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.
"What made Benedict a Conservative"? I don't think that question, or the student protests, are the right question or the right answer. Benedict has said in numerous places, explicitally and implicitally, that his views have not changed. What has changed, then?
The climate within the Church is what has changed.
Think of it... Prior to Vatican II the resourcement theologians, and I, personally, would include Ratzinger in there--at least as a "son"--were looked at with speculation and caution, really for no other great reason than their dialogue with the modern world, philosophies other than Aristotle, and their basic statment that Thomism--esspecially NEO Thomism--wasn't the end all of theology.
LaGrange--Pius XII's little watchdog--used his position at the Angelicum in Rome, a position he held for over 50 years, and took it upon himself to purge the Church of, what he called, the nouvell theologie. He didn't stop there... he didn't stop with de Lubac, Danielou and the like.
His "best student", as he stated, Marie Dominique Chenu was barely graduated before LaGrange led the committee to place his book on the Index. By extension, the list could go on...
Who didn't get invited to Vatican II? LaGrange. But not only LaGrange, many of the major neo-thomists at the time didn't get invited, and, as it has been said, the theology, or at least the theological "awareness" and "approach" of the new theology was decidedly used at the council. Even Chenu was there!
All of these theologians, Ratzinger included, prior to the Council were seen as "progressive", but today they are not (at least not in typical orthodox catholic circles--major TraditionalISTS still approach them with "caution" to say the least).
Not many of these theologians who have now "become" conservative really changed their positions... The climate changed.
There are many things at play here. I won't exhaust the list:
1. The easiest thing to point to is the fact that "progressives" today are REALLY progressive. Who is going to throw Hans Kung in with de Lubac. Really... of Kung Balthasar has even said, "I merely wish to say that he is absolutely entitled to take the stance of a liberal Protestant with its correspondingly pronounced anti-Roman mentality. What is questionable, however, is his insistence on still calling himself Catholic."
2. Approach has changed within theology. When Vatican II basically adopted and canonized the resourcement approach, returning to the sources, they opened a can of worms. Some were good worms, and others haven't been. The pluralistic scene today in theology started with the resourcement, in my opioning, but it has gotten out of control. Today, when theologians like Ratzinger, and before him, Danielou, etc. are even talking of "abuses in theology" it suddenly becomes hard for people to point to them as progressive liberals. Ratzinger takes the cake here, due to his job.
3. Which leads to the third point, which will be my last, though I could go on. Ratzinger, in particular, had to respond to this "can of worms" when he accepted, not without reluctance, the position of Prefect for the CDF under John Paul, Servant of God. It was his job to expose abuses in theology... when people went too far. Of all things, this contributed the greatest, for Ratzinger, of his "change" from progressive to conservative.
I would simply end with this note:
None of the theologians mentioned, including Ratzinger, ever really stepped over the bounds of theological inquiry. They were all "at the service of the church", but the climate of the time, when people like LaGrange were quickly reacting to anything that scented of "Modernism", lead to caution for theologians that were, well, ahead of their time. With Vatican II, the Church caught up with them, and is still catching up with them, in the pontificates of JP and now, ironically, Ratzinger himself. Sometimes people in the church react too quickly, and if higherups in the church respect these peoples opinions (such as LaGrange and Pius XII, theologians, such as de Lubac, get the hammer.
But as time goes on, as it always has, things relax and it is seen that Aquinas, for instance, really isn't a heretic after all... Even Aquinas himself was not recieved with favor in many sectors of the church during the initial periods after his death.
Ratzinger is as "progressive" as he has always been... But the times have changed...
I never understand the bashing of "neo-Thomism." Jacques Maritain was one of the founders of the movement, and Garrigou-LaGrange was ALWAYS bashing him. He once even told Garrigou that he was trying to add "loyalty to Franco" to the Nicene Creed.
Maritain was trying to do to Thomist philosophy what the Ressourcement thinkers were trying to do for theology: refresh it by going back to the roots. I really dont think Garrigou was a neo-Thomist.
