‘Fides Quaerens Nihilum’: Weinandy’s Vision of Theology
The thing about orthodoxy as an historical reality is that it, at least in part, has always arisen from within the context of post-facto recognized heterodoxy. Here’s but one example: the first seven Ecumenical Councils of the Church, nearly indisputably the most influential Councils in Christian history, each of which set the stage for doctrinal formulation and creedal stricture as we know it today. Beginning with Nicaea (325) Bishops from around the known-world came together with variant positions to discuss, theologically (and subsequently philosophically in the Hellenistic tradition of the day), the matters of faith (fides) with the hope to better understand the meaning of what the Church believed (quaerens intellectum). Our simplified recollection of those early Christological, Trinitarian and Pneumatological debates has rendered a popular image of black-and-white distinctions: heretic or orthodox, arian or supporter of the term homoousious. Theology never was, nor has been, that easily demarcated.
In his recently published address to the newly formed “Academy of Catholic Theology” (an ostensible reactionary, albeit small, organization that understands itself as an alternative to the more prominent and much older Catholic Theology Society of America) — although the address was originally delivered in May in Washington, DC — Fr. Thomas Weinandy, OFM Cap., said that some theologians can be a “curse and an affliction on the Church.” This statement and Weinandy’s address in its entirety, reported yesterday by John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter, has been met by a variety of theologians with understandable disdain.
John Allen’s report continues:
Capuchin Fr. Thomas Weinandy, executive director of the Secretariat for Doctrine at the U.S. bishops’ conference, has warned of a “crisis” in Catholic theology, caused by theologians who “often appear to possess little reverence for the mysteries of the faith as traditionally understood and presently professed within the church.”…
Too often, Weinandy said, theology degrades into an “intellectual game,” based on “the fun of being cleverly and sophisticatedly entertaining, or the thrill and buzz that comes with academic sparring.”
Weinandy stressed that theology should also be grounded in an active spiritual life, citing a 1990 instruction from the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that scientific research must be united with prayer.
Sometimes, Weinandy said, that doesn’t seem to be the case.
“Theology may be the only academic pursuit where one can seemingly be considered a theologian without actually having to know the subject matter,” he said. “It would appear at times that a theologian need not actually know God.”
These remarks are incredibly incendiary and uncharitable, to say the least. It bespeaks a foolish arrogance about who does and who does not understand the “mysteries of the faith,” as well as the presumptuous, yet clearly mistaken, belief that one can understand and therefore judge the spiritual life of another human being. This latter point is actually the most egregious of the comments proffered by the Capuchin on the USCCB staff. To suggest, even in the couched “it seems” language, that this or that theologian does not do her or his work rooted in a deep an active spiritual life is absolutely transgressive.
Even a spiritual director or confessor cannot make such a claim about the state of another’s prayer or spiritual life, even if one could he or she would be bound by confidence. Weinandy apparently sees himself in a position with the adjudicative authority to not only decide what is or is not acceptable Christian doctrine, but who does and does not have “an active spiritual life.”
This little outburst, organized as it might have been in a conference address, seems to me to reflect one’s confusion (in the theological, not colloquial sense) about control and theology. For someone to make such claims publicly reveals the mixture of these two things, control and theology, in a way that poorly represents a power struggle within the Body of Christ.
Instead of the traditional Anselmian definition (or, perhaps more accurately, descriptor) of theology, Fides Quaerens Intellectum (“Faith Seeking Understanding”), this sort of rhetoric exemplifies a view of the practice of theology that I like to call: Fides Quaerens Nihilum (“Faith Seeking Nothing“). In other words, “theology” as it seems to be conceived here is a matter of simple repetition of faith claims without the requisite search for clarity and further meaning; put simply, we are talking about a form of contemporary fideism. (oh, and to be clear, I do not mean “repetition” in the meaningful sense Derrida does where repetition is only given the condition for possibility within the context of difference…I simply mean ‘mirroring’ or ‘echoing’ in the pedestrian sense).
If this is really where “Catholic theology” should be heading, as Weinandy claims is its rightful course, then Saints Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure and a whole host of other doctors of the Church are likely rolling over in their graves! (well, except Bonaventure, who was exhumed and thrown into the river during a revolt centuries ago and therefore has no grave, but you get the point).
