Guest Post: Book Review: Voderholzer: Meet Henri de Lubac

A few days ago I received Rudolf Voderholzer’s sketch of Henri de Lubac [Meet Henri de Lubac]. The German original was published a few years ago under the title Henri de Lubac begegnen (1999), but after a long delay, Ignatius Press released the book a couple weeks ago.

Its value is marked less by the any particular feature of the work than by its market appeal — there is (was) no other full-length and general monograph of his theological contribution.

Sure, we have the von Balthasar’s little book, The Theology of Henri de Lubac, which is excellent in its own right. Yet it was originally published in English in the journal Thought (51, March 1976), the same year it was published in German. The fact that the bulk of the piece could originally be published in a journal accents its truncated nature.

Then we have Susan Wood’s Spiritual Exegesis and the Church in the Theology of Henri de Lubac (Eerdmans, 1998). But this, of course, treats a specific subject of de Lubac’s — his “spiritual exegesis and the Church”. Lastly, I would mention John Milbank’s The Suspended Middle, which briefly outlines the “pure nature debate” and de Lubac’s contribution to it. So brief is the book, that it could have easily been published in a journal. It was received with far less excitement than many had expected, and the reviews which followed its publication were largely negative.

So, we welcome Voderholzer’s book as the first notable treatment of de Lubac’s contribution in English. Despite the many typos found therein (thanks, Ignatius Press!), it is a very worthwhile read, touching on all the major subjects one would expect: formative years, relationship with notable theologians, the ‘pure nature’ controversy and Humani Generis, the vindication of Vatican II and its implementation of most of de Lubac’s major themes (ones that were debated), paradox, his Eucharistic ecclesiology, the revival of the Four-Fold sense of Scripture against the backdrop of an oppressive overemphasis on the historical-critical method, etc...

More, it is full of interesting anecdotal information that I always find helpful, given my concentration in Historical Theology. Here is an excerpt concerning Humani Generis and the “pure nature” controversy:

Upon release of Humani Generis, five Jesuit Fathers (including de Lubac, Henri Bouillard and Émile Delay) were deprived of their authorization to teach. De Luac was transferred to Parish where her lived a hermits life for a time. “One might surmise that the justification for these disciplinary measures was to some extent provided in this papal encyclical letter. In a room that was still empty, in front of an open trunk, de Lubac read the document and could find out now for himself whether he appeared in it and in what light, and which of his teachings were condemned by it. But behold, despite the one- sidedness and the basic apologetic approach that de Lubac noted in the text, not one single sentence could be understood as being formulated against him directly. In a passage where the encyclical dealt with the question of the supernatural, de Lubac discovered that a well- meaning editor who was familiar with his writings evidently had even replaced one formula, which might have been construed as critical of him., which words that could have been written by de Lubac himself. The passage that may have been aimed at de Lubac reads: ‘Others [i.e., other theologians] destroy the genuine ‘gratuitousness’ of the supernatural order by maintaining that God cannot create any beings endowed with reason without ordering and furthermore calling them to the beatific vision’…. As a matter of fact, de Lubac was never concerned with any sort of speculations as to whom or what God can create. This thesis was, purely and simply, that the entire Christian Tradition until Saint Thomas Aquinas and, after him, up to the sixteenth century understood (1) that God had created man [concretely] in such a way that, in his intellectual self-transcendence, he can ultimately attain his happiness only in God himself, and (2) that Thomas Aquinas, of all people, knew nothing about a twofold final destiny of man, namely, one natural and one supernatural. In fact, the encyclical was not explicit enough for de Lubac’s opponents. It contains no defense of the theory of ‘pure nature’”(71-72).

If the book has any weaknesses, I would note the following:

1.) There is little discussion of his work after the Council. There seems to be an underlying point to stress the work that he was doing before the Council and how the Council picked up many of his themes (many of which he had direct contact with in the preparatory commissions) and thereby vindicated any doubts concerning his orthodoxy.

2.) No discussion of his collaboration with founding the journal Communio. Again, this accomplishment was post-conciliar, so it isn’t surprising that Voderholzer left it out. However, I feel that this is a notable oversight because of what this journal has come to signify in 20^th and 21^st century theology — that yes, theologians can be novel and deal with contemporary concerns, yet be entirely faithful to the Magisterium of the Church and the entirety of Tradition. I contrast that with an over-zealous traditional-ism which is often as harmful as Biblical and Systematic theology today that seems to be anything but “catholic”.

3.) Typos. God knows that my use of the English language — its verbal and written employment — is anything but perfect. That said, I am not publishing professional work. Ignatius Press is. They should try to be a little more careful in their editing process. Look to page 140, line 3 for a good example.

4.) Lack of Index. Not taking the time to produce an index is inexcusable for a work that is largely going to be read by theologians and students of theology — i.e., a very “specialist” and “research oriented” readership. Despite my most humble “post” as a husband/ father, I think that I can speak for the “community” at large: we want and like indexes. Even just an index of names will often be sufficient for the person who knows what he/she is dealing with when studying de Lubac. I see this as a mere lack of effort on the part of Ignatius Press, which is unfortunate given that they are the ones who publish the majority of de Lubac, von Balthasar, Ratzinger, etc. in English. Other publishers who have been able to publish the work (primary or secondary) of any of the above mentioned theologians are far more likely to put indexes in their books… and they do.

More could be said concerning the pros and cons of Voderholzer’s Meet Henri de Lubac. My overall assessment is that the work is of great value, especially given the lack of secondary literature (in book form) concerning the great French Jesuit.

Interestingly, right when Ignatius Press came out of Meet Henri de Lubac, T & T Clark published De Lubac — A Guide for the Perplexed, written by David Grumett with a foreword from Cardinal Dulles. Technically, the second ended up being published first (November 3, 2007), but that is because there was a 2-3 month delay on the part of Ignatius Press, which eventually released the work in December.

I will leave you with the opening lines Dulles’ foreword to Grumett’s work:

“In retrospect the twentieth century will perhaps be seen as one of the great ages of Christian theology. It rivals the fifth, the thirteenth, and the sixteenth centuries for having produced authors of erudition, creativity, and eloquence” (vii).

Really? Hmmmmmmmm

Justin Nickelsen