"Maritain was trying to do to Thomist philosophy what the Ressourcement thinkers were trying to do for theology: refresh it by going back to the roots. I really dont think Garrigou was a neo-Thomist."
I hesitated to mention Maritain because I thought it was off topic for my post, but since you have justly brought it up, I might add a few notes of my own.
I recently purchased and read Richard Peddicord's book The Sacred Monster of Thomism, an excellent resource for any student of the ressourcement theologians because it is the only biography of Garrigou LaGrange in any language, and more, he is very defensive of LaGrange. It becomes a useful source for the students of the ressourcement because you get "the other side", but more, you get numerous notes, letters, excerpts from journal essays which were, until now, not translated into English, or at least, readily available. The original excerpts are footnoted, in the original language. Excellent!
He discusses the friendship, and the dissipation of that very friendship, with Jacques Maritain in chapter 5: .The Politics of Garrigou-LaGrange: Relationships with Jacques Maritain and M.-Dominique Chenu
In 1919 Maritain began what would eventually become the Thomist Study Circles, where he envisioned a network of local groups devoted to the study of St. Thomas.
In Maritain's own words:
"God, in making St. Thomas Aquinas the common Doctor of the Church, gave him to us for leader and guide in the knowledge of truth. The doctrine of ST. Thomas is the doctrine which the Church recommends beyond all others, and which she enjoins her masters to teach.
"We believe that in order for his thought to live among men, a special assistance of the Holy Spirit is and will always be needed. In particular, in our epoch so full of errors... we believe that it is impossible for Thomism to be maintained in its integrity and its purity, without the special aid of the life of prayer.
"The Thomist Study Circles... (are) open to persons, who living in the world, wish to work for the diffusion of Thomism or to draw their inspiration from it, while remaining strictly faithful to the doctrine of St. Thomas and to his thought, which lives in his great disciples, such as Cajetan, John of Saint Thomas, or Salmanticenses." (Jacques Maritain, Notebooks, 133).
That last statement, as Peddicord points out, put
"Maritain squarely in the camp of the Dominican Neo-Thomists--the camp identified with Garrigou-LaGrange. As we have seen, the Dominican Neo-Thomists were not interested in what one might call 'the quest for the historical Thomas'; they held that Thomism was a living tradition--a tradition maintained and further energized by St. Thomas's great commentators. The proper interpretation of St. Thomas is found not through historical erudition byt through knowledge of the living tradition of Thomism. Focusing too minutely on what historiography can tell us concerning what the 'historical Thomas' did or not hold runs the risk of obscuring the fact that it is the truth of the various propositions that most matters--not the fac that they can be attributed with certainty to St. Thomas himself" (Sacred Monster, 84).
This is, in fact, what has been the mission of M.D. Chenu--his approach to Thomas is... well... to look to Thomas. It was this approach, which was breaking with all the trends at the time, that, to a large degree, got him in trouble--got him in trouble with LaGrange, his former teacher.
Back to Maritain. While I agree with you, Santiago, that Maritain certainly stands out among the NeoThomists, I wouldn't take this "black spot on a white wall" and run with it to the point of saying LaGrange was, then, not a Neo-Thomist.
I suppose that one must ask what a NeoThomist is, which is beyond the scope of this humble note. However, I might suggest that one begin by looking to the popular "identification" points that history has placed on such a title. Neo-Thomists were known for doing exactly what Peddicord, certainly a student of NeoThomists himself, mentioned above--they are not concerned with just Thomas, but ThomISM as a whole, which, for them, included the "great" (if you will) commentators. Among other identification points, I think Peddicord is correct in placing Maritain among the NeoThomists, a group that does include LaGrange. I don't think that the justified respectability that Maritain earned as a NeoThomis, standing above the trends of criticism that even I throw towards that crowd, warrant throwing LaGrange, who was seen as the GIANT of the NeoThomists before the Council, out.
However, again, Maritain certainly DOES stand out in the group.
