Karl Rahner’s Girlfriend

Catholic Family News ^ | May 2004 | John Vennari

[McClave]

As you wish... I always wonder why an SSPX'er would be so haunted by and hateful of one man who disagrees with them theologically.

Yes, I'll avoid the Pope persecuters here and just post things for all to ponder. It appears foolish to try to hold any rational discussion with this persecutor's mentality. They are so scared.

[pascendi]

"Yes, I'll avoid the Pope persecuters here and just post things for all to ponder."

I'm pondering why you would choose Existentialism as a suitable philosophical handmaiden to the Catholic Faith. Because when you choose Rahner, that's exactly what you've done.

Perhaps it would be best to remain an Anonymous Christian...

[eastsider]

I'm pondering why you would choose Existentialism as a suitable philosophical handmaiden to the Catholic Faith. Because when you choose Rahner, that's exactly what you've done.

Personally, I think calling Rahner's philosophic context existential is putting too fine a point on it, although I can readily agree that Rahner writes from the general perspective of modern philosophy -- i.e., post-subjective turn. (IMO, Kantian transcendentalism is the dominant strain in Rahner's Foundations of Christian Faith, but I definitely recognize the influence of more recent philosophers.)

Having said that, and without wishing to debate the finer points of modern philosophy, I am curious just what it is about modern philosophy that Rahner's critics find so objectionable/unsuitable for articulating a Christian theology that is consistent with doctrine.

[pascendi]

I think a quick answer can be had by reading Leo XIII's encyclical Aeterni Patris. This section of it stands out:

"Lastly, the duty of religiously defending the truths divinely delivered, and of resisting those who dare oppose them, pertains to philosophic pursuits. Wherefore, it is the glory of philosophy to be esteemed as the bulwark of faith and the strong defense of religion. As Clement of Alexandria testifies, the doctrine of the Savior is indeed perfect in itself and wanteth naught, since it is the power and wisdom of God."

[eastsider]

Thanks for the opportunity to revisit Aeterni Patris. After adjusting to its voluptuous style, I was struck by its thematic relationship to John Paul II's encyclical, Fides et Ratio, and a review of the latter explicitly confirmed that relationship.

Concerning the question of why modern philosophy is unsuitable for articulating a Christian theology that is consistent with doctrine, I found the following reference in Fides et Ratio to Pius XII's encyclical, Humani Generis paragraph from Fides et Ratio instructive:

Later, in his Encyclical Letter Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII warned against mistaken interpretations linked to evolutionism, existentialism and historicism.... He added, however, that errors of this kind should not simply be rejected but should be examined critically: “Catholic theologians and philosophers ... must come to understand these theories well, not only because diseases are properly treated only if rightly diagnosed and because even in these false theories some truth is found at times, but because in the end these theories provoke a more discriminating discussion and evaluation of philosophical and theological truths”. (emphasis added)

It would seem, then, that the harm of modern philosophy lies not in an intrinsic unsuitability of its "subjective" perspective to articulate the truths of our faith, but rather in the "false conclusions concerning divine and human things, which originated in the schools of philosophy" (Aeterni Patri, 2). Aeterni Patris enumerates (without limitation, I'm sure) several false conclusions originating in the schools of classical philosophy at #10 ("that there were many gods, that the material world never had a beginning or cause, and that the course of events was one of blind and fatal necessity, not regulated by the will of Divine Providence"), but I can't find any explicit statement as to the false conclusions originating in the schools of modern philosophy.

Absent such an explicit statement, at this point I'm going to have to make an educated guess that one of the "false conclusions" of modern philosophy the Leo XIII wished to address is the unreasonableness of faith to modern society, whose empiricism and underlying suspicions regarding matters of faith stem in large part, consciously or not, from the philosophy of Kant. With that premise in mind, I also hope to show how Rahner uses the language of modern philosophy (in this case, transcendental idealism) to correct Kant's false conclusion.