As cliché as it may be to say, this is not at all about real theology. It is about power and control, who is “in” and who is “out.” I cannot, for the life of me, find where this is coming from vis-á-vis the Christian theological tradition. It seems to be a defensive and reactionary approach to the lack of control made present by an increase in the brilliant work of lay theologians (who are outside the usual ecclesiastical control) and other factors such as scholars who take seriously the call of the Second Vatican Council to significantly engage contemporary science, philosophy and social sciences in the exercise of Fides Quaerens Intellectum.
I have no personal gripe with Weinandy, I do not know him personally. I just find myself disagreeing with his take on the purpose of theology. He is my Franciscan brother and I hope that he might revisit our own tradition in the writings of Bonaventure on Wisdom and Theology to better appreciate the instructive import for our own day.
Oh, and did I mention yet (again) that both Bonaventure and Thomas were guilty of the same claims that Weinandy suggests are the cause for concern and lament among today’s theologians? Lest we not forget that in their own time Aristotle was condemned and considered a pagan, unorthodox source for theology. According to Weinandy’s argument, post facto of course, you cannot trust Thomas Aquinas or Bonaventure as orthodox theological sources. I guess you better get rid of your Summa Theologica and Breviloqium – you don’t want to be caught with that contraband!
Update: In my haste to write this post while up in the New York North Country (Adirondack Mountains), I quickly and mistakenly indicated the wrong declension for ‘Nihil’ in my initial post. H/T to Chris below who pointed out the mistake, I have since adjusted the ending to what I believe is correct. Moral of the story: rusty latin and vacation do not mix well together — thanks for the catch!
August 17, 2011 at 3:25 pm
Brother Dan,
Thank you so much for your reflections. This particular post made me think of John Henry Newman’s development of doctrine. In which Newman speaks of the Church as a living stream that becomes “more pure, and stronger, when its bed has become deep, and broad, and full…” when it remembers that it is a story that “savours of the soil”. I like the grittiness of Newman’s view– theology is broad, full, and deep enough to be charitable.
August 17, 2011 at 3:30 pm
While his delivery may have been offensive, his premise is correct IMHO. I fully agree with Fides Quaerens Intellectum; however, that does first require Fides, and not sine fide! Moreover, if it is more about “control” or power, are we not suppose to be obedient? (Mind you I am not implying blind-obedience). Perhaps instead of the “other” NCR critiqueing so harshly, it should have looked at the reasons why he would have said such things, other than “attacking” Sr. Johnson and other “progressives”. I am in full agreement with the comment from “Joseph” on the site.
August 17, 2011 at 5:48 pm
I do not agree that his premise is correct. He confuses theology with catechesis, and that confusion is inexcusable for one who is theological advisor to the bishops. Nor does he have an adequate grasp of the “traditioning” process that leads to “tradition.” From these unstable premises, it’s hard to not be building on sand…
August 17, 2011 at 6:26 pm
Yes, but the point that it is *incredibly* offensive to presume that theologians with whom one disagrees have no “fides” holds. I recall an incident earlier this year when a guy I met in a church, for *no reason* other than that I’d expressed an opinion in favor of modern architecture, informed me that I must not care about my Catholicism very much. This attitude is ludicrous and intensely hurtful, and it does damage to the community in a way that saying “I think you’re wrong about that theological opinion you expressed, and here’s why” does not.
August 17, 2011 at 3:52 pm
I’m not a theologian, but my thoughts on reading the NCR article were just like yours, Dan, and I hoped you would comment on the article. I also hope the WIT theologians might do so. I think that I see a bit of “sour grapes” from Weinanday. He lost face in the Elizabeth Johnson fiasco. I also think that Quest for the Living God is at the heart of his barbs. What brought out his comments at this time could have a lot to do with the fact that Elizabeth Johnson and many other fine scholars are woman.
August 17, 2011 at 7:42 pm
The bottom line is the Weinandy is a “court theologian” who only recognizes “the party line” … with a vision as narrow as that of the the group he represents. He delivered his remarks to a group of like-thinking theologians who probably gave him a standing ovation. He would never have gotten away with those remarks at a meeting of the Catholic Theological Society of America. The leaders of the Church in these times are fond of drawing lines in the sand: either-or, orthodox-heterodox, in-out — the marks of intellectual poverty!
