Pope Benedict Anti-Scholastic‽

[Geremia]

In an article “The Theological Genius of Joseph Ratzinger:”

** What were some of the essential formative theological influences on Joseph Ratzinger?**

Rev. Twomey: The immediate post-war situation of the Church in Germany exercised a huge influence on the fledgling theologian. The Church had emerged triumphant after the persecution under Hitler. There was a feeling of a new beginning, not least in theology, where the neo-scholasticism of the previous half-century was more or less abandoned in the search for a fresh approach.

…]

What attracted him to Augustine and how has his early studies of the great Doctor of the Church informed how he addresses contemporary controversies?

Rev. Twomey: Ratzinger found the scholastics too cerebral. Augustine appealed to him as a man of passion, whose whole life was dedicated to the search to know the truth and articulate it. For neo-scholasticism, everything found its place in the “system”, but Ratzinger was instinctively aware that truth is more than any system of thought could encompass, that it has to be discovered anew in all its freshness from one generation to the next.

Also, from 30 Dias, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote:

"In a certain sense, the theology of the first half of the [20th] century was more balanced, but also more closed within itself. Much of that theology lived inside the box of Neo-Scholasticism. It had greater certainty and logical lucidity than today’s theology, but it was far removed from the real world. The adventure that began in the Council took theology out of that box and exposed it to the fresh air of today’s life.

"Consequently this exposed it to the risk of new unbalances, since it was subject to divergent tendencies without the protection of a system. This caused theology to look for new balances in the context of an open and lively dialogue with today’s reality.

“**This step seems to me not only justified, but also necessary, because theology **should serve faith and evangelization, and, for this reason, must face reality as it is today … Therefore, it was a just and necessary step, although also a risky one … But risk is part of a necessary adventure.”

(30 Dias, April 1994, p. 62)

Pope St. Pius X, however, wrote in his encyclical against Modernism, Pascendi Dominici Gregis:

1. …] Whether it is ignorance or fear, or both, that inspires this conduct in them, certain it is that the passion for novelty is always united in them with hatred of scholasticism, and there is no surer sign that a man is on the way to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for this system. Modernists and their admirers should remember the proposition condemned by Pius IX: * The method and principles which have served the doctors of scholasticism when treating of theology no longer correspond with the exigencies of our time or the progress of science * (Syll. Prop. 13).

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Can I ask why this matters?

 

[Geremia]

Can I ask why this matters?

It matters because so many popes have warned against scrapping scholastic theology.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

It matters because so many popes have warned against scrapping scholastic theology.

Not all Catholic theology is scholastic. In fact, Catholic theology itself is not scholastic. Scholastic theology is merely one system of theology among many, although it is a system that has been endorsed by the Roman Church for the Roman Church. Scholastic theology is a phenomenon of the Roman/Latin Church; it only affected the Catholic and Orthodox East indirectly via Latinization. This is not to say that scholastic theology is bad, merely that it is not universal in the Church and never has been. The Early Fathers themselves were not scholastic theologians.

One thing I will point out is that Pope Benedict was speaking of “neo-scholastic” theology, not scholastic theology. Although I too hazy on the difference between the two to be able to comment any further, I do know that there is a difference. Perhaps the difference is that the neo-scholastics tend to be more rationalistic (in the negative sense of the word) than the scholastics themselves. The scholastics, exemplified most especially by Aquinas and, dare I say, Bonaventure, were steeped in the Scriptures and the Fathers of the Church. Most of the neo-scholastics that I’ve read tend to rely primarily on the syllogism with Scriptures quotes used to boost their thesis.

Anyhow, that’s just my opinion. In the great scheme of things my opinion means very little.

ICXC + NIKA,
Phillip

 

[CHRISTINE77]

IMHO I find Aquinas hard to read. He writes in such a formal style. On the other hand, Augustine is very readable. His writing style is very personal and passionate.

I guess different strokes for different folks.

 

[sovegna_vos]

The Holy Father’s emphasis on the heart in his recent papal visit to the UK was beautiful and very moving.

Whilst I am certainly no expert, I understand it to be the case that at least part of what informs this emphasis is his Augustinian approach.

It was wonderful to behold.

