same problem).

Furthermore, without a means to articulate it, how can we even persuade them that the answers we give are “concrete.”

That was kind of the point of the Augustine quote. Or ahem,

"Ridiculous Catholics, why would i spend my time praying for my dying friend - you obviously

a.) have the wrong God/worship him incorrectly/whatever
b.) there is no God, i should just learn to cope with this

(and i derive that from personal experience with atheists. They grieve, they cope, but they will not move. Some even consider it an odd noble experience. In other words though, they have a recourse.)

c.) Dharmic cycle will take care of this, i shall see him again in another life."

That’s my whole point in brining this up. Without the love of Monica we would not have the philosophy of Augustine. To ignore this important point (and claim that the philosophy is a bit more important than the love and conversion) really belies the very point that this whole discussion about philosophy should truly be concerned with.

OOohhh… so that’s what this is about.

Because i stated

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

But I’m not trying to exclude the love/conversion factor - i’m taking these things as a given. “A little bit beyond” really does mean “a little bit beyond” - as in where to next.

Perhaps i’ve mistaken your view - for i was under the impression that this is all we’re going to rely on.

 

[Alopen]

Paul actually made an appeal to emotion by quoting their own poets.to them, parsing what was true from what was not true, in order to lead them toward Christ.

Yeah - we’re definately of two different sorts. I’m not seeing what your seeing.

And, by the way, the ultimate success was measured by how many actually converted, was it not?

It shows pragmatic success.

But does a demonstration of effectivity = truth? Is it persuasive enough?

One should be asking why these people converted while the others did not. Why did some sneer while others were convinced?

And here we’ll bump into the problem of interpretation.

Most people will call this a simple matter of personal choice.

IE: There were a number of psychological influences that plugged Person A into Religion B.

While the most outlandish will claim we’re all suffering from a Mind Virus while those who sneered were obviously strong enough to avoid the predations of that pernicious belief…blah blah blah.

In any event - this is going far off from what i had originally intended.

Understanding without love is utterly useless.

But love, if it is true Godly love , is worth more than all the wisdom in the world, even if the person who truly loves with a divine love doesn’t even understand why they love others so much in the first place.

Catejan and the other Thomists have been silent.

Invocation has been kind enough to draw out the implications of the Neo-Augustines - forming more a paradigm than a philosophy, or at least a coherent one.

So what now? After all, if effective performance = truth, than we’re still stuck with our quandry.

 

[Camron]

How does one account for the conversion stories to other religions? Or heck, Catholics who become atheists and express no sense of emptiness but rather liberation.

You compare and contrast the conversion stories with each other and distinquish between what is similar and what is different. Then you go from there and look very carefully at what was different, what they were seeking, what their background was like, and and what influenced these things to even happen.

And if they can get concrete answers that are easier to digest, serve their own particular needs upfront, and offers something less…demanding than the religious experience? (And here i am freely generalizing beyond the boundaries of our Church, since many others are having the same problem).

Furthermore, without a means to articulate it, how can we even persuade them that the answers we give are “concrete.”

That was kind of the point of the Augustine quote. Or ahem,

"Ridiculous Catholics, why would i spend my time praying for my dying friend - you obviously

a.) have the wrong God/worship him incorrectly/whatever
b.) there is no God, i should just learn to cope with this

(and i derive that from personal experience with atheists. They grieve, they cope, but they will not move. Some even consider it an odd noble experience. In other words though, they have a recourse.)

c.) Dharmic cycle will take care of this, i shall see him again in another life."

But if they feel these things are sufficient in and of themselves then we will not be able to convince them that they are wrong in their assumptions.

OOohhh… so that’s what this is about.

Because i stated

But I’m not trying to exclude the love/conversion factor - i’m taking these things as a given. “A little bit beyond” really does mean “a little bit beyond” - as in where to next.

If that’s the case, then I misunderstood your point. I thought that you were saying that the philosophy was more important than the love. Clearly both are needed, but the love comes first, including a heart which is open to the motion of the Spirit.

And here we’ll bump into the problem of interpretation.

Most people will call this a simple matter of personal choice.

IE: There were a number of psychological influences that plugged Person A into Religion B.

While the most outlandish will claim we’re all suffering from a Mind Virus while those who sneered were obviously strong enough to avoid the predations of that pernicious belief…blah blah blah.

In any event - this is going far off from what i had originally intended.

But that’s exactly where you will need to start before you can delve into the philosophical. And a practical analysis of the conversions of atheists to Catholicism (from a Catholic perspective) will greatly inform one who is seeking answers to these questions.

In any event - this is going far off from what i had originally intended.

Don’t misunderstand me. I too am deeply interested in the philosophical and how it can be used. It’s not useless because if it were it would not be employed by the Church. I am not a closet Protestant seeking to purge the Church of its Greek philosophical roots by any means.

My only point is that the philosophy is really more for the initiated in the faith already – for those who are honestly seeking the answers with an open mind to begin with, highly useful for retaining those who most likely already have faith, and very useful when debating against those who attempt to attack what the Church teaches too – but just not that effective for introducing others into the faith.

 

[Camron]

So what now? After all, if effective performance = truth, than we’re still stuck with our quandary.

I don’t think there is a quandary. I find it interesting that Paul himself asked…

Where is the wise man?

Where is the scholar?

Where is the philosopher of this age?

Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.

In short, to those who think God’s love is foolish, Paul is saying that they are foolish. God is not philosophy. God is love. And this is how Paul defines love…

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.

When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love.

But the greatest of these is love.

And with that I will take my leave of this thread.

 

[Cajetan]

I think the “school” of Analytic Thomism is clearly the future of philosophical Thomism (theological Thomism, I must say, clearly has been swept up by more Continental modes of thought. Catholic theology in general has been. Even JPII was essentially a Continental Thomist in philosophy and theology, writing books on phenomenology and Husserl and whatnot). That is to say, traditional philosophical Thomism – a la Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange and Jacques Maritain – is basically dead among professional philosophers (professors of philosophy at mainstream universities and colleges). (The vast majority of Anglo-American university/college philosophy departments are in the Analytic tradition, and proudly so.) The only places it really survives are in certain college seminaries, like the ones run by the Oratorians and other tradition-minded orders, where young men do their Bachelor’s degrees in scholastic philosophy before entering the theological seminaries… and in the work of some private scholars.

But I don’t see this as horrible news, really. Philosophy as a professional discipline has just evolved methodologically. Major advancements have been made in many branches – and in Science, which the Analytic tradition is extremely attuned to – and a lot of them demand everyone’s attention. And the Analytic Thomists are doing very well for themselves in this world, particularly in the philosophy of religion (Brian Davies, Barry Miller, John Haldane), metaphysics (Norman Kretzmann) and in Ethics (Alasdair MacIntyre). I can only see them growing.

But this still leaves contemporary Catholic theology in a strange place. The theologian R.R. Reno wrote an interesting article on this in First Things awhile back, called “Theology’s Continental Captivity.” Look it up.