Table Of ContentCHOOSING A WORLD-VIEW
AND VALUE-SYSTEM
AN ECUMENICAL APOLOGETICS
BENEDICT M. ASHLEY, OP
~,
--;-:-;;--:---;-;-::::-;-;-;:;-;:;- ~----,.--,--,,-...,---::-~:---
ALBA·HOUSE house NEW·YORK
SOCIETY OF 5T PAUL, 2187 VICTORY BLVD., STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK ,O:ll_
Library of Congress Calaloglng·in.Publicalion Oala
Ashley, Benedict M.
Choosing a worid·riew and y.tue-sysiem: an oa.men1caI apologolics
I BenedicI M. Ashley
p.em.
Indudn bIbIlograptUcaJ 11IfMances.
ISBN 0·11189-0829·7
1. Catholic Church ApoIogeI\c worts. I. Title.
BX17SZ.AB4 2000
239-d!:21 99-33m
CIP
Produced and designed In Ihe Unhed Slates 01 America by tna
FatholS and Brothers ollhe 50clely of SI. Paul,
2187 Victory Boulevard, Stalen Island, New York 10314·6603,
as palt 01 their communications eposlolala.
o Copyright 2000 by 1M SociBly 01 St Paul
Currenl Printing. IIrsl digil 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10
Year 01 CLMenI Prinling • first year Ihown
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
CONTENTS
.• ,• •• _., •.•• _. ....... _._.. . ,. ................. , ........................................ ii
CHOOSlr-;G
Ch.pIC' I: DoES EVE_~ONE Nu:o ~ Wono-V'EW I,I;Il V Al.U£.SV.<TE ..? .. J
1. "I Am N<M • Religious Pe...,..~ .... _.. ... ". . _.. _ .. ___.. ........ .. .. )
2. (, Reli~iofI Dyin,? _.. .. ". ___ .. ____ .............. __.. ........... _ ........ _ .................. 6
J. The r""",.,...1 o.~ni'"'" of Reli,i"" .... _.. .......... _. ............. " ..... _. .... 9
4. 11.>11<,.,...1 E<Jui ........ for ReliS"'" .......... _. ..... _ ................... _ .... 16
~. Choo<in&. Phil"""""yof LUe " ..... " ......... " ...... _....... 11
6. Weiahin' .... Optioos .................... _....... .. ... ___ 19
THE OPTIONS
Chapler 2: HUMMIST f'HII.OSOI'Il''''' QI' UfI; .. .. .................... 2.'i
I. e.-..k Awoy from Chri.,i..,i,y ..... .. ...... _l S
:!. The Hwn.niSl Woo-Id·VIOW ond ""'. ..· Sy. ..m .................. ))
1. The Capitol'" ond Sociali" Yo"",,,. of Hwn""i"" ..... _ ..... " .......... 37
4. A", Mod<-m " u"'..,i ..... Un~? ............. _. .................................. 41
S. Q .....i ofI. aboul HumaniSlie Philosophies of Lil. ............................ 47
Chapler 3: MYTHOlOGICAl. RU.lGlOl<s ................................................. 63
