“Modern Theology”: Catholic and “catholic”
At Theolog, the blog of the Christian Century, the magazine’s executive editor, David Heim, notes the 25th anniversary of the journal Modern Theology, which has an issue featuring several essays on theological developments over the past quarter century. Heim welcomes the fact that the journal has catalogued a move since the early 1980′s from what “seemed a sterile standoff between modernists and fundamentalists” to something deeper today:
Without losing their engagement with philosophy and the social sciences, modern theologians of the Modern Theology type have drawn eagerly on premodern thinkers. As Nicholas Lash writes, quoting Kevin Hughes, this return to the sources of faith “is not a nostalgic retreat to the theological safety of premodern Christendom. Rather, it is a vital struggle for the proper diagnosis of our present condition.”
Furthermore, whatever a modern theologian is these days, it is usually someone who regards the liturgical and sacramental life of the church as a vital ingredient of theological reasoning. Perhaps most striking of all for a Protestant of 1980 perusing Modern Theology is the extent to which “modern theology” has become a catholic and Catholic enterprise.
As a layman with very much an outsider’s view, that strikes me as true, and a good thing for both Protestants and Catholics, upper and lower case. Yes? No?
PS: I haven’t read the 25th anniversary edition, not that I’d understand enough to alter my judgment one way or another.
Moving from a “sterile standoff between modernists and fundamentalists” to “something deeper” is otherwise known as a victory for the forces of reaction. The “something deeper” is usually accepting within the debate a few writers who can be used to reinforce the staus quo of a “center” which is actually quite conservative.
Balthasar springs to mind as an example – a right-wing darling these days.
…and lo and behold! a piece on Balthasar in the 25th anniversary issue of Modern Theology!
http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0266-7177
That it is a reaction to the sterile standoff is certainly true, but why anyone would be content with that, or with tired adjectives like “conservative” and “right-wing,” escapes me. Doesn’t it all depend on what one wishes to conserve? Doesn’t Jesus praise the householder who is able to bring forth from his storeroom things both old and new (Mt 13:51-52), and was not Timothy urged to “defend what was entrusted to you” (1 Tim 6:20)?
A kind of “return to the sources” (ressourcement), which was so fruitful in the Catholic Church during the 20th century, has more lately been transforming a good deal of Protestant theology as well. The journal “Modern Theology” is only one example of it.
As an amateur I would merely say that Nicholas Lash is no fool!
Scholarly and critical engagement with the sources, yes, but Radical Orthodoxy has often created confusion in its high-handed pronouncements on what went on in the Middle Ages and Patristic times. Modern Theology is perhaps the most interesting theological journal around, but it does not provide the lucid and liberating perspective on Christian history that many desiderate. Meanwhile Communio seems to be in intellectual deep freeze.
Modern Theology is not really “Protestant” — I took it to be centrally Anglican, and Anglicans are often more Catholic than we ultramontanists.
I’d like to say that a “ ‘sterile’ standoff between modernists and fundamentalists” seems a lot more interesting and intellectually stimulating than a ressourcement that only reinforces the academic staus quo which is, in fact, quite sterile. Today’s Modern Theology represents the retreat of intellectuals into inoffensive displays of learned virtuosity. see Radical Orthodoxy
The last forty years has been a wasteland for theology except for theologians censured by the Vatican. In general theologians have abandoned their charism and show no courage as they lapse into silence or conformity.
In interest of full disclosre, I am a former editor of Modern Theology.
As to Modern Theology‘s ecclesial identity, of the editors/co-editors (after the founding editor, Ken Surin, stepped down, the journal has always had co-editors) over the last 25 years, three have been Roman Catholics, two have been Anglicans, one was a Methodist, and one an Anabaptist who teaches at a Catholic university.
I regret that Brian identifies Modern Theology with Radical Orthodoxy, but I suppose that is inevitable, since the journal has been a primary venue for the work of John Milbank. But I would like to point out that the journal has also published a fair about of material critical of Milbank, including my own review essay of his book The Word Made Strange,/i>, which criticized the weakness of his Christology. Furthermore, whether one agrees with him or not, I think it is undeniable that Milbank is one of the most original and creative voices in English-speaking theology today.
As to ressourcement reinforcing the academic status quo — I don’t know if Brian is himself an academic, but it boggles my mind that anyone who is the least bit familiar with the modern academic world would think that interest in Christian sources is the academic status quo.
As to Bill M’s remark. . . well, that’s just silly.
sorry for the font folly in the above post.
