A Deeper Vision: The Catholic Intellectual Tradition in the Twentieth Century

Before starting on the book I wondered how Royal would manage to meaningfully present a topic so massive in scope. I am happy to report that he manages this ambitious project in an entertaining and informative manner, without being too superficial or general. Catholic philosophy, art, social justice and theology all get assessed through their most notable representatives during the period under review (a contentious topic in itself), with just enough detail (mostly) to whet the appetite and to provide a summary and explanation of the developments during the twentieth century that have taken Catholicism to where it is today. Along the way we rather obviously meet the old and obvious favorites like Chesterton, Belloc, Waugh, Greene, a variety of popes, Vatican II, encyclicals, all the powerful and beautiful, controversial and difficult aspects that make up this much beloved faith. Royal writes in a dense but clear style, and he treats the various topics and developments with a generous approach, but still with the steady hand of a conservative Catholic always present. He does not shy away from justified criticism of individuals, movements or developments, which throughout makes him a credible companion. I must accept that for the non-Catholic the book could be boring, presumptuous, triumphalist or just of very little interest. However, if one is aware of the influence that Catholicism brought to the world during the 20th century, as this book so clearly sets out, then the fair and balanced reader will no doubt find much of value in the book, even if only as history, sociology, literary criticism and so on. I could have enjoyed another few hundred pages of this wonderful read.

This is a deep book about religion, which this year provides a break from the politics and personalities of the moment. But it's actually two books. The first is about Catholic philosophy/theology, and the second is about Catholic literature, including poetry and novels as well as apologetics. Basically Robert Royal begins with the left side of the brain and proceeds to the right side. Why is the book so long? First of all, he manages to cover everything-I'm sure we all have our favorite projects that might get overlooked, but he really does cover almost everything. If an author is important, Royal wants to give him or her at least 20 pages or so of exposition. I think this is valuable for the intelligent, secular college student who wants to deepen his Catholic knowledge. It might be good reading for them next summer. Some of the language is technical, but any part that looks interesting can be explored further. And of course-it's for our priests, any priests who want to refresh their knowledge, and our people who may not be able to do more formal formation. Royal is a strong conservative, but not real intense-every 50 pages or so he'll go on a rant, but then he goes back into the exploration. He's quite positive on Rahner, which the more progressive priests and religious should appreciate, but their conclusions aren't shared. Ray Brown is also treated fairly. I think the literature section probably should be read first, since literature is more accessible than philosophy and theology. The literature exploration was great for England and France but didn't have much from America. We produced Flannery O'Connor, Dorothy Day, Thomas Merton (born French), and I would add Fulton Sheen for his Life of Christ and many other books. Peace of Soul is a serious engagement with psychoanalysis. The phenomenology unit was also good, but Dietrich von Hildebrand was only mentioned as part of a list. Steubenville people would be puzzled by this, for one thing. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin also was mentioned only in passing, but his unique influence is worth at least ten pages. In a book that is already so long, it wouldn't make a big difference. Hans Kung is dismissed, unlike Rahner and Schillebeeckx, but he was quite influential. Royal probably believes Kung is outside the tradition, but he should explain why and how. Also Charles Curran in the American context. Perhaps these decisions simply reflect his opinions. He basically says "Belloc's medieval economics doesn't work, according to some neocon hacks". I could have settled for a shorter and more positive treatment. I think the distributists can make a Catholic case for their economic views just as Mike Novak (not a hack) can. But these are my own opinions! Overall, Royal was trying to limit his own strong opinions and present all the material, and he did a great job.

Robert Royal's tome is essential reading for those who want to know the key players and key moments in the Catholic Intellectual movement of the last century. In the best sense, A Deeper Vision is like a Wikipedia rabbit hole that goes on for hundreds of pages. This is an incredibly valuable resource for Catholics. So many ideas that we take for granted today were painstakingly developed and articulated by brilliant men and women that we would do well to emulate. Congrats, Mr. Royal, on this serious achievement.

Robert Royal has produced a very useful discussion of the impact of Catholic thought on society at large on both sides of the Atlantic. He has not been Polyanna either, and shows some sharp criticism of both the Church and its cultural proponents. Yet overall, it is clear that he thinks that the cultural impact of Catholic artists and writers has been a positive one. I found his analysis, especially of the 20th century Thomists to be spot on, and very helpful as a summary of their thought and subsequent influence (which he thinks, correctly, has greatly subsided of late). I highly recommend this work as an excellent overall examination of both general intellectual trends in the West, and the successes and shortcomings of Catholic thought during a tumultuous century.

