Philosophy and Theology

This study elaborates, illustrates and evaluates two different reading trajectories for approaching Fides et Ratio starting from the ambiguity which is apparent in the encyclical. The first trajectory, points foremost to the continuity between reason and faith. According to this first trajectory the encyclical presents a pre-modern model of philosophy, which has left the modern philosopher shocked and the theologian vexed. It also suffers from a confusion of philosophical and theological discourse. The second trajectory, from the perspective of an inner-theological reading, understands the encyclical’s aspirations as fides quaerens intellectum. In developing a sacramental concept of truth, the encyclical bears within itself the deconstruction of the defensive, anti-modern position of the first trajectory, precisely by accentuating the discontinuity between reason and faith. A theology, which takes account of the actual, post-modern critical consciousness may find in Fides et Ratio a basis for further reflection.

A nonfoundationalist reading of Fides et Ratio, both in its negative regard for Enlightenment reasoning and its implicit understanding of the philosophical task of justifying belief, enables an appreciation of the encyclical as a particular kind of post-Enlightenment Roman Catholic stance. A nonfoundationalist perspective, understood as a philosophical position on the justification of belief, can be instructive in the encyclical’s articulation of Credo ut intelligam. Fides et Ratio offers a contextualized understanding of justification in its treatment of universality that can only be recognized, affirmed and confessed within the particularity of faith.

What are the implications of Fides et Ratio for religious pluralism? The constructed context of this encyclical is a world characterized by diversity, and so the text argues for universal reason that can bridge this diversity. Yet the subtext reveals a singular truth associated with holiness that functions to limit diversity in a problematic way. This paper will explore both text and subtext in the multiple layers of this encyclical to illuminate its construction of religious pluralism. The conclusion of this paper aims to highlight discussions of religious pluralism that recognize multiple rationalities and holiness embodied in practice.

This paper proposes a wider framework for the diagnostic and evaluative readings of Fides et Ratio. Each commentator has provided an exit from the impasse of the encyclical’s rhetoric of affirmation and denial in the form of a double reading of the text. In a wider framework, John Paul II holds up Antonio Rosmini among those whose works he considers paradigmatic for the fruitful relation between faith and reason. This displays a period of a prolonged struggle between an Augustinian and a Thomist style of theology which finds expression in a Christ-versus-culture approach in Catholic theology. The reading of Fides et Ratio reveal something of a “third way” in their affirmative readings of the encyclical.

Hans Urs von Balthasar calls for a revival of what he sees as the original relationship between human holiness and Christian theology. He suggests that modern theologians should imitate their patristic forebears to the extent that they combine holy living with an objective stance corresponding to the intellectual rigor proper to theology. The article summarizes von Balthasar’s analysis of the development and current state of what he portrays as the problem of separation between theology and human holiness, considers the role of philosophy in shaping the relationship between them, and indicates the way forward for theology, given a Balthasarian analysis. Finally, the article considers how far von Balthasar’s approach can alleviate the crisis which theology is currently facing.

Leibniz used Descartes’ strict notion of substance in “That a Most Perfect being is Possible” to characterize God but did not intend to undermine his own philosophical views by denying that there are created substances. The metaphysical view of substance in this passage is Cartesian. A discussion of radical substance without any sort of denial in the possibility of other substances does not indicate Spinozism. If this interpretation is correct, then the passage is neither anomalous nor mysterious. There is reason to believe that the passage expresses just the beliefs that we should expect Leibniz to hold in his De Summa Rerum period. Furthermore, this interpretation indicates that while Leibniz’s metaphysics during this stage of his career is suggestively similar to Spinoza’s, there is no evidence that Leibniz accepted Spinoza’s pantheistic conclusion.

(1) Diametrically opposed standpoints can be maintained regarding God’s place in philosophy, namely that God has a central place here and, contrariwise, that philosophers should do their explanatory work without recourse to God. (2) The distinction between theistic and naturalistic issues is crucial here, because (3) the naturalistic sphere is substantially secular in orientation and is, in general, explanatorily closed. (4) A recourse to theistic considerations is not in order in the naturalistic domain insofar as the issues are local in character. (5) And since this in generally the case, the vast majority of philosophical issues admit of purely secular treatment. After all, philosophical theology is but a small part of philosophy. (6) Such localism is assured by considerations of explanatory economy. (7) What is at issue is not a matter of odium theologicum but simply of the rational procedure of beings whom God himself would surely want to make the fullest possible use of their God-given reason.

