In Umbris Sancti Petri

In a recent debate, hosted by the Catholic University of America, Robert George and Douglas Kmiec faced off on the question: "The Obama Administration and the Sanctity of Human Life: Is there a common ground on life issues? What is the right response by 'Pro-Life' Citizens?"

For those unfamiliar with the two debaters, Robert George is a professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University, and an outspoken and poignant proponent of the Pro-Life cause; and Douglas Kmiec is a professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University. Both men are Catholic; however both differ severely on how their faith ought to affect their decisions and actions as American citizens.

The cornerstone of the debate—and what probably caused it to occur in the first place—is the fact that Kmiec has openly supported President Obama on a number of occasions (even voting for him in the election) while George has remained staunchly opposed to the president's policies, and continually expresses heavy criticism toward those Catholics who supported him last November, knowing full-well his stance on issues of human life.

All in all, the debate unfolded like most do. Kmiec presented his case, George countered, and then they had a period of Q&A with moderator, Mary Ann Glendon. The main focus of the discussion was, quite naturally, the hard-line stance of President Obama toward anti-life legislation; and the responsibility of Catholics to act conscientiously in the face of such evil. A number of striking points were made on both sides, but the final tally was surely not in favor of Kmiec.

Perhaps the most notable aspect of the whole event was Dr. George's candid presentation of the Obama administration's shortcomings in his 20-minute portion of the debate. George is, without a doubt, a tremendous and clear-headed thinker; and his portrayal of both the pros and cons of almost any situation is bound to be thorough. Once again, he did not disappoint, leveling a barrage of hard-hitting questions against Kmiec's Catholic-Democrat position. He outlined (quite thoroughly) the fact that Obama does not deny the human fetus to be a human being, but that it has rather become a question of 'when must we treat such a being as having fundamental right?' The critical thing, George pointed out, is that Obama's pro-abortionism is not one grounded in ignorance of biological facts; but rather in the alienation of an entire demographic of American citizens.

Overall, I thought the George-Kmiec debate was a real testament to the integrity of the Pro-Life position—and especially one so grounded in philosophical and academic honesty as is presented by Robert George. I would strongly encourage anyone interested in the the roots of the Pro-Life argument to check out this video and see what they think.

In the last post on Rahner’s inner approach to God by the “pre-apprehension” of being, we discussed the possibility of an encounter with God based on our ‘pressing against’ his infinite being. As we saw, Rahner believes that the best account for God’s real existence is by coming to realize his Infinity—something opposed to our human finitude. We cannot conceptualize God’s fullness. But we can experience it when we find ourselves troubled by our own finitude; and when we realize how finite our lives and actions are in relation to the Infinity beyond us.

In this post, we will get a little more theoretical. (After all, Rahner was a serious philosopher/theologian, and it doesn’t do him justice to take him too lightly.)

There are some valid critiques to Rahner’s position, which we need to look at in order to justly present his theory, and set it in relation to the fuller context of the Catholic faith. And I will try to do that as concisely and clearly as possible.

The first objection might be: “Why does such a ‘pressing against’ the Infinite mean that God must exist? Couldn’t this just be evidence of some other being beyond us and greater than us?”

Most importantly, here, is Rahner’s continual mention of “infinity.” In other words, he is not simply speaking of a being-greater-than-others, but an infinite being. And this is, at least in our Christian faith, part of the definition of God. So pressing against the Infinite (if that is really what is happening) cannot be pressing against anything other than God himself—even if it doesn’t tell us much about his personal character.

A second critique might be: “Doesn’t Rahner’s inner approach to God border dangerously on making man into his own measure (perhaps a la Feuerbach and some other modern atheists)?”

I think this is a legitimate criticism. But I also note that Rahner’s argument can be used in direct rebuttal of a full-on Feuerbachian/atheist response. In other words (for those unfamiliar with Feuerbach and modern atheism), in the Vorgriff auf das Sein, Rahner stresses the fact that this “pre-apprehension” of Infinity is not something we create; but rather something we bring to our experience of the world. Whereas Feuerbach supposed that the idea of God was a mere projection of man’s best qualities into a divine “other,” Rahner wants to maintain a strong sense of man’s finitude, and the absolute reality and existence of the divine “other” over and above man’s relation to him.

For Rahner, man brings this realization of the “I” to all of his encounters with reality. This foundational self-awareness is the “horizon” upon which he experiences the entire world. And this self-awareness continuously presses against an awareness of the Infinity beyond—that is not man. In fact, man-as-man, for Rahner, even relies on this understanding of finitude; the continual longing for an Infinity that is unachievable in human experience. But again, the fundamental response to the criticism itself is that the Vorgriff is something brought to experience, and not the effect thereof nor the projection of any sort of human quality into the realm of eternity.

In the end, I think Rahner’s argument for God from this inner approach is very striking. I think that it offers quite a bit, and augments both cosmological and ontological arguments for God’s existence.

