Karl Barth by Jerome Hamer, O. P. (review)

BOOK REVIEWS 508 selves. Consequently, they act upon one another, and, to the extent that they are acted upon, they are to that extent passive. The composition of bodies is Canon Renoirte's valid proof for hylomorphism . He argues, and quite rightly, of course, that by the very fact that a material entity is limited, and limitable, it is composed, and consequently composed of matter and form. He hesitates over the usual expression of the proof from substantial change because he maintains that below the organic order, it is difficult to recognize substantial changes. That, of course, is true. Many of the things that Aristotle thought were substantial changes were not so. For substantial changes, the author would prefer to prove hylomorphisni from the fact that material things do not exist necessarily, but rather, are "fluidly determined," consequently determinable. This is, we realize, only a variation on the Aristotelian proof, and it is the dynamic expression of composition. We may note here that it will be a comfort to the extremely science-minded, those whose acceptance of scholasticism rises or falls with the pronouncements of the scientists, that Dr. Renoirte, the scientist as well as the philosopher, almost takes for granted that hylomorphism is the only sound philosophical explanation for material composition and change. This book is not particularly deep, nor is it intended to be so. It is not intended to exhaust the relationships between science and philosophy, but rather to point out the direction of such investigation. It is not a "philosophy of science," nor is it a textbook in cosmology. We have the author's own words for that: "The purpose of this study is not to give postive instruction; this is assumed to have been already acquired" (p. I). For that reason, it is unfortunate that in English it is entitled Cosmology, and that the translator should give the indication, in his preface, that it is a textbook (cf. p. iii). Were it \lSed as a textbook, instead of as a reference book, it could lead to the woeful conclusion, despite the author's protestations, that cosmology is elevated science. If it is used as it should be, as a critique, then it su~gests a clear and adequate presentation of problems to be investigated in the relations between the physical sciences and the philosophy of nature. , The Catholic UnivtJTsity of America, Washington, D.. C. LEO A. FOLEY, s. M. Karl Barth. By JEROME HAMER, 0. P. Paris: Desclee de Brouwer, 1949. Pp. ~97 with index. 165 B. fr. While the importance of Karl Barth is waning,. he still exercises a considerable influence on Protestant theology. Though he has formidable opponents among Protestant theologians, an understanding of his position 504 BOOK REVIEWS is necessary for a complete view of the theological scene today. The work of Jerome Hamer, 0. P. should be most helpful for Catholic theologians, since he combines scrupulous care in presenting the Barthian position with illumip.ating criticisms from the Catholic viewpoint. Most striking is the clarity with which the author has laid open the fundamentals of Barth's theology, which is primarily dogmatic. It is with the Barthian notion of " dogmatic " that Hamer begins his exposition. Barth distinguishes between three great categories of theology (using the term in a very broad sense): the activities of believers within the Church; the diverse functions of the collectivity, which is the Church; theological science itself. This last is likewise threefold: biblical theology, practical theology, and dogmatic theology. The task assigned to dogmatic by Barth is to confront the Church's preaching of yesterday with the" Word of God" in order to prepare the Christian message that the Church is to proclaim tomorrow. Dogmatic theology, therefore, is situated between the preaching of the Church and the "Word of God." To an analysis of these notions, Fr. Hamer devotes most of his work. The author feels that the key to Barthianism is the notion of the " Word of God"; chapters II-VII are devoted to its exposition and criticism. Barth was faced with two divergent Pro~estant positions on the "Word of God." The spiritualist or illuminist trend divorced the inner revelation of the Spirit of God...