No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2024
A feature of much modem sacramental theology, and indeed theology in general, is a distrust of traditional metaphysical categories such as ‘cause’ and ‘effect.’ Much of the impetus for this has arisen from the critique of metaphysics instigated by Martin Heidegger, which has sought to overcome the “totalising” tendency of traditional Western thought. In the theological sphere this position has generally taken the form of regarding metaphysics as imposing a straitjacketing framework upon the intersubjective dynamic of grace and symbolic mediation.
It is the aim of this article to question this critique as it appears in what is perhaps the locus classicus of the post-Heideggerian approach to sacramental theology, Louis-Marie Chauvet’s very fine book, Symbol and Sacrament. It is not the aim of this article to examine Chauvet’s sacramental theology per se, but, rather, to evaluate one of the principal motivating factors behind his theology, namely, the rejection of metaphysics. It will be argued that Chauvet’s concerns do not entail a rejection of metaphysics tout court. In addition, it will be argued that the non-reductive naturalist worldviews of modem mainstream British moral realists such as James Griffin, John McDowell and David Wiggins effectively undermine the dichotomies underpinning the rejection. This has the advantage of lessening the apparent differences between different theological camps through the establishment of a basis of common intelligibility. Although there have been other attempts to reconcile Chauvet’s theology with metaphysics, most notably with the process metaphysics of Whitehead, this article approaches the problem from a more traditional metaphysical viewpoint and thereby one more likely to command widespread agreement.
1 Louis-Marie, Chauvet, Symbole et sacrement: Un relecture sacramentelle de l’existence chrétienne (Paris, 1987)Google Scholar, translated into English by Patrick, Madigan SJ and Madeleine, Beaumont as Symbol and Sacrament: A Sacramental Reinterpretation of Christian Existence (Minnesota, 1995)Google Scholar
2 Joseph, A Bracken SJ, “Toward a New Philosophical Theology Based on Intersubjectivity,” Theological Studies 59(4) (1998) pp.703 – 719Google Scholar and c.f. David, Ray Griffin (ed.), God and Religion in the Postmodern World: Essays in Postmodern Theology (Albany, SUNY 1989)Google Scholar
3 Louis-Marie Chauvet, op.cit. p.8
4 cf. Summa Theologiae, III.62.1.2
5 Louis-Marie Chauvet, op.cit. p. 19
6 ibid. p.22
7 ibid. p.24
8 ibid. pp.100 - 101
9 ibid. p.110
10 ibid. pp.112 - 113
11 John, McDowell, “Aesthetic Value, Objectivity and the Fabric of the World,” in McDowell, J, Mind, Value and Reality (Harvard, 1998) pp. 112-130Google Scholar
12 John McDowell, “Values and Secondary Qualities” in J. McDowell op.cit. (1998) p.136
13 ibid. p. 138
14 James, Griffin, Value Judgement (Oxford, 1996) p.48Google Scholar
15 i.e. not referring here to God or angels
16 Chauvet uses ‘value’ as synonymous with ‘worth’ and similar quantifiable terms. E.g. Chauvet, op.cit. pp. 25, 100. However, in this essay the term connotes the evaluational.
17 David, Wiggins, “A Sensible Subjectivism?” in Wiggins, D, Needs, Values, Truth (Oxford, 2002) pp.194-199Google Scholar
18 Roger, Crisp, “Naturalism and Non-Naturalism in Ethics” in Williams, S and Lovibond, S (eds.), Essays for David Wiggins, (Oxford, 1996) p. 119Google Scholar
19 James Griffin, op.cit. p.38
20 John, McDowell, Mind and World, (Harvard, 1994)Google Scholar, Lecture IV and “Two Sorts of Naturalism” in J. McDowell, op.cit. (1998) pp.167-197
21 James Griffin, op.cit. p.51
22 quoted in Ray, Monk, Ludwig Wirtgenstein, the Duty of Genius (London, 1991) p.451Google Scholar
You have
Access