Thanks, Bill.
At the conclusion of the year of the priest, BXVI noted the continuing value of mandatory celibacy. Shortly before that, Charles Curran had urged a reconsideration of the matter, I thought, because it was not a matter of doctrine but due to the intransigence of the hierarchy to any change.
At the CTSA meeting, it was noted that a major shift in theological relations seemed to have occurred since the removal of Curran at CUA.
That problem of realationships, noted in the discussion on “impasse” in Fr. Tilley’s addess last year continues and, for my money grows worse, within the Church and its thological community.
Now Peter Phan, accused two years ago of spreading “confusion”, is the new CTSA president.
As there are really two communities of biblical researchers in the Church (I was bemused by an ad I saw for a Fordham based Biblical conference featuring today’s “outstanding biblical scholars” – abit of puffery including Fr. Martin talking on laughter in the Bible), so too there are two theological enterporises within the Church, one devoted to working within magisterial approaches only and one more critical.
The fault line – I think is the extent to which critical thinking is tolerated.
Across the VOTF e-mails today are a series that “nothing’s changed in eight years” -i guess referring to Boston and sex abuse.
I think it’s true that no change is the motif of theology in the Roman Church’s leadership, which wishes to deal with major problems they perceive by “visitations” by usualy nice folks to impose the status quo.
But, the theological enterprise of critical thinking goes on, as noted at CTSA, more and more by lay folks and women particularly.
And the impasse continues.
Grows???
There is a great deal of creative and critical theological work being done today. Of course, as Ernst Kaesemann once remarked, “All vas is vritten ist not read.”
May we detect the whiff of a promise of closer communion if Catholic and Protestant scholars are both turning to common sources, and would that not be a reason to rejoice?
I should have known better than to dip my toe into the theology pool, but I appreciate FC Bauerschmidt’s response, and as J. Komonchak just wrote, the overlaps between Protestant and RC scholars in this common venture seem laudable. It was also my impression that many “liberal” theologians were doing a good bit of recovery, as are “conservatives,” and that this “deepening” was not a captive project of any particular camp. Indeed, hasn’t ressourcement arguably been a “progressive” enterprise at many points?
It shocks me to think that theologians are considered retrograde because of an interest in the sources of Christian theology. Nor is it clear to me that the CTSA is the locus of critical thinking (pace Bob Nunz) but it is decidedly the locus for some to exhibit Political Correctness while posturing about being “prophetic”. I think Fritz Bauerschmidt is right on target.
Jim Pauwels is correct: It is enormously important from an ecumenical standpoint that in both Catholic and Protestant theology there is a flourishing scholarship in Scripture, patristics, medieval studies, liturgics, etc. The more simplistic versions of “sola Scriptura” are being set aside, and the role of the living tradition that is the Church is being more fully acknowledged both in historical studies, in systematics, and in practical theology.
Oops, I misattributed a comment above to J. Komonchak when it should be J. Pauwels. Apologies.
My impression is that, despite the “God’s Rottweiler” moniker, Benedict and John Paul II (and Paul VI?) are/were conversant in and comfortable with modern theology, and that modern theological thought informs their writings. Is that impression accurate? And given the papacy’s important teaching role, is it now a requirement that a pope be theologically well-versed?
Father Joseph, this is good news that there is a “flourishing of scholarship in Scripture, patristics, medieval studies, liturgies, etc.”. At the end of the day, if it is true that there is only one Word of God, and if it is true that there is only One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, then there can be only one Magisterium in order that the one Word of God remains consistent.
that should read,… in order that the one Word of God within the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church remains consistent.
A return to sources such as these implies that saving faith and theology have their deep roots in common, a claim that is not universally supported.
A theologian friend used to argue: “Theology is not a catechism!” To which I wish I had replied, “Theology is not only a catechism!”
Amazing that the theologians here insist that the state of theology is good today without a scintilla of evidence. Unless someone will give details that are persuasive the last forty years are as vapid as they are without real charism in theology. But those who are part of the dead theology can only protest ignorance as a necessary defense, I suppose.
Bill,
What would count as evidence? If you tell me, I’ll try to supply it.
Fritz,
Authors and books that you consider serious works in the last forty years. My criticism of theologians is twofold. First lack of serious theology. Second, for those who are more faithful to the gospel as opposed to the magisterium, there is no courage in challenging church officials when they have promoted empire over the gospel.
As in any academic discipline it is normal that insiders see that the field has been evolving and deepening its understanding while outsiders are more skeptical. But even we can appreciate progress by the visible results.