Where is the inclusiveness left to us by the Bishops who came together for the Second Vatican Council???
August 18, 2011 at 8:45 am
Not to get on the V2 debate, but IMHO I do not believe the term “inclusiveness” is perhaps the best term, since there was and has been until Pope Benedict XVI, and exclusion and suppression of the tradtional within the Church. In all the “spirit” of “inclusion”, some of the great mysteries have been summed up as superstitions and outdated — to the point that we might as well be called Protestants! Not only the “mysteries” but also the sacraments have been “downsized” or deemed unnecessary, even the Eucharist. http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=251. And the same is true of confession, and well we have seen what the libertine attitudes are doing for marriage.
And before one touts all the “great” things of V2, I challenge you to watch the “spirit” of V2 “Gone Wild”, http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=251
Perhaps, Steve is correct about the difference between Theology and catechisis, but without a sound theological base, one cannot have a catechisis and vice versa.
August 17, 2011 at 7:50 pm
Dear Dan,
I always look forward to your blogs.
But I find your present blog and over reaction. Even in the present blog, I completely agree with you that orthodoxy develops in the context of heterodoxy.
I know neither Fr. Weinandy nor you; I have not read the NCR article, either. Therefore, my comment is based purely on the basis of reading your comment. why do I consider it an overreaction? First, I have heard that there is a strong opinion in some theological circles that faith is not pre-requisite for theology. It is a science like any other. If there is a view of this kind, then Fr Weinandy’s observation is right on spot.
Second, I would like plead that instead using labels (“reactionary”, “progessive”) that seem to have become a hallmark of contemporary theological discussions, differences of opinions be discussed in terms of issues. Can we have a little more logic and a little less of name-calling? Is the postmodern view of power and control the last word in theological differences?
Please do continue with your informative blog. I love them.
George
August 17, 2011 at 9:39 pm
“I have heard that there is a strong opinion in some theological circles that faith is not pre-requisite for theology. It is a science like any other. If there is a view of this kind, then Fr Weinandy’s observation is right on spot.”
George,
For Sister Elizabeth Johnson, the target of Fr. Weinandy’s rather unwarranted criticism on behalf of the Bishops’ Conference, is known as a person of deep faith and serious theological reflection. Her reputation among Catholic — and non-Catholic — theologians is an excellent one. She is the unnamed defendant in Weinandy’s talk to the Academy of Catholic Theologians, where he speaks of some theologians as a danger to the Church and as having no respect for the Tradition.
I don’t think that Dan, in spite of your backhanded compliment, is over-reacting by any stretch of the imagination. His critique of Weinandy is clear, objective, and well-reasoned. I don’t think Weinandy’s condemnation of Sister Elizabeth Johnson or his remarks about ‘some theologians’ can be defended. He sounds like an ecclesial version of the Tea Party.
August 17, 2011 at 10:35 pm
Thank you Ken, for the personal iformation about Sr. Johnson. What I said about the need to avoid name calling and the caution against reducing theological issues to matters of power and control applies as much to the other side as to Dan. To my mind, when theological issues are seen primarily in terms of power and control, that is the end of any theology worth the name.
August 17, 2011 at 9:50 pm
It still begins with the “fides”–the faith! Fr. Weinandy is right in asserting that theological inquiry that’s not rooted in the faith of the Church is empty, even when it has a sophisticated veneer.
August 17, 2011 at 10:12 pm
I’m sure you know Latin far better than I, but I am puzzled. Why ‘nihilo’? Would the accusative not be nihilum?
August 17, 2011 at 10:28 pm
Hi Chris, spot on! Good call — I wrote this in haste and off the top of my head while up in the Adirondack mountains this afternoon. Upon further reflection (and still without a dictionary at hand) I think you are correct and I screwed up the declension. I will fix that.
August 18, 2011 at 7:57 am
[...] Brother Dan Horan, OFM at his blog, Dating God, we read about “Fides Quaerens Nihilum, Weinandy’s Vision of Theology.” Dan, who has been teaching at Siena College is a theologian himself.(In more full [...]
