Michael stated my meaning correctly. Perhaps I used poor wording.

At any event, if you’ve read anything I’ve written over the past year or so — not the political stuff but the philosophical stuff — you see mentioned the question of anti-intellectualism over and over again. I do this not as a cheap shot at anyone. Quite the contrary. I believe it to be the most serious issue facing the Church today. If this issue can’t be address forthrightly little else will be resolved.

What I’m actually referring to is the place that philosophy, the intellect, and the intellectual order occupy in arriving at truth. The American Catholic Church is in an especial predicament in this regard. Our culture is fundamentally Protestant. Indeed, we are the only nation fundamentally grounded on Protestant principles. All other nations were built on, or evolved out of, other cultural forms. But Protestantism is our basic culture and, at the core, it is anti-intellectual. Why? The Fall. Because of the Fall, the intellect was so maimed that it lost its capacity to know truth. This means that the intellectual order is beyond our grasp. This means further that there is no room for the analogy of being in the reasoning process. The analogy of faith is all there is.

This poses considerable difficulty when ethical and political challenges are discussed in the practical order. Catholics today not trained properly in the discipline of philosophy. In Catholic universities, the study of philosophy has been transmuted into the study of the HISTORY of philosophy. But these two curriculums are not the same. The methodology of history does not flow from ontological principles. It is grounded in some form of relativism.

You might recall an article referenced on Vox Nova from First Things about a year ago. I don’t recall its title right now. But the point was that theologians today are not philosophically grounded as was the case with Henri de Lubac and others. Earlier theologians were well ground in philosophy AND theology. Without such grounding, their ability to do theology was severely limited.

Something similar happens in the practical order. Catholics on the blog tend to discuss ethical and political issues primarily in the abstract. The inclination is to reason directly from moral theology (or principle) to public policy. But this is nonsense. What is discounted in such thinking is the entire realm of the contingent.

Unless greater care is given to comprehending the intellectual order — and how that order is analogically manifested from the lowest reality to the highest — the Catholic contribution to the national dialogue will continue to remain abstract. But this will severely hamper their impact. For when dialogue is reduced to a question of normative vs. secular principles, the secular will generally win out.

To be persuasive, Catholics need to focus their attention to the concrete where the act is actually being made.

I fear you have been seeing too many movies. St. Thomas never said so silly a thing, for he knew its falsity. You have but to consider Our Lord before Pilate.

The notion is one of English lawyers used to condemn the Catholics who refused to accept fat Henry’s headship of the Church in England.

Our amendment that a person may not be called to testify against himself was directed exactly at this idea.

Gerald did not say that “hostility to Rahner is anti-intellectualism.” He said that dismissing a scholar and questioning his Catholicism because he studies Rahner is anti-intellectualism.

I disagree that hostility to Rahner is anti-intellectualism. I think it’s driven by opposition to what is perceived as a theology that has been abstracted too much from its roots in tradition and scripture. Whether Rahner is an example of this I am unqualified to judge, and many theologians who have faced accusations like this in the past have been vindicated. I would just say that anti-intellectualism is a cudgel with which to beat opponents rather than an accurate characterization of the concerns.

Bingo, Mark.

Diaz was pre-approved by the Vatican before Obama made the announcement. Too bad the Vatican was unaware that Diaz had studied Rahner in depth before they approved of his pending appointment. I’m sure if they knew he was messing around with Rahner, they too would be howling like cats in a dog pen at the appointment.

What’s with this anti-intellectual Catholicism (Isn’t that a non sequitur?)? What are its origins? What does it say of the future? It’s more like a theocratic/political movement than anything that resembles Catholic thought and judgment. Like all movements rooted in opinion, this one is dangerous. For America, it is particularly so. Fear does have a grip over people’s minds.

“For which I burnt in inward, swelt’ring hate,
And festered ranking malice in my breast.” — Marston

But look at Obama’s rhetorical style. How did he respond to Republican opposition to the stimulus package? He said they were playing politics, dismissing their objections. How do he and his supporters respond to opposition to his appearance at(or his honorary degree from) Notre Dame? By saying opponents are trying to divide people and play politics.

Furthermore, the attempt to use the Vatican’s impulse to cooperate on issues of agreement as a wedge to divide the local church in the face of opposition from the local hierarchy was a common tactic of anti-clerical forces in Europe – in 1890s France, in pre-Franco Spain, in 1930s Germany, in the Communist bloc. First you make the most outspoken leaders in the local hierarchy appear isolated. Then you build up forces in the Church that are most congenial to your agenda. Then you try to make your supporters the sole legitimate voices of the (faithful?). Other common tactics are to undermine the Church’s role in education, to reduce the amount of money it gets (through, perhaps, reducing tax deductions for charitable donations?) and to offer support the charitable activities of the church, while treating their religious roles as an extravagance.

I think it’s a greater scandal that the U.S. sees diplomatic posts as an opportunity for rewarding campaign donors. I had hoped Obama would be better on this issue than Bush, but the ambassadors to Japan, France, and UK are all remarkable chiefly because they were large donors to Obama’s campaign.

Yes, so few who criticize Rahner know him, and, as you said, so many have abused him on issues like the anonymous Christian, it’s quite sad. The thing is, I think the same is true with Balthasar and Ratzinger — their fans know them as well as Aquinas, which isn’t that much.