What are those results? Presumably the setup of an institution to receive Anglicans within the Roman Catholic church, the unexcommunication of and discussions with the Lefebvrists, the changes in the prayers of the liturgy and upcoming new missal, could not happen without an evolution of Catholic theology. Could they?
Actually, this could not happen without a return to Catholic (with the capital C) Theology.
Bill,
off the top of my head:
Balthasar’s Trilogy (mostly written post 1970).
John Milbank, Theology and Social Theory
Stanley Hauerwas, A Community of Character or The Peacable Kingdom
David Tracy, The Analogical Imagination
Herbert McCabe, God Matters, On Aquinas
John Howard Yoder, The Politics of Jesus
Robert Jenson, Systematic Theology
N.T. Wright, “Christian Origins and the Question of God” series
Johann Baptist Metz, Faith in History and Society
George Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine
Gerhard Lohfink, Jesus and Community
Walter Kasper, The God of Jesus Christ
William Cavanaugh, Torture and Eucharist
and, of course,
Frederick Christian Bauerschmidt, Julian of Norwich and the Mystical Body Politic of Christ (for length of title if nothing else)
Bill: You could add to those mentioned by F.C. works by E. Schillebeeckx, H. Pottmeyer, S. Dianich, B. Forte, H. Legrand, B. Sesboue, C. Theobald, J.D.G. Dunn, L. Hurtado, E. Johnson, L.T. Johnson, N. Lash, B. McGinn, L. Ayres, J.-M. Tillard, R. Williams, F. Kerr, T. Guarino, D. B. Hart, G. Mannion, L. Chauvet, G. Routhier–all these also off the top of my head. And, if you’ve kept your past issues of “Commonweal,” you could get a good intro by reading Larry Cunningham’s regular reviews of books. The Book Review sections of the major theological journals would also be a source for you. Happy reading!
Bill
Why not list the books you have read and found wanting.
I think Bill’s forty year figure might be too large. Then again, we were blessed with so many fine theologians in the 20th century that almost any subsequent era would seem wanting. Still, the great change that was the advent of lay theology seems to have settled into comfortable professionalism. It reminds me (hyperbole, of course) of the phrase, “jusqu’a 30 ans, revolutionaire – depuis canaille!”
When in your in the trenches doing the hard work of scholarship you rarely have the time to climb up and look out on the No Man’s Land that is the influence of today’s academic theology on the Church, especially clergy formation. There was a time when you could find people reading Hans Kueng on the subway to work, for example.
Lawrence Cunningham wrote:
It shocks me to think that theologians are considered retrograde because of an interest in the sources of Christian theology. Nor is it clear to me that the CTSA is the locus of critical thinking (pace Bob Nunz) but it is decidedly the locus for some to exhibit Political Correctness while posturing about being “prophetic”.
Of course there’s nothing retrograde about scholarship and enlightenment. But resourcement, in general, (and radical orthodoxy, in particular, although I appreciate FC Bauerschmidt’s clarification on Modern Theology) sometimes strike me as a postmodern retreat from, well, modern theology – away from challenging, for example, systemic injustice and towards benign eclecticism.
It’s sad and illustrative of the state of the Church today that you put “prophetic” in cynical quotes.
I don’t think Bill M’s remark was silly — Catholic theology is not going through one of its most creative periods.
Also ressourcement is not a formula for creative engagement with the past. Balthasar, who was good in the old days when he wrote rich studies of Maximus and Barth, has been an utterly stifling influence on Catholic theology since he buried himself in his Herrlichkeit cocoon. One thinks of an oil spill.
The creative potential of liberation theology was nipped in the bud — hence the eschatological deficit of Catholicism today — where we hear more about limbo than about the Kingdom. Moral theology has pretty much disappeared as well — the voice of a Charles Curran stands in judgement over the institutions that betrayed him. As to interreligious theology, the incredible treatment received by the impeccably orthodox Jacques Dupuis, SJ, shows that the Vatican are intent on emasculating this movement as it did liberation theology.
The books listed above are all too revealing…
Yes, there is a lot of scriptural scholarship and patristic scholarship today — it is the best kind of theology — I would say that patristic scholarship is not on the high intellectual level of the past (there are no Harnacks around) but it is certainly a stimulating and lively world, kept up by congresses — and it is particularly flourishing in Italy (France and England have fallen behind). As to scriptural scholarship, it chugs along honorably — quite a lot of drab monographs from SSB etc. — but I wonder if one could name a great commentary on any book of Scripture dating from the last 30 years? Take Hebrews, for example; I have in my hand Otto Michel’s 1966 edition of his 1935 commentary; what more recent commentary should I be consulting?
