Two from Roiter-Doister

I have two posts for you, my friends, from our good friend and longstanding contributor, Ralph Roiter-Doister. Since they are, though not unrelated, quite different in tone and content, I have taken the liberty of posting them in two different places.

No. 1: "The gnostic temptation: Theology as literary criticism" (Philosophia Perennis, March 22, 2007). This piece is vintage Roiter-Doister, packed with the signature attitude du plume as well as all the serious substance we've all come to expect from Ralph. Here's the first paragraph:

I love the idea of theology as literary criticism. Much of literary criticism can be reduced to the explication of metaphorical language, or of the language of symbolism (which, with the flash and filigree removed, is only a more complex and challenging permutation of metaphor). The common denominator of both metaphor and symbol is the illusion that two separate things are actually one. With a simple metaphor, such deliberate confusion may amount to nothing more than a conceit, designed to highlight the cleverness of the author. With a symbol, however, a more complex statement is being made, the template of which is typically (1) A is not B, but (2) in a different and more profound way, A is B. The "more profound" way has to do with the cleverness of the author, of course, but also with his relationship with the reader: the author has set out in his text a deeper, more profound and elusive subtext, a hidden level of meaning which only the best prepared, most intelligent, most sensitive, most attuned, can fathom. It is a game of perspicacity, and also of exclusivity.

As you can see, this is serious stuff, which may also help you see why I posted it where I did. But this is only the beginning. At this point Ralph notes "a certain gnostic tincture to literary criticism," and launches into a tour-de-force rant cum critique of theology as deconstruction qua fabrication, pitching us analogies from Melville's great white whale and drawing us to the inexorable conclusion that it would make no difference to many contemporary theologians had the Nag Hammadi parchments been blank. A must read.

No. 2: "Does Anyone Believe in Purgatory Anymore?" (Scripture and Catholic Tradition, March 22, 2007). This is a Lenten reflection on the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, based on a reading of Fr. F.X. Shouppe's book, Purgatory Explained By the Lives and Legends of the Saints. The relation it bears to the first essay can be seen from the following sentences excerpted from his closing paragraph, where he writes:

Fr. Shouppe has no problem with clarity, and no need for relativistic accomodation of various "readings" of purgatorial metaphors. He is just a simpleminded priest of the old school, using the mind God gave him to illuminate His truth in the clearest way possible.

In other words, in the face of gnostic-minded theologians tempted to reduce Purgatory to metaphor and symbol, Fr. Shouppe articulates with simple irreducible clarity the universal and traditional teaching of the Church on Purgatory, and says -- as in the Billy Crystal-Robert De Niro movie -- "Analyze (or metaphor-ize) this!" Read this essay. Then, as Ralph says, "Find a place for [Fr. Shouppe's] book in your busy schedule of lenten reading, along with the Enchiridion of Indulgences, or perhaps the Raccolta."