Much as I hate to blame anything on Henri de Lubac, it really was his deconstruction of the distinction between the natural and the supernatural that started us down the road that (so I hear) he later regretted. He began with serious work, but it got picked up in the kind of mocking dismissal of theological ideas that kills real thinking and chucks out the baby. People began talking derisively about "two-storied nature" as though it's a ridiculous idea from the get-go. No nuance was possible for a long time. (Current examples of this rhetorical phenomenon include: "proof-texting"= taking any Biblical passage seriously and "physicalism"= taking the physical aspect of any bodily function to have moral significance.)
Without the supernatural life being acknowledged as such, religion becomes nothing but a human endeavor--something sociologists can comment on.
We came to see ourselves as led by the culture and completely accountable to it, rather than recognizing and celebrating our own deep culture, which is so informed by faith that there is a certain glory in it. It became embarassing to belong to the supernatural community in a primary way instead of to the secular society. All was given over to whatever secular banality prevailed. In the 20th century music inevitably became prosaic, art became minimalist, and devotion was relegated to the weak: the ignorant, old ladies, etc.
The music died for awhile because the identity that sustained the music went underground, where it wouldn't be laughed at. Now that it's becoming safe to be Catholic in public again, the music can be sung in public.
That's my theory. What do you think, Dr. B.?
"Much as I hate to blame anything on Henri de Lubac, it really was his deconstruction of the distinction between the natural and the supernatural that started us down the road that (so I hear) he later regretted."
What an accusation, yet I hear and read it over and over - but still I have never yet understood how the theology of Henri de Lubac destroyed everything Catholic and holy, and now he is held responsible for the destruction of Sacred Liturgy and chant/music. I honestly do not know much about the contested theological issue, relating to the 'nature - grace', 'natural - supernatural' distinction or perhaps dualism. Was it not about this: that there is no such thing (according to Pere de Lubac) as pure nature, that which is independent of God's creative act and loving providence; no such thing as a pure nature that is not touched or 'graced' by the supernatural order; no such thing in reality as created being completely unordered towards fulfillment in God, as its proper end; no such thing as being utterly independent of Divine grace, and existing in a kind of sealed-off zone. Please help me out.
"Without the supernatural life being acknowledged as such, religion becomes nothing but a human endeavor--something sociologists can comment on."
I agree.
"We came to see ourselves as led by the culture and completely accountable to it, rather than recognizing and celebrating our own deep culture, which is so informed by faith that there is a certain glory in it. It became embarrassing to belong to the supernatural community in a primary way instead of to the secular society. All was given over to whatever secular banality prevailed."
I agree again
==
Again, I admit my ignorance on this subject. I understand that de Lubac was a friend and defender of Teilhard de Chardin. Are you saying that de Lubac denied absolutely any difference between nature and grace? I know I have a book by Cardinal Siri in long-term storage; perhaps I should go find it.
I have heard it said that one drop of grace is worth infinitely more than the entire universe. Maybe so.
Does grace sustain the universe, even a fallen one?
==
"Q: Do you think that the musical traditions of the past are disappearing?
A: It stands to reason: if there is not the continuity that keeps them alive, they are destined to oblivion, and the current liturgy certainly does not favor it... I am an optimist by nature, but I judge the current situation realistically, and I believe that a Napoleon without generals can do little."
My comment: We are doomed! Umm...What can a 'Napoleon' do with some eager soldiers? All I can say is that those soldiers out there who have access to this stuff, thank God, and defend it, use it or lose it. Here in Northern Liberalsville, it is probably too late; no, it is - all is lost.
==
Pere de Lubac destroys Gregorian Chant, and they go and make him a Cardinal. Sheesh.
==
"Missionary in Africa [...]
He was in favour, like Pope Pius XII, of a moderate inculturation - mainly paraliturgical - although he was careful to insist that such matters be always carried out in accordance with higher authorities. Looking back now it is interesting to see how open he was to, if we may dare to say the word, ‘novelties’ where they did not affect the Faith itself. For example, he said there was “no obligation to stick strictly to melodies from Europe”, and that “work was to be done with all languages and indigenous melodies […] there is no law against studying the possibility of adopting ceremonial customs that could be Christianised, especially for funerals and weddings. The ritual could be expanded to include blessings, especially for African traditions and customs.” In the wake of Vatican II he may well have changed his opinion on these questions but it shows that his later opposition to the changes in the Church were not a result of an inability to distinguish between good and bad reforms as some would like to believe."