I. MYlhi< CU".... .. ___. _,, __.. ........ _ ... 6)
:!. f'rdIjSloric 1'I:01i,"", .. , ................ 67
1. The ,...·Uterory Reli~"",. _ ............ _. ................... _. ... 67
4. The AIle .... Urban ReU~i"", .................................................. 74
~. M)lbic Reli,"", n . " u. ... ni"" ""............. . ..... 82
Chop1ef 4: Er.t~N~TIOO' RI'.LIGIO:<S ................. .. ................... 97
on
I. The Greal Ref"""",""" _.. .. __ ..... ,, ___ ._ .............
2. Gaul ...., .... 1lud\Iho, ................. _. . 100
J. "iO<llri",,__ .......... _ .... _ .......... II)!!
4. _ Ab>oIuIe i.!he Ab.ol"'.~ " ..... _..... .. .... _ 1(111
Chaplet" C~o;.TIOrI RI:I.IOlOI'<' ........................................................ 121
,_ Wh .. i.C"'.tiorr?................. .. .................................. _ ... 121
2. The God of Abr.>IIarn. ]""",• •r Id '""Db .... _ 123
•
CHOOSIIIG A WORUINIEW AMP V~L~[·SYSrat
1. a.ri"i.ni'~ ................... . . ..... * •.. 11:8
•. IsI:1m ............ .. ..•* •.. .. ............ 1.l6
~. How l"heC"<e". ." "KnowR' ........•...... _ .. 141
6. An A11emaIi .. W~ 10 111< C"'a1or ...... _ .•.....• * ............. 168
THE ECUMENICAL CUOICE
Chaplcr 6: T ... DI"'-OO\J£ 01' TIII'.ISM wmr NOf'Io.T '1<E.rl .. .................... 18)
L I, Sorh Dialog.., """ible~ .•........ _. .................. _ ...... III
2. Wh~ MU>! R• ••I .lion be R"""i• •d on Fodh~ ... _ ............ 118
3. I. R. .....i on Verir;.,)e1..... ................................ .. . 192
i"",
4. Rev. .... Com"",nicOlion Vtrified by 51111S. .. . 199
S. God·. lnu ...... Solf·Re"elation ....... " ....... ,...................... . __ .202
6. Uo ... Thoi.m 1""ludes ,he o.her World.VIew, .... ,........ .. ...... _l OtI
Ch:lpltr 7: Tm EcuI4L'<lC ..... CH~.rn: SIGN OF Goo',
SEU',COMMUIOCATlON ..........• . ..... _.. .. _._... 211
I. The: St-arth IOf a R"'daKKy Si,n .. " ....... " .. 211
2_ Eaomenicily .. Mine"iou •.........•............... _ ." .. 215
1. C.tboIicity.!be Sign orinclu.he Core _ .",........... _.. * .. 217
4. Unily. the Sil" or the a.ureh os CommUfli'y ,. . .............. 223
5. HoIi ...... ,he SiB" 01 the Ch"",h .. Gro<e<I .............. _...... . .. 228
6. The Gop beI~n ,lit Go.<p<l .xl I'q>ul ... auu.i.nil~ ................. , 238
7. C_lu,ion ... .. ......... ,............... __ ............. 219
ClIapler 8: Itsus C ...m -: Goo', SElJ'--COMMUNICM10" 'N U'SlOO:Y .... 245
I. Apo,Wlldly. ,he SI;n or Ui<l<>ri<oJ C""'inuil~ _... *.. ...2 4S
2. Ui,l<>ri<il~ ..... Ecumelliclly ._. .... ,.,...... . ............. 247
), Ui"orical Cmlibil;'~ of lhe Cllurth'. Trodi,ion ,........... , :!SI
4. Did Je,us Rise from 0...",7 ... *.. .. .. _. ........... _ " ..... __ .. , :!S-I
S. Jes .. as God', Self·Ro.d .." ", ____ ....................... ...... 26()
Ch.pltr 9, TilE lI"roroc. .... CII.',""" Coo.to.nJ/ItTY ........................... 269
I. Tho Or-s.ni,"'ion or"", Cbri,li"" Communi') .... _ ........ _. ............ 269
2. 1. ........ 'kHI ..... Trioi'y .... ___ ...................... ,. ...... " .... 27S
J_ The: C"""onlinion EslobIi"'"""" ............. 279
4_ The: IndefC<libili,y .xIlnl.llibili,y of .... a."",h ... *.. . .... 2l1li
S_ The: ~n~or I. .... CIlriSi in Ui. Church _.. .... m
Ch~pler 10: Cos ..1 C" EV'L """ CHRlm~N U(lI'I; ... _._. ..... '"
.*. .. ................
