This is the same deal as the last post, only more serious. Promise.
On Anti-Universalist Arguments
Collected here, for the first time, are the best arguments against universalism. Decades of research went into this.
Ah Universalism (Again)
When it comes to universalism there is a line of argument against it that goes something like this: If universalism is true, then Christianity is pointless. A slightly softer version of that claim can be stated as follows: If universalism is true, then Christianity is unnecessary. And the last, slightly weaker, variant that I will point to is this: If universalism is true, then Christianity amounts to an “option” (one of many), that is, a personal philosophy for living which may, or may not, be superior to the plethora of others available. This last line of argument comes packaged with a set of worries that if Christianity is about anything else than getting into Heaven, there’s not much more to it—at least not that much more than one might find in any number of other religions or philosophical disciplines. To be honest I am not a fan of these rather consequentialist arguments concerning Christianity and universalism; they cheapen the Faith right off the bat. At the same time, however, it is at least worth asking why someone would feel bound to profess Christianity as anything other than a preference if indeed universalism is true. For Christianity can be, and for a number of people often is, aesthetical, cultural, and/or psychological. And for a certain segment of the population who frets that their own adherence to Christianity falls into one of those (or several other) categories, universalism cuts off all hope of “elevating” that adherence, or so some fear it seems.
Ah Universalism
Fr. Al Kimmel, now going under the alias Aidan, is a universalist, or at least he flirts with it openly. The likely reason why he does so is somewhat a matter of public record, though I will not go into it here. I mention it only because his web-log contains this: “Readings in Universalism.” One who knows even a bit about the topic won’t be surprised at the list. What they may be surprised to find, however, is Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart’s comments which, inter alia, confirm what many of his readers have long suspected, namely his own universalist leanings.
Agree or disagree, he raises several interesting, even challenging, points which, I imagine, are difficult to refute by his lights. And by “his lights,”I mean the lights of contemporary Orthodoxy theology which, at its best, is Patristic-oriented, Christocentric, and deeply spiritual. That doesn’t mean, however, that it’s free from certain pathologies, not the least of of which being its tilt toward the oracular. Perhaps it all points to something profound so many of us have long missed. Or maybe it’s not saying much at all. Either way, his remarks are worth a gander.
Integralist Paradoxes? A Brief Reply to Shadle
Professor Matthew Shadle over at Political Theology Today has some kind—and critical—words for yours truly concerning “the paradoxes of postmodern integralism.” After surveying the emerging integralism which I have discussed in several places, including The Josias and Front Porch Republic, Shadle comes to the following, arguably premature, conclusion:
A Jot on Playing the Fear Card
At some point along the way in America’s culture wars the fear card became commonplace. Perhaps no other camp has used it to such astounding advantage as the so-called “gay rights movement.” By dominating the nature of the discussion and the acceptable (or unacceptable) terms on which it would be carried out, homosexualists eliminated all principled opposition with one word: homophobia. A man can no longer say with a straight face that homosexual acts are immoral; he must rather confess that is afraid of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgenders, etc.
A Postscript on St. Gregory of Narek and the New Coptic Martyrs
All good things must come to an end, including my accidental series of posts on St. Gregory of Narek and the 21 New Coptic Martyrs (see here, here, and here). Before taking leave of this topic, I must state in no uncertain terms that neither my belief that the 21 men murdered by the Islamic State over a week ago are genuine martyrs, nor my unwillingness to descend into hysterics over St. Gregory of Narek’s elevation as a Doctor of the Church, is indicative of indifferentism. That all of the Apostolic churches — Orthodox and non-Orthodox — should be one with the See of St. Peter is a point of hope and prayer from which I have never reneged. The failure of some to draw a simple distinction between how the Catholic Church treats matters related to these separated churches and, say, Protestant and non-Christian sects is baffling. As Fr. Aidan Nichols, O.P has argued in Rome and the Eastern Churches (2d ed. Ignatius Press 2010) and elsewhere, the Orthodox — and by extension the other Oriental churches — should be Rome’s primary ecumenical partner. Although I remain critical of the way in which Rome has, at times, approached one or more of these separated churches, particularly when these approaches have come at the expense of the sui iuris Catholic churches already in full communion with her, I see no point in waging an endless polemical battle against the Orthodox and Oriental churches. Yes, there are genuine doctrinal, theological, and ecclesiological disagreements which have to be dealt with. Yes, some of these are more complicated than others. However, if real progress toward reunification is to be made, it must be made with charity and humility, not invective and triumphalism.
Two New From The Josias
After several months of building a base floor of contributors, The Josias is now moving full steam ahead with articles, remarks, dubium, and new translations of formerly unavailable texts. (More information on The Josias is available here.) In the past day, two new pieces of interest have gone up.
The first, generously supplied by permission of the Aquinas Institute for the Sacred Doctrine, is taken from St. Thomas Aquinas’s Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard. In it, the Angelic Doctor asks whether heretics should be tolerated.
The second, penned by yours truly, responds to the query, “Is integralism essentially bound up with racism, nationalism, and totalitarianism?” I hope I am not spoiling the surprise when I tell you the answer is, “Negative.” The explanation is laid out in the rest of the piece.
If you have not done so already, make an effort to visit the site and peruse the many excellent resources which are already available. If you have the talent and inclination to contribute, then please do so. And, finally, if you appreciate the contents of The Josias and its mission, do what you can to spread the word. We have no advertising budget; we are disinclined from “branding” ourselves on social media; and above all we hope and pray that if our project is pleasing to God, it will continue to bear good fruit.
A Comment on Haines on Francis
Being uninterested in continuing to read commentary on the “rabbits” debacle and its fallout (see here and here) doesn’t mean my eyes weren’t drawn to Andrew Haine’s (Ethika Politika) critical response to Matthew Schmitz’s (First Things) reflection on the affair. Haines believes that Schmitz, and other conservative (and I’ll assume traditional, too) Catholics, are uncomfortable with Pope Francis’s various public pronouncements because they hold a “fascination with intellectual purity [which] remains unchecked” and are infected from some ill-defined “ideology that spawned from a consistent, rote repetition of talking points.” (Can we call this the ideology of “doctrinal clarity”?) It’s hard to figure out what exactly Haines is driving against except, perhaps, a certain rigidity in teaching which recognizes neither wiggle-room on the margins nor, apparently, the faithful’s “yearning for more clarity on matters of Church teaching[.]”
Religious Liberty and Tradition
Pater Edmund Waldstein, O.Cist., author of the web-log Sancrucensis, has posted to The Josias his first installment of a four-part series entitled “Religious Liberty and Tradition.” A bit of background on the origins of the essay can be found here.
Regardless of where you come down on the controversy over Dignitatis Humanae and its interpretation, Pater Edmund’s contribution to the debate warrants an attentive eye. Having read the entire essay already, I can attest both to its careful treatment of a volatile topic and its power to persuade. That does not mean I am without questions on certain parts and skepticism toward others, but those are for another time. For now, go forth and read; I’ll still be here when you get back.