August 18, 2011 at 7:57 am
[...] Brother Dan Horan, OFM at his blog, Dating God, we read about “Fides Quaerens Nihilum, Weinandy’s Vision of Theology.” Dan, who has been teaching at Siena College is a theologian himself.(In more full [...]
August 18, 2011 at 8:30 am
I like to remember that Thomas Aquinas and many other theologians and otherwise saints were judged heretical in their times. No one hears about those who used to condemn them then. This gives me hope that the names which will remain from our times will follow the same tradition
August 18, 2011 at 3:48 pm
[...] [ Update: Somewhere in my editing of this post, I accidentally deleted a sentence noting that WIT first learned of Weinandy's talk from our friend (and favorite Franciscan) Dan Horan. I recommend his post on this topic.] [...]
August 19, 2011 at 8:20 am
What I find so striking in so many recent statements (from various “sides” ) is the absence of humility and charity. Without humility, as Aquinas points out, we cannot have hope. Without hope, who the heck would want to be a part of this community. No wonder so many young people are leaving.
August 19, 2011 at 11:24 am
Brother Dan, Great post, as usual. I do want to share a question that popped up for me. You write (and I agree with you wholeheartedly and passionately on this):
“Even a spiritual director or confessor cannot make such a claim about the state of another’s prayer or spiritual life…. Weinandy apparently sees himself in a position with the adjudicative authority to not only decide what is or is not acceptable Christian doctrine, but who does and does not have ‘an active spiritual life’.”
I ask this gently, with genuine respect for you and seriously: why is not okay for Weinandy to pass judgment on the quality of dissenting theologians’ spiritual lives (which is really the crux of any question about how ‘active’ another’s spiritual life may be) but it is okay – apparently – to judge the spiritual lives of dissenting, institutionally disobedient religious like Father Roy (which is really the crux – I believe – of assertions like yours earlier this month about Father Roy’s actions and words in response to Maryknoll and the Vatican. Specifically, you wrote:
“Yet, I again return to Haight and the thousands of others who hold positions that challenge, question or perhaps even contradict “Church teaching” in their hearts. These women and men do not surrender their beliefs, but engage them, explore them, hold them without succumbing to the temptation to make the issue, in turn, about themselves as victim. This whole affair is deeply saddening and as a fellow religious and one who has admired lots of Bourgeois’s work over the years — his commitment to ending the School of the Americas, for example. But, I cannot simply stand by and endorse the “Bourgeois-as-victim” narrative that has been perpetuated by so many (innocently perpetuated, I believe). In the end I cannot help but feel that Bourgeois has made this a moment for himself and not for anybody else.”
I respectfully submit to you, Brother Dan (and others), that your words here represent, plainly and simply, an evaluation of Father Roy’s spiritual life as a religious priest and brother.
I do not believe you intended it as such.
I do, however, believe (perhaps especially for Catholics) that the voice of conscience – whatever it may speaking at any given moment – is an integral part of our spiritual lives. Indeed, Father Roy’s work against SOA – which you and so many, if not most, Religious so deeply admire – is proof of this. For men and women like Father Roy Bourgeois, Sister Joan Chittester, Sister Janine Gramick, Father John McNeill, Sister Elizabeth Johnson…men and women like Dorothy Day, Archbishop Oscar Romero and Jesus himself, this is so very obviously true.
That represents a tremendous challenge to the institution of vowed religious life in today’s Roman Catholic Church. And I have compassion for all that that implies.
And I hope we – as Catholic brothers and sisters – will consider this:
when we speak of tensions and conflicts between another’s conscience and that individual’s vow of obedience in religious life, are we not quite honestly speaking of spiritual life?
Indeed, if we understand the beauty of religious life, how could we be speaking of anything else?
August 30, 2011 at 8:18 am
[...] advocated for theology’s purpose to more closely resemble catechetical repetition (see “‘Fides Quaerens Nihilum’: Weinandy’s Vision of Theology“), but now there appears to be at least one example of a far-reaching intrusion into the [...]
September 8, 2011 at 1:33 am
[...] in my interest in this conflict, as it directly impacts our work and our writing (Br. Dan Horan has two pieces at his blog worth reading while we’re on the topic). I’m sure there will be more [...]