This blog explores both historical and current events guided by the thought of the leading thinkers, past and present, of this school or movement of theology. Refer to the Classic Posts, Great and Contemporary Thinkers, various links of all kinds, in addition to the Archives themselves. David is the founder and manager of this website, but many friends contribute to it on a regular basis.
Twitter @ressourcement Twitter @ltdan4123
Saturday, May 07, 2005
The most important thing John Paul II gave us was...
Caelum et Terra comments about Michael Novak's NRO article on Pope JPII.
10 comments:
Anonymous
said...
How about linking to some articles defending Novak, for a change?
Most Catholics who have heard of Novak are familiar with the positives of his work... there's nothing wrong with David pointing out the deficencies that are also present.
They prefer the powerful George W., Karl Rove and Michael Novak, George Weigel and John Neuhaus---the cozy theologians---to John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
These bloggers---many of whom are glued at their typewriters and do not even hold real jobs---seem not to care about real human beings dying, bleeding, blown away...
Those appear to me to be ad hominem attacks that a serious thinker would readily dismiss.
Thank you for posting this article. It defends Mr. Novak against the "demonizing" attacks that he tends to inspire in some circles. At the same time, Mr. Horton gives us a direct quotation that I, with him, find especially irksome:
'The most important thing John Paul II gave both to the world (including but not limited to, the political world) and also to the Church is new confidence in our own capacities, especially our capacities for self-government, for liberty and responsibility, and for making human life better and more worthy of human possibilities and higher standards. It is not a small thing, to teach people "Be not afraid." '
Be not afraid = have faith in yourself? Give me a break! Ronald Reagan? Yes. Rush Limbaugh? Certainly? But applying these semi-Pelagian sentiments to Pope John Paul II is ridiculous.
I would like to see someone defend Mr. Novak from his own words.
A fourth crucial continuity is my emphasis on the incarnational dimension in theology. Some Catholics commit their lives to an eschatological witness, some to an incarnational witness. The former (Thomas Merton, Dorothy Day) believe that the world is sinful, broken, even adversarial, and they choose to light within it the fire of the love of God, while having as little to do with the things of this world as they can. Those who choose the incarnational witness try to see in every moment of history, in every culture, and in every place and time the workings of divine grace, often in ways that are hidden like the workings of yeast buried in dough. And they lend their energies to altering that world in its basic institutions, even if ever so slightly, in the direction of caritas. Both traditions are legitimate.
Early in my life, as I will recount later, I was sorely tempted by the witness of Dorothy Day and by Baroness de Hueck with her Friendship Houses, and even by the Benedictines. I was also drawn toward becoming a missionary. Yet I gradually realized that my own vocation lay in working in the world, in intellectual life, preferably in environments in which Catholics were few. Early in this pursuit I inclined toward a vocation in political action. By 1968, teaching in Cuernavaca, Mexico, that summer with Peter Berger, I came to see that economics was an even more neglected field in Catholic thought. By about 1976, I at last recognized that a capitalist system was not in fact what I had been taught it was; that no system is, in practice, more likely to raise the poor out of poverty than capitalism; and that capitalism is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for democracy. I began to see that grace works also in economics. ...
Note, however, that the underlying continuity I am stressing here is theological. I am stressing the incarnational emphasis in general, not my particular judgment about capitalism. Whatever the present model of political economy, it will not measure up to the height and depth of the Kingdom of God. It will always be inadequate. The city of man will never be the city of God. http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9904/articles/novak.html
Mr. Horton himself admits that his reading of Novak is far from comprehensive.
Novak's reconciliation between capitalist and liberal institutions and Catholic social teaching is very radical and will be a while before we can all digest it. Time will tell if he is right. Meanwhile, let's all be charitable (Cf. Christopher Blosser's recent "Plea for Civility").
Also: the reason why our copies of von Balthasar as so neatly bound has something to do, I'd venture to say, with the forces of free-market capitalism.
Santi, I asked you to defend Mr. Novak *from* his words in this article, especially the second from last paragraph. Looking over the previous paragraphs, it seems to me that Mr. Novak's meaning is predominately moralistic.
Here's the clearest part from Novak's article: "John Paul II, who knew the young, knew also that the old standards are hard to meet, and that the bars are still as high as they always have been. But he told young people and the rest of us: Be not afraid. Take a run at them. You can clear them. Ask the Lord for help." To summarize: 1. high moral standards; 2. you can meet them; God can help you (almost an afterthought).
Contrast with JP2's own words explaining the phrase, "be not afraid." He says that we should not fear the following: 1. the truth about ourselves: sinfulness; 2. God, who is our Father; 3. our desire for perfection JP2 begins with sin: we have already failed. Despite this, we should not fear God, because God loves us. Our very desire for perfection has been given to us by God who can perfect us as He perfected St. Peter.
Speaking of economics, has anyone read Hernando de Soto?
1. Well, Novak's *other* words absolve him against any charges of pelagianism (or economic determinism), I think.
2. I wouldn't say that he adds God as a an "afterthought." That sounds like a harsh judgement, again, in light of other things he has written--Cf. what I cited above.
