Today, Matthew Milliner, an Art History student at Princeton Univ., posted a reflection on Reno’s article, which I wrote about yesterday. Milliner begins by recounting the recent art conference, Retracing the Expanded Field, at Princeton’s School of Architecture. The conference included art critic legends like Hal Foster, who seem now to be arguing the same thing about the practice of Art Criticism as Reno does about Theology, namely that revolutionary movements in art, Post-modernisms namely, have been great for shaking up the paradigms, but they’ve done so to the extent that Criticism has yet to find a unified machinery from which to continue to assess art. Like the Heroic Generation, figures like Piet Mondrian and Andre Malraux (to use Milliner’s examples), gained enough momentum to attract a following, but failed to provide a stable “baseline” from which others could grow or rebel. Now, many are without enough of a tradition or background to converse gainfully with others in the field, resulting in a kind of Babel experience. Milliner goes on to conclude that as with the supposed break of the Heroic Generation with the 2 centuries of theological neo-scholasticism before them, so the “post-moderns” broke with those before them, like the New Criticism group (Clement Greenberg, et. al.). Continue reading ‘The Heroic Generation and Art Criticism’s Tower of Babel’
Monthly Archive for May, 2007
Rusty Reno has a great review article over at the First Things website of Fergus Kerr’s new book, Twentieth-Century Catholic Theologians: From Chenu to Ratzinger, on the last generation of Catholic theologians, covering greats like Yves Congar, de Lubac, Balthasar, and Rahner. The book actually goes all the way through JP II and Ratzinger/Benedict. Meant not as much as a survey of all RC 20th and 21st C theology, but rather as an examination of what Kerr considers the archetypes of RC theology in the last century, Reno lauds Kerr’s decision to consider how these theologians “fundamentally changed the way in which the Church thinks.” These are the theologians of the “Heroic Generation”.
Since I’m pretty sure you have to be a subscriber to FT, and will therefore not be able to follow the above link, I’ll do my best to highlight the salient points of the article, although you really should try to get your hands on it or, better yet, buy the book.
Kerr chose this particular group because he believes each in his own way articulates a form of post-neoscholastic RC theology. To be sure, the variance between each occurs in greater and lesser degrees. Whereas the distance between de Lubac and Ratzinger is bridged nicely by Balthasar, it could be argued that there is a fundamental split between Rahner and Balthasar. Thus, Kerr’s survey functions less like Frei’s “typology” and more like a historical text, exploring the nuances of these theologians’ projects within the larger scheme of church theology of the time.
In this respect, one of the most interesting arguments, as Reno points out, regarding the attrition in RC theological culture after Vatican II. I know little about Bernard Lonergan, so I was surprised to learn that Kerr considers him to be one of the most acute philosophical minds in this group. Lonergan, according to Kerr, successfully overcame the dualistic, scholastic reading of Thomas, and proposed in his 1972 Grace and Freedom: Operative Grace in the Thought of St. Thomas Aquinas a new way of understanding Thomas that was more sensitive to recent Continental developments. However, with Vatican II and the concurrent distaste for neo-scholasticism came a diminished vocabulary and skill set among theology students – they couldn’t grasp either the original debate about neo-scholasticism or Lonergan’s creative solution. In this way, Lonergan’s impact was small, although his contribution was potentially large.
Reno states that Kerr makes a similar argument about Henri de Lubac and the loss of his unique contribution with the loss of fluency with Thomism, but I would disagree slightly here. Students, both of philosophy and theology, are rediscovering de Lubac on two fronts. First, von Balthasar’s mediation of Lubac is worth noting, and as Balthasar’s coverage grows, so does Lubac’s. Second, Lubac’s work on Surnaturel and similar works are gaining popularity among philosophy students who have followed the Derrida/Marion and Zizek/Badiou trains as far as they can go. Creative, orthodox theology seems to have something to offer them that exotic philosophies couldn’t.
