"Von Balthasar reminds us that what is most fitting is not what is most current."

Anne M. Carpenter, a doctoral student at Marquette University who authors the "Catholic Kung Fu" blog, has a new post titled, "Redeeming Hans Urs von Balthasar" (ht: Christopher Blosser). Carpenter summarizes a number of the common criticisms made of von Balthasar (it's a very good list!) and then writes that "it is true that the majority of his most vocal detractors don’t really understand what he was trying to say. (There are others, quieter, who know him well and who begin to slide apart the broken seams in his work.) But being difficult is not the same as being wrong, and certainly not the same as being unworthy of consideration." She then writes:

No, there is something worthy in von Balthasar. I do not mean merely that he wanted beauty to return to theology. In a post-Balthasar world, the worthiness of such a task is taken too much for granted to have much weight. I mean that his attempt to give beauty its due credit manages on the whole to avoid the two major dangers that most theologies succumb to in one way or another. The first danger is straying into a love of logic that ends in a love of mere coherence, with no room at all for God; the second is using beauty to avoid complex and demanding metaphysical inquiry, as if beauty could compel us beyond the traps that already sit before us. Beauty cannot save us from logic; it places logic, and gives it fullness. This means theology must be more rigorous, not less; it must have more room for mystery, not less. There must be both. That is what beauty tells us, and what von Balthasar for the both part manages to defend.

During the time of its writing, Glory of the Lord was a lightning-bolt that could return to theology old categories such as what is most fitting, which means that we could once again think in terms of what was best and not what seemed most useful. It was a lightning-bolt that let us begin to mend the tragic divorce between theology and spirituality. Reason no longer needed to be reasonable in so narrow a sense.

With these books, feeling returned to numb fingers.

But now, decades after its completion, Glory of the Lord stands at the long end of another spectrum. When theologies of art and beauty now begin to threaten to descend into a loose sentimentalism, Glory reminds us that beauty has its logic. Von Balthasar reminds us that what is most fitting is not what is most current.

It is not enough merely to have feeling; we must also know obedience

It's a post certainly worth reading for anyone with any interest in von Balthasar. Personally, I have benefited tremendously from reading several (fifteen or so) of his books, but I also readily confess that there is so much of his work that I've not read and so many of his ideas that I don't fully comprehend. I, of course, don't think he is infallible or perfect; but I also think that saying, as some do, that "he was too liberal" (false) or "he believed that no one will go to hell" (again, false), is not helpful in the least. In fact, in some cases, it is almost slanderous. He is a great thinker and brilliant theologian whose huge corpus demands a lot of time and effort, and few people have the time, the energy, and the ability to do it justice.

In the words of Pope Benedict XVI, who knew him well: "The example that von Balthasar has given us is, rather, that of a true theologian who in contemplation had discovered a consistent course of action for giving Christian witness in the world. We remember him on this important occasion as a man of faith, a priest who, in obedience and in a hidden life, never sought personal approval, but rather in the true Ignatian spirit always desired the greater glory of God."

For further reading, on Ignatius Insight:

• Biography of Hans Urs von Balthasar
• All Ignatius Press books by Hans Urs von Balthasar
• Excerpts from the writings of Hans Urs von Balthasar
• Ignatius Insight Articles about Hans Urs von Balthasar
• Pope Benedict XVI Praises Hans Urs von Balthasar (Oct. 2005)

Comments

[Charles E Flynn]

Note the reference to von Balthasar in Beauty Has Pride of Place, By Bevil Bramwell, OMI.

[justinnickelsen]

Good post, carl. And I chuckled when I went to comment and saw the first commentator's mention of Bramwell who first introduced me to von balthasar and the like. Your use of "slander" in the post is appropriate, and one I have used many a time. People seem to think you can't slander "dead theologians", as I like to say. You can, and it is a too often accepted norm. -jn

[Lauri Friesen]

I, too, find von Balthasar difficult to comprehend but my spirit sings and soars when I read what he has to tell me. So, I ignore the critics (whose writings do not inspire such a response) and my own befuddlement to savour what I can understand.

[joe]

Nice piece.

For those who think HvB was too liberal, it is very interesting that Rev George Kelly said HvB told him that Kelly's criticisms of Raymond Brown were the most important piece of work he had done (!).

As for the Hell stuff, I think a part of the problem was the overly defensive temperament that came thru in "Dare We Hope..."

Makes me want to read some of "Glory..."

[Agnieszka]

Thanks for the link, Carl (anything about my beloved Father von Balthasar is always greatly appreciated).

[A]

Hans Urs von Balthasar, along with Ratzinger, was the greatest theologian in the last century. I am very thankful for Ignatius Press for having published his works. And although Balthasar is a genius, I think that von Speyr is way better than him. Her profundity is stunning. No wonder why Balthasar loved her.

His work definitely takes time, but I do think that the problem is not so much with time, but that people would rather read other non essential things than read his works. And other than John Paul Institute in Washington, I don't think anyone has really immersed themselves to his thinking.

I would personally recommend Love Alone is Credible, The Threefold Garland, and vol. 1 of Glory to get started with Balthasar.

[Charles E Flynn]

I had read Adrienne von Speyr's "Confession" in the original English translation, which was sufficiently defective that Ignatius Press published a better translation. I hardly remembered the book, when I was specifically told by a priest, a member of the Oblates of the Virgin Mary, that I should read some of her works. She can be daunting at times, because she has a tone and style, even in translation, that can come across as, "I'm sorry, but you have completely misunderstood the meaning and purpose of everything. Keep reading, remain open to the Holy Spirit, and things will become clearer."

Adrienne von Speyr can destroy your worldview in a single sentence, but she always replaces it with an upgrade.

[Matthew]

Obviously his work on Beauty and Glory is phenomenal, but this does not mean there were not problems elsewhere. His work on the "Paschal Mystery" (as he understood it) is problematic. His work in "Dare We Hope" goes well beyond the problematic. DWH flies in the face of what every saint, pope, and council has said on this topic and seems to deny the plain sense of Scripture regarding the fate of Judas.

[Apolonio]

I find the objections to Balthasar with regards to the Paschal Mystery and Dare we Hope very weak so far. This is not to say that Balthasar's views are not controversial, but it seems to me that quoting a bunch of passages from the Scriptures and the Magisterium in an apologetic-style way is very weak. As Griffiths has shown, even the Magisterium does not say anything on Holy Saturday that would exclude what Balthasar said. With regards to DWH, it does not fly in the face of what every saint, pope, etc said. That would be ridiculous. The Eastern Fathers go way beyond what Balthasar said, in fact. One of the best patristic scholars in the world, Ilaria Ramelli, is working on universal salvation. It should be a good read. As for Scriptures, it all depends on what "aionos" mean. And I don't even know if we can get a conclusive answer to that.

But a way to understand and critique Balthasar would be going at it from the point of view of love: what does love entail? Does it mean to suffer? Would not then suffering be part of the atonement, rather than just obedience? What would a theory of atonement that does not include suffering say to me? Does love involve an element of surprise?

Those are the questions that must be dealt with. Otherwise the discussion just becomes sterile and we're back at high school apologetics.

[Charles E Flynn]

I hope to see Adrienne von Speyr's work on Holy Saturday published in English by Ignatius Press.