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.
The commentary of Jonah Goldberg, what comes to mind first when the utterly trivial is showcased. I mean the irrelevance of the war and stem-cell research promoting First Things is bad enough, but Goldberg? Whatever happened to la nouvelle theologie? A stranger in it's own house?
One wonders how much attention to a triviality like this David Schindler, Marc Ouellet, or Angelo Scola pay. It has all the significance of the introduction of the hoola-hoop. You really ought to change the name of your web-site, David. Your use of the caption, "la nouvelle theology", is beginning to look like theft.
I think Schindler concerns himself with far weightier matters than how modern political phenomena are reduced to categories, David. He'd be far more likely to be involved in analyses of the notion of receptivity in Schmitz than to give his time over to silliness like "crunchycons", David. As to Neuhaus, I think you're right, he'd find the kind of thought that produces "crunchycons" right at his level. It would be entirely appropriate to his prioritization of the political over the theological, his preference for the cultivation of personal relationships with the prominent over sound doctrine.
Very simply I would say read Dreher's book before you criticize it, but I think you're onto something with your last remarks.
One major and consistent criticism of Schindler's thought, and a legitimate one in my opinion, is that he deals solely at the metaphysical or ontological level and never gets down into the weeds on specific prudential matters as Neuhaus, Weigel & Novak regularly do. Schindler from an ontological perspective has offerred many legitimate arguments against the Whigs, but fails to offer any real practical alternatives.
Personally, I think both approaches are needed and helpful.
Dreher's work is a one approach (in layman's terms) to the question of the nature of conservatism and liberalism (broadly-speaking in both instances). Considering that this question is at the heart of the Schinder/NNW dispute, this is indeed apropos of the type of issues discussed at this blog.
Well, regrettably, I think you're deceived there. Schindler's theological perspective is the only one that is "practical", David. It is based on the simple truth that the meaning of being is love. You really don't need any more than that. He see the world Christologically, as does von Balthasar, which is to see it in truth, of course. To see it, even in it's political dimensions, in any less authentic way than this is to see it in the light of a false pragmatism. Jesus Christ IS the practical, par excellence. We are Catholics even as we're political. To see an imagined, and supposedly "realistic", political dimension in the way you profess to prefer, is to see the nature/grace divide from the perspective of the old, manual theologians. It's precisely this being-in-the-weeds that has Neuhaus compromising his faith. He thinks, for example, that he can act as an advisor to Bush and to have a kind of "moral ecumenism" with Evangelicals without being somehow consummed by them in the process. That's utter fooolishness. It is a naivete born of the most egregious arrogance. But that's Neuhaus for you. We can see all too readily in his stem-cell and war deviations just what comes of his being-in-the-weeds. There is nothing to prevent him from taking an entirely different tack politicallt with these presuppositions. No, he's not in the weeds, he in the garbage.
John, you *do* need more than that, as is evidenced by the mere fact that NNW would agree that "the meaning of being is love". The dividing issue is how that works out in practice.
Schindler rightly critiques liberalism tout court. But what are we to seek to replace liberalism with?
Well, it seems to me that a book about "political conservatism" would have pertinence only to people that see themselves in terms of the range of categories that such labeling presupposes. These categories have nothing whatsoever to do with David Schindler. Unlike Neuhaus, he's a Catholic, not a Whig-con or a Augustinian-con, or a crunchy-con. Distinctions within political categories are utterly utterly meaningless in Schindler's approach to the world. In dealing with Neuhaus, it was Schindler's purpose solely to call him home, to limit the potency of Neuhaus' rather presumptuous claim to represent what is Catholic in the public sphere. He succeeded in doing that. Once the error was defined and laid bare, the "dispute" as you call it was over. The rest is irrelevance. Apart from some juvenile need to interpret themselves in terms of socio-political categories, there should be no requirement for anyone here to focus so intensely on these matters. I'd assumed when coming here that we were all Catholics, not half Catholic and half "crunchy-con", or whatever. It's beginning to look as though I was wrong.