To point to scripture, patristics or church history is a cop-out in any case. Theology’s vitality is measured by the quality of its work on the central substance of dogmatic theology and moral theology. Pointing to Schillebeeckx and Kasper is a give-away — Schillebeeckx’s Jesus dates from 1974, and Christology has not advanced significantly since then. Kasper’s work as a theologian also climaxed in the 1970s. McCabe, Metz — again names that starred chiefly in the 1970s and earlier. Forte and Sesboue are not original theologians (though extremely meritorious as teachers and communicators). Theobald is the best French theologian — and the irony, again revealing, is that he is a German.
The fact that so many non-RC names are given, and many of these of a dull, conservative stamp — pallid Pannenbergian neo-orthodoxy — is again revelatory. The RC Church is a community of more than a billion people — yet it is outshone in cultural, intellectual and theological impact by the far smaller Jewish, Anglican, Lutheran communities. It is outshone even by Buddhist scholarship, one of the most brilliant and thriving domains just now, pregnant with theological instruction. And why is Catholicism brain dead? The Vatican alone are not to blame.
Kaesemann says that not all that is written is read — I would add that not all that is written is published. Publishers do not want to publish theology any more — except journalistic stuff or textbooks that will sell.
Another revealing thing is that the influential books in the theological world today tend to come from philosophers such as Marion et al.
Theology is flourishing in interreligious circles around Boston (Catherine Cornille, John Keenan, John Makransky); Ingolf Dalferth in Zurich keeps the tradition of German theology going; Italian historical scholarship is not matched by advanced work in systematics, but Ruggieri in Sicily can be cited for his work on fundamental theology; Joseph Moingt SJ has been producing vast theological treatises in his 80s, but French theology (as opposed to French religious philosophy) seems to be steeped in rancid Balthasarianism and Moltmannism. I suppose the best-selling French theological authors of the last 20 years are — De Lubac and Congar…
I am glad that Joe K included Elizabeth Johnson who is distinctive in that she communicates with a larger audience which few of the authors listed by Fritz or Joe do. Elizabeth Schussler-Fiorenza should have a place on the list.
I like Brian’s comment “Still, the great change that was the advent of lay theology seems to have settled into comfortable professionalism.” Perhaps the great fault of today’s theologian is that no on can read them on the subway. I mean there was a time when everyone talked about Rahner whereas he is barely talked about today except by someone who does not like him, namely, Joseph Ratzinger. So an article or book about those on the list and others might be revelatory. Frank Oveis, the retired editor at Continuum told me a few years ago that there was very little of worth in theology being written.
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2009/04/david-tracy-our-erasmus
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6436435.html
http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10456
We pointed to Schillebeeckx and Kasper, Balthasar too, because we were given the forty-years parameters. I should have included Ruggieri in my list, a Bologna colleague. J.-P. Jossua, too, and G. Greshake.
Christophe Theobald was born in Germany, but he is a member of the French Jesuit province and he writes in French.
I could agree that systematic theology seems largely in the hands of epiphanic theologians, which ought to please post-moderns; but I wouldn’t call all their work “pallid” or “dull.” The correlationists still need to work on foundations.
The problem of publishing is a very serious one. The press-run for even well-known theologians is rather small. Willingness to publish translations of books seems much less than it was forty or fifty years ago, so US theologians, many of whom don’t control any foreign languages, is tempted to turn inward. The Italians have a flourishing theological culture, enriched by an astounding amount of translations from other languages. Most Germans seem to persist in the view that if a debate didn’t take place in German, it can’t be a serious one, if a work wasn’t published in German, it doesn’t have to be read. Check out the bibliographies for many German articles and books. When “Sacramentum Mundi,” a theological encyclopedia of sorts, was translated from the German and published in English, an American theologian, having scanned the list of contributors, remarked, “They should have called it ‘Sacramentum Germaniae.”
I love self-refuting claims that the Church is brain-dead.
Couple of comments:-I think the 40 year frame too large, but I think it’s correct to talk about “impasse” in theology an impasse growing over the past quarter century since the removal of Curran through the quieting or attempting quieting of several through local bishops firing outstanding ministers they didn’t see in touch with the perceived party line.
-I wonder if Prof. Cunningham (whosae writings on spirituality I deeply respect) could specify his comments on whos is pushing “political correctness” – I thought that was both snarky and not quite scholarly.
