Question on Nouvelle Theologie and Vatican II

[Walty]

In my History and Method of Theology class we have begun to talk about the mid-20th century theologians and schools.  Today we started talking about the Nouvelle school and the famous Nouvelle theologians (Henri de Lubac, v. Balthasar, Congar, Rahner etc.).  My professor started with explaining how this school had been first mildly questioned in Pius XII's encyclicals Mystici Corporis Christi and Divino Afflante Spiritu, but were later pretty much outright condemned in Humani Generis.  After the death of Pius XII, however, Nouvelle theology ended up flourishing, becoming the dominant and majority stance of the bishops at Vatican II with several of the Nouvelle leaders (such as Lubac, Congar, and von Balthasar) even being appointed Cardinals.  Now, here seemed to be proof in the history of theological movements in the Church that something quite fishy went on around the time of Vatican II.  I raised my hand and asked my professor (the only one of which I am not certain is orthodox, he may well be) why there was such a drastic and immediate shift in the Church's stance on Nouvelle Theologie.  He gave me two answers which seemed weak at best.

1)  It was widely believed after Pope Pius' death that he didn't really understand Nouvelle Theologie very well and that Humani Generis was misinformed in what it was condemning. 
(To this I immediately thought:  )

2)  The various cardinals who helped Pius write these encyclicals were initially called upon to begin formulating the structure and ideas of Vatican II.  When the rest of the Magisterium began looking into their work for the Council they didn't like where they were going and thus voted them down and put in others who subscribed to some variation of the Nouvelle school.  (This is a paraphrase and perhaps I misunderstood exactly what he said, but it was something to this effect).

 I haven't learned too much about the theology of the school yet, but already being familiar with the big names I know how dangerous it is/was.  They shunned Scholasticism and were regarded as at least on the verge of Modernism according to Pius XII correct?  They also seemed to greatly overlook much of the work done in theology after the Patristics.  What other major areas was Pius XII concerned about or condemning in the Nouvelle school?
 
More importantly, does anyone have any more information on this sudden shift on the Church's stance on the Nouvelle school of theology or how it affected Vatican II? 

[glgas]

1./ It was widely believed after Pope Pius' death that he didn't really understand Nouvelle Theologie very well and that Humani Generis was misinformed in what it was condemning. 
(To this I immediately thought:  )

2)  The various cardinals who helped Pius write these encyclicals were initially called upon to begin formulating the structure and ideas of Vatican II.  When the rest of the Magisterium began looking into their work for the Council they didn't like where they were going and thus voted them down and put in others who subscribed to some variation of the Nouvelle school.  (This is a paraphrase and perhaps I misunderstood exactly what he said, but it was something to this effect).

Ad 1./ The Humani generis was highly esteemed for long after the death of Pius XII. The rehabilitation of theologians formely suspended from teaching was surprise.

Ad 2./ This is unfortunately true. Instead of at least mixing the preparatory committees, after the first session the whole committee structure was reorganized and given to the liberals. Our pope's explanation is, that too much power was given to the 'periti'  (the experts next to the bishops) .

Luke 16:8 ... for the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light.

[Benno]

I've been churning out mind-numbing essays about this stuff for the last couple of years, so sorry to sound like a high school kid writing about Jane Eyre, but here we go.

A big part of it - the "shunning of scholasticism" part, actually wasn't half as "fishy" or drastic a turn around (for some theologians at least) as it sounds on the surface. A few different types of "Thomism/ scholasticism" had existed for quite a while, and there were always arguments amongst them. People don't know that enough - that's one thing I'm sure of after trying to find my way through it all. The Thomism of a guy called Suarez had become dominant, almost because it was a cut-the-corners approach to Aquinas, which drew too heavy a line between things like nature/ grace, word/ deed, object/ subject etc, so that it began to look like there was some kind of actual wall between supposedly clear-cut opposites. Philosophy had some influence too - there was a trend to seperating the person from the truth, for better or worse, and a seperation of words from truth, which the Church of course didn't like.