But I think, too, that it must be read with care. And I hope that I have done this—and shown this—in these last two posts.

[Thanks to StMichael for his comments on Part I of this post, which helped in formulating the objections stated here.]

There are many arguments for the existence of God. Among others are Thomas Aquinas' "Five Ways" for the cosmological existence of God, and St. Anselm's "ontological argument" for God from the perfection of his essence. The first, Thomas', explores an approach to the divine as the necessary cause of all existing things—which could not be their own causes. The second, based on ontology, argues that God's existence must be necessary since God is a perfect being, and therefore must always and unfailing exist in reality.

Here, though, I want to look at a third (and somewhat under-valued) argument for the existence of God: the inner way.

Perhaps one of the most striking cases for the inner way to God, at least in my mind, comes from Karl Rahner's argument for the Vorgriff auf das Sein. While Rahner is a rather complicated read, and to really understand his thought requires quite a bit of work, his idea of Vorgriff auf das Sein—or the "pre-apprehension of being"—is something almost anyone can come to grips with.

Rahner's basic premise lies in the fact that we, as human beings, are limited in our ability to conceptualize (i.e. form abstract notions) about things we encounter in reality. In other words, we can see a pencil, lying on a desk; and we can form a pretty good "concept" of what that pencil is in our minds (viz. yellow, thin, long, includes-eraser, sharp-pointed, etc.). Still, though, something of our concept is left lacking, and there remains an understanding of the pencil-as-a-whole that eludes us. The longer we stare at the pencil, the more we come to learn about it.

Now imagine that deficiency when it comes to our "concept" of God. We can say lots about him—that he is good, true, loving, merciful, etc.—but our abstract sense of him always fails to capture the fullness of his being. And to a far greater degree than with the pencil. Since God is immaterial, any understanding of his "essence" is one that relies on our apprehension of a spiritual reality, which isn't easy!

Rahner's idea is that, in our fundamental and 'regular' human experience, we have a "pre-apprehension" of something that transcends our situation in the world. To put it another way, although I am faced with countless particular situations each day, there is something about the "I" that is identified with me that persists no matter what the situation, and that I come to experience in a non-conceptual way. "I" am more than the decisions I make; "I" am a person who acts in the world.

This fundamental realization (pre-apprehension) of our deepest being is the basis for all further conceptualization. In fact, only because I am "I" can I possibly form a concept of the pencil on the table. It's length and color and weight are all things foreign to "me"; but when I see them and think about them, I can come to understand them.

But more importantly, my fundamental realization of myself—the Vorgriff auf das Sein—tells me quite a bit about the way I stand in relation to what is superior to me. Whenever I act or think, I always have a sense of an infinity beyond me; and an infinite number of things that I will not and cannot be/know. To be a human person is to be limited. I am what I am. But this constant pressing against the infinite, though, is a common experience shared by all human beings. And it is, in Rahner's estimation, the common acknowledgment of something beyond me and something superior to me. It is a primal acknowledgment of the Infinite that is not me. And this is God.

After a long time out of the loop and hitting the books, it seems that a little resurrection may be in order. I miss writing here, and having forayed a bit into uncharted waters outside this little haven of mine, I think there's something to be said for regular readers, familiar topics and concise, to-the-point posts.

This time off has given me the opportunity to reflect on a few things, which I'd like to mention.

1) First, having the chance to focus intently on my philosophical studies has opened a door that I never even realized existed. I'm coming to realize that philosophy, far from being the nit-picky and uneventful discipline most take it to be, is actually much more along the lines of what St. Augustine said of it: the "true religion." In fact, this view has been expressed by many great saints and theologians throughout the ages, including our own Holy Father, Pope Benedict, who writes of it in his book, The Nature and Mission of Theology.

[The theologian] carries in his hand the Gospel, from which he learns, not words, but facts. He is the true philosopher, because he has knowledge of the mystery of death.

Studying philosophy is something more than groping at reality. It is groping at the Reality. And it is one of the most important and engaging responses Christians can give in a modern world that so often seeks to extinguish this Reality.

2) Secondly, in the last months, having some time to myself and my books has also given me a wonderful opportunity to focus more on the vocation that the Lord seems to be showing to me in marriage. I am confident (partly because of my prayer, and party because of my studies) that marriage is a good thing, and am entirely sure that it is beautiful, since I see that beauty each day when I approach it. A vocational decision is something rooted in peace and joyfulness, and I can honestly say that I am filled with both of these as I more closely consider God's design of marriage, and how that plays into my own longing for fulfillment and union with another.

In particular, I think that 'going through' this intense (and radical) spiritual shift has been made easier by the people God has given to me, and by the desire he has placed in me to continue my studies. Together, they have made eminently clear what before was simply obscure and far-off. I am sincerely grateful for that.

So, all that being said, here's to a new incarnation of In Umbris Sancti Petri. I hope you will enjoy it once more; and I look forward to hearing from you all, whom I've lost touch with!