Karl Rahner as a recommendation for traditional Catholicism ?
Some pretty radical works there Mick.
Actually, Rahner is not a bad read. I studied his works and found him fascinating. In fact, Pope Benedict uses a lot of his material in his own writings, especially in his ecclesiology.
Iāll share my impression of what happened with Rahner. Remember, itās just my impression. First, we all know that Rahner is not a heretic. His writings are still used at every Pontifical school of theology in Rome. Letās get that out of the way. The Holy See would not allow him to be used in its schools if he were a shady character.
Now to my impressions. I believe that Rahner, like Ratzinger, was a genius. There were several problems. The first was that he was trying to propose some new paradigms and some of his fans failed to see that these were proposals for discussion. Instead, they took them as absolute truths and ran with them. But it was not Fr. Rahnerās intent to write dogma. His intent was to put on the table questions that were in peopleās minds. He didnāt make up these questions. They were present in the minds of many theologians for many years. No one had dared voice them. I think that his courage to voice the questions and try to answer them elevated him to a false kind of stardom. Rather than read the questions and the answers, then come back with answers of their own, some people just took his answers and off they went.
What, then Fr. Ratzinger did was to take the same questions, examine Rahnerās answers and offer other answers. This created a fascinating dialogue in the great theological schools of Europe. However, this dialogue never made it to the Americas. Only Rahner made it. I canāt explain why it happened that way.
I was fortunate enough to be a theology student in Rome at the time when the dialogue between Rahner, Kung, Ratzinger and Wojtila was very active. It was fascinating. Of course they all moved in different directions in 1978 and that was the end of the dialogue.
Nevertheless, they had great respect for each other, even though they disagreed on some very fundamental issues and some not so fundamental things too. There were also points of agreement.
I believe that people should not read these kinds of writings alone. They really require two things: a group where critical thinking takes place, so that if one person is swayed in the wrong direction, others can help bring him or her back to the center. Second, it requires a leader (teacher) who understands the issues that they are discussing and can point out the real question. Often, the question is lost in the rhetoric.
I remember reading writings by these men and looking up wondering, āWhat was the question?ā They said so much, that I lost the question. When that happened, I no longer knew if what I was reading was right or wrong. Because I was in a graduate degree program, in study groups with guys who were very bright, I could recover. Someone always came to my rescue. OK, I admit it. Iām not the sharpest tool in the shed.
If one is willing to keep an open mind, hear the question, and consider his answers, Rahner makes you think. You may disagree with him, but youāll thank him, because he does not let you off with a simplistic answer, āWell the Church has always said this.ā He does not write for that kind of audience. He writes for the person who is going to look at his answers, look at what the Church says, and then go back and find the supporting principles, concepts, works, and scriptural references that the Church uses to make her case.
I enjoyed this kind of reading, because it prepared me for my daily classes. This is the way that they teach theology in Rome. You canāt just give pat answers, āThe Church has always believed this.ā Youāll fail the class. The professors push you to support the Churchās position, not just assent to it. Thatās what makes men like Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict such fascinating popes. They donāt simply give out rules and dogmas. They dish out concepts, abstracts, formulae, principles, alternatives, and a variety of paradigms all of which were behind every teaching of the Church. In the past, the Church only gave out the teaching, not the concepts that led to it. Thatās a very 20th century way of doing things. Prior to that, only seminarians had access to these debates.
Thatās why I like the writings of Pope Benedict. He gives you questions, concepts and then organizes them to answer the question. Thatās what Rahner was trying to do. However, people did all kinds of crazy things with his work, especially in Holland.
If youāre willing to do a lot of reading, Rahner is very interesting. You better like German sentence structure too. Some of his sentences go for two pages.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