3. JPII is addressing young people, telling them to follow Jeezzus. Novak dedicated his work to Pope Pius XI's beckoning to "reconstruct the social order", or whatever it was that he said in Quadrogesimmo Anno. The difference in tasks makes a difference in approach.
4. Moralism? Maybe a little. But not everyone has had the privilege of reading Giussani ;). And in other places, Novak has written about the primacy of love over everything else, love that comes before doctrine, before morality, before even the aesthetic sense (see his apologetics book Tell Me Why).
5. Why am I defending him like this? Because I hope one day I will be defended too.
Christ is in our midst! Thanks to everybody on all the comments in regards to this post.
It's fair to state that Michael Novak is one of the leading Catholic thinkers alive today. He's in a elite camp of Catholic winners of the Templeton Prize. In regards to his ecclesiology he much more a "Communio" theologian vs. a "congregatio" theologian.
Novak could be considered ressourcement in so far as he uses the "method" of returning to the Church Fathers in his writings. In general though, I think it would be fair to state that he is not.
The authentic heirs of this school of thought and/or movement are figures like B16, Angelo Cardinal Scola, David Schindler, etc. All of these figures are deeply rooted in the thought of de Lubac, Danielou, Balthasar, etc. They have major disagreements with Novak's economics rooted in a poor ontology. A very balanced book, which explores the thought of the leading figures on both sides of this debate was recently published by ISI. Therein lies the split between the Augustinian Thomists and the Whig Thomists, which has been and will be explored on this blog.
I for one consider myself more of an Augustinian Thomist than a Whig Thomist so the "defending" of Novak will have to come from those that believe in and follow his thought.
I agree with Fred criticism of Novak's quote and I appreciate Fred holding Santi to Novak's own words. Some (i.e. Houston Catholic Worker, etc.) have made the argument that Novak (and others within the Whig's camp) have been very selective in their use of Church teachings. One could make the argument that the Whigs are "cafeteria Catholics" in regards to Catholic Social Doctrines.
In a previous post (on this blog or on Santi's?) I remarked that both Merton and Day were eschatological and incarnational witnesses. Their thought and lives show aspects of both of these categories. I think it is unfair that Novak reduces their witnesses to be either/or. Why cannot it be both?
Lastly, I would love to hear about the thought of Hernando de Soto.
My major criticism with my fellow Augustinian Thomists is this: we don't do a great job of showing the "practical" implications of our more thorough ontological considerations. The book David referenced is a good example: it's got great essays, but there's a notable difference in translating theory in action between the two groups.
It's a valid criticism Chris. It's the same one that the Whigs make a strong case against us on. They look at reality as it is in the modern world and say, "Where do we go from here? How can we make the present political or economic systems work in a moral way?" One could make the same argument against Distributists as well.
10 comments:
How about linking to some articles defending Novak, for a change?
--Albany, NY
Most Catholics who have heard of Novak are familiar with the positives of his work... there's nothing wrong with David pointing out the deficencies that are also present.
Chris,
They prefer the powerful George W., Karl Rove and Michael Novak, George Weigel and John Neuhaus---the cozy theologians---to John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
These bloggers---many of whom are glued at their typewriters and do not even hold real jobs---seem not to care about real human beings dying, bleeding, blown away...
Those appear to me to be ad hominem attacks that a serious thinker would readily dismiss.
David,
Thank you for posting this article. It defends Mr. Novak against the "demonizing" attacks that he tends to inspire in some circles. At the same time, Mr. Horton gives us a direct quotation that I, with him, find especially irksome:
'The most important thing John Paul II gave both to the world (including but not limited to, the political world) and also to the Church is new confidence in our own capacities, especially our capacities for self-government, for liberty and responsibility, and for making human life better and more worthy of human possibilities and higher standards. It is not a small thing, to teach people "Be not afraid." '
Be not afraid = have faith in yourself? Give me a break! Ronald Reagan? Yes. Rush Limbaugh? Certainly? But applying these semi-Pelagian sentiments to Pope John Paul II is ridiculous.
I would like to see someone defend Mr. Novak from his own words.
Fred, here you go:
A fourth crucial continuity is my emphasis on the incarnational dimension in theology. Some Catholics commit their lives to an eschatological witness, some to an incarnational witness. The former (Thomas Merton, Dorothy Day) believe that the world is sinful, broken, even adversarial, and they choose to light within it the fire of the love of God, while having as little to do with the things of this world as they can. Those who choose the incarnational witness try to see in every moment of history, in every culture, and in every place and time the workings of divine grace, often in ways that are hidden like the workings of yeast buried in dough. And they lend their energies to altering that world in its basic institutions, even if ever so slightly, in the direction of caritas. Both traditions are legitimate.
Early in my life, as I will recount later, I was sorely tempted by the witness of Dorothy Day and by Baroness de Hueck with her Friendship Houses, and even by the Benedictines. I was also drawn toward becoming a missionary. Yet I gradually realized that my own vocation lay in working in the world, in intellectual life, preferably in environments in which Catholics were few. Early in this pursuit I inclined toward a vocation in political action. By 1968, teaching in Cuernavaca, Mexico, that summer with Peter Berger, I came to see that economics was an even more neglected field in Catholic thought. By about 1976, I at last recognized that a capitalist system was not in fact what I had been taught it was; that no system is, in practice, more likely to raise the poor out of poverty than capitalism; and that capitalism is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for democracy. I began to see that grace works also in economics.