Excuses, excuses. *LOL* See what Father missionary - Archbishop of Dakar - Marcel Lefebvre and all the others started! Hmmm.
http://www.thecatholic.org//
2004...el_Lefebvre.htm
Domenico Bartolucci said: "In reality, we are witnessing the decline of the West. An African bishop once told me, “We hope that the council doesn’t take Latin out of the liturgy, otherwise in my country a Babel of dialects will assert itself.”"
==
The Archbishop of Dakar, Marcel Lefebvre, believer in Vatican II-style inculturation, perhaps helps undermine Gregorian Chant in the Latin Rite, and then goes on later to make it big-time in Traditionalist circles. Sheesh.
==
Bartolucci: "Today the fashion in the churches is for pop-inspired songs and the strumming of guitars, but the fault lies above all with the pseudo-intellectuals who have engineered this degeneration of the liturgy, and thus of music, overthrowing and despising the heritage of the past with the idea of obtaining who knows what advantage for the people."
Groan. How true. We are doomed.
Blosser: "Of course, if God can make a camel can pass through the eye of a needle, all things a certainly possible, and there is always reason to hope, and pray, and resist the philistines."
Thanks for that. Peace in Christ.
==
"The music died for awhile because the identity that sustained the music went underground, where it wouldn't be laughed at. Now that it's becoming safe to be Catholic in public again, the music can be sung in public."
Thanks for that. Peace in Christ.
==
Paul, I should have more clearly said that a distortion of de Lubac's careful work became a kind of flippant shorthand for doing away with the idea of a supernatural altogether. It's an idea that caught on, not just because it is an interesting thing to think about, nor because it has a liberating effect, but largely because it had a name and an image that made a straw man: "two-storied nature."
In other words it was an idea that marketed itself. A recent example of this kind of distortion was "chaos theory," which is (apparently) a very misleading term. Another was "carjacking": it wasn't (apparently) so much that there was a big increase in that kind of robbery one year, but they invented a catchy name for it and so it kept making the news.
In theology schools, like in the academy in general, schools of thought go in and out of fashion. Right now de Lubac is claimed more by the righties than the lefties. But there was a time when he and v. Baltasar considered Rahner "almost our only hope." That was before they parted ways, but even so, de Lubac has sometimes been a darling of the left. In any case, though, it's important to make distinctions between a theologian's works and his ultimate legacy. And his short term legacy while everyone is sorting out the situation. BTW, note then-Cardinal Ratzinger's preface of de Lubac's Catholicism.
There's a lot besides theology that went into the loss of just pride in Catholic culture--including some positive goods, such as a new respect for human cultures, emphasis on religious freedom, etc. But the upshot was that by the time the world stopped spinning quite so fast, we had become embarassed by our own identity and patrimony.
I disagree completely that it was de Lubac's fault or a distortion of his view. I was convinced with him that there was no state of pure nature, a position that Fr. Brian Mullady also defends, but after reading Steve Long's article in the Thomist, I became an agnostic on the issue. I don't see the connection with the Liturgy and de Lubac at all and it seems that this is all speculation at best. Kathy says,
"It became embarassing to belong to the supernatural community in a primary way instead of to the secular society. All was given over to whatever secular banality prevailed."
I don't understand how anyone can use de Lubac to support that view. How can de Lubac, who was more Augustinian, be distorted or used for the position above? It doesn't make sense. Anyone who read de Lubac just sees this as a bad analysis. In fact, I would take de Lubac over Rahner anyday. De Lubac stressed a lot on grace and to start with God when it comes to theology while Rahner has his own transcendentalism.
Hello Kathy,
Welcome back!
I'm afraid I fall in behind Apolonion here. Perhaps Kathy's caveat that it's "a distortion of de Lubac's careful work" that may be responsible could be made to serve. But of de Lubac himself I'd be doubtful. De Lubac has been most helpful, in my own thinking anyway, in helping me to see that a lot of what has passed for Thomism in the last centuries is actually a quite distorted version of St. Thomas, thanks to the influence of interpreters such as Cajetan, Suarez, and John of St. Thomas, and a certain nominalist strain of thinking that led, among other things, to a theology of 'pure nature.'