This paper explores the continuing relevance of Karl Rahner’s work on development of doctrine to a church within a world marked by an emerging postmodern consciousness. It focuses primarily on three elements of development as Rahner understands it, theological discussion, the influence of the Spirit and the role of church authority. The discussion of a possible definition of Mary as co-redemptrix and the controversy over the ordination of women are cited as concrete examples of issues of development facing the church today. Rahner’s increasing awareness of the context of irreducible plurality that marks the world-church of today and tomorrow led him to the increasing conviction in the later works that the Spirit is leading the church to a deepening understanding of the central mysteries of faith rather than to a further proliferation of defined dogmas. In the later works especially, he encouraged an attitude of open discussion that reflects the confidence that the Spirit is with the whole church as it struggles to express its faith in ever changing contexts. The paper concludes that Rahner’s understanding of the complex balance of elements involved in authentic doctrinal development continues to offer valuable insight to today’s discussions.

Karl Rahner’s “world church” turns out to be a church of significant theological and cultural pluralism in which doctrine can sometimes strain to unify disparate elements. This article examines this problem in light of Rahner’s theory of doctrinal development. First, it examines the notion of doctrine itself, suggesting a pliable model inspired by usages of “dogma” in the early church which reflect both teaching and confession of faith. Second, Rahner’s theory of doctrinal development is discussed in light of Newman’s theory. Rahner’s theory shares Newman’s emphasis on “mind” or “faith consciousness.” Although both attend to the historical mediations of revelation, the truth of doctrine remains at an ideational level, an expression of abstract truth. William Lynch’s notion of the imagination of faith and dogma as a poetic embodiment of truth offers an alternative model that accommodates fundamental insights of both Rahner and Newman. Finally, this article discusses how we can find a foundation for coherence amidst a pluralism of interpretations. The ancient regula fidei is invoked. Here, Rahner’s suggestion of short creedal formulae provides a possible modern equivalent. It is also itself an example of doctrinal development appropriate for situations within the world church in which Catholics now find themselves.

This paper focuses on Karl Rahner’s understanding of the relationship between history and the church’s doctrine. It locates doctrine within Rahner’s view of the church as the sacrament of Jesus Christ in history and the development of doctrine as a response to issues raised by the church’s historical existence. Rahner’s theology of the priesthood is used as a concrete example of his understanding of doctrine and its development. The paper explores also the continuing value of Rahner’s ideas for the contemporary church.

In a comment on concupscentia, Rahner says that while we may properly draw a distinction between “the spiritual and the sensitive as between two really distinct powers of man,” we must recognize that no human power can be conceived as a “thing.” Given that caution, what would Rahner think of the Freudian “Id”—a word which Freud chose to characterize the nonhuman “it” (thing) at the base of human motivation? Not surprisingly, Rahner says that with the strength of faith we can see in the unconscious “the power of the Holy Ghost.”The essay at hand turns, then, to a significant anti-Freudian theorist, Julia Kristeva, who has developed an extended analysis of the meaningful structures of the psyche prior to the development of self-consciousness in the standard Freudian Oedipal scenario. In contrast to the law of the “castrating” Father who establishes the world of consciousness, of self and other: abstract self-consciousness and abstract signigcation, Kristeva holds out the realm of the Mother in which self andother are “one.” The paradigm of the realm of the Mother is not separation of self and other, but the fusion of self and other in the event of pregnancy. Kristeva’s metaphor of pregnancy is used as a comparison to the relation of God and the human. Prior to the thematic, self-conscious sense of self, there is an ontological relation of God and the human which is the foundation of self.Kristeva’ s realm of the mother constitutes a world of “body language.” The essay concludes with a discussion of the “positivity” of sexuality as body language. In so far as sex leads one back into the body, into “the sensitive” it opens up a realm of meaning that is fatally absent from the abstract self-consciousness produced by the Law of the Father

From “Die Offenheit lieben gegenüber jeglicher Wahrheit. Brief des Thomas von Aquino an Karl Rahner,” Mut zur Tugend. Über die Fähigkeit, menschlicher zu leben, Karl Rahner and Bernhard Welte, eds. (Herder: Freiburg, 1979), 124-133. Author in French, Yves Congar; translator into German, Ulrich Schütz; translator from German into English, Thomas O’Meara.