If you are you interested in the Catholic Church in the 20th Century there is not a better book then this one it is an intellectual approach of the greatest figures of the Catholic Church Saints and philosophers had a great history the second Vatican Council this is not a book to put on you shelf but rather read it again and again for insights of the world's longest lived religion I highly recommended it

A reasonably readable, no-more-biased-than-one-might-expect (from a die-hard Maritainian), account. I've read many of the authors/theologians/philosophers that are discussed, and was aware that there were historical connections between them, but I didn't know in detail what those connections were. I had, for example, come across the name Peguy many times, in reading people like de Lubac, von Balthasar, and Gilson, but, in their works, those references are most usually made in passing, assuming a closer familiarity on the reader's part, and I hadn't yet gotten to reading Peguy for myself. A Deeper Vision covers these connections at some depth, situates them understandably in the times, explicating bonds and threads from, say, Blondel to de Lubac; what it was about Blondel that influenced and inspired so many intellectuals, etc. Needless to say, Royal's vision is Royal's, and his predilections, by necessity, inform his historical oversight. While covering so much ground, he does what seems a fairly honest, workmanlike job of avoiding too heavily biasing the vista with his own sense of things. But who would write a book on "The Catholic Intellectual Tradition in the Twentieth Century" without strong preexisting views of what the history is and "means?" As in my case, readers may find themselves in strong disagreement with Royal on specific "takes" or interpretations of a given author's contribution, and it may be best to hold "A Deeper Vision" rather lightly as to the significance of trends. But, as an intro to the work of a wide variety of Twentieth Century Catholic thinkers, this book got me past wondering about, for example, Mauriac, and into at least a taste of who he was and what his writing was like. Excepting Tolkien, Chesterton, and Belloc, most of the literary figures were only nuanced names for me prior to reading A Deeper Vision. A troubling element, though, (aside from Royal's incredibly hubristic suggestion that Etienne Gilson, while somewhat valuable, doesn't have quite the "wingspan" of a Jacques Maritain!) was in Royal's "acceptance" (as representatively Catholic,) of the content of so many of the authors he lists. There are definite, and quite dark threads that run through the works of authors like Mauriac and Bernanos, just to name a couple, and whether their dark-inspired yarns represent a true Catholic Intellectual Tradition is entirely arguable. The authors were Catholic, it's true, but in Catholicism, Tradition, capital T, has a very particular meaning; it doesn't mean "trends." Just because someone is a professed, practicing Catholic, doesn't mean that their novels and theories are evidence of a Catholic Intellectual Tradition, even if those theories and narratives are common or popular in Catholic circles. Royal does mention, in passing, (but many times,) the impact some of these major figures and their historical contributions had on "ordinary" Catholics, but that doesn't make their contributions representative of Catholic Intellectual Tradition, either. History and the Magisterium will have to bear this out in the future; it may turn out to be that some of what Royal is presenting as Catholic Intellectual Tradition is merely a temporary, historical aberration; might even qualify as heretical some day. The history of the Catholic Church is like that. Truth, as Tradition, sometimes takes a while to settle out. The term "Tradition," as Royal is using it here, is highly rhetorical; that the thought and writings of a handful of historically, politically embedded novelists and theologians, though quite popular or influential, are congruent or representative in any particular with, for example, the enduring writings of the ancient Church Fathers, (as one example of genuine Catholic Tradition,) is what calls for close scrutiny. In any case, I'm glad to have read A Deeper Vision, for the information I gained, and the chance to reassess my own experience of what it was like to try to live as a Catholic from the mid 20th century on, and my memories of the part "Catholic Intellectual Tradition," (both within quotation marks and without,) actually played in my life. It's taken several decades since mid-Twentieth Century to see clearly that much of the "activity" in the Church during those years, was essentially and merely "trendy" and was very questionable in terms Catholic Intellectual Tradition.

Reader friendly.

o.k.

Most of the non-Catholic world is aware of the battle going on in the Church between the reforming spirit of Pope Francis and the reactionary position associated with Pope John Paul II. The origins of this struggle date back to the end of the nineteenth century when the Church attempted to strengthen its defences against modernism by a series of repressive measures intended to stifle debate. These defensive measures were essentially undermined by a brilliant generation of theologians many of whom, although having been previously censured by Rome, ended up as experts at Vatican II. Even so, Vatican II itself, in a key document (Lumen Gentium) required "submission of the mind and will" to the teaching of the Magisterium. Since then, traditionalists, viewing Vatican II as a mistake, have attempted to win back a lot of the ground conceded there. This is the story of the first and most interesting part of this book. The author writes clearly and covers the ground comprehensively, but his traditionalist sympathies are clear and will lead to some raised eyebrows : can John Paul II really be viewed as a towering theologian, comparable to Congar, de Lubac and Chenu? The second part of the book is a survey of Catholic bible studies. Typically, it wasn't until 1943 that the Church finally allowed Catholic scholars to employ historical and critical tools in the study of biblical texts, and even then scholars' activities were heavily and clumsily policed. The final third of the book is not worth reading. It is a survey of Catholic literature, most of which is devoted to Chesterton, Belloc, Waugh and Greene. The author claims that Chesterton's book on Aquinas is perhaps the best ever written on that subject, although he admits that it is probable that Chesterton never read a word of Aquinas. Belloc is praised, his anti-Semitism being excused as of its time (it's OK to be of your time as long as your orthodoxy is unquestionable). The claim for Waugh is that he is the greatest Catholic writer of the century, although the author's knowledge of Waugh is called into question by his belief that he wrote a biography of the Jesuit martyr Thomas (sic) Campion. A useful corrective to the views set out in this book would be "Twentieth-Century Catholic Theologians" by Fergus Kerr O.P, who is himself a distinguished Catholic theologian whose views - as far as I am aware - have never been called into question by the Vatican.