Reno ends the article by extolling the virtue of a stable, culture forming theology, geared toward educating the church in “the common framework and vocabulary, to prepare them to become full participants in the theological project.” A “exploratory theologian” himself, he recalls popular dismissals of “dusty” Thomism and encourages, with Pope Leo XIII’s 1879 Aeterni Patris, the reader to recognize that “without a standard theology, the Church will lack precisely the sort of internally coherent and widespread theological culture that is necessary for understanding and employing bold new experiments and fruitful recoveries of past traditions.” Yet, while these archetypes of the Heroic Generation were largely innovators and criticized the status quo Thomism, they weren’t seeking to destroy the base, necessarily, but Reno faults many of them, including an acrimonious bit toward von Balthasar for offering “only criticism, much of it bitter and dismissive, and he launched out in new directions with little regard for the official, mainstream theologies of the day.” Had Balthasar attempted to engage theological education, Reno argues, there might have been some constructive value in offering his theology in an introduction to Catholic Theology. However, as it stands, Reno advocates in stead a critical examination of the time that these thinkers worked in. Although they offered many biting criticisms and little constructive engagements with Traditional theological education, we should strive to understand the problems they were trying to correct within their context. “[T]he old theological culture of the Church has largely been destroyed, while the Heroic Generation did not, perhaps could not, formulate a workable, teachable alternative to take its place.” To this extent Reno practically blames Balthasar and others for creating the vacuum that Rahner ended up filling.
Today, lacking the educational and theological base that made thinkers like Balthasar and Rahner possible, Reno calls for a renewal of theology that cares about the concerns and suggestions made by the “Heroic Generation”, but that also seriously evaluates and compensates for their errors.
Reno demonstrates his chastened appropriation in the last paragraph by calling for a ressourcement, this time one that doesn’t only creatively summon the brilliance of the Patristics and Medievals, but one that also recovers the riches of the neo-scholastic period in light of the Heroic Generation.
“To overcome the poverty of the present, our generation must base its theological vision on a fuller, deeper form of ressourcement, one that discerns the essential continuity of the last two hundred years of Catholic theology. After an era of creativity, exploration, and discontinuity, much of it fruitful and perhaps necessary, we need a period of consolidation that allows us to integrate the lasting achievements of the Heroic Generation into a renewed standard theology.”
Reno is right to recall our attention to the lost theologians of the 18th and 19th centuries. As recent work in Schliermacher has demonstrated, sometimes the theologians influenced by the events and philosophies of the European continent in the 20th century were too hasty in the dismissals of such figures. Maybe we can see what they couldn’t thanks to their insights. Maybe our sensibilities, having been admonished by the “Heroic Generation”, enjoy a special perspective that allows us to hang in the balance between those neo-scholastic minds and the post-war, Vatican II intellectuals.
Aron and I recently came up Francis Hall’s Theological Outlines over at the Disseminary. Since the nice fellas over there uploaded all three volumes of the Outlines, we decided we should read them. So, until we finish them, or get tired of them, or you get tired of us, we’re occasionally going to use this blog as a forum for discussion on the Outlines. We invite you to join us.
By way of introduction, let’s look at Hall himself first.
Hall (1857-1933)was a priest and professor, at one time Chair of Dogmatic Theology at General Theological Seminary in NY. He was an active Anglo-catholic, and delivered a rousing essay on re-union of the Catholic Church at the 2nd Anglo-catholic Congress in 1923. From 1892-95, he wrote the three vols of the outlines. Then, from 1908-1922 he published the 10 volumes Dogmatic Theolgy.
Tonight, I’ll quickly summarize the first section, a response to the question, “What is Theology?” Like any good systematician, Hall answers that Theology is a science, specifically the science of anything and everything that relates to God. Naturally, this means that not a thing falls outside the purview of theology. “Theology cannot be shut out from any sphere of being or fact, but treats of all things in so far as they are related to God and Divine purposes.” Rather, theology, as our knowledge of God’s natural and supernatural dealings (but especially in our world) is nourished by the involvement and findings of the other disciplines. So, while there should be a conservative element and compulsion in theology vs. a willy nilly rejection of tradition, there is also a progressive movement always happening in theology as the other disciplines and theologians make new discoveries. “Theology is a progressive science, for it can never exhaust the scientific bearings of the Faith; and is enriched by every increase in natural knowledge, in so far as such knowledge throws light upon Divine operations and purposes.”
NB. Hall declares at the opening of his 4th footnote – a rather long footnote in which he outlines the history of the Systematic and Dogmatic theology tome – that “Anglican literature lacks a really complete treatise of Dogmatic Theology.”
Not much has changed in over 100 years.
Recent Comments