I might note, to correlate with my previous post that LaGrange assumed, at the request of Maritain, the position of general director of the Thomist Study Circles. They became VERY good friends. In the end they parted, but even Peddicord, who is very partial to LaGrange, says that this was mostly due to LaGrange. Their battles surrounded politics in France at the time, and LaGrange was very critical of Maritain's involvement in the thick of things.
"As the years went by, the relationship between (Maritain and LaGrange) became more and more strained. Ironically, the source of tension turned on overtly political matters: Maritain, the twentieth century's most prominent Thomistic metaphysician, and Garrigou LaGrange, Neo-Thomism's most eminent spiritual theologian, were to become estranged over contrary judgments concerning the contingent world of European politics."
It was more than a disagreement:
"Maritain recounted that Garrigou found his position 'decidedly too much for him.' Exasperated, Garrigou raised the stakes of the disagreement, casting it as a matter of faith and accusing Maritain of doctrinal deviations."
As I noted, the author says that LaGrange went too far:
"Garrigou and Maritain would not be able to get beyond the rupture caused by this episode. It turned out to be a wound that would not heal. Both men were passionate in defense of their potisions and strong emotions had co-mingled with reason and raith. From our vantage point it is impossible not to conclude that in this matter Garrigou was wrong: ... wrong in avoiding reconciliation with a long-time friend."
LaGrange certainly didn't seem to find it easy to get along with collegues, friends, or students. It seems that his passion, rooted in goodness and truth, wasn't mingled with enough temperance, and in the end it has cost him greatly...
Reputation, reputation, reputation! Oh, I have/ lost my reputation. I have lost the immortal part of/ myself, and what remains is bestial. My reputation,/ Iago, my reputation!
I appreciated the article for what it illuminated. Ratzinger ceased to be progressive when to be progressive required the repudiation of Christ. I do appreciate learning all these details of recent history, Justin.
5 comments:
"What made Benedict a Conservative"? I don't think that question, or the student protests, are the right question or the right answer. Benedict has said in numerous places, explicitally and implicitally, that his views have not changed. What has changed, then?
The climate within the Church is what has changed.
Think of it... Prior to Vatican II the resourcement theologians, and I, personally, would include Ratzinger in there--at least as a "son"--were looked at with speculation and caution, really for no other great reason than their dialogue with the modern world, philosophies other than Aristotle, and their basic statment that Thomism--esspecially NEO Thomism--wasn't the end all of theology.
LaGrange--Pius XII's little watchdog--used his position at the Angelicum in Rome, a position he held for over 50 years, and took it upon himself to purge the Church of, what he called, the nouvell theologie. He didn't stop there... he didn't stop with de Lubac, Danielou and the like.
His "best student", as he stated, Marie Dominique Chenu was barely graduated before LaGrange led the committee to place his book on the Index. By extension, the list could go on...
Who didn't get invited to Vatican II? LaGrange. But not only LaGrange, many of the major neo-thomists at the time didn't get invited, and, as it has been said, the theology, or at least the theological "awareness" and "approach" of the new theology was decidedly used at the council. Even Chenu was there!
All of these theologians, Ratzinger included, prior to the Council were seen as "progressive", but today they are not (at least not in typical orthodox catholic circles--major TraditionalISTS still approach them with "caution" to say the least).
Not many of these theologians who have now "become" conservative really changed their positions... The climate changed.
There are many things at play here. I won't exhaust the list:
1. The easiest thing to point to is the fact that "progressives" today are REALLY progressive. Who is going to throw Hans Kung in with de Lubac. Really... of Kung Balthasar has even said, "I merely wish to say that he is absolutely entitled to take the stance of a liberal Protestant with its correspondingly pronounced anti-Roman mentality. What is questionable, however, is his insistence on still calling himself Catholic."
2. Approach has changed within theology. When Vatican II basically adopted and canonized the resourcement approach, returning to the sources, they opened a can of worms. Some were good worms, and others haven't been. The pluralistic scene today in theology started with the resourcement, in my opioning, but it has gotten out of control. Today, when theologians like Ratzinger, and before him, Danielou, etc. are even talking of "abuses in theology" it suddenly becomes hard for people to point to them as progressive liberals. Ratzinger takes the cake here, due to his job.