No, Chris, you don't need more than that. Hans urs von Balthasar never felt you'd need more than that, why should you? Implicit in the requirement for greater detail, greater specificity as it were, is a failure to see the Christian life authentically and at depth. I'd have to tell you that we are to be receptive, not programmatic? In a word, we're to be Marian, Chris, spontaneous, and that is to involves no program, no before the fact "working it out". And as to Neuhaus' agreeing that the meaning of being is love, you'll pardon me if I insist that he first demonstrate a proper grasp of theological anthropology, something which minimally would require him to give up his war mongering and his vision of certain embryonic stem-cell research as "morally defensible" as he once described it. No, Neuhaus hasn't even the most vague conception of being as love. He's just a priest who's sought the company of the prominent, thrives in it and has been corrupted by it. No more no less.
Being-in-the-world means being-in-the-weeds, Mr. Lowell. Things are only angelic and ethereal and perfectly clear in your sweet mind. Unfortunately, we are not all privy to its insights. Mere words do not do you justice. In fact, they betray your meaning because they make little sense!
It's informative to look at how St. Thomas talked about "thinking" when comparing Schindler's thought and NNW's thought.
Following Aristotle, Aquinas distinguishes between two fundamental modes of thinking. When the mind focuses on itself or on objects in the world as knowable, it is engaged in speculative thinking (reasoning). I think it would be fair to say this is Scindler's primary focus.
When one focuses on actions or states of affairs as (potential) things-to-be-done, it is engaged in practical thinking. I think it would be fair to say this is NNW's primary focus.
Aquinas is not talking about two minds, or two parts of the mind, but rather modes of thinking. Moreover, the two modes have some simlarities...
Schindler's theological perspective is the only one that is "practical", David. It is based on the simple truth that the meaning of being is love. You really don't need any more than that.
Ok, so what is Schindler's practical [re: loving] solution to the myriad economic issues one faces? Poverty and homelessness? Religious pluralism and the separation of 'church' and 'state'? Fair trade and third world debt? U.S. foreign policy? The threat of international terrorism? Iran's covert seeking of nuclear weapons? -- Dwell in metaphysical speculation all you want, but the very moment one engages the world one deals in concrete, practical matters.
Both realms count . . . unless, of course, one is prepared to confine one's self in a room and refuse to engage the messy world of human affairs and our fellow man.
There are some models here, Christopher, Mother Theresa among them. She certainly dealt with down-to-earth problems in the context of love. Would you address your questions to her? You can you know. She might even answer them.
I mean really, to accuse von Balthasar or Schindler or even me of being oblivious to the existence of the concrete problems of human existence, of Gnosticising or spiritualizing them is purposely to obfuscate in my view. Either that or there is no meaningful grasp at your end of the theology involved. The problems you describe do not exist in a vacuum in any case, Christopher. There's a context for them: the Son of God, Jesus Christ. If you want particulars from Him, pray for goodness sake! Your question presupposes the need for some kind of programmatic solution to these dilemas, perhaps one with a kind of Christian coloration to it. We have quite enough of that at the moment in my view with much of American Christianity paralyzed in a contaminating Dobsonian-Neuhausian Republicanism. If you haven't already noticed, the Christianity of most is worked out quite individually through the operation of grace, it's atomistic, actually, hardly organized. The Christian does precisely what God has for him to do that is right in front of him. What could be more down-to-earth, more practical than that? A Marian Christian of this kind has no need of programs or organizations. Christ is the manager, the organizer. For such a person it is enough that it "be it done unto me according to thy word". When all else fails you may discover this simple fact: we need fewer football stadium rallies and more St. Thereses of Liseaux, fewer Jerry Falwells and more Billy Budds. Communio emerges from such things.
The universal call to holiness occurs through the common every day things as the Little Flower taught us. Christ makes himself known through our family, friends and co-workers. The role laity is to become experts in these practical matters. John, the role of the laity is not the same as those called to the vocation of the religious life. Consider for example the Secular Institutes that Balthasar called for, or how holiness is found in everyday work consisting of very pratical things that St. Josemaría Escrivá reminded us, etc.
