It’s very hard for an ordinary Christian to take apart doctrine from deep theology. I struggle with this all my life. For example the Catholic “law” that says a woman must die if life of her baby is at risk. It’s just too simplistic stated that way. Far too many possibilities. I have 5 children and I would probably have chosen life for my babies had it come to that. But it didn’t. And no one has a right to make that choice for a mother than the mother herself
So I’ve concluded over the years that laws like that within the church are not coming from God but rather from men whose choose to control their flock for man made reasons. And look at the mess they’ve made over the years.
My relationship is with Jesus and Blessed Mother. As they say in Al Anon, take what you like and leave the rest 🙏
Thanks for this very insightful post. However, you assume "most heresy is banal, so bland," but de Lubac warns of inclinations that seem ubiquitous and rather seductive, such as "pride" or imagining the Incarnation as the "ascent of humanity towards God." If we recognize "doctrinal minimalism," this raises the question of just how speculative theology avoids becoming ideological. One answer is through the spiritual practices that shaped de Lubac as a Jesuit, including obedience, but then the question becomes whether we can consider them as normative...
Thanks for taking the time to read and engage, Neil.
I take your point, but would also hasten to note that de Lubac observes that, by and large, heresy involves things that "we wouldn't want to try" anyway.
I think you're right that Ignatian spirituality can be a means of preventing theology from becoming merely ideological, and also that a whole range of spiritual practices can serve to do this. I think part of the importance is recognizing the need for *some* sort of spiritual practice to accompany the theological task.
Further, I think that doctrinal minimalism probably helps us to avoid ideological cooptation even more than the sort of creeping-everything-is-doctrine tendencies that we see so often, so long as we'll respect the constraint that truly, beyond those minimal parameters, we're dealing with matters that allow for a lot of latitude. I don't get to declare heretical people who disagree with my particular viewpoints, even if I think that they're wrong.
I also think that remembering what speculative theology is and is not, what it can and cannot claim helps with this. I can't *prove* anything through speculative positions, nor can my speculative elaboration command assent. The most I can do is draw out meanings and promote understanding.
Thanks again. I agree that if we "don't get to declare heretical people who disagree," we might be free from conscription into church governance or bitter rivalries over institutional control.
Would you say de Lubac's thoughts here are congruent with Weil's standards for attention ("suspending our thought, leaving it detached, empty," directed against that "something in our soul" that "has a far more violent repugnance for true attention than the flesh has for bodily fatigue")?
I'd say *most* people I know get their ideas of doctrine primarily from "the masquerading of mere theology as doctrine." It's a real thorny problem. This very gentle take on the whole thing is so refreshing.
It’s very hard for an ordinary Christian to take apart doctrine from deep theology. I struggle with this all my life. For example the Catholic “law” that says a woman must die if life of her baby is at risk. It’s just too simplistic stated that way. Far too many possibilities. I have 5 children and I would probably have chosen life for my babies had it come to that. But it didn’t. And no one has a right to make that choice for a mother than the mother herself
So I’ve concluded over the years that laws like that within the church are not coming from God but rather from men whose choose to control their flock for man made reasons. And look at the mess they’ve made over the years.
My relationship is with Jesus and Blessed Mother. As they say in Al Anon, take what you like and leave the rest 🙏
Thanks for this very insightful post. However, you assume "most heresy is banal, so bland," but de Lubac warns of inclinations that seem ubiquitous and rather seductive, such as "pride" or imagining the Incarnation as the "ascent of humanity towards God." If we recognize "doctrinal minimalism," this raises the question of just how speculative theology avoids becoming ideological. One answer is through the spiritual practices that shaped de Lubac as a Jesuit, including obedience, but then the question becomes whether we can consider them as normative...
Thanks for taking the time to read and engage, Neil.
I take your point, but would also hasten to note that de Lubac observes that, by and large, heresy involves things that "we wouldn't want to try" anyway.
I think you're right that Ignatian spirituality can be a means of preventing theology from becoming merely ideological, and also that a whole range of spiritual practices can serve to do this. I think part of the importance is recognizing the need for *some* sort of spiritual practice to accompany the theological task.
Further, I think that doctrinal minimalism probably helps us to avoid ideological cooptation even more than the sort of creeping-everything-is-doctrine tendencies that we see so often, so long as we'll respect the constraint that truly, beyond those minimal parameters, we're dealing with matters that allow for a lot of latitude. I don't get to declare heretical people who disagree with my particular viewpoints, even if I think that they're wrong.
I also think that remembering what speculative theology is and is not, what it can and cannot claim helps with this. I can't *prove* anything through speculative positions, nor can my speculative elaboration command assent. The most I can do is draw out meanings and promote understanding.
Thanks again. I agree that if we "don't get to declare heretical people who disagree," we might be free from conscription into church governance or bitter rivalries over institutional control.
Would you say de Lubac's thoughts here are congruent with Weil's standards for attention ("suspending our thought, leaving it detached, empty," directed against that "something in our soul" that "has a far more violent repugnance for true attention than the flesh has for bodily fatigue")?
I'd say *most* people I know get their ideas of doctrine primarily from "the masquerading of mere theology as doctrine." It's a real thorny problem. This very gentle take on the whole thing is so refreshing.