L The SIIbjeOlI .. A.pecl> or Foith 297
2. The: Orilln of E.il............ .. .. _.. ......... ". ........ 300
). The SIIbjec1.nd E.II .•....... " ........................ *. .• 310
4. Compen • .,;.,.,."" Con.olaliM ..... .. ...... )U
S. Thear.. ..r Good ................ _........ _.. .. 319
6, Tho GOO of Love... . ............... _.. . )21
Conclusion .... .._................ .. ....... )2)
FOREWORD
Much is said these days among Christians both about "evangelization"
and "ecumenism," but it is not clear how the two goals can be recon
ciled. Karl Rahner's important theory of "the anonymous Christian"
has been mistakenly taken to imply that since the Good News has al
ready been heard by everyone willing to hear it, evangelization is un
necessary. All that is needed is ecumenical dialogue to help all to rec
ognize that they really are already of one faith. Hence, the function of
the branch of theology formerly called "apologetics" has largely dropped
out of current literature and the theological curriculum. The place of
apologetics has been taken by what appears to be a newer discipline of
"fundamental" theology. The distinction between the two is clearly
stated by Gerald O'Collins, S.l. in his Fundamelllal Theology' as fol
lows:
Fundamentallheology tackles a /lVo!old task by (a) methodologi
cally renecting on the source of theological knowledge in the
divine revelation recorded in tradition and Scripture, and (b)
calling attention to the way human experience is open to receive
that revelation .... [Since] the task of apologetics is to present,
defend and justify rationally the Christian faith for unbelievers,
its discussion with various kinds of "unbelievers" will presup
pose human experience and reason but not faith - or at least not
full Christian and Roman Catholic faith.
This situation, however, has recently become more complicated.
Francis Schussler Fiorenza in his Foundational Theology' points out
that fundamental theology has tended to absorb apologetics by dealing
not only with the meaning of the Christian tradition but also with its
vii
viii CHOOSING A WORLD-VIEW AND V AWE-SYSTEM
Irlllh by one of IWO melhods: Ihe hislorical and the transcendental. The
first correlates the fundamenlal truths of Christianity with hislorical
facts according to a correspondence theory of truth. The second corre
lates them with present experience according to a coherence theory of
truth. This second transcendental method has led to the absorption of
fundamenlal theology in its tum into "foundational theology" as in
Karl Rahner's great work, FOl/lldatiollso!the Christiall Faith.' Fiorenza
criticizes both fundamental and foundalional theology on the philo
sophical assumption that there can be no absolute ground for testing
the truth of any thought system, whether scientific or religious, since
we are always caught in a hermeneutical circle in which experience,
theory, and praxis mUlually condition each other. He proposes a herme
neutic method in which a broad "reHective equilibrium" between all
these elements is sought.
In this highly sophisticated, hermeneutical perspective of current
theology is it not more than ever necessary to remember the apologetic
task of theology in the service ofecumenism and evangelization? Evan
gelization is directed to those who do not believe (or do not think they
believe) in Jesus Christ as their Savior (leaving open the question of
their salvation through implicit faith in Him). Hence it seeks from the
ology a kind of guidance that is no longer themalically presenled in
most works or courses on fundamental or foundational theology. Ecu
men ism also requires us "to place ourselves in the other fellow's shoes."
Thus our theological schools which seek to prepare those who will
minister not only to believers but who will evangelize or enter into
ecumenical dialogue with the unbelieving cannot neglect special a!len
tion to the apologetic task.
John Paul" In his encyclical Fides et Ratio' accepts the term
"fundamental theology" but broadens it to include classical apologetics
in a passage that explains why an apologetic is needed by priests and
catechists or indeed by all Christians in witness to the Gospel. As St.
Peter counsels, "always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who
asks you for a reason for your hope, but do it with gentleness and
reverence" (I P 3: 15-16a). Though the Pope speaks principally of the
apologetic use of philosophy, by which he especially means metaphys-
Foreword ix
ics, what he says applies also to the apologetic use of forms of human
reason.
With its specific character as a discipline charged with giving an
account of faith (cf. I P 3: 15), the concern off tllldamentalthe·
ology will be to justify and expound the relationship between
faith and philosophical thought. Recalling the teaching of Saint
Paul (cf. Rm 1:19·20), the First Vatican Council pointed to the
existence of truths which are naturally. and thus philosophically,
knowable; and an acceptance of God's Revelation necessarily
presupposes knowledge of these truths. In studying Revelation
and its credibility, as well as the corresponding act of faith, fun·
damentalth.ology should show how, in the light of the knowl·
edge conferred by faith, there emerge certain truths which rca·
son, from its own independent enquiry, already provides. Rev·
elation endows these truths with their fullest meaning, directing
them towards the richness of the revealed mystery in which they
find their ultimate purpose. Consider, for example, the natural
knowledge of God, the possibility of distinguishing divine Rev·
elation from other phenomena or the recognition of its credibil·
ity,the capacity of human language to speak in a true and mean·
ingful way even of things which transcend all human experi.
ence. From all these truths, the mind is led to acknowledge the
existence of a truly propaedeutic path to faith, one that can lead
to the acceptance of Revelation without in any way compromis·
ing the principles and autonomy of the mind itself.
