Beauty, Balthasar, & Boilers

Maureen Mullarkey, "Beauty, Balthasar, & Boilers" (First Things, January 26, 2015).

I received a link to the article above from Guy Noir - Private Eye, along with these observations:

Well... I do not know if Mullarkey thinks all these things as sharply as she says them, or is just having fun.

Who cares?, since she is tremendous fun and certainly well within reason, even if the the Catholic faithful are still suffering aftershocks from her calling the Holy Father "imprudent."

Now here she is at it again, taking aim at the lodestars of the two previous pontificates and tweaking the ears of De Lubac and von Balthasar. And plugging the Japanese and dime store art, to boot!

[Hat tip to GN]

Oh brother. Not again.

Mark Brumley, "Should We Hope "That All Men Be Saved"? (Catholic World Report, January 19, 2015). "Theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar's soteriology has often been misunderstood or misrepresented. Here is a short primer on what he actually wrote." Say it ain't so, Joe ... Yes, Virginia, there is a hell, and you can bet your bottom nickel it ain't empty.

[Hat tip to JM]

Video clip: Fr. Hardon on why he refused to recommend H.U.v. Balthasar book for Ignatius Press

Interesting! Beginning at 3:53 on the video timeline, where Fr. Hardin is addressing the question of Judas's eternal fate.

CWR's long-promised symposium on Salvation & Eternal Destiny

The underground correspondent we keep on retainer in an Atlantic seaboard city that knows how to keep its secrets, Guy Noir - Private Eye, recently called me in a fit over the "long-promised symposium" responding to the controversy over at Catholic World Report -- the controversy over Mark Brumley's pulling Paul Deavel's review of Ralph Martin's book, Will Many Be Saved? What Vatican II Actually Teaches and Its Implications for the New Evangelization (See "CWR removes Deavel's review of Ralph Martin's book," Musings, April 5, 2013, and Brumley's acknowledgement that he pulled Deavel's review HERE).

In fact, although I said that Guy Noir pitched "a fit," it might be more accurate to use the words of Fr. Z and say that he had a spittle-flecked nutty. He said to me:

"So, what happens? In answer to David Paul Deavel's piece, "Vatican II and the 'Bad News' of the Gospel" (CWR, November 21, 2003), they trot out these 'big guns'. Big Guns? Get a load of this! Here's their list of heavy artillery:

• “Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required” by Douglas Bushman
• The Universality of Christ’s Saving Mission – The Teaching of Vatican II by Nicholas J. Healy, Jr.
• Salvation and Christian Evangelization: Vatican II in Continuity with Tradition by Father David Vincent Meconi, SJ
• Salvation and Missionary Work after Ad Gentes by Tracey Rowland
• On Universal Salvation: The Logic by James V. Schall, SJ
• Who Will Be Saved? The Council and the Question of Salvation by Father Thomas Joseph White, OP
• Did Hans Urs von Balthasar Teach that Everyone Will Certainly be Saved? by Mark Brumley

"Big guns? Did I say 'big guns'? Hey, kid, are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin to ME?!

"Maybe it is just me, but most of this stuff would embarrass any flippin' Evangelical theologian worth his salt. So whazzup wit' these Papists? As for Brumley's screed, (from what I know I like him, and I love Ignatius Press for their books, but) really? His defense is weak to the point of being disingenuous. 'Don't put words in my mouth: I didn't say I want to slap you, I said, you make me feel like slapping you!' Are you talkin' to ME?!

"The take away here for me is the emphasis at VII wasn't on saying what Scripture says; it was on saying what the drafters thought Scripture should say. And as we all want to believe, No one goes to Hell unless it is the ultimate and unavoidable last resort for Hitler- and Stalin-esque cases. And Karl Rove. So we see: It is not a wonder God saves me, but rather it is a scandal anyone is damned. Pffffffft! Per Henri DeLubac and Ron Bluth, All Dogs Go to Heaven. Dare We Hope... All Are Saved? God Is A Woman? I'm OK, You're OK? We Need Genderless Cardinals? I don't know, but none of that inspires much hope. Pfffffffft!"

Like I said, a downright spittle-flecked nutty.

[Hat tip to JM]

Addendum on Balthasar, Universalism, and Ralph Martin's critique

As an addendum to our earlier post, "Blogger takes on Barron, Shea, Balthasar" (Musings, November 3, 2013), I am posting here some excerpts from an interesting piece by Christopher Blosser, in which a reading of Ralph Martin's critique of Hans von Balthasar, Henri de Lubac, and others, awakens some doubts about their credibility across the board. As always, he's detailed and thorough, and I don't think it's nepotism to suggest that he can be worth reading.