According to Aquinas, human beings have a natural desire to know God, but this desire can be fulfilled only with supernatural assistance. In the sixteenth century, some denied this, such as Baius, and argued instead that God could not be completely good unless he necessarily furnished human beings with the natural means for fulfilling their natural desires. Others, accepting the principle that natural desire entails natural means, tried to avoid the problem of a less-than-benevolent God by denying that human beings naturally desire to know him. This approach, according to de Lubac, was taken by Cajetan, Suarez, John of St. Thomas, and many other Thomists right on into the twentieth century. Their intentions may have been good, but the results were disastrous. The effect was to uproot the traditional theology of human nature. In various ways Augustine, Aquinas, Scotus, and others had held that the “desire to see God” was both a natural and fundamental characteristic of human nature. But the later Thomists (such as the aforementioned) denied this. Their intention was to counter what they considered to be the excessive pessimism of the view that human beings possess a natural desire that cannot be fulfilled naturally. But the effect of their position was to pave the way for the rise of a humanism that would assert that the divine is irrelevant to human beings.
De Lubac offers an insightful critique of this view, but what Kathy may have in mind is those fellow-travellers who piggy-back upon that critique to collapse the distinction between nature and grace altogether so as to make 'grace' (& 'supernature') NATURAL, thus leading to the flattening out of what Arthur O. Lovejoy called the "Great Chain of Being," or, to put the matter more biblically, the vertical relationship between our heavenly Father and His creatures below.
Kathy, but I'm curious what you think of the more proximate causes of the eclipse of chant and polyphony and of the prospects of their revival, given current trends. What think ye, my friend?
Hi, PP!
Yes, it's exactly the "piggybackers" I have in mind. Making grace "natural" destroys the sense of the vertical. And this dovetails nicely with the post-Kantian, post-Schleiermachian worldview, in which we're steeped from birth, which makes God unknowable due to the impermeability of the firmament. There is no personally available God, and even if there were, His influence is irrelevant. So we can do whatever we want and it just don't matter. All protests to the contrary are naturally immature and unenlightened.
For music, the prospects of revival are really good. Revival is in fact underway. IMHO it will succeed where it is humble. There have been people working steadily, peaceably for years, building up written work and relationships that, when they come to light, will seem to have been established just in time. My stuff is the least of it--there is an amazing amount of good being done right now.
It's kind of like when a dedicated professor's students become ready to take the reins of society.
I'm sorry, Kathy, but Eastern Christians don't buy the nature/supernature distinction and their liturgy is fine.
I'm sure that if one asked any Orthodox Christian they would say that the divvying up of life into natural and supernatural in the first place was the original mistake, that it fails to see that the entire creation is "shimmering like shook foil"--to take the words of a well-known poet of Scotist leanings.
(I have a certain sympathy with them, if not agreeing entirely.)
There are a couple of remarks one is compelled to make regarding Bartolucci's viewpoints.
First, his slam of Bruckner's E Minor Mass is utterly without foundation in the principles of Musica Sacra--except as understood by Mgr. Bartolucci himself. Same-o regarding his slam of the entire corpus of Mozart's music for the Mass.
Secondly, Mgr Bartolucci seems to think that Chant is "masculine." This is poppycock. It is not feminine, nor masculine. It is music, and should be sung (and led) exactly that way. Not alla marcia nor alla mince-ing, but as MUSIC.
Third, under Bartolucci's leadership, the Vatican choir was the laughingstock of the West. To him, tone quality began and ended with "bellow!! Louder!!"
Certainly, he has insights and interesting 'takes' on the Popes.
As to 'multiple styles'? Not according to him. Not the Flemish (e.g.,Peeters) not the Austrian (Bruckner) not the German (Mozart.)
One may cavil with Bartolucci's musical judgments, but it is hard to fault his assessment of Benedict's prospects. Worse, the "panzerkardinal" seems to have little stomach for the battle, and falls back into the old "collegiality" hammock with distressing ease. Fr Joe's revolution continues apace.
Someone please tell me I'm wrong.
"He began with serious work, but it got picked up in the kind of mocking dismissal of theological ideas that kills real thinking and chucks out the baby. People began talking derisively about "two-storied nature" [...]"
" Paul, I should have more clearly said that a distortion of de Lubac's careful work became a kind of flippant shorthand for doing away with the idea of a supernatural altogether. It's an idea that caught on, not just because it is an interesting thing to think about, nor because it has a liberating effect, but largely because it had a name and an image that made a straw man: "two-storied nature."
