The talk about the Catholic Intellectual Tradition

drenwas given this afternoon by Stephen Schloesser (S.J. -- could have fooled me, but then again most of the Jesuits at Boston College usually wear civilian clothes) . His website. I don't know if the paper will be made available online, but if it is, I will post the link.

Professor Keenan told a joke/anecdote before the talk; apparently both were up for tenure and he remarked to Prof. Schloesser, "You're brilliant, there's no way you'll get tenure," to which Prof. Schloesser replied, 'Well, so are you."

Well, both got tenure, so should we exercise modus tollens and conclude that neither is brilliant?
(Not that modus tollens might not have its problems, but the point is, academics should be a bit humble, especially after what both of these men said tonight.)

Really, if you think this was a brilliant talk (and it was, according to Professor Keenan, Professor Ali Banuzizi and Professor Ray Madoff), , or willing to give it such a positive evaluation, you should have your license to teach revoked, because obviously while you may be successful in your field of expertise according to the judgment of your peers, wisdom eludes you.

Of course, maybe they were being polite, but if there were, this is just another example of diplomacy trumping truth in an arena where truth should be paramount.

What can I say about Prof. Schloesser's talk without a text for you to read?

1. It was an example of what happens when a historian or a bad theologian does a presentation of the Catholic Intellectual Tradition instead of someone who has been initiated into the path of wisdom, in all its forms.

2. In adhering to his Hegelian inclinations, Professor Schloesser attempted to show how the Catholic Intellectual Tradition made it possible for the Many to be united to the One, for sacramentum et res. A typical academic paper, citing the "in" authorities in order to make connections that don't really exist, to illustrate points badly understood, when correctly understood it could serve to give a reasonable portrayal the Catholic Intellectual Tradition. But, he has another axe to grind.

3. Much of what he wrote in order to show opposition and contradiction was just sleight of hand--he was playing the equivocation game, though I doubt many caught on, given the dimness of the brains in that room.

4. Lots of talk about sacramentalism--sacrament not taken in its strict technical sense, but according to an earlier sense. No problem, but is talk about sacramentalism just a cover for something else? (Say, Process Theology?) Plus, he did cite Annie Dillard, who converted to Catholicism, but what sort of Catholicism? (The Ecotheology of Annie Dillard.) Do I want to spend the time to find out?

If I say God becomes manifest in me, what do I mean by this?

Some egregious errors used in support of his theses:
The first clue that something was up? His attempt to show that the Magisterium's claim to teach the truth and its authority had been discredited. For example? What had been said in the response by the Holy Office on the question of slavery, which was along the lines of: "slavery is not intrinsically wrong." In contrast, Abraham Lincoln, enlightened individual that he was and not a practicing Christian (according to Professor Schloesser) shows us what any decent person knows about slavery. So what does the Holy Office understand by slavery? Has Professor Schloesser taken the first step in any inquiry or comparison by looking at definitions? Apparently not--maybe a look at the old Catholic Encyclopedia would have revealed that he was barking up the wrong tree. But even if he learned this, would he have proceeded with the critique anyways? It's the same sort of line of attack dissenters use--supposed contradictions within the Magsterium show that the Magisterium has no monopoly on truth, and that it should be corrected by decent theologians who really have a grasp on things.

btw, slavery as it is understood by the Holy Office is akin to having a title to the labor of another; it is not the same as chattel slavery (which was condemend) or other unjust forms of servitude. So really, Professor Schloesser, do the homework or be honest about the sort of Christianity you want.

Does he take Aristotle's Children to be an authoritative source and good intellectual history? If he does, that should say something about his (lack of) expertise. After all, who is to say what would have happened if the Muslims did not invade Christian Palestine, Christian Syria, Christian North Africa. Even if the heresies of Nestorianism and Monophysitism did lead to the tragic divisions within Christendom, would Aristotle have been lost forever without the Muslims? Or would they have made their way to the Latin West through the Byzantines?

And please, do not classify Aristotle as an empiricist, as if his metaphysics were a remnant of his "Platonism." While he may have believed that science of the changing was possible (though not changing as changing), he did not reject the existence of the spiritual. In fact, the knowledge of the spiritual is precisely First Philosophy and [speculative] Wisdom, given the nobility of its object. While there was a place for rational or scientific theory within Catholicism after the middle ages, can the same be said of Judaism or Islam? Just because certain agents may have a role to play in preserving what is good, through the Providence of God, that does not mean that the agents themselves are blameless and exemplars, or that their societies or cultures are good and perfect, or that their religions are equally true. How many Muslims now care about Averroes or Avicenna? And without the Christian or Jewish intelligentsia in the conquered lands, would the Muslims have any learning attributed to them?

Apparently we can never see God the Father. Has he never heard of the Beatific Vision? Or is he turning into a Greek Orthodox, with a cerain interpretation of certain Greek Fathers? He mentioned the Cloud of Unknowing, without addressing the fact that much of devotio moderna was a reaction against the hyper-rationalism of the universities (ending in nominalism and a host of other errors).

He contrasts the optimism of the scholastics (who believed in the power of reason) with the Fourth Lateran Council, which stifled intellectual inquiry by saying that the use of analogy shows that we do not now God more than we know him. Guess what? This is also the position of Aquinas, and any theologian worth his salt. There is no opposition between academia and authority. Small wonder that Prof. Keenan picked Prof. Schloesser to give the talk. They're both subversive of Church authority and probably dissenters as well.