In Chapter II of Rahner's Foundations of Christian Faith, section two (The Knowledge of God), Rahner adapts Kant's philosophic language of transcendental knowledge but challenges Kant's equivalence between transcendental and a priori knowledge. Kant calls knowledge of God transcendental, a priori knowledge and maintains that knowledge of God and experiential knowledge are mutually exclusive -- IOW, man cannot know of God through experience. This is an error addressed by Vatican I, Canon 2 (On Revelation), written shortly before Aeterni Patri (which is one of the reasons for my educated guess as to one of the false conclusion of modern philosophy):

If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.

Rahner, on the other hand, calls knowledge of God transcendental a posteriori knowledge because it issues from man's transcendental experience in this world. Thus, whereas Kant maintains that knowledge of God and experiential knowledge are mutually exclusive, Rahner maintains that knowledge of God and transcendental experience are intrinsically united. In short, Rahner uses the language of modern philosophy to correct a "false conclusion" and to rearticulate orthodoxy to modern society.

[pascendi]

"Having said that, and without wishing to debate the finer points of modern philosophy..."

As you can see, it's virtually impossible, isn't it? I understand, but to borrow some of your words and to fill in the balance with a little novelty, after adjusting to its voluptuous style, I was struck your posts' thematic irrelationship to the Fiat of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Luke Chapter 1.

"In short, Rahner uses the language of modern philosophy to correct a "false conclusion" and to rearticulate orthodoxy to modern society."

I'm not convinced, but let's run with it anyways as if truth... even then, it doesn't matter. Rahner and modern philosophy are actually not known to modern society, really. What modern thought has produced for us is a wholesale disconnect from ultrarealism; this disconnect is the life of the average man, who knows nothing of modern philosophy, nothing of Rahner, and really, nothing of the Catholic Church. It has produced nothing of a reconciliation between the things of God and modern thought. Right?

Look further upthread, in the McClave's attempt to exhume Rahner (let me know if they find him incorrupt...):

"Rahner's stature is beyond dispute. Given his stature and his brilliance, and given the profound way in which he has addressed the core of theology, i.e. the meaning of grace, any theologian worth the name must come to grips with his thought."

Premise denied. Why? "As Clement of Alexandria testifies, the doctrine of the Savior is indeed perfect in itself and wanteth naught, since it is the power and wisdom of God." It is not the job of theology to prove it's own principles, and the job of philosophy, when employed as handmaiden to the Faith, is simply to waste all opinions contrary to the principles of Faith.

As we all should know, theology is the Divine Science that takes it's first principles from Divine Revelation. It never, however, takes issue with those first principles or attempts to prove them. When it does so, it ceases to be Theology properly speaking, and becomes mere philosophy.

Rahner was a philosopher.

I guess what I'm wondering is, what do we need Rahner for?

[eastsider]

[Theology] never ... takes issue with those first principles [from Divine Revelation] or attempts to prove them. When it does so, it ceases to be Theology properly speaking, and becomes mere philosophy. Rahner was a philosopher.

How is it that Rahner's explanation of how man can know God through His creation makes him a mere philosopher, but Aquinas' explanation of how man can know God through His creation makes him a theologian?

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

“She remained a practicing Roman Catholic to the end of her days, but campaigned for abortion and against celibacy, as well as against the power of the priesthood..."

Never liked German modernism. Or liberal Jesuit weasles either...

[pascendi]

"How is it that Rahner's explanation of how man can know God through His creation makes him a mere philosopher, but Aquinas' explanation of how man can know God through His creation makes him a theologian?"

You have to take into account that the existence of God is pretty much the only item in the Catholic Faith which can be known (minimally) through the light of reason, from effect to cause. Off the top of my head, there are no other principles of the Faith that can be had by the light of human reason. Thomas would never have demanded proof for the existence of God; presented with the choice of two modes of knowing, he would have considered knowledge of this truth by way of Faith to be far superior and certain than what any of his own five proofs provided. Not so with Rahner.

Holding an article of Faith, and actually understanding a little or a lot about that article of Faith, are two separate considerations.

[eastsider]

It really doesn't matter how many, if any, other principles of the Faith can be had by the light of human reason. The point is that the absolute qualifier never that putatively marks the distinction between theology proper and mere philosophy is disproved by the single attempt to prove a first principle from Divine Revelation -- never mind that the first principle for which the proof is attempted (the very existence of God) just happens to be the first principle, and regardless whether the author of the proof is motivated by his own doubts or those of others.