“McGinn’s The Varieties of Vernacular Mysticism is an astonishing achievement. No one will approach religious and mystical teaching in the late middle ages (1300-1550) quite the same way again. The broadest and richest account of Dutch mystical writers, a vision of Italian mystical writing that puts Catherine of Siena alongside Marsilio Ficino and Christian kabbalists, a fresh approach to famed English writers (Rolle, Julian, the Cloud author) fitting them into a larger religious world—all this in one volume, with serious attention to thought and theology, a close reading of texts, generous citation of vernacular originals, and weighty bibliographies. It is hard to imagine one person even attempting it, but McGinn has done it.”
“The staggering erudition of McGinn’s latest volume is no surprise, nor is the lucidity of his expositions of the vernacular mysticisms that flourished in the Low Countries, Italy and England in the late middle ages. What dawns on you as you progress through McGinn’s magisterial retrieval of fourteenth and fifteenth century developments in ‘mystical theology’ is how seriously Ruusbroec, Catherine of Siena, Julian of Norwich and a host of lesser figures have to be taken as theologians. Much more than a history of western Christian mysticism, this volume calls for and supplies a major revaluation of theology in the late medieval Christian church.”
This is an excellent edition of Rahner’s The Trinity. Included is an informative introduction by the late Catholic Trinitarian scholar Catherine Mowry Lacugna (to be read both before and after finishing the main book itself). An extremely valuable glossary is also included along with a rather short index of topics. The 6-page glossary is probably worth the price of the book itself.
Rahner maintains that the bulk of religious literature would remain virtually unchanged if the doctrine of the Trinity was deemed false. This slim volume is designed to rectify this situation. Ironically, Rahner rarely returns to the subject of the Trinity in his writings after this volume; even his magnum opus “Foundations of Christian Faith” has few references to the doctrine. Regardless, this volume is important as it sounds the trumpet that the Catholic Church believes this doctrine is important and necessary. The 20th Century is replete with theologians from both the Protestant and Orthodox segments of the Christian faith attempting to give prominence to the Trinity. Rahner, one of the Catholic Church’s better scholars joins this thrust.
The book is divided into 3 parts. The first deals with the state of the Trinity in Catholic scholarship when Rahner wrote this treatise (1967). Rahner states his method and structure of how he will confront the Trinity with what has become known as Rahner’s rule: “The economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity, and the immanent Trinity is the economic Trinity.” This first part has two important aspects. The first is a discussion of whether the Father could have done the part the Son played in salvation and vice versa. This is emphatically denied by referring to the rule stated above. The second discussion worth noting is one which discusses how medieval scholarship (scholasticism) chose to begin a discussion of the Trinity by referring to the unity before it spoke of its multiplicity (One God, then three Persons).
The second section illustrated the doctrine of the Trinity from the viewpoint of the Magisterium. This represents the main lines of the Catholic teachings. This is important for Rahner as he must incorporate his own teaching on the Trinity within this overarching framework and illustrate how it further illuminates the doctrine without overstepping its boundaries.
The third section is Rahner’s own synthesis of the doctrine. The best part of this section is Rahner’s discussion of the use of the work ‘Person’ to describe a member of the Godhead. There is talk of switching to more descriptive terms such as ‘distinct manner of subsisting’ (contrasted with Karl Barth’s ‘manner of being’). Rahner argues that there is too much individuality (and a sense of duality) read into our use of the work ‘Person’. I found this discussion to be the most illuminating of the entire book.
How does one build a better seminarian, and in turn, a better priest, especially over the issue of celibacy? This book, among a recent crop of studies focused on seminary training, attempts to collect interview data from a group of men who are being schooled in the “Diocese of Middlefield.” The candor with which the group speaks about celibacy and their aspirations to becoming priests is coupled with the comments of their formators, such as the seminary rector, spiritual director, and the archbishop of the diocese.
Admittedly, Stanosz’s sample is small (less than a dozen men) and may reflect a regional bias in that he does not compare the data he assembles in “Middlefield” with any other group. Nor does he let on—at least not immediately—that he himself has been in ordained ministry for 18 years (we find this out on p. 95!). In the interests of “objectivity” the author divulges that his “insider” status may have influenced his respondents’ replies, but dismisses this because he simply tried to avoid giving the appearance of his priesthood. For instance, he never wore clerical garb in his interviews. Whether or not the collar is on or off ignores the fact that, if the interview subjects were cognizant of his priesthood or background in seminary, they would be somehow influenced. Stanosz goes on for pages detailing his methodology. Giving it the continued appearance of a dissertation, which amounts to the least welcome aspect of the book.
His findings, however, are rather perplexing. On the one hand, the verbal responses to some of the author’s long lists of questions (supplied as an appendix) is forthright, but often mixed. Yes, many students are having difficulty absorbing the role of celibacy for their future priestly lives. Yes, others are embracing it as a necessary art of ministry or as part of a discipline sanctioned by their superiors. The seminary administrators, by contrast, believe they have supplied their charges with the necessary tools and contexts for living a celibate life (much of which relies on peer support and isolation from forming relationships with those outside of the dominant seminary culture). They wish to inculcate celibacy’s connection to service in Christ for the community and inoculate these seminarians from a culture that bemoans such a vocation. Stanosz rightly wonders about the ability of the program to assist a man in determining his (in) abilities for celibate life. If he does not fit the model candidate, he may be asked to leave. Thus, for the Diocese of Middlefield, seminarians go through their training highly conscious that at any moment their desires for priesthood may be dashed. The incentive to conform is high.
On the other hand, the author’s analysis seems overly judgmental, particularly to a group of men with whom he has had limited contact. Sometimes he will assert that “Bob” is a “loner” or that “jack” left seminary, so it was rumored, to marry. Basing research on innuendo and rumor is hardly the stuff of good scholarship.
Be that as it may, the author does suggest some thought-provoking material, particularly in an eara that he calls “commitment production.” This is the joint effort on the part of seminarians and their formators to instill a desire to believe that celibacy is a good and one that should be followed for effective ministries. As professional socialization, it ranks with the military or some corporations. Although Stanosz has given only a small taste of what a select group perceives as the benefits and drawbacks to their socialization, these insights are nevertheless very important in fine tuning seminary training and should be of interest to anyone involved in such work.