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.
While I have no familiarity with the books indicated, I do think that there needs be some antidote to Michael Novak, his most disgraceful performance the shilling for Bush's Iraq aggression that he attempted at the Vatican a couple of years ago. That he was stiff-armed there is testimony to his damaged status as a theologian since.
President Kennedy, referring to Castro's then increasing closeness to Soviet communism, once said, "those that ride the back of the tiger wind-up inside". And so it is with Michael Novak, like Hudson and Neuhaus, now simply a house Catholic. But as to a remedy, it suffices to immerse oneself in the theology of Hans Urs von Balthasar. There, unlike with Novak, one finds relevance.
I think it's a tad unfair to link to something like the Bible or the writings of the current pontiff as an "antidote to Novak" but I will be interested to see what is made of the legacy of JP II. Catholic neo-conservatives loudly proclaim their loyalty (Weigel was entrusted with writing his biography) but the general tendencies of nouvelle theologie (of which, JP2 was in some sense a part) seem to be running against the general neo-conservative endorsement of Bush administration foreign policy and American style corporate capitalism.
I can't say I'm too sympathetic to Novak but he seems to have reached new lows of originality and insight recently. First, there was laundry list of state constitutions at the First Things blog. What does that prove? Then, that article about Europe's demography and crisis of the spirit in the recent National Review. Haven't folks like Weigel and "Spengler" beaten that horse to death?
This is not an "old rhetorical trick" as you say. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are the standards by which the Holy Mother Church judges any thinker's thought. As Fr. Giussani teaches us (in The Risk of Education), one must criticize and verify everything against the teachings of the Church. In so far as their thought being consistent with the teachings of the Church, it good and trustworthy. When it conflicts, that's bad and should not be relied upon.
In so far as Rahner's, De Lubac's, and von Balthasar's thought being criticized and verified against Scripture and the Tradition of the Church, it is as it should be. The established Tradition of the Church in those days were heavily influenced by Neo-Thomism and these thinkers (de Lubac & Balthasar) were taking the Church back to its Patristic roots. In the end, the thought of de Lubac & Balthasar has been validated by both being raised to the level of Cardinal, which is the official process of thanking those men for their service. This never happened for Rahner, largely in part for his latter works (i.e. on Our Lady) which contradicted with the consistent teachings of the Magisterium.
Fr. Giussani personally told me, "Americans must stay faithful to the Holy Father and by doing we will save America." He did not say Americans must stay faithful to Michael Novak. It is very significant that the hand-picked (by the Holy Father himself) Deans of both JP II Inst. have very large and significant disagreements with Michael Novak and other so-called "Whig Thomists." Both Dr. Schindler and Dr. Rowland have an understanding of both Holy Father's (JPII & B16) thought, not to mention their understanding of de Lubac's and Balthasar's thought, that is deeper and richer than nearly ever scholar or academic in the world today. They are world-class theologians and philosophers, the best of the best. If they have significant problems with Novak's thought, this should throw up a major red flare to any faithful Catholic. I for one don't pretend to be smarter than either Dr. Schindler or Rowland, do you? Do you pretend to have a mastery of Scripture and Tradition better then they? I certainly hope not. Regardless I shall pray for you.
4 comments:
ahh, the old rhetorical trick of pitting the popes against the thinker. Rahner, De Lubac, and von Balthasar all suffered from the same trick...
While I have no familiarity with the books indicated, I do think that there needs be some antidote to Michael Novak, his most disgraceful performance the shilling for Bush's Iraq aggression that he attempted at the Vatican a couple of years ago. That he was stiff-armed there is testimony to his damaged status as a theologian since.
President Kennedy, referring to Castro's then increasing closeness to Soviet communism, once said, "those that ride the back of the tiger wind-up inside". And so it is with Michael Novak, like Hudson and Neuhaus, now simply a house Catholic. But as to a remedy, it suffices to immerse oneself in the theology of Hans Urs von Balthasar. There, unlike with Novak, one finds relevance.
John Lowell
I think it's a tad unfair to link to something like the Bible or the writings of the current pontiff as an "antidote to Novak" but I will be interested to see what is made of the legacy of JP II. Catholic neo-conservatives loudly proclaim their loyalty (Weigel was entrusted with writing his biography) but the general tendencies of nouvelle theologie (of which, JP2 was in some sense a part) seem to be running against the general neo-conservative endorsement of Bush administration foreign policy and American style corporate capitalism.
I can't say I'm too sympathetic to Novak but he seems to have reached new lows of originality and insight recently. First, there was laundry list of state constitutions at the First Things blog. What does that prove? Then, that article about Europe's demography and crisis of the spirit in the recent National Review. Haven't folks like Weigel and "Spengler" beaten that horse to death?
S.
This is not an "old rhetorical trick" as you say. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are the standards by which the Holy Mother Church judges any thinker's thought. As Fr. Giussani teaches us (in The Risk of Education), one must criticize and verify everything against the teachings of the Church. In so far as their thought being consistent with the teachings of the Church, it good and trustworthy. When it conflicts, that's bad and should not be relied upon.
In so far as Rahner's, De Lubac's, and von Balthasar's thought being criticized and verified against Scripture and the Tradition of the Church, it is as it should be. The established Tradition of the Church in those days were heavily influenced by Neo-Thomism and these thinkers (de Lubac & Balthasar) were taking the Church back to its Patristic roots. In the end, the thought of de Lubac & Balthasar has been validated by both being raised to the level of Cardinal, which is the official process of thanking those men for their service. This never happened for Rahner, largely in part for his latter works (i.e. on Our Lady) which contradicted with the consistent teachings of the Magisterium.
Fr. Giussani personally told me, "Americans must stay faithful to the Holy Father and by doing we will save America." He did not say Americans must stay faithful to Michael Novak. It is very significant that the hand-picked (by the Holy Father himself) Deans of both JP II Inst. have very large and significant disagreements with Michael Novak and other so-called "Whig Thomists." Both Dr. Schindler and Dr. Rowland have an understanding of both Holy Father's (JPII & B16) thought, not to mention their understanding of de Lubac's and Balthasar's thought, that is deeper and richer than nearly ever scholar or academic in the world today. They are world-class theologians and philosophers, the best of the best. If they have significant problems with Novak's thought, this should throw up a major red flare to any faithful Catholic. I for one don't pretend to be smarter than either Dr. Schindler or Rowland, do you? Do you pretend to have a mastery of Scripture and Tradition better then they? I certainly hope not. Regardless I shall pray for you.
Post a Comment