3. Which leads to the third point, which will be my last, though I could go on. Ratzinger, in particular, had to respond to this "can of worms" when he accepted, not without reluctance, the position of Prefect for the CDF under John Paul, Servant of God. It was his job to expose abuses in theology... when people went too far. Of all things, this contributed the greatest, for Ratzinger, of his "change" from progressive to conservative.
I would simply end with this note:
None of the theologians mentioned, including Ratzinger, ever really stepped over the bounds of theological inquiry. They were all "at the service of the church", but the climate of the time, when people like LaGrange were quickly reacting to anything that scented of "Modernism", lead to caution for theologians that were, well, ahead of their time. With Vatican II, the Church caught up with them, and is still catching up with them, in the pontificates of JP and now, ironically, Ratzinger himself. Sometimes people in the church react too quickly, and if higherups in the church respect these peoples opinions (such as LaGrange and Pius XII, theologians, such as de Lubac, get the hammer.
But as time goes on, as it always has, things relax and it is seen that Aquinas, for instance, really isn't a heretic after all... Even Aquinas himself was not recieved with favor in many sectors of the church during the initial periods after his death.
Ratzinger is as "progressive" as he has always been... But the times have changed...
Justin Nickelsen
I never understand the bashing of "neo-Thomism." Jacques Maritain was one of the founders of the movement, and Garrigou-LaGrange was ALWAYS bashing him. He once even told Garrigou that he was trying to add "loyalty to Franco" to the Nicene Creed.
Maritain was trying to do to Thomist philosophy what the Ressourcement thinkers were trying to do for theology: refresh it by going back to the roots. I really dont think Garrigou was a neo-Thomist.
This book has a good account of the differences between the ossified Thomism represented by Garrigou-Lagrange and Mssr. Maritain's hip, new efforts:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0268043590/qid=1121391411/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-1269834-5443912?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
Santiago said:
"Maritain was trying to do to Thomist philosophy what the Ressourcement thinkers were trying to do for theology: refresh it by going back to the roots. I really dont think Garrigou was a neo-Thomist."
I hesitated to mention Maritain because I thought it was off topic for my post, but since you have justly brought it up, I might add a few notes of my own.
I recently purchased and read Richard Peddicord's book The Sacred Monster of Thomism, an excellent resource for any student of the ressourcement theologians because it is the only biography of Garrigou LaGrange in any language, and more, he is very defensive of LaGrange. It becomes a useful source for the students of the ressourcement because you get "the other side", but more, you get numerous notes, letters, excerpts from journal essays which were, until now, not translated into English, or at least, readily available. The original excerpts are footnoted, in the original language. Excellent!
He discusses the friendship, and the dissipation of that very friendship, with Jacques Maritain in chapter 5: .The Politics of Garrigou-LaGrange: Relationships with Jacques Maritain and M.-Dominique Chenu
In 1919 Maritain began what would eventually become the Thomist Study Circles, where he envisioned a network of local groups devoted to the study of St. Thomas.
In Maritain's own words:
"God, in making St. Thomas Aquinas the common Doctor of the Church, gave him to us for leader and guide in the knowledge of truth. The doctrine of ST. Thomas is the doctrine which the Church recommends beyond all others, and which she enjoins her masters to teach.
"We believe that in order for his thought to live among men, a special assistance of the Holy Spirit is and will always be needed. In particular, in our epoch so full of errors... we believe that it is impossible for Thomism to be maintained in its integrity and its purity, without the special aid of the life of prayer.
"The Thomist Study Circles... (are) open to persons, who living in the world, wish to work for the diffusion of Thomism or to draw their inspiration from it, while remaining strictly faithful to the doctrine of St. Thomas and to his thought, which lives in his great disciples, such as Cajetan, John of Saint Thomas, or Salmanticenses." (Jacques Maritain, Notebooks, 133).
That last statement, as Peddicord points out, put
"Maritain squarely in the camp of the Dominican Neo-Thomists--the camp identified with Garrigou-LaGrange. As we have seen, the Dominican Neo-Thomists were not interested in what one might call 'the quest for the historical Thomas'; they held that Thomism was a living tradition--a tradition maintained and further energized by St. Thomas's great commentators. The proper interpretation of St. Thomas is found not through historical erudition byt through knowledge of the living tradition of Thomism. Focusing too minutely on what historiography can tell us concerning what the 'historical Thomas' did or not hold runs the risk of obscuring the fact that it is the truth of the various propositions that most matters--not the fac that they can be attributed with certainty to St. Thomas himself" (Sacred Monster, 84).
This is, in fact, what has been the mission of M.D. Chenu--his approach to Thomas is... well... to look to Thomas. It was this approach, which was breaking with all the trends at the time, that, to a large degree, got him in trouble--got him in trouble with LaGrange, his former teacher.
Back to Maritain. While I agree with you, Santiago, that Maritain certainly stands out among the NeoThomists, I wouldn't take this "black spot on a white wall" and run with it to the point of saying LaGrange was, then, not a Neo-Thomist.
I suppose that one must ask what a NeoThomist is, which is beyond the scope of this humble note. However, I might suggest that one begin by looking to the popular "identification" points that history has placed on such a title. Neo-Thomists were known for doing exactly what Peddicord, certainly a student of NeoThomists himself, mentioned above--they are not concerned with just Thomas, but ThomISM as a whole, which, for them, included the "great" (if you will) commentators. Among other identification points, I think Peddicord is correct in placing Maritain among the NeoThomists, a group that does include LaGrange. I don't think that the justified respectability that Maritain earned as a NeoThomis, standing above the trends of criticism that even I throw towards that crowd, warrant throwing LaGrange, who was seen as the GIANT of the NeoThomists before the Council, out.
However, again, Maritain certainly DOES stand out in the group.
I might note, to correlate with my previous post that LaGrange assumed, at the request of Maritain, the position of general director of the Thomist Study Circles. They became VERY good friends. In the end they parted, but even Peddicord, who is very partial to LaGrange, says that this was mostly due to LaGrange. Their battles surrounded politics in France at the time, and LaGrange was very critical of Maritain's involvement in the thick of things.
"As the years went by, the relationship between (Maritain and LaGrange) became more and more strained. Ironically, the source of tension turned on overtly political matters: Maritain, the twentieth century's most prominent Thomistic metaphysician, and Garrigou LaGrange, Neo-Thomism's most eminent spiritual theologian, were to become estranged over contrary judgments concerning the contingent world of European politics."
It was more than a disagreement:
"Maritain recounted that Garrigou found his position 'decidedly too much for him.' Exasperated, Garrigou raised the stakes of the disagreement, casting it as a matter of faith and accusing Maritain of doctrinal deviations."
As I noted, the author says that LaGrange went too far:
"Garrigou and Maritain would not be able to get beyond the rupture caused by this episode. It turned out to be a wound that would not heal. Both men were passionate in defense of their potisions and strong emotions had co-mingled with reason and raith. From our vantage point it is impossible not to conclude that in this matter Garrigou was wrong: ... wrong in avoiding reconciliation with a long-time friend."
LaGrange certainly didn't seem to find it easy to get along with collegues, friends, or students. It seems that his passion, rooted in goodness and truth, wasn't mingled with enough temperance, and in the end it has cost him greatly...
Reputation, reputation, reputation! Oh, I have/ lost my reputation. I have lost the immortal part of/ myself, and what remains is bestial. My reputation,/ Iago, my reputation!
---Cassio to Iago, Othello
Justin Nickelsen
I appreciated the article for what it illuminated. Ratzinger ceased to be progressive when to be progressive required the repudiation of Christ. I do appreciate learning all these details of recent history, Justin.
Post a Comment