"Yes, it's exactly the "piggybackers" I have in mind."
Hi Kathy, I think I can see what you are saying now. In my own words, people in the Church no longer saw God the source of salvific grace in Revelation and the supernatural heavens, but instead in the 'world', nature, history, human culture and achievements, community and so forth. The Divine fire was stolen; Grace was relocated. In their minds everything became Smart New Church versus Superstitious Old Church. De Lubac was or can be twisted into such a position by the secular city and call to action crowd, world worshippers who were looking for justification, etc. - Those darn piggybackers!
==
Kathy, thank you for your reply. I'm encouraged by any sign of revival I can glean from the slim pickin's I usually see. Your word on humility is an important caveat, certainly, and one well taken to heart by those of us tempted to bitterness by the Haugens and Haases of Barney & Friends Bongo Masses.
Mr. Deavel, I love the reference to Hopkins, whom I like very much as well, and the nature/grace point too, though I think there are several ways that might be construed.
Dad29, you got a chuckle out of me, especially with that "Bellow. Louder!" comment. I do find myself in sympathy with him however on his remark about the masculinity of chant in this respect: Latin Rite church music has become so saccharin and therapeutic as to be unpalatable to most men, not to mention unsingable. Compare, for instance, Russian Orthodox chant, with its deep lower register of bass male voices. Now imagine inviting one of those bearded Russians into your local parish and inviting him to hold hands after singing Gather Us In or some other limpid AmChurch song! No wonder Bartolucci says we need Gregorian chant to sound masculine! OF COURSE, he's overreacting, but you see my point. Male parishioners and their priests and deacons in many American parishes feel nearly emasculated by the prevailing liturgical ethos.
Ralph, I wish you were (wrong), but I'm usually afraid you aren't.
Great article. A good inspiration for the Gregorian chant classes
starting tomorrow night at our parish (St. Margaret Mary's in Oakland).
Note that Gregorian chant is enthusiastically gaining popularity with Catholic home schoolers.
Keep hope alive for a wider appreciation of Latin and Gregorian chant. The modern options are a dismal balkanization of Christ's Church.
Ralph, you need a bit of patience; B-16 knows exactly where he's going with this, but it's only 15 months and a war seems to have jumped up...(in the Middle East..)
With all due respect, PP., "masculine/feminine" are simply not applicable to Chant. Roger Wagner told me to "Sing it as though it were music--and that works very well.
I know all about the crap sloshing about in the holds of modern-day barques/parishes. And I know VERY well about their sponsors, Rembert Weakland among them. (I live in Milwaukee.)
But Chant is the enfleshment of the Word (Ratzinger's statement)--not a march, nor a waltz. It is that music which illuminates the text as does all OTHER good sacred music.
There can be confusion: there are Chant hymns (Salve, Regina) which are a bit, ah, sexed. But not the Propers. Not the Ordinaries.
I won't pretend that I always succeed in walking the fine line between realism and cynicism, but in Benedict's case I believe I am. One can argue, with Dave, that it's only been fifteen months, give the guy a chance! Ok, except that fifteen months may turn out to be a significant chunk of the eighty(?) year old Benedict's papacy. If there was ever a case where it was necessary to hit the ground running, it is the case of the current papacy. If there was ever a man, one would think, who would be well-prepared to do it, that man would be Benedict.
But he hasn't.
Mr. R-D, you ain't reading the signs of the times very well. Sometimes I think I ought to call you Mr. Magoo!
How you been, anyway?
"it is hard to fault his assessment of Benedict's prospects. Worse, the "panzerkardinal" seems to have little stomach for the battle"
Yes, Bartolucci does not radiate happiness. He seems to be saying that 'Napoleon the panzerkardinal' has *no Generals*, and that there are not a lot of things eager soldiers (or even potential 'suicide bombers') can do to arm, organize and win a battle, let alone win a long drawn-out post-Vatican II World War! And I wonder: Whose side are the Generals on anyway, and where are they now; maybe the good ones are just stiff carcasses?
To make matters worse (for us in the trenches), being without any plan or protection, lay-victims of the Blast, we have been seriously poisoned by the Liberal-Nuke Fallout, and may in time all become pop-inspired guitar mutants. Horrible. Boy, those Liberals sure dropped a bomb!
==
Kathy,
Well, ONE of us is Mr/Ms McGoo. Just hang on tight to the handcart and we'll find out eventually.
You know me, another day, another disgruntled mutter. How are you?