 

[laszlo]

As far as I remember the ‘scholastic’ means a certain deductive method, not being Thomist.

There were two branches of the scholasticism:

The St Thomas line believed that the free will is entirely based on the intellectual understanding (we do what you see as the best); he also believed that God incarnated for the redemption from the sins through the Cross and resurrection

The Franciscan (Bonaventura, Duns Scotus) line believed that the the free will is independent faculty from the intellect, and also that the Incarnation was the original plan of God, and would happen even w/o the original sin.

I do not know where our Pope belongs, but his way of thinking is definitely not intuitive but deductive : scholastic

 

[CHRISTINE77]

As far as I remember the ‘scholastic’ means a certain deductive method, not being Thomist.

There were two branches of the scholasticism:

The St Thomas line believed that the free will is entirely based on the intellectual understanding (we do what you see as the best); he also believed that God incarnated for the redemption from the sins through the Cross and resurrection

The Franciscan (Bonaventura, Duns Scotus) line believed that the the free will is independent faculty from the intellect, and also that the Incarnation was the original plan of God, and would happen even w/o the original sin.

I do not know where our Pope belongs, but his way of thinking is definitely not intuitive but deductive : scholastic

I don’t know if you are correct about our Pope. Have you listened to Alma Mater? I think he may be more emotional than you think.

 

[At_Trent]

Only thing I wish for H.H. is many more years, if it be God’s will.

Lord, source of eternal life and truth, give to Your shepherd, Pope BXVI, a spirit of courage and right judgment, a spirit of knowledge and love.

By governing with fidelity those entrusted to his care may he, as successor to the apostle Peter and vicar of Christ, build Your church into a sacrament of unity, love, and peace for all the world.

We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, Your Son, Who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one God, forever and ever. Amen.

 

[JReducation]

I would never say that Pope Benedict XVI is anti-scholastic or anti-Thomism. He is definitely not a Thomist, if that’s what people are trying to say. He is very strongly Augustinian and Franciscan. I’m surprised that the Franciscan element has not been brought up here, since he has advanced degrees in both Augustine and Bonaventure, separately.

The probable reason that he went for both majors in his theological degrees is because of the strong influence that Augustine had on Francis, ergo on Bonaventure. Pope Benedict is definitely incarnational, which is very Franciscan. Actually, it begins with the theological reflections of St. Francis, not St. Bonaventure. Bonaventure picks up on it and develops it as did Bl. John Duns Scotus. The three of them were very influenced by Augustine.

One has to understand Augustine’s influence here. Augustine is an incarnational theologian. Thomas is a transcendent theologian. He is not called the Angelic Doctor for no reason. He soars. This is a good thing.

However, it is the Augustinian school and later the Franciscan school that focus on evangelizing the Catholic masses by pointing to the presence of God among them. Thomas, on the other hand, does not attempt to evangelize the Catholic masses. He is a true son of his father, Dominic. He is attempting to evangelize the non-believer. He applies to reason, whereas Augustinians and Franciscans apply to love for that which should already be known.

Our Holy Father’s attachment to this school of theology becomes very visible in his strong emphasis on reconquering Europe for Christianty. Like Augustine, Francis and Dominic, he is focussing on converting Catholics. He does not spend a great deal of energy or write a great deal to the non-Catholic populations of the world as did Pope John Paul II, who was a true Thomist.

There is no such thing as one school being superior to the other. There are many schools of spirituality in the Catholic Church and many methods of doing theology. The Romans are more familiar with the Thomist method, because most popes have been secular priests. Secular priests were usually trained in the Thomist method, as well as those who were Dominican Friars. But there have been popes who were Augustinians and Franciscans. They were not Thomist at all. They had very little knowledge of the Thomist method, since it’s not taught in their formation programs. It has never been taught in their formation programs. It has always been Augustine and Bonaventure.

The Thomist method has enjoyed the protection of many popes, because of its logic and ease in usage. This does not mean that these popes were against using the Augustinian and Franciscan methods of doing theology. Don’t mistake a warning regarding the dismissal of Thomism for a mandate to limit theological discourse to that method alone. These are only methods that are popular in the Latinized Churches. There are other methods, that are much older and of more common usage in other Catholic Churches.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF