Survival of the Catholic intellectual tradition

[Dolezal]

Benedict XVI on faith and reason: “[O]nly a harmonious relationship between faith and reason can show the correct path to God and to self-fulfillment.”

The Church seems to be keeping her numbers up in the United States, but this seems to be thanks to Mexican immigrants. In Europe, especially Western Europe, Catholicism is disappearing. In my country, before the Second Vatican Council, more than 90 percent of Catholics regularly attended Mass, and the Catholic religion was fast becoming a majority religion. Today, 0.4 percent of Dutch Catholics go to Mass, and the Church has lost all her social influence. Also, the fertility rate of Western Europeans is far below the replacement level of 2.1.

So who will continue our tradition of rational philosophy and theology? The Chinese and other Asian bishops even complained that the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a rather simple and straightforward presentation of the Catholic faith, was “too rational, too Western”. Neither do I see Africans studying, say, Aristotle or Aquinas. What about arguments for theism from modal epistemology, metaphysics, possible worlds, et cetera. Are non-American, non-European Catholics even familiar with those arguments? Is there any hope perhaps in Latin America?

 

[ColdComfort]

Benedict XVI on faith and reason: “[O]nly a harmonious relationship between faith and reason can show the correct path to God and to self-fulfillment.”

The Church seems to be keeping her numbers up in the United States, but this seems to be thanks to Mexican immigrants. In Europe, especially Western Europe, Catholicism is disappearing. In my country, before the Second Vatican Council, more than 90 percent of Catholics regularly attended Mass, and the Catholic religion was fast becoming a majority religion. Today, 0.4 percent of Dutch Catholics go to Mass, and the Church has lost all her social influence. Also, the fertility rate of Western Europeans is far below the replacement level of 2.1.

So who will continue our tradition of rational philosophy and theology? The Chinese and other Asian bishops even complained that the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a rather simple and straightforward presentation of the Catholic faith, was “too rational, too Western”. Neither do I see Africans studying, say, Aristotle or Aquinas. What about arguments for theism from modal epistemology, metaphysics, possible worlds, et cetera. Are non-American, non-European Catholics even familiar with those arguments? Is there any hope perhaps in Latin America?

I’m not sure about Africa but I’m pretty sure educated Catholics study Aquinas the same as Westerners. The Catholic Church, and it’s learning, survived the Dark Ages. Small Catholic colleges and faithful Catholics are like the isolated monasteries that preserved the faith and the heritage of Western literature.

 

[Elizabeth502]

So who will continue our tradition of rational philosophy and theology?

I’m so glad you had the courage to open this thread. I think this has been the Elephant in the Room for quite some time. It affects the whole Church. We are rational beings as well as people of faith. Faith, and the sustenance of that faith, is not simply an emotional attraction. Emotion often aids, esecially in the initial conversion or reconversion, but thousands of Christian sects later (many of whom do rely on emotion) are proof that emotion in itself has been insufficient to retain believers and to grow belief.

God made us whole: mind, body, spirit. He expects us to discover Him in all 3 ways; he is located in all dimensions. He speaks to us in all dimensions. He sustains His Church in all dimensions. Catechesis has suffered, tremendously, because of the abandonment of rational understanding of the Truths of the Faith. You cannot defend what you do not understand rationally. You cannot follow the answer to a doctrinal question if you cannot follow logical argument. You cannot contextualize new moral dilemmas if have no clue what the premises of our Faith are. And you will never be able to resist the amoral and expedient arguments of The World if you are not solidly grounded in a Faith that is rational and in which you have been rationally educated.

The Church will also continue to bleed intellectuals from it, as it has been doing for quite some time now, if it doesn’t recover and nourish its intellectual tradition. It is a stereotype of the modern Catholic age that intellectuals have been “bad” for the Church. In point of fact, intellectuals started leaving the Church when intellectualism began to be de-emphasized, the faith began to be watered down in a misguided attempt “to appeal to the Masses,” and when intellectual confusion reigned after V2. The irony is that PJXXIII was a highly intellectual man. He probably turned in his grave more than a few times when the fruit of the Council proved to be quite other than the tone he set for it.

Reason is not superior to faith, we know. We know that it is indispensable to faith.

I don’t have your answer for you, OP. but it has been a burning issue for me for a very long time.

 

[TimothyH]

So who will continue our tradition of rational philosophy and theology? The Chinese and other Asian bishops even complained that the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a rather simple and straightforward presentation of the Catholic faith, was “too rational, too Western”. Neither do I see Africans studying, say, Aristotle or Aquinas. What about arguments for theism from modal epistemology, metaphysics, possible worlds, et cetera. Are non-American, non-European Catholics even familiar with those arguments? Is there any hope perhaps in Latin America?

They are exactly right. What is wrong with the western Church is not a lack of intellectualism but too much of it to the exclusion of mystery.

People can get rational philosopy from AM talk radio. All they have to do is turn on the radio or the TV and they can get all they want. Life is full of rational debate and philosophy - it is taught in high schools and universities throughout the western world and manifested in the reality TV and every other aspect of our lives. We get Aristotle and Aquinas from Rush Limbauh.

What is missing is mystery - the mystical experience of being touched by God in a way beyond what is rational and explainable. There is no more radical experience than eating the flesh of God. Very few experiences compare to having a personal conversation with the creator and redeemer of the universe in prayer.

With all due respect, most people don’t want to go to Church to hear lectures about philosophy. People want to know why their son is on drugs, why their husband had to die or why they lost their job, and they want to know where all this joy and peace is that Christians always speak about but they never seem to be able to find.

Blessed John Paul II was a mystic, and one of the most successful Popes in history. What’s missing is mystery, not rational philosphy. We are too smart for our own good.

-Tim-

 

[Elizabeth502]

They are exactly right. What is wrong with the western Church is not a lack of intellectualism but too much of it to the exclusion of mystery.

People can get rational philosopy from AM talk radio. All they have to do is turn on the radio or the TV and they can get all they want. Life is full of rational debate and philosophy - it is taught in high schools and universities throughout the western world and manifested in the reality TV and every other aspect of our lives. We get Aristotle and Aquinas from Rush Limbauh.

What is missing is mystery - the mystical experience of being touched by God in a way beyond what is rational and explainable. There is no more radical experience than eating the flesh of God. Very few experinces compare to or of having a personal conversation with the creator and redeemer of the universe in prayer.

With all due respect, most people don’t want to go to Church to hear lectures about philosophy. People want to know why their son is on drugs, why their husband had to die or why they lost their job, and they want to know where all this joy and peace is that Christians always speak about but they never seem to be able to find.

Blessed John Paul II was a mystic, and one of the most successful Popes in history. What’s missing is mystery, not rational philosphy. We are too smart for our own good.

None of that is what the OP is talking about. Those of us who received both were enriched by the symbiosis of faith and reason, by the mutuality of spriit and mind. They are not in opposition. Any suggestion of that the Church considers heresy. No one except you is talking about “lectures in philosophy.”

 

[TimothyH]

None of that is what the OP is talking about. Those of us who received both were enriched by the symbiosis of faith and reason, by the mutuality of spriit and mind. They are not in opposition. Any suggestion of that the Church considers heresy. No one except you is talking about “lectures in philosophy.”

The OP stated:

The Chinese and other Asian bishops even complained that the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a rather simple and straightforward presentation of the Catholic faith, was “too rational, too Western”.

I simply agreed.

The OP complained that the Church in Africa does not study Aristotle or Aquinas and I’ll simply point out that the Church in Africa is growing.

I’m sorry if my contrary opinion bothers you and I will stay out of your discussion if that is what you want. The truth is that telling philosophers that too much philosophy is a problem was a non-starter and should have known better than to get involved in the first place.

-Tim-

 

[Peter_Plato]

The OP stated:

The Chinese and other Asian bishops even complained that the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a rather simple and straightforward presentation of the Catholic faith, was “too rational, too Western”.

I simply agreed.

The OP complained that the Church in Africa does not study Aristotle or Aquinas and I’ll simply point out that the Church in Africa is growing.

I’m sorry if my contrary opinion bothers you and I will stay out of your discussion if that is what you want. The truth is that telling philosophers that too much philosophy is a problem was a non-starter and should have known better than to get involved in the first place.

-Tim-

Perhaps what you are hinting at is that mysticism provides the vision that is beyond the scope of existing philosophy. However, I would argue, (with Elizabeth502, I suspect) that philosophy then adds the scaffolding to allow a structure for those of a less “adventurous” mind to attain the Truth.

Mysticism can lead some off the right path, it is good to have solid guideposts, provided by philosophy and Tradition to indicate the general direction. In some ways, mystics are the “scouts” that bravely seek the path unseen, but philosophy adds the more visible elements.

Just a thought.