...
Note, however, that the underlying continuity I am stressing here is theological. I am stressing the incarnational emphasis in general, not my particular judgment about capitalism. Whatever the present model of political economy, it will not measure up to the height and depth of the Kingdom of God. It will always be inadequate. The city of man will never be the city of God.
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9904/articles/novak.html
Mr. Horton himself admits that his reading of Novak is far from comprehensive.
Novak's reconciliation between capitalist and liberal institutions and Catholic social teaching is very radical and will be a while before we can all digest it. Time will tell if he is right. Meanwhile, let's all be charitable (Cf. Christopher Blosser's recent "Plea for Civility").
Also: the reason why our copies of von Balthasar as so neatly bound has something to do, I'd venture to say, with the forces of free-market capitalism.
Santi,
I asked you to defend Mr. Novak *from* his words in this article, especially the second from last paragraph. Looking over the previous paragraphs, it seems to me that Mr. Novak's meaning is predominately moralistic.
Here's the clearest part from Novak's article:
"John Paul II, who knew the young, knew also that the old standards are hard to meet, and that the bars are still as high as they always have been. But he told young people and the rest of us: Be not afraid. Take a run at them. You can clear them. Ask the Lord for help."
To summarize: 1. high moral standards; 2. you can meet them; God can help you (almost an afterthought).
Contrast with JP2's own words explaining the phrase, "be not afraid." He says that we should not fear the following:
1. the truth about ourselves: sinfulness; 2. God, who is our Father; 3. our desire for perfection
JP2 begins with sin: we have already failed. Despite this, we should not fear God, because God loves us. Our very desire for perfection has been given to us by God who can perfect us as He perfected St. Peter.
Speaking of economics, has anyone read Hernando de Soto?
Fred,
1. Well, Novak's *other* words absolve him against any charges of pelagianism (or economic determinism), I think.
2. I wouldn't say that he adds God as a an "afterthought." That sounds like a harsh judgement, again, in light of other things he has written--Cf. what I cited above.
3. JPII is addressing young people, telling them to follow Jeezzus. Novak dedicated his work to Pope Pius XI's beckoning to "reconstruct the social order", or whatever it was that he said in Quadrogesimmo Anno. The difference in tasks makes a difference in approach.
4. Moralism? Maybe a little. But not everyone has had the privilege of reading Giussani ;). And in other places, Novak has written about the primacy of love over everything else, love that comes before doctrine, before morality, before even the aesthetic sense (see his apologetics book Tell Me Why).
5. Why am I defending him like this? Because I hope one day I will be defended too.
Christ is in our midst! Thanks to everybody on all the comments in regards to this post.
It's fair to state that Michael Novak is one of the leading Catholic thinkers alive today. He's in a elite camp of Catholic winners of the Templeton Prize. In regards to his ecclesiology he much more a "Communio" theologian vs. a "congregatio" theologian.
Novak could be considered ressourcement in so far as he uses the "method" of returning to the Church Fathers in his writings. In general though, I think it would be fair to state that he is not.
The authentic heirs of this school of thought and/or movement are figures like B16, Angelo Cardinal Scola, David Schindler, etc. All of these figures are deeply rooted in the thought of de Lubac, Danielou, Balthasar, etc. They have major disagreements with Novak's economics rooted in a poor ontology. A very balanced book, which explores the thought of the leading figures on both sides of this debate was recently published by ISI. Therein lies the split between the Augustinian Thomists and the Whig Thomists, which has been and will be explored on this blog.
I for one consider myself more of an Augustinian Thomist than a Whig Thomist so the "defending" of Novak will have to come from those that believe in and follow his thought.
I agree with Fred criticism of Novak's quote and I appreciate Fred holding Santi to Novak's own words. Some (i.e. Houston Catholic Worker, etc.) have made the argument that Novak (and others within the Whig's camp) have been very selective in their use of Church teachings. One could make the argument that the Whigs are "cafeteria Catholics" in regards to Catholic Social Doctrines.
In a previous post (on this blog or on Santi's?) I remarked that both Merton and Day were eschatological and incarnational witnesses. Their thought and lives show aspects of both of these categories. I think it is unfair that Novak reduces their witnesses to be either/or. Why cannot it be both?
Lastly, I would love to hear about the thought of Hernando de Soto.
My major criticism with my fellow Augustinian Thomists is this: we don't do a great job of showing the "practical" implications of our more thorough ontological considerations. The book David referenced is a good example: it's got great essays, but there's a notable difference in translating theory in action between the two groups.
It's a valid criticism Chris. It's the same one that the Whigs make a strong case against us on. They look at reality as it is in the modern world and say, "Where do we go from here? How can we make the present political or economic systems work in a moral way?" One could make the same argument against Distributists as well.
Post a Comment