"I think I can see what you are saying now. In my own words, people in the Church no longer saw God, the source of salvific grace, in Revelation and the supernatural heavens...."
They kneel now before the World, the idol of Self.
As for poor Pope Benedict XVI, I do not expect that he can save the Church-militant, or stop the Church-revolution, or halt the Church-decay. Only God could do that.
==
De Lubac was or can be twisted into such a position by the secular city and call to action crowd, world worshippers who were looking for justification, etc. - Those darn piggybackers!
Response:
I never heard any liberal or naturalist using de Lubac, who did write "The Drama of Atheist Humanism." I think most liberals have used Rahner (I actually heard he wasn't bad when it comes to the doctrine of grace), Kung, etc. and the Concilium, but to blame the Communio group (de Lubac, vonB, JPII, Ratzinger, etc.) does not make any sense.
Apolonio
You are absolutely correct. Just as I thought I understood Kathy’s point, I stumble. Yes, the only time I have ever heard or read a so-called post-Vatican II 'liberal' Catholic invoke the name of De Lubac, was to parade him around as an example of a martyr-theologian trampled under by an ever oppressive Papacy, a brave theolgian targeted by reactionary (conservative) churchman with their rigid and outdated theology and dogmas. In doing so, of course, they mean to imply that they are, like De Lubac, Danielou, etc. were in the past, now present day martyrs under the JPII regime, targeted by the nasty CDF Ratzinger guy, and so on.
But Apolonio, was not De Lubac once considered, pre-Vatican II, as a progressive, liberal, and the like? Maybe there is more to what Kathy meant, and perhaps she knows things we do not about history, and the (direct or indirect) effects of De Lubac’s thought in the pre-Vatican II era? I do not know.
==
Apolonio, I've heard the derisive expression "two-storied" or "two-tiered" nature used plenty by liberals. Haven't you? Ultimately that comes from the venerable HdL.
BTW, I'm wondering when "conservatives" are going to begin calling "the Communio group" on their overemphasis on the threeness of the Trinity, over and against the oneness. The Trinity is radically one and not a group, and there have been a lot of errors of overemphasis on that score, following Balthasar. (Oh wait, they've already begun! See http://www.anselm.edu/library/SA...df/
31Malloy.pdf, pages 58-60, for example.)
I'm fine, Ralph.
Paul, of course the Pope can't save us. Jesus saves. And the jaws of death shall not prevail.
Sheesh.
Kathy,
No, I have not heard of that expression.
I don't see any overemphasis on the Threeness of the Trinity. To say that is to say that the Fathers overemphasized it too. If we look at Eastern Christian theology, they always start with hypostases. It is true that God's essence is one, but His essence is unknowable. God has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ and Christ called God "Father." He is the revelation of the Father. Some theologians argue that to start with "the One" is a neo-platonic influence, Plotinus especially, rather than starting with the biblical concept.
Have you read Mysterium Paschale?
Kathy,
Yes.
Kathy,
One may not have to agree with Balthasar's theology of Holy Saturday, but his approach is good. In fact, if you read him carefully, he criticizes the methodology of Rahner. He starts with the Incarnation, how the Incarnation is oriented towards Calvary, and ends up with the Resurrection. What is the problem?
Antonio, the problem, as I've mentioned before, is that Balthasar tends to make too much of a distinction between the Persons of the Trinity. He looks too much at the relations between Father and Son as making a difference between them. He doesn't acknowledge their unity enough.
He has other imbalances too. He tends to focus only on the NT writings of Sts. John and Paul, and avoids the synoptics quite completely. And his disciples (who aren't just monolithic, by the way) tend towards the same mistakes of imbalance.
I wonder if there is a danger here, of elevating Communio to the level of magisterial teaching because of its association with two great teaching popes in a row--particularly its association with the current Holy Father. It's just a journal. It has a perspective and it tends to shut out other perspectives to its own harm. Nothing new under the sun.
Sorry! I meant to say Apolonio!
(That's it, no more proper nouns for me before breakfast.)
PP: Yes, one could construe the nature/grace point a number of ways (my good friend Steve Long of Ave Maria would probably feign hari-kiri at the way I did in this post) and, as I said, I don't entirely agree.
Kathy: the two-tiered or two-story nature business does come up with liberals quite often, but lots of fairly orthodox Christians like NT Wright and the Eastern Orthodox Churches do, which is why I pointed out that this can't be a universal scapegoat for bad liturgy.