Some theologians argued that the Suarezian understanding was a betrayal of Aquinas, who didn't seperate things so simply. It was felt that,  for Aquinas, things revealed led to faith, whereas for Suarez, the gift of faith verified what was revealed (and simply adhered to or consented to beforehand). In short, they worried that it could lead in theology to false distinctions that Aquinas never made, and in practice to a kind of phariseeism, where Catholics could parrot propositions and have a shallow spiritual life.

There was some truth in it, but I think that theologians like Garrigou-Lagrange fought tooth-and-nail against opening that can of worms because they knew it would be like opening pandora's box, which is exactly what happened. On the good side, there were people who rightly wanted a correction of an error that had taken root for so long that it'd reached the status of sacred truth versus those who may or may not have recognized the error and wanted to avoid worse errors if the error was brought into the light. On the bad side, there were people who either unreasonably and proudly defended what they'd come to think of as the right way of thinking about things (like some "rad-trads" of today)  versus the people who were looking to capitalize on a breach in the wall (like all the nominally catholic enemies of the Church since V2) . A lot of people who jump on the bandwagon that nouvelle theoligiae or V2 was a protestant/ jewish/ masonist conspiracy or whatever often don't understand that, whether or not it was a conspiracy and betrayal of the faith, there was actually a lot of pretty essential and Catholicism-defining stuff going on among the theologians prior to it, and not for all bad reasons.

I hope that makes sense somehow. It always does my head in. Believe it or not, all you JP2 haters, Karol Wojtyla wrote a brilliant thing about it all for his thesis, which is pretty much impossible to find, called "Faith in St John of the Cross" or something, which talks about the real ins and outs of what "faith" meant for St John of the Cross, whose writings could have helped avoid the whole mess centuries before it got to a crisis point.  And interestingly, Garrigou-Lagrange, who is now the maligned-by-modernists-and-even-"conservatives" head honcho of the whole battle against the nouvelle theolgians, said exactly the same things as Wojtyla - he just leaned towards not inviting trouble.

It's worth thinking about that most of the nouvelle guys were young and idealistic, and young, idealistic people can be spot on sometimes and stick to it (like I think the Pope did) or go right off the rails (like his mates).

[Walty]

Thanks for response Benno.  I have a few questions.  So what do you find to be the error in the Scholasticism and Neo-Scholasticism that reigned for so long between the Middle Ages and Vatican II?  I realize that there are innumerable nuances within Catholic theology in that period, but it seems not a gross oversimplification to say that Scholasticism of one variety or another was generally chief throughout the whole period.

Do you think the Nouvelle theologians knew that they weren't reacting against the actual problems of Neo-Scholasticism and were simply seeing an in to change things? 

I could ask a few more things, but I'll leave it at that for now.

[Benno]

To answer the second part first, definitely. Some or most any way. Even a young Ratzinger hated what he saw as an overly detached brand of theology, and others like Kung probably always had the seeds of heresy in them waiting for some room to grow, and the scholasticism of the time, for better or worse, certainly stifled such growth! I couldn't answer the first part in a short way, and I want to emphasize that my mind still isn't made up on the whole thing, but I've certainly come to realize how much important issues were put in the too hard basket for a long time. I can't help thinking that it's because they were simply too hard! To put into clear language that didn't sound risky in some way, that is. Maybe google Montag and Suarez to get some gist of some of the criticisms. You might come across something where there's arguments from all angles too, which would be better than my own still very confused understanding of it.

[Benno]

Actually, just did a google on montag and suarez and came up with pretty much nothing but junk. The problem is, people who dislike the "Suarezian" approach just jump on any opportunity to treat it with disdain and offer something new and progressive. I think Garrigou-Lagrange was right to try to hold the fort, even if the fort had some issues. Walty, if you pm me with an email address I could send you an essay I wrote about this stuff, which'll make more sense than internet blurbs.

[Walty]

Actually, just did a google on montag and suarez and came up with pretty much nothing but junk. The problem is, people who dislike the "Suarezian" approach just jump on any opportunity to treat it with disdain and offer something new and progressive. I think Garrigou-Lagrange was right to try to hold the fort, even if the fort had some issues. Walty, if you pm me with an email address I could send you an essay I wrote about this stuff, which'll make more sense than internet blurbs.

