A native of New York, Fr. Richard Viladesau completed his philosophical studies at the Immaculate Conception Seminary (Huntington), and pursued his theological degrees at the Gregorian University in Rome (S.T.L., 1970; S.T.D., 1975). He was ordained a priest at St. Peter’s Basilica in 1969. He taught for twelve years at the Immaculate Conception Seminary before joining the theology faculty at Fordham in 1988. He engages in ministry in both the Latin and Byzantine Ruthenian rites. His work has centered on philosophical theology, in particular the question of the knowledge of God and the concept of revelation, both in Christian and non-Christian traditions. In recent years he has become known primarily for his contributions to the field of theological aesthetics: theoretical (epistemology of aesthetics) and historical (theology and the arts.
Ch.1 Giving reason to our Hope
· Task of Christina anthropology is to understand suffering and empathize with the people.
· There is usually difference between preaching and practice.
Ch.2 The Transcendent Subject
· Consciousness is what distinguishes mode of being; subject from that of mere ‘objects’, or things.
· Things present themselves to me simply as being ‘there’, over against me and independent of myself.
· Consciousness on the other hand is not simply there, it must be activated.
· Life is not simply what we are but is a project, an involvement in our own being, in our own becoming. Our being consists more in what it is not yet than what it is.
Philosophy about the world
· Lonergan’s heuristic structure.
· Self as material in nature yet transcending in spirituality.
· The dynamism of the world; the world is moving toward Spirit.
· Spatially the universe contains me but in thought I contain the universe because the universe is not conscious of me (but I am conscious of the universe).
· The meaning of the world depends on the meaning of man (the universe is what I think it is).
· Man is not only master but also servant of the world.
· Are we mere things condemned to a brutal death with the fate of the knowledge of the whole universe?
· Question of ultimate meaning, raises the question of God, the ultimate ground of being.
The question about God
· The word God seems to be like any other word used in most languages.
· Yet word God must be translated from language to language while other proper nouns may not.
What does this word signify?
· The word God is more than mere personal name.
· Rhaner calls him ‘Holy Mystery’.
· The word which signifies source of all intelligibility, therefore the ground of all words.
Ch.3 The grounding of Transcendence without God
· ‘Now God is dead! You higher men, this God was your greatest danger.
Now at last the mountain of man’s future is about to give birth. God is dead; now it is our will that the Superman shall live.’ Nietzsche
Alternatives to faith in God
· Purva Mimamsa- we even find the proofs for the non-existence of God.
· Samkhya explicitly is a non-theistic system.
· Bhuddism – religious yet non-theistic.
· Negative theory- since nothing can be said about the absolute, even to raise question about Him becomes a distraction for man’s salvation.
· Religion which speaks of Nirvana but are agnostic in nature- Samkhya, yoga, Bhuddhism, Theravada, etc.
· Heidegger speaks of Dasein, Self-realization of one-self, silent about God.
· Sartre:- ‘If God were to create man, then God’s creativity would cover all human life; all value and meaning would be fixed; man would be unable to be truly free, for-self, but would be reduced to a mere thing. However it is obvious that man is a free and self-realizing being, and therefore the hypothesis of God must be rejected, as a contradiction to that freedom. ’
Ch. 4 The grounding of Transcendence in God-1
The traditional ways to God by reason
· It is common that in different traditions people speak of proofs for God.
· Aquinas speaks about ways not proofs. Human mind is incapable of reaching God’s essence. It is impossible for God’s being to be made evident to our minds.
· Proofs adduced by Thomas and others are simply statements of reasons which induce mind to accept the proposition that God exists.
· What our arguments render evident for us not God Himself, but testimony of him contained in vestiges, signs here below.
From the Idea of God
· Anselm’s proof for existence of God.
God cannot even be thought of not to be; therefore, He must be and He is.
· Concept of God is absolutely unique among all concepts, in that it alone signifies an existence which is absolute; if is thought at all it must be thought of as really existing.
· Tolstoy’s War and Peace Pierre speaks, ‘If God did not exist; we would not be speaking about him, my dear sir. Of whom, of what were we speaking? Who is it that you deny? Who invented him, if he did not exist? How is it that you and the whole world have formed an idea of such an inconceivable being, an al powerful being, eternal and infinite in all his qualities?
· Aquinas’ five ways:-
I. Unmoved Mover
II. Uncaused Cause
III. Necessary being
IV. Absolute perfection
V. Final cause
Augustine: ‘Ask the whole world and see, they’ll reply that God made them.’
The nerve of the proofs-mind and intelligibility
· From the beauty of these things which are eternal, we discover the maker, who is internal to us, and who creates beauty in a superior way in the soul.
Moral argument
· Kant says; ‘without God and immortality, morality would lose its grounds, the only cause which could give binding force to the moral law of our being is a supreme will of God.
Ch.5 The grounding for Transcendence in God-2
Transcendental method
· Transcendental Method aims at a self-appropriation of the subject’s consciousness.
· We seek to bring to our reflective attention those elements of conscious activity on which we always rely in thinking and willing, without normally being explicitly aware of them.
Question as starting point
· Man questions because he is a metaphysical animal, being is not only the object in our selfhood, even prior to any explicit question.
· Every proof of God’s existence manifests the fact that all being refers to God’s being, because all being participates in the divine being, in that which is absolutely and which nothing else is. This is especially evident in the case of self-reflective or conscious being. We cannot avoid reference to God, because consciousness itself, being at the level of spirit, is a conscious, although mysterious and perhaps obscure, participation in the divine, light that self-luminosity in which being and being-for are identical. It is perhaps in the realm of transcendence, in mystical experience, that the ontological argument has its place- not as a proof of God’s existence but as showing the structure of the experience of union with or participation in the absolute and self-evident being of God.