Christopher Blosser, "Balthasar, Universal Salvation, and Ralph Martin's 'Will Many Be Saved?'" (Against the Grain, November 5, 2013). Excerpts:

... Martin's devastating critique of Balthasar, however, comes as more of a surprise. For even with figures as highly esteemed as Avery Dulles, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Emeritus Benedict giving a stamp of theological toleration (and/or approval) to Balthasar's hope for universal salvation -- Martin's detailed exposition of Balthasar's tendency to ignore, misquote or mischaracterize his sources (whether from the Scriptures, the Fathers or the mystics) as well as his questionable theological reasoning should give pause for all....

Martin devotes a substantial amount of his book to exposing what appears to be, from a standpoint of academic integrity, a rather questionable treatment by Balthasar of myriad sources -- the Scriptures, the Fathers, the mystics, in support of a position that is squarely at odds with the weight of Catholic tradition. Indeed, my experience o Martin was not unlike that of reading the late Ralph McInerney's "Praeambula Fidei": Thomism And the God of the Philosophers, in which he laid bare Henri De Lubac and Etienne Gilson's (mis)interpretation of Cajetan and Aquinas....

... If Martin's critique of Balthasar is correct (as McInerney is in his criticism of De Lubac) -- if their scholarship on this particular subject is simply not to be trusted, and found wanting -- it casts some doubt upon the integrity of their work as a whole. Where else could they have gone wrong?

At the very least, I do find myself reading the work of both De Lubac and Balthasar with a more cautious eye, and a more attentive ear to those sounding the alarm.

One final piece of theological trivia worth noting -- Balthasar ends Dare we Hope with a lengthy citation from the unpublished theological speculations of Edith Stein, "“which expresses most exactly the position that I have tried to develop.” Stein asserts that while the possibility of the soul's refusal of grace and consequent damnation in principle cannot be rejected, "In reality, it can become infinitely improbable — precisely through what preparatory grace is capable of effecting in the soul." According to Stein,

The more improbable it becomes that the soul will remain closed to it. . . . If all the impulses opposed to the spirit of light have been expelled from the soul, then any free decision against this has become infinitely improbable. Then faith in the unboundedness of divine love and grace also justifies hope for the universality of redemption, although through the possibility of resistance to grace that remains open in principle, the possibility of eternal damnation also persists.

But here's the catch: While Balthasar identifies himself completely with this passage from the saint, Stein herself moved beyond it and revised her position in later years:

Schenk, “Factical Damnation,” p. 150, n. 35, points out that while Balthasar makes this his final position, it was not the final position of Edith Stein herself. Schenk points out that these were passing comments in a work that she herself never published, and that in 1939 in her spiritual testament, she significantly modifies. “The possibility of some final loss appears more real and pressing than one which would seem infinitely improbable.” Hauke, “Sperare per tutti?” pp. 207-8, makes the same point as well as the additional point that not everything a saint or Doctor wrote is honored when they are recognized as saints or Doctors.

Vree: Pickstick raises dubium concerning von Balthasar

Surrendering Oneself to Beauty

By Dale Vree
In First Things (April 2006, pp. 67-68), Fr. Richard John Neuhaus wrote about "Challenging a Giant," the title of his piece. The giant is Hans Urs von Balthasar. Alyssa Pitstick challenged this alleged giant. At the Angelicum in Rome, Pitstick wrote a doctoral dissertation on Balthasar, which focused on Christ's descent into Hell on Holy Saturday.

Fr. Neuhaus said that by reading Balthasar one is "surrendering oneself to…beauty." Balthasar is probably the pre-eminent theologian of beauty. Of course, Hell is not beautiful, and so Balthasar does his best to expunge Hell.

According to Neuhaus, "Pitstick contends this 'theological opinion' of Balthasar's entails grave departures from orthodox teaching," namely, that Christ suffered in Hell the fate of all unredeemed mankind, so they won't have to go to Hell. According to Neuhaus, Pitstick notes that Balthasar "misrepresents scriptural, patristic, and magisterial texts and simply ignores aspects of the tradition inconvenient to his argument…. She finally convinced me that, on the descent into hell and some other signature themes of the great man, there are, at least implicitly, possible incompatibilities with the received structure of faith…. Like the third-century Origen, to whom Balthasar was deeply devoted, Balthasar may end up with a somewhat ambiguous reputation in the history of Christian thought."