-How well certain theologians have done over past years will tend to be viewed against one’s other basically preconceived notions of where the Church is at prospectively, its strikes me.
But within, i think the Tilley notion of “impasse” from the former CTSA meeting was spot on.
“He was sacked as editor of New Blackfriars in 1967 for remarking in one of his widely anticipated monthly editorials that the church “is quite plainly corrupt.” After his reinstatement three years later he began his first editorial, “As I was saying before I was so oddly interrupted.”
The above refers to Herbert McCabe who is on Fritz’s list.
My apologies for being so slow to the above posts but we had a tremendous storm here on Friday leaving our house (still!) without power.
I agree that systematic theology is in a diminished state today but some people are doing very interesting work. I like Denys Turner’s work a lot and admire the (Anglican) theologian, Mark McIntosh who has left the States for Durham. Odd that nobody has mentioned the powerful work of Bernie McGinn whose fifth volume is soon to come.I also like the work of Nicholas Lash who still writes after his retirement from Cambridge. Here on my own campus I would recommend Cyril O’Regan who has written brilliantly on the Gnostic return in the modern period and, of course, Gustavo Gutierrez who still writes, teaches, and travels.
Apropos the CTSA: I stopped going a few years ago because I found it so dull. It is hard to hear the prophetic voice while staying at an overpriced Marriott.
For Joseph O’Leary: have you looked at Harry Attridge’s commentary on Hebrews? Now at Yale, he was a former colleague and dean here at Notre Dame.
PS: I also like anything Joe Komonchak writes!
Attridge, good tip. We have it in our theology library, which is frustratingly situated an hour from our main campus — I’ll borrow it the next time I go there.
Cyril O’Regan wrote magnificently on Hegel (but again, is this not philosophy rather than theology?). The Gnostic return idea strikes me, a priori, as unpromising, too reminiscent of Radical Orthodoxy with its blanket diagnoses of modernity as nihilism etc.
Greschake is a worthy name, also Huenermann — but are their disciples flourishing?
Gutierrez — Panikkar — such names as these mark precisely the spot where a promising theological renaissance did NOT occur — not through their fault.
McGinn — Turner — McIntosh — is this the “safe” realm of neoplatonizing spirituality (expertly cultivated by another Durhamite, Andrew Louth), rather than a comprehensive theology? Eastern Orthodox theology is indeed flourishing — add to Louth, John McGuckin, John Manoussakis, etc. But again this cannot be clocked up to Catholic theology even if some of its proponents are former Catholics; and of course the suspicion lingers that Orthodoxy has not effectively engaged modernity.
Glasgow has two fine German theologians — Jeanrond and Schmidt-Leukel — whom the Catholic Church stupidly decided could be dispensed with. Jeanrond is a very moderate Ricoeur-Gadamer thinker who has written a capacious Theology of Love. Schmidt-Leukel is the German equivalent of Paul Knitter (with solid philological foundations), and the ferocious rejection he experienced at the hands of the Vatican and the episcopacy has chilled German Catholic theologians who now avoid interreligious issues like the plague!
One place where Catholic theology is quite vibrant is Australia; see the Australian Ejournal of theology: http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/theology/ejournal/
Australian poet and critic Kevin Hart, who now teaches in the US, is one of the most balanced figures in the Marion lineage of philosophical theologizing.
Australian John May has been a one-man theological powerhouse in Ireland.
Padraic Conway has been galvanizing studies of Newman and Rahner in Ireland (a collective volume on Rahner is forthcoming). Andrew Pierce has been reviving interest in Tyrrell, following in the footsteps of his mentor Gabriel Daly.
Nicholas Lash is of course a hardy perennial as is his uncle Sebastian Moore — and there does seem to be a steady crop of younger British theologians — I just note Edward Morgan’s recently published book on Augustine’s Theology of Language.
So maybe things are more alive than at first appears.
Italy has indeed a thriving theological culture, but it still labors under some handicaps: the lack of confessional diversity (in contrast to Germany) and the lack of exposure to the full brunt of Enlightenment reason and the human sciences (in contrast to France). Italy is not to the fore in scriptural scholarship (though it is advancing, while France has fallen far behind). For interreligious reflection the USA has the most potent resources, but Catholic theologians are still paying little attention to the galaxy of first-rate scholars of Buddhism in their midst.
“but Catholic theologians are still paying little attention to the galaxy of first-rate scholars of Buddhism in their midst.”