Ch.6 The free hearer and the free revealer
To understand, to observe, to draw conclusions, a man must first of all be conscious of himself as living. A man knows himself as living, not otherwise than as willing, that is, he is conscious of his free will. Man is conscious of his will as constituting the essence of his life, and he cannot be conscious of it except as free.
Leo Tolsoi (War and Peace)
· The reflection on the idea of freedom allows us further to determine the nature of the luminous experience of subjectivity. We can now say that the ultimate essence of being and of knowing is none other than Love, the free and conscious positing of the good. That is being in its primal case, which is not the being of things, bet Dasein is not merely intelligible, but is personal, free and responsible.
· Man’s dynamism is necessitated by less than the good one finds oneself in principle free before them,
Free Revealer
· What can a person say when he speaks of thee? And yet woe to those who are silent concerning Thee, when even those who speak are like the dumb.
-Augustine
· All being insofar as it exists, participates in God’s being.
· God must be unconditional being, for if He depended on anything else, He would not be self-explanatory. For the same reason God’s being is necessary. He cannot be in any way contingent, because he would then need an explanation outside of Himself.
· God is first the exemplary cause of the world. That is all the perfections of finite being pre-exist in God in an eminent way, so that God the model for all being. Every finite being is in some sense an image of the infinite divine being; God is the source of the analogy of being. In platonic terminology, we speak of the participation of all being in God to signify his exemplary causality.
Second, God is the efficient cause of the world. All finite being are brought about by God’s free action, which makes them to be from a state of non-being. Everything is created by God. Since God is the Idea of Being and the Act of Love, ‘to be created’ is equivalent to being known and being loved by God.
Third, God is to be conceived as the ‘final’ cause of the world, that is, the last end or goal of all finite being. God is the source of the world’s meaning, the ground of its value, by being the objective of all its striving, the ultimate beloved of all things. God is the supreme answer to the question ‘why’ in the sense of ‘how is that?’ God is the model of the universe in its being and goodness. Efficient causality tells ‘why’ in the sense of ‘where from?’ God is the goal of the universe. Final causality tells ‘why’ in the sense of ‘what for?’ God is the final goal of the universe.
Ch. 7 Salvation as Revelation
The blocking of Transcendence –Biases
· Lonergan speaks of ‘biases’: individual biases, group bias, general bias.
· Abraham Maslow quoting Freud says, ‘the greatest cause of psychological illness is the fear of knowledge of self.’
· Fear of self-knowledge is parallel to fear of the ‘outside’ world.
Sin
· We are nonetheless transcendentally free, and capable of some restricted categorical realization of freedom.
· Kinds of evil (physical, psychological, moral)
· Socratic notion of sin- man necessarily seeks good; evil is simply a mistake, if a man chooses evil it is because he has chosen the ‘wrong good.’
· Lonergan- sin is by its nature absurd; it runs counter to man’s deepest drive toward the good and therefore counter to the intelligibility which is identical with goodness. Sin therefore is the root of the irrational in man’s rational self-consciousness, and by extension it is the root of the irrational, meaningless, in man’s alienated situation. Intellect can understand the nature of sin only by means of an inverse insight. If it had a reason, it would not be sin; for sin consists not in yielding to reasons, but in failing to do so-even though the reasonable course is known.
Sin is by its nature the negative in human decision, not a positive content. It is in its essence a failure to will, an absence of response to moral obligation. The root of all sin is the sin of omission; for even in the morally evil, act which is positively chosen, the evil lies not in the being or act, but in what is lacking to it; namely the proper relation to the self, to other, the world and God. The sinful act insofar as it is sinful, is not an event or being but is a failure or being and the lack of an act. It is namely the failure to respond reasonably and lovingly to obligatory motives.
· Augustine: fundamental attitude of sin is ‘pride’ for it is a refusal to be a creature, i.e. to have one’s end outside oneself.
· The act of love also necessarily involves man’s mind; for freedom is the highest level of rational self-consciousness. Love is always connected with meaning and truth, just as evil as its root lie and a surd. The solution to the problem of evil must therefore involve a higher collaboration with God and with others in pursuit of the true meaning of existence.
· For every human being is finite, and can therefore only a virtually unconditioned value or object of love. Moreover, the life of the beloved is changeable; the values affirmed in the act of love can be altered by the free options of the person loved. There is a certain inevitable possibility ‘fickleness’ inherent in any finite free person; no finite being can, be worthy of an unreserved trust. Man cannot justify an absolute love, in which one commits self unconditionally and entrusts oneself completely to the other. Our neighbor can only be loved conditionally; if the conditions are fulfilled, then the act of love is grounded. Only God is unconditioned value which can ground a completely unconditioned or absolute mode of love. But if we in fact experience within ourselves a call to an absolute love of our neighbor then the implication must be that the love of this finite being is somehow identical with the love of the absolute and unconditioned: that the love of neighbor is the love of God. Only thus could an absolute love be justified. If we do experience a summons to an absolute love of neighbor, therefore, we must recognize that such love implies a supernatural intentionality; that it has as its proper object God himself, somehow united with the finite object of love.
· Christian anthropology has led us to make three fundamental statements about man.
1. Man is capable of God- that is man is by nature open to the infinite, and stands as a question to the Absolute.
2. Man needs God: confronted with the existential dilemma of evil and sin, man looks to God for salvation.
Man experiences the working of salvation in life, and in this experience implicitly anticipate from God an absolute saving event by which God communicates himself in history.