IIRC, Schindler himself indicates in his essay in "Wealth, Poverty, and Human Destiny" that there is a "practical working-out" of his principles which is required. And IIRC again, his indicated as much in more than one place, usually with a phrase like, "space does not allow me to develop this here, but...", etc.
NB: I don't see this as a cop-out; again, I'm in agreement with Schindler's critique of liberalism. But I think it's erroneous to assert that he doesn't see the need to demonstrate the practical consequences of his position, let alone to assert that such a working-out is unnecessary.
I think a difference between Schindler and the Whigs is that the former calls for a radical ontological reordering of society (into what, we still do not know), whereas the latter work with concrete existents, and try to tease out the grace therein. Both methods are valid. An interesting question: which method did the Church use after the fall of Rome? What did St Augustine call for in City of God?
Yes, David, of course. The "working-out" of holiness in religious life differs from the same "working-out" among the laity. But essentially this "working-out" is the same. It is the same self-communication of God that grounds it, even though the objects offered to entice the will may differ. The layman is called to the same depth of holiness as is the religious, only the particulars, the breadth, differ, family for one, perhaps, the administration of the sacraments for the other. And there is nothing at all programmatic about it. No one is aspiring to political office so as to make the so-called "public square" immune to atheism, or implementing stategies for the achievement of some grand design ordered to the redistribution of the wealth to the poor. They are simply given their daily assignments as it were and their daily bread.
Very simply I would say read Dreher's book before you criticize it,
I haven't read the book, but I would say that if there were a crunchy conservatism, then crunchy conservatives would be the first to deny that it exists.
"The first rule of Fight Club is you don't talk about Fight Club" Capice?
23 comments:
The commentary of Jonah Goldberg, what comes to mind first when the utterly trivial is showcased. I mean the irrelevance of the war and stem-cell research promoting First Things is bad enough, but Goldberg? Whatever happened to la nouvelle theologie? A stranger in it's own house?
John Lowell
This one of the original responses to Dreher's NRO article which is provided to you below.
A great conversation is currently occuring with many Catholic/catholic minds on it's blog. I encourage everyone to check the Crunchy Cons website out.
One wonders how much attention to a triviality like this David Schindler, Marc Ouellet, or Angelo Scola pay. It has all the significance of the introduction of the hoola-hoop. You really ought to change the name of your web-site, David. Your use of the caption, "la nouvelle theology", is beginning to look like theft.
John Lowell
Refer to my classic post - Test Everything; Hold Fast to What Is Good.
I think Schindler would agree with a lot of what Dreher is saying...
For that matter I think Neuhaus would agree with Dreher as well. I'm looking forward to reading his book.
I think Schindler concerns himself with far weightier matters than how modern political phenomena are reduced to categories, David. He'd be far more likely to be involved in analyses of the notion of receptivity in Schmitz than to give his time over to silliness like "crunchycons", David. As to Neuhaus, I think you're right, he'd find the kind of thought that produces "crunchycons" right at his level. It would be entirely appropriate to his prioritization of the political over the theological, his preference for the cultivation of personal relationships with the prominent over sound doctrine.
John Lowell
John,
Very simply I would say read Dreher's book before you criticize it, but I think you're onto something with your last remarks.
One major and consistent criticism of Schindler's thought, and a legitimate one in my opinion, is that he deals solely at the metaphysical or ontological level and never gets down into the weeds on specific prudential matters as Neuhaus, Weigel & Novak regularly do. Schindler from an ontological perspective has offerred many legitimate arguments against the Whigs, but fails to offer any real practical alternatives.
Personally, I think both approaches are needed and helpful.
Dreher's work is a one approach (in layman's terms) to the question of the nature of conservatism and liberalism (broadly-speaking in both instances). Considering that this question is at the heart of the Schinder/NNW dispute, this is indeed apropos of the type of issues discussed at this blog.
