Review: 'The Church in the Modern World' Part II | National Catholic Reporter

Review: 'The Church in the Modern World' Part II | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: This time MSW starts with the end of the book and its treatment of the responsibilites toward the poor.  This is not optional but something at the heart of what the Church is.  It is part of finding Jesus in both the poor and ourselves and the sacred constituion does not make this an prudential option. Neither does Matthew Chapter 25.



MSW then goes into the problems he has with the book.  One example is how auther Komomchak analyzes Augustinian Thought vs. Thomistic thought at Vatican II, with Aquinas winning the day.  Of course, Aquinas, who relied on Aristotle as well as the scriptures is more modern than Augustine, who draws from Plato - and who has a long career as a pastor/bishop to hone is message be more pastoral rather than doctrinaire.  The best author I have seen for Augustine if Gary Wills, who I am sure MSW is aghast at.  Nowadays, of course, the question of Augustine v. Aquinas would not come up in an analyis of theological epistomology - many other sources would come it from the theological community, much to the horror of the Holy Office.



Lonergan's perspectivism is addressed next, where everyone's entitled to their own perspective.  While on phyical world questions some measurement is possible for settling disputes, giving everyone their own perspective is problematic for those who fear relativism and seek absolute truth about moral questions.  Of course, the question of papal infallibility shows this best and how hopeless the latter is.  Either infallibility allows us to get to certainty when employed (this incldes the whole of the Magisterium) or it is a form of papal relativism - the tyranny of the pope and its niche truth for Catholics (and observant Catholics at that).  I would use contraception as an example and so do t he authors in about the same way.



The question was actually going to rethink truth via the appointed Commision.  Of course, the Commission loved the idea and the Curia would have none of it, fearing that a reversal here would show that the Emperor, in this case the Pope, had no clothes.  Paul VI went in a much different direction and St.  John Paul and Benedict had no problem affirming Humanae Vitae, which continues the condemnatoin of eugenics and Caritas in Veritate keeps going with it.  Tragically, opposing eugenics, both here and abroad, affirms reproductive freedom - while much of H.V. denies it - which both families and most embryologists have blanched at.  Neither the sex nor the science of H.V. can be affirmed by natural law properly understood (in the way the Church does not understand it).  It will and has unraveled, regardless of what its supporters want.



Chapter Five of the book and its use of the word Christi-ian and itw support for liberation theology is a joy to us hard right Catholics - and likely would have earned the wrath of St. John Paul.  Not so much Francis, although rubbing our noses in it is probably not politic.  MSW is fine with the argument, just not the lack of subtlty which is the mark of more traditional theologians who like to have their cake and eat it too (which is likely why people on the right thing of this as a prudential option).



MSW likes the book, but would only use it with a conservative counter-point and some editing - although with multiple authors, maybe making each chapter an essay would be a better idea.  I am sure reviewers more conservative than MSW - who is conservative enough though he seldom admits - will be more on the attack.  Interesting.  Sounds like a Perspectivist question.