Similarly, fundamental theology should demonstrate the pro·
found compatibility that exists between faith and it' need to find
expression by way of human reason fully free to give its assent.
Faith will thus be able "to show fully the path to reason in a
sincere search for the truth. Although faith, a gift of God, is not
based on reason, it can certainly not dispense with it. At the
same time, it becomes apparent that reason needs to be rein·
forced by railh. in order to discover horizons it cannot reach on
its own."
The current neglect of apologetics, occasioned in part by the ne·
glect of metaphysics thatlohn Paul II deplores, is understandable when
we examine the condition of this theological discipline before Vatican
x CllooSING A WORLD-VIEW AND VALUE-SYSTEM
II. Its presentation often suffered from two grave defects. First, it was
developed in a ratiOlwlistic manner as if faith were Ihe conclusion of a
syllogism rather than a gift of God surpassing the mode of all human
reason and involving not only the human intelligence but also the total
ity of the human person. Second, it was presented in a manner which
neglected our pluralistic culture and contradicted our commitment to
ecumenism, that is, in such a way as to demand from all who were not
Catholics or even Christians the recantation of their "demonstrated"
errors.
In the following work I have attempted to develop in the manner
of an essay rather than an exhaustive treatise a line of apologetic or
rather evallgelical argument which is rational but not rationalistic. I
have also tried to base it on an ecumenical and thus hermeneutical
attitude to other religions as well as to purely secular world-views.
I will not attempt to describe religions other than Christianity in
detail as do the specialists in Hans Kiing' s well known Christiallity alld
World Religiolls: Paths 10 Dialoglle.' Instead I supply sufficient bibli
ography for a reader to explore in detail the beliefs and practices of the
various world-views concerning which I here only try to generalize.
For the present purposes I believe it is sufficient to consider the chief
apparelll differences between these world-views that have been recog
nized by experts in comparative religion. It is the task of ecumenical
dialogue to determine how real these differences are. What Christian
apologetics is concerned about is to disclose Jesus Christ as the Truth
in which all truth, from whatever source it comes. can be honestly
acknowledged and reconciled.
Notes
• New York: Pnulist Press, 1981. pp. 22·23.
1 New York: Crossroad. 19K4, Pf' 251-310.
) New York: Scabury/Cro~sroad. 1978.
~ Sept. 14. I99K, N. 67.
~ With Joscrvon E.c;s, Heinrich von Sticlcncron and Heinz Dechert (Muryknoll. NY; Orbi,;
Book,. 1996).
CHOOSING
Biblical Abbreviations
OLD TESTAMENT
Genesis Gn Nehemiah Ne Baruch Sa
Exodus Ex Tobit Th Ezekiel Ezk
Leviticus Lv Judi.h Jd. Daniel On
Numbers Nb Es.her ESI Hosea Ho
Deuteronomy DI I Maccabees 1M Joel Jl
Joshua Jos 2 Maccabees 2M Amos Am
Judges Jg Job Jb Obadiah Ob
Ru.h R. Psalms Ps Jonah Jon
1 Samuel IS Proverbs Pr Micah Mi
2 Samuel 2S Ecclesiastes Ec Nahum Na
I Kings IK Song of Songs Sg Habakkuk Hab
2 Kings 2K Wisdom Ws Zephaniah Zp
I Chronicles I Ch Sirach Si Haggai Hg
2 Chronicles 2Ch Isaiah Is Malachi MI
Ezra Ezr Jeremiah Jr Zechariah Zc
Lamenlalions Lm
NEW TESTAMENT
Matthew M. Ephesians Eph Hebrews Heb
Mark Mk Philippians Ph James Jm
Luke Lk Colossians Col I Pe.er IP
John Jn 1 Thessalonians I Th 2 Peter 2P
Acts Ac 2 Thessalonians 2Th I John I Jn
Romans Rm I Timo.hy ITm 210hn 2 In
J Corinthians I Cor 2 TimOlhy 2Tm 3 John 3 Jn
2 Corinthians 2 Cor Titus T. Jude Jude
Gahuians Gal Philemon Phm Revelation Rv