That'd be great.  Thanks.  Sending a PM now.

[anthony]

Its more complicated than many here would like to admit to themselves. Its so easy to just label the "movement" as "modernist" and go on to making a kick-butt pork roast. But Benno pretty much covered it. I'd be interested in reading his essay too!

Not all Nouvelle Theologians are alike. Much of it should be welcomed even by trads. Some of it we could of course have done with out. But there was a lot of institutionalized stupidity in the Church which kept legitimate exploration theology from being practiced and published.

This is an excellend book.

Or pick up a book by Yves Congar, say, The Mystery of the Temple, or the Manner of God's Presence to His Creatures from Genesis to the Apocalypse. Your university library might have it. He is refreshing without being arrogant (and heretical). Though of course some here disagree with me.

[devotedknuckles]

Cough

[Walty]

Its more complicated than many here would like to admit to themselves. Its so easy to just label the "movement" as "modernist" and go on to making a kick-butt pork roast. But Benno pretty much covered it. I'd be interested in reading his essay too!

Not all Nouvelle Theologians are alike. Much of it should be welcomed even by trads. Some of it we could of course have done with out. But there was a lot of institutionalized stupidity in the Church which kept legitimate exploration theology from being practiced and published.

This is an excellend book.

Or pick up a book by Yves Congar, say, The Mystery of the Temple, or the Manner of God's Presence to His Creatures from Genesis to the Apocalypse. Your university library might have it. He is refreshing without being arrogant (and heretical). Though of course some here disagree with me.

Wait... Anthony.  Are you saying that most trads shouldn't have anything against Nouvelle Theologie?  Haha, are we talking about the same School?

[devotedknuckles]

I think he's speakin aboot that cheesy disco in paris
Surely that's it. Where cpongar passed the grey poopin

[anthony]

Its more complicated than many here would like to admit to themselves. Its so easy to just label the "movement" as "modernist" and go on to making a kick-butt pork roast. But Benno pretty much covered it. I'd be interested in reading his essay too!

Not all Nouvelle Theologians are alike. Much of it should be welcomed even by trads. Some of it we could of course have done with out. But there was a lot of institutionalized stupidity in the Church which kept legitimate exploration theology from being practiced and published.

This is an excellend book.

Or pick up a book by Yves Congar, say, The Mystery of the Temple, or the Manner of God's Presence to His Creatures from Genesis to the Apocalypse. Your university library might have it. He is refreshing without being arrogant (and heretical). Though of course some here disagree with me.

Wait... Anthony.  Are you saying that most trads shouldn't have anything against Nouvelle Theologie?  Haha, are we talking about the same School?

Right. Nouvelle Theologie, as such. I'm not saying we shouldn't take what Rahner says, or how he says it, without a grain of salt. But I think we're all too easily scandalized when, for example, Yves Congar said that the Church of Pius IX is over and done with. In a sense he's right. The Church in her dealings with the world is and should be very different from how it was in Pius IX time. But of course, we'd like to blame someone for all the wrong that's happened, and read into his words a sinister tone, and devilish intent. When one reads Congar, one can only read another tone entirely.

I'm not about to defend Rahner though. He's both incredibly boring and borderline on heresy a third of the time.


edit:
As a side note: No one should shriek at learning that these theologians (or some of them) were censured by the Vatican for their writings. This has happened in the past with doctors of the Church. It is not in itself a good reason for one to call them heretics, or to say that their ideas were stupid. Many in Rome simply thought that their writings came at an inopportune time, that it would feed antagonism between the Church and her theological and ideological opponents, and that it might, in some way, affect the faith of the uneducated adversely. These aren't the best of reasons to hold priest-thinkers under suspicion, right? Right. Yves Congar went through some years of abuse, needlessly, and just because he deviated from what had become (and not what is objectively) a kind of theological method or process, not because he uttered something totally alien to the teaching of the Church or to Divine Revelation.

We have to be fair with them. (But not as fair with their supposed "pupils".)