More broadly, Griffiths sheds light on the difficulty we all face as the generation after the generation after Vatican II. For a long time now, critique has reigned supreme, and “orthodoxy” has been an empty standard in academic theology. Alyssa Lyra Pitstick’s trenchant analysis of Hans Urs von Balthasar represents an effort to recover a functional standard of orthodoxy for Catholic theology. Griffith’s makes a very convincing case that she fails. She both overestimates the precision of the tradition on the destination and nature of Christ’s descent into hell, and underestimates the scope for speculation and debate on this theological topic.
An interesting article by R.R. Reno at First Things On the Square. It's curious that Reno should praise Griffiths for refuting Pitstick but honor Pitstick for making a charge of heresy. Isn't that like praising a District Attorney for prosecuting cases heedless of the evidence because somebody should do something about crime... (What next? Complaining that lay people, even women, should not criticize priests and cardinals?).
Hat tip: Ignatius Insight Scoop
2 comments:
Reno says: "We need a functional standard of orthodoxy: one supple enough to do justice to the sorts of nuances Griffiths introduces, but one real enough to help us understand when theological speculation, novelty, and critique undermine rather than enrich the faith of the Church." There has always been a "functional standard of orthodoxy" in the Church, one provided by the CDF and its ancestors in Church History. What Reno fails to ask is: who provides that standard? His sanguine approach to Pitstick reveals the danger to orthodoxy posed by people such as Pitstick, when they set themselves up as the standard of orthodoxy. The Holy Office itself has had a mixed bag of results re orthodoxy; it can itself become narrow as it was the immediate pre-Vatican 2 period. Could Reno then please tell us: who is to provide this "functional standard of orthodoxy" aside from the otherwise still fallible Vatican dicastery of CDF itself?
Yes, when theologians lightly accuse each other of heresy, it conveys the impression that orthodoxy is mainly a matter of opinion. Such also is a step on the road to schism.
Post a Comment