A Rejoinder to Armand A. Maurer’s Review of The Thomism of Etienne Gilson. A Critical Study by John M. Quinn (review)

BOOK REVIEWS 187 The growing scepticism about the existence of angels is not so much due to new arguments that have been brought forward to disprove their existence as to a failure to see that they have any relevance for the contemporary Christian. Fr. van der Hart makes an honest effort to come to grips with this problem. He suggests that angels still have a real (though marginal) relevance for Christian life as representatives of the sphere of the sacred that man spontaneously recognizes as enfolding his life. The last chapter is particularly interesting. However, one is surprised to find no reference to the development of the theology of angels in the Christian Church, the riches of which have been indicated by such scholars as J. Danielou. Frequent and illuminating references are made to the Jewish apocryphal writings, and the author is able to trace a growth in the theology of angels right up to Christian times. But why stop there? Has the Spirit ceased to be active in the Church after New Testament times? Why, for example, give so much emphasis to the angelology of the Book of Enoch, and omit all reference to the angelology of Origen? And what of the teaching of the Church? To say (p. 10) that the main text on the existence of angels is that of the Fourth Lateran Council surely does not dispense one from taking into account other important declarations of the magisterium, right down to Pius XII and Paul VI. These criticisms may seem a little unfair, since it was perhaps not the author's intention to give a complete theology of angels and devils. But then why the misleading title? The same criticism, in fact, could be made of a number of other books in this series. They do not present us with " Theology Today " on the topics in question but rather with certain aspects of these topics. This book would have been more aptly entitled " The Pre-Theology of Angels and Devils." St. Charles' Seminary Nagpur, India ANTHONY MORRIS, O.P. NoEL MoLLOY, O.P. A Rejoinder to Armand A. Maurer's Review of The Thomism of Etienne Gilson. A Critical Study by JoHN M. QUINN. The task of a reviewer is a demanding one. It is particularly so when the work analyzed challenges views to which the reviewer is himself committed. For then the most scrupulous balance and objectivity are called for with respect to both the work under immediate scrutiny and the positions under attack. It may be questioned whether in his review of 188 BOOK REVIEWS Fr. John Quinn's book, The Thomism of Etienne Gilson, (The Thomist, April, 1978) Fr. Armand Maurer meets these requirements. In general, he does not adequately and justly present the criticisms made by Fr. Quinn, nor does he adequately and justly present the views disputed by Fr. Quinn. All this our rejoinder will make clear as we follow the order used by Fr. Maurer. 1. Christian Philosophy. (i) On the question of the autonomous status of Gilson's Christian philosophy Fr. Maurer first simply restates what Fr. Quinn, along with others, takes to be a confusion in Gilson and ignores the salient features of Fr. Quinn's critique. That critique, Fr. Maurer holds, is rooted in a failure to grasp Gilson's claim that the Christian philosophy of St. Thomas is " a part of theology,'' to be used for " theological purposes." In fact, it is precisely to this claim that Fr. Quinn objects, noting that such a " philosophy " is not philosophy at all but theology; that this " philosophy " must be distinguished from genuine philosophy, i.e., speculation specifically independent of theology; and that viciously abstracting this " part of theology " from its theological framework and misnaming it are not enough to transmute it into philosophy; however truncated at Gilson's hands, it remains theology. To bolster his point Fr. Maurer then presents, in utterly misleading fashion, a remark from Gilson that any philosophy is Christian if it "considers the Christian revelation as an indispensable auxiliary to reason." But what is at issue here is the reverse: Gilson's teaching that Christian philosophy is reason absorbed into the scheme of revelation...