Well, regrettably, I think you're deceived there. Schindler's theological perspective is the only one that is "practical", David. It is based on the simple truth that the meaning of being is love. You really don't need any more than that. He see the world Christologically, as does von Balthasar, which is to see it in truth, of course. To see it, even in it's political dimensions, in any less authentic way than this is to see it in the light of a false pragmatism. Jesus Christ IS the practical, par excellence. We are Catholics even as we're political. To see an imagined, and supposedly "realistic", political dimension in the way you profess to prefer, is to see the nature/grace divide from the perspective of the old, manual theologians. It's precisely this being-in-the-weeds that has Neuhaus compromising his faith. He thinks, for example, that he can act as an advisor to Bush and to have a kind of "moral ecumenism" with Evangelicals without being somehow consummed by them in the process. That's utter fooolishness. It is a naivete born of the most egregious arrogance. But that's Neuhaus for you. We can see all too readily in his stem-cell and war deviations just what comes of his being-in-the-weeds. There is nothing to prevent him from taking an entirely different tack politicallt with these presuppositions. No, he's not in the weeds, he in the garbage.
John Lowell
John, you *do* need more than that, as is evidenced by the mere fact that NNW would agree that "the meaning of being is love". The dividing issue is how that works out in practice.
Schindler rightly critiques liberalism tout court. But what are we to seek to replace liberalism with?
Chris,
Well, it seems to me that a book about "political conservatism" would have pertinence only to people that see themselves in terms of the range of categories that such labeling presupposes. These categories have nothing whatsoever to do with David Schindler. Unlike Neuhaus, he's a Catholic, not a Whig-con or a Augustinian-con, or a crunchy-con. Distinctions within political categories are utterly utterly meaningless in Schindler's approach to the world. In dealing with Neuhaus, it was Schindler's purpose solely to call him home, to limit the potency of Neuhaus' rather presumptuous claim to represent what is Catholic in the public sphere. He succeeded in doing that. Once the error was defined and laid bare, the "dispute" as you call it was over. The rest is irrelevance. Apart from some juvenile need to interpret themselves in terms of socio-political categories, there should be no requirement for anyone here to focus so intensely on these matters. I'd assumed when coming here that we were all Catholics, not half Catholic and half "crunchy-con", or whatever. It's beginning to look as though I was wrong.
John Lowell
No, Chris, you don't need more than that. Hans urs von Balthasar never felt you'd need more than that, why should you? Implicit in the requirement for greater detail, greater specificity as it were, is a failure to see the Christian life authentically and at depth. I'd have to tell you that we are to be receptive, not programmatic? In a word, we're to be Marian, Chris, spontaneous, and that is to involves no program, no before the fact "working it out". And as to Neuhaus' agreeing that the meaning of being is love, you'll pardon me if I insist that he first demonstrate a proper grasp of theological anthropology, something which minimally would require him to give up his war mongering and his vision of certain embryonic stem-cell research as "morally defensible" as he once described it. No, Neuhaus hasn't even the most vague conception of being as love. He's just a priest who's sought the company of the prominent, thrives in it and has been corrupted by it. No more no less.
John Lowell
Being-in-the-world means being-in-the-weeds, Mr. Lowell. Things are only angelic and ethereal and perfectly clear in your sweet mind. Unfortunately, we are not all privy to its insights. Mere words do not do you justice. In fact, they betray your meaning because they make little sense!
And David, regarding reader, leave him alone, he's happy. :-)
John Lowell
It's informative to look at how St. Thomas talked about "thinking" when comparing Schindler's thought and NNW's thought.
Following Aristotle, Aquinas distinguishes between two fundamental modes of thinking. When the mind focuses on itself or on objects in the world as knowable, it is engaged in speculative thinking (reasoning). I think it would be fair to say this is Scindler's primary focus.
When one focuses on actions or states of affairs as (potential) things-to-be-done, it is engaged in practical thinking. I think it would be fair to say this is NNW's primary focus.
Aquinas is not talking about two minds, or two parts of the mind, but rather modes of thinking. Moreover, the two modes have some simlarities...
Schindler's theological perspective is the only one that is "practical", David. It is based on the simple truth that the meaning of being is love. You really don't need any more than that.