Why should Catholic theologians be paying attention to scholars of Buddhism or any theologian that does not recognize the ordered, complementary, relationship of Love that is The Blessed Trinity? We are called to a communion of Love, not to worshipping false idols.
Why should Basil, the two Gregories, Ambrose, Augustine have paid attention to Plato and Plotinus? Yet they did, and the great Augustin quoted Plotinus on the last day of his life. Had they not done so how much poorer their theology would have been, and how much poorer we all would have been…
Buddhism is an anti-idolatrous religion par excellence, so your comment is particularly inapposite. Moreover, the second major principle of Buddhism, after Wisdom, is Compassion, and it knits all beings together in what may well be called as communion of Love.
So the very reasons you give for ignoring Buddhism are reasons why Christians cannot ignore Buddhism.
For some basic orientation, see my dear friend the late Heinrich Dumoulin SJ’s book Understanding Buddhism: Key Themes. Dumoulin was consulted for the text on Buddhism found in Nostra Aetate, an important text of the Second Vatican Council, one of the General Councils of the Roman Catholic Church. To talk in the way you do goes against the letter and spirit of the Council.
Joseph O’Leary,
You ought to know that Nancy believes in The Truth as expressed in Laws 129a-130c: the “immortal soul, corrupted by vice and purified by virtue, of whom the body is only an instrument”. Since we, as Christians, believe in the resurrection of the body it is imperative that we discover “The Truth” about these bodies of ours, their attractions, their strengths, their weaknesses, their joys…and their limitations which, I presume, will be overcome by any Resurrection worth the name.
Well, Buddhism, especially as practiced, is full of instruction about the human psycho-physical make-up. Your quote from Plato is actually from Alcibiades I, which many think is too “Platonic” to be really by Plato; see http://www.iep.utm.edu/platopol/
So many Catholics seem to think that the most reactionary and sectarian notes they can strike are also guaranteed to be the most “orthodox” — I guess we all got some of that attitude from our early education. Now I see that none other than Hans Urs von Balthasar augured that the encounter of Catholicism and Buddhism would have the same profound effect on theology as the fourth century encounter of Catholicism and Neoplatonism: http://vox-nova.com/2010/06/10/the-subjective-aspect-of-blasphemy/
Regarding the encounter with Neoplatonism:
http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Heresies_Heresies_Heretics_007.htm
Regarding the vox-nova article:
To be clear, we, buddha, zen…cannot transform Christ, The Word of God Made Flesh. Christ transforms us. We worship The Blessed Trinity, not the blessed quadinity or the blessed pentinity…
Only in a complementary relationship of Love can two become One Spirit in Love. (Filioque)
Regarding the encounter with Neoplatonism, that should read:
http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Heresies_Heretics/Heresies_Heretics_007.htm
Father O’Leary:
Do you know the work of Robert Gimello who is on our faculty? A sinologist with a special interest in Chan Buddhism, he is increasingly interested in comparative theology and has recently been at Stanford where he gave some lectures outling in some detail that interest.
Just by-the-by, can anyone recommend a good commentator on Raymund Schwager? I’m especially interested in his theology’s relationship to Girard’s.
Pardon the personal question…
I seem to remember that there was a dissertation at CUA in the last couple of years on Schwager.
Thank you, Fr. K., probably written under Fr. Galvin. I’ve found a couple of his articles on Schwager in back issues of the Thomist.
It is rather exciting to hear that Robert Gimello is pursuing interreligious theology. When this comes from experts in Buddhism — as in the case of John Makransky — it is full of promise, especially when they guide theology students who undertake an interreligious theme in their doctorates. I have no doubt that Buddhism provides the resources for resolving whatever ‘crises’ Christian faith and doctrine may currently be experiencing.
The Christian dialogue with Neoplatonism (though ‘dialogue’ is too weak a word for that transfusion of thought that we see in Augustine) was of course a critical dialogue. The Nicene stress on the impossibility of degrees of being within the divine was one important critical issue (though Augustine does not seem to have any problem with Plotinus and Porphyry on this front).
Note to Bob Nunz: Peter Phan is not the President of CTSA, but was awarded the John Courtney Murray Award at the recent convention in Cleveland.
Note to “Kathy”: if you read German, I suggest you look at much of the work done in Dramatische Theologie by the Girardians from Innsbruck with whom Schwager worked: Wolfgang Palaver, Jozef Niewiadomski, Roman Siebenrock, Nicki Wandinger, and Karin Peter:
http://www.uibk.ac.at/systheo/schwagerdrama