In First Things (June/July 2000, p. 99), Fr. Neuhaus expressed dismay that the NOR would contest Balthasar on the issue of Hell. Neuhaus said, "I don't know what NOR is up to by attacking Balthasar." Well, now he knows.

In First Things (Dec. 2006) there is an article by Alyssa Pitstick and a counterpoint by Edward T. Oakes, S.J., who teaches at the University of St. Mary of the Lake in Mundelein, Ill., and who wrote many works on Balthasar and is a defender of Balthasar. (Alyssa Pitstick's dissertation will be published in book form by Eerdmans in 2007.)

Pitstick's book is about Christ's descent into Hell on Holy Saturday. As we said in our New Oxford Note "How Lovely!" (Nov. 2006), in Balthasar's Theo-Drama (Ignatius Press) he said: "Hell would be what is finally condemned by God; what is left in it is sin, which has been separated from the sinner by the work of the Cross" (italics added). In other words, universal salvation -- no repentance needed.

Pitstick says in her First Things article: "What then are we to think when Balthasar himself radically reinterprets a perennial doctrine of his ecclesial community, the doctrine of Christ's descent into hell? When he retains the form in its general expression but changes the content to the point of contradicting the original?… It was held universally in both Christian East and West until the Protestant Reformation; the Catholic Church and the Orthodox have continued to profess it without interruption…. It has consistently been held as an authentic and authoritative doctrine of Catholic faith. To doubt that would be to doubt not only the testimony of history but also the authority of the tradition itself and of the Church's ordinary Magisterium."

According to Pitstick, Balthasar says that Christ's suffering in Hell "must embrace all time if it is to atone for the sins of all time." Pitstick says that Balthasar "stands in opposition to the faith."

Edward T. Oakes, S.J., defends Balthasar, and in essence Oakes defends universal salvation. For all intents and purposes, Oakes admits that Pitstick is right -- which Oakes should not want to do. As Pitstick says: "It was held universally in both Christian East and West until the Protestant Reformation; the Catholic Church and the Orthodox have continued to profess it without interruption." Oakes says that Pitstick "disapproves of Protestant influence on Catholic theologians…. I will up the Protestant ante even further. In my reading, the strongest Protestant influence on Balthasar was not Luther or Calvin but Karl Barth…." Oakes quotes Barth: "we actually know of only one certain triumph of hell -- the handing-over of Jesus -- and that this triumph of hell took place in order that it would never again be able to triumph over anyone." Barth is known to favor universal salvation.

Oakes quotes 1 Timothy 2:4, that God "desires all men to be saved." Of course God, and all Christians, "desire" that all men be saved. But men have free will. Not surprisingly, Oakes leaves out the rest of the text: God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4).

Oakes quotes God as saying: "all things are possible" (Mt. 19:26). This is where Jesus says: "Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven" (Mt. 19:23). Yes, all things are possible with God, but this is no guarantee. In Matthew 19:29 Jesus says: "And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters…for My name's sake, shall…inherit everlasting life."

Then Oakes appeals to 1 John 2:1-2: "My little children, I am writing this to you so that you do not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Just One. He is the expiation for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world." Again Oakes leaves much out. In 1 John 1:7,9: "the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin…. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (italics added). And 1 John 2:23-25: "Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either…. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is the promise that He has promised us -- eternal life."

There was another exchange between Pitstick and Oakes in the January 2007 First Things. On the issue of universal salvation Oakes makes an about-face: "Personally, I would never assert an empty hell…. So how then do I reconcile that position with my enthusiasm for Balthasar? By citing the French anthropologist René Girard's recent book…. Girard speaks retrospectively of his work in a way that uncannily mimics Balthasar's voice: 'We have no choice but to go back and forth, from alpha to omega. And these constant back-and-forth movements force us to phrase matters in a convoluted, spiraling fashion, which eventually runs the risk of being unsettling and even incomprehensible for the reader… [Oakes omission]. I think one needs to read [my work (Oakes comment)] like a thriller. All the elements are given at the beginning, but it is necessary to read to the very end for the meaning to become completely apparent.'" Who knows what this means? Incomprehensible indeed!

Fr. Neuhaus is right: "Like the third-century Origen, to whom Balthasar was deeply devoted, Balthasar may end up with a somewhat ambiguous reputation in the history of the Christian thought."

[Dale Vree is editor the New Oxford Review. His essay, "Surrendering Oneself to Beauty," was originally published as a New Oxford Note in the New Oxford Review (February 2007), pp. 11-14, and is reprinted here by kind permission of New Oxford Review, 1069 Kains Ave., Berkeley CA 94706, U.S.A.]

Can you handle the truth? Subscribe now: New Oxford Review.