For someone who is friends with James Keenan it is surprising that he can talk about the dominance of nominalism and voluntarism in the 14th century, when recent research on the situation at the universities show that there was greater diversity than previously thought. After all, this was the point of Martin Stone's talk last week, and Prof. Keenan was present for that. But we don't wish to discredit our friends, do we? Not when they are our allies in something bigger. So what if his argument is built on inaccuracies and misunderstandings and falsehoods--the important thing is to discard the schackles of Church authority and the imperiousness of a Tradition that takes itself to be a bearer of truth.

The Spiritual Exercises are not against the senses and the sensible world--when St. Ignatius of Loyola talks about being wary of the devil's deceptions, he is not talk about the world, the senses, or appearances--he is talking about what goes on in the soul, and the proper discernment of spirits, so that we are not lead by the master of deceit but by the Holy Spirit. Really, can a Jesuit be even more clueless about his own religious patrimony? I believe it was Prof. Madoff? or was it Prof. Banuzizi? The tradition is not about having answers but asking ?s. Why? Are you all historicists? Even if a proposition taken by itself does not capture the whole truth, does that mean that it does not capture any truth? And are you going to claim that both a proposition and its contradiction are true and false? And if you're going to spout nonsense like that, why shouldn't you be beaten for being a fool?

The Jesuits were suppressed not because of their opposition to Jansenism, but because freemasons and other "enlightened" individuals were working their way into the courts of Europe, to destroy the alliance between altar and throne (what was left of it, at any rate) and to destroy the influence of the Church.

God owes us nothing does not entail that human nature is therefore deprived. Catholics also believe that God owes us nothing; then again perhaps Professor Schloesser, like many of the so-called Catholics at BC, is a closet (or uncloseted) Pelagian.

In line with his Hegelianism, and the thesis-antithesis-synthesis paradigm, he used a really bizarre Trinitarian theology and Christology to show the divide between God and Creation and how it is to be bridged. God the Father is imminanet, while the Son is Humanity, representing what is sensible, or God's emanence, God's presence in creation, the Incarnate--the Spirit is the dancing around (perichoresis) of the two, yes, but what sort of spirit is he talking about? This statement about the Person of the Holy Spirit could be taken from orthodox Catholic theology, but in a different context it could be a statement of Hegelian philosophy/process theology. So what are your true colors, Prof. Schloesser?

Certain Orthodox theologians have their preferred way of talking about the presence of God in all things, and they think this is incompatible with Latin theology. Our Latin tradition talks about the omnipresence of God in all things, but this does not implies that we are good separate from God, or that we are loved because we are somehow loveable prior to God's creative act. Besides, where is the distinction between grace and nature? Karl Rahner was brought up tonight, but I wonder if Prof. Schloesser is a follower of Rahner, or if he hasn't moved beyond Rahner. Like I said, we seem to be moving in the direction of a "nice" Christianity, in which we just need to be as good as we can be, and God will let us into heaven, because He understands how hard it is to be perfect, and He doesn't really expect that we will reach this goal. It's nothing more than an effete version of Pelagianism.

What else?
At least Prof. Schloesser cited Paul Claudel. Plus Gerard Manley Hopkins--but then again what Jesuit doesn't like to use Hopkins to support almost anything? (Especially some version of secularized Jesuit humanism that pays lip service to God?) Or perhaps there are those who have another reason to use Hopkins, because they think they can appropriate him as a "gay saint."

His talk did pique my interest in Denise Levertov, a poet who converted to Catholicism late in life. Somehow she is the embodiment of intellectual inquiry which is at the heart of the Catholic intellectual tradition, but...

Do not praise the latecomer, for the latecomer's path may not be the best one, and that the latecomer is able to come to God at all is because of His Mercy and His Perseverance...

Sensuous Architecture might be a good book to check out... it talks about the architecture in Jesuit Churches (the Baroque style)...

What impresses Prof. Banuzizi the most about the Catholic intellectual tradition, or Catholicism, is its tolerance and concern for social justice. Apparently he's been around Jesuists, or at BC, for much too long. The inclusiveness, openness to other sources and traditions? Well, I didn't write what he wrote down, and my memory is hazy--perhaps the Lady Downstairs can correct and add.

Not to say that Christianity is closed off from truth--not at all, where truth is to be found, the Church embraces it. But this does not mean that the Church does not have the standard by which it judges what is true and what is not. After all, Wisdom has revealed itself, and it is Christ.

Professor Madoff shared her concern that BC might not be so welcoming to students of other religions if it were to emphasize the Catholic intellectual tradition so much that the education to be found at BC is directed primarily at Catholics. Oh no! How terrible! Imagine that, a Catholic university supplying an education to Catholics, one that they cannot find at a secular university.

Given the amount of praise being heaped upon Prof. Hollenbach, I don't think it is wrong to be a bit suspicious of his work (even if I should take a look at his The Common Good and Christian Ethics.)

Would I want to teach in an environment at a supposed "Catholic" school with smug and self-congratulatory academics who have no care for the treasury of wisdom to be found in the Catholic intellectual tradition? Would it be worth giving 30 years of my life in futile fights, when the majority of faculty don't care for the tradition and the teachings of the Church, and would be more than happy to tear it down by showing how "Reason" has proven so much of it to be wrong? (See the examples of Professor Schloesser's talk.)

Why don't I just take some shears and just cut my testicles off now and save you the trouble? Talk about an emasculating environment--better to speak out against the b*stards and get thrown out of their nice little social club, or never be invited in, than to sit there and be beaten down by their pettiness, prissiness, and pride. Ah, the folly that passes itself off as wisdom.

They're fortunate that this is the age of the New Law rather than the Old. Truly, if God sent his prophets who could stand long against Him?