I think you should read someone like John Saward on Balthasar to see a critical appreciation of his work, particularly on the Holy Saturday business.
David, it comes up much differently in the East than with liberals. East: the world is charged with the grandeur of God--particularly since the Incarnation. Which is why icons are written in glory, not in the muck of everyday life. Whereas some use a unified theory of grace to try to make the mundane, as such, the be-all and end-all. "Jesus is here in the market strife," blah blah. Yes, his presence can elevate everything, but not as-such, but as-redeemed.
(I didn't mention Holy Saturday, by the way. My quarrels with Balthasar are Trinitarian.)
Kathy,
I'm enjoying this conversation!
I don't think Balthasar avoids the synoptics completely. That's interesting because most liberal scholars don't acknowledge John as much anymore.
You said,
"He looks too much at the relations between Father and Son as making a difference between them."
I actually don't know if Balthasar is a Thomist or an Eastern when it comes to the distinction between the Persons. He does have his uniqueness, that there is a kenosis between the Persons. But according to Aquinas, the Persons are distinguished through their relations. And I think that's what Balthasar was trying to speculate, what the relations really is. We also have to note that Balthasar makes a good distinction in the two natures of Christ. He is, contrary to Barth, the analogy of being.
What method would you prefer? In other words, what's your approach in theology?
Kathy,
No, I don't think there's a danger in making the communio magisterial. It's simply how theologians have approached theology after Vatican 2.
David,
Tell Dr. Long I said hi! He was very kind whenever I discussed things with him (mostly on epistemology and Plantinga).
My approach: balance. Don't lose one side of things while you hold on too tight to the other side.
That's why I'm a Thomist. The relations e.g. serve both to distinguish and to highlight unity.
Re: von B. and the synoptics: pick up a random volume of the Trilogy and look for the Scripture references. John and Paul, John and Paul. John, John, John and Paul.
About music: I recently discovered an archaeological clue. See my latest blogpost for a link to what was considered a breakthrough: http://hymnographyunbound.blogsp...-mass-
this.html
'That's why I'm a Thomist. The relations e.g. serve both to distinguish and to highlight unity.'
That reminds me of Maritain: distinguish in order to unite.
Kathy,
To say "balance" is a bit vague. And what exactly do you mean by that? Does that mean that you mathematically count each verse you cite in Scripture so that Mark gets 3, Matthew gets 3 and so on? To simply declare yourself a thomist doesn't really say much. One may argue that Aquinas didn't have the balance of looking at the person as both an object and a subject. One may even argue that He didn't stress enough on the Persons of the Trinity, but relying too much on the Oneness of God, being influenced by Greek philosophy of the One. The point is that von Balthasar has his limits like any other theologian. It may be that God put him on this earth so that he can use the Gospel of John when it is being attacked consistently as not being a reliable source to know Jesus. It just shows how the Scriptures are so rich that one can only get a glimpse of God from reading them.
Yes, Apolonio, I mathematically count each verse.
The problem of Balthasar's being overly Johannine and Pauline is acknowledged by Balthasar scholars. He's not the Bible, he's not the Tradition. He's an enormously helpful but problematic theologian. I'm glad we agree on that!
What have you got against Greek philosophhy, anyway? Many people think that God provided the idea of neo-platonic emanations just as the Church was struggling to understand the Lord.
Dave: it's very similar. But I would be careful, too, because any analogy between the Trinity and created reality is going to be very tricky.
Kathy, yes, I agree. Degrees of Knowledge: Distinguish to Unite was a strictly philosophical work.
I rather like von B's intensive focus on John. His lack of "balance" in that regard doesn't bother me. We must balance things out for ourselves by reading different theologians.
Kathy,
I have nothing against Greek philosophy. I was just pointing out some arguments put forth by many theologians against Western theology.
Back to the main subject of this combox:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/1398...sweek/?
GT1=8307
Ralph:
May I suggest, however gently, that Benedict is appointing his own generals. Not all of them are of equal quality, and it will take more time to undo the legacy of almost 40 years of misrule in this regard, but I see great hope in some recent epicopal appointments. Jugis (Charlotte) and Burbridge(Raleigh), Burke (Apostolic Signatura), Finn (Kansas City). Perhaps I might even float the name Fitzgibbons for the newly vacated seat in Louisville?
Commenting by HaloScan