Ok, so what is Schindler's practical [re: loving] solution to the myriad economic issues one faces? Poverty and homelessness? Religious pluralism and the separation of 'church' and 'state'? Fair trade and third world debt? U.S. foreign policy? The threat of international terrorism? Iran's covert seeking of nuclear weapons? -- Dwell in metaphysical speculation all you want, but the very moment one engages the world one deals in concrete, practical matters.
Both realms count . . . unless, of course, one is prepared to confine one's self in a room and refuse to engage the messy world of human affairs and our fellow man.
There are some models here, Christopher, Mother Theresa among them. She certainly dealt with down-to-earth problems in the context of love. Would you address your questions to her? You can you know. She might even answer them.
I mean really, to accuse von Balthasar or Schindler or even me of being oblivious to the existence of the concrete problems of human existence, of Gnosticising or spiritualizing them is purposely to obfuscate in my view. Either that or there is no meaningful grasp at your end of the theology involved. The problems you describe do not exist in a vacuum in any case, Christopher. There's a context for them: the Son of God, Jesus Christ. If you want particulars from Him, pray for goodness sake! Your question presupposes the need for some kind of programmatic solution to these dilemas, perhaps one with a kind of Christian coloration to it. We have quite enough of that at the moment in my view with much of American Christianity paralyzed in a contaminating Dobsonian-Neuhausian Republicanism. If you haven't already noticed, the Christianity of most is worked out quite individually through the operation of grace, it's atomistic, actually, hardly organized. The Christian does precisely what God has for him to do that is right in front of him. What could be more down-to-earth, more practical than that? A Marian Christian of this kind has no need of programs or organizations. Christ is the manager, the organizer. For such a person it is enough that it "be it done unto me according to thy word". When all else fails you may discover this simple fact: we need fewer football stadium rallies and more St. Thereses of Liseaux, fewer Jerry Falwells and more Billy Budds. Communio emerges from such things.
John Lowell
The universal call to holiness occurs through the common every day things as the Little Flower taught us. Christ makes himself known through our family, friends and co-workers. The role laity is to become experts in these practical matters. John, the role of the laity is not the same as those called to the vocation of the religious life. Consider for example the Secular Institutes that Balthasar called for, or how holiness is found in everyday work consisting of very pratical things that St. Josemaría Escrivá reminded us, etc.
IIRC, Schindler himself indicates in his essay in "Wealth, Poverty, and Human Destiny" that there is a "practical working-out" of his principles which is required. And IIRC again, his indicated as much in more than one place, usually with a phrase like, "space does not allow me to develop this here, but...", etc.
NB: I don't see this as a cop-out; again, I'm in agreement with Schindler's critique of liberalism. But I think it's erroneous to assert that he doesn't see the need to demonstrate the practical consequences of his position, let alone to assert that such a working-out is unnecessary.
I think a difference between Schindler and the Whigs is that the former calls for a radical ontological reordering of society (into what, we still do not know), whereas the latter work with concrete existents, and try to tease out the grace therein. Both methods are valid. An interesting question: which method did the Church use after the fall of Rome? What did St Augustine call for in City of God?
A Reader
David,
Yes, David, of course. The "working-out" of holiness in religious life differs from the same "working-out" among the laity. But essentially this "working-out" is the same. It is the same self-communication of God that grounds it, even though the objects offered to entice the will may differ. The layman is called to the same depth of holiness as is the religious, only the particulars, the breadth, differ, family for one, perhaps, the administration of the sacraments for the other. And there is nothing at all programmatic about it. No one is aspiring to political office so as to make the so-called "public square" immune to atheism, or implementing stategies for the achievement of some grand design ordered to the redistribution of the wealth to the poor. They are simply given their daily assignments as it were and their daily bread.
John Lowell
Very simply I would say read Dreher's book before you criticize it,
I haven't read the book, but I would say that if there were a crunchy conservatism, then crunchy conservatives would be the first to deny that it exists.
"The first rule of Fight Club is you don't talk about Fight Club" Capice?
Fred makes a good point.
Post a Comment