Fr. Jordan Aumann and Fr. Antonio Royo Marin were the successors to Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange in systematic spiritual theology. While they were well-respected masters in the field, their works clearly betray a more theologically conservative bent that was almost completely rejected during the feverish explosion of wild theological fads in the aftermath of Vatican II. Both theologians incorporated Vatican II into their works (or later editions), but they sometimes received the accusation that this incorporation was more like paying lip service to the Council rather than using its spirit as a springboard into more radical and revolutionary thought. Aumann and Royo Marin were seen as theologically boring fuddy-duddies. An exception to this may be seen in Aumann's work on the lay apostolate and lay spirituality, On the Front Lines, making great use of the Vatican II document Apostolicam Actuositatem and other post-conciliar documents. One former seminary rector and diocesan vicar general I know who studied under Aumann at the Angelicum exclaimed to me, "He was the most boring professor I've ever had!!!" Nevertheless, they continued steadfastly and produced works that have stood the test of time and continue to be used at the Angelicum.
I meant to post these reviews a long time ago and have finally gotten around to them. Fr. Dubay is well known for his collection of books on the spiritual life, mostly published through Ignatius Press. His magnum opus is Fire Within (published 1989), which summarizes the teachings of Sts. Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross on the spiritual life. His reputation as a master of the spiritual life is rightfully held among conservative Catholics who are interested in these sorts of books. What is lesser known of Fr. Dubay is his quite harsh review in Theological Studies of Fr. Aumann's classic text Spiritual Theology, published in 1980, that betrays Fr. Dubay's high esteem for "contemporary theology," which Aumann seems to make a point of ignoring in much of his work. Or if Aumann quotes from contemporary authors, it is only to confirm the point he is already offering.
Yet in a twist of irony, only nine years later, Fr. Dubay's great work makes mention of only a few contemporary theologians, and the review of Dubay's work notes that it adheres to older interpretive frameworks and ignores certain trends in contemporary theology—in the very same theological journal in which Dubay had formerly critiqued Aumann! To be fair to Dubay, his work doesn't claim to be a synthesis of spiritual theology but only of the thought of the two great Carmelite mystic saints. Nevertheless its overall framework fits well into the traditional works on spiritual theology. It was nice to see that Dubay moved away from these fads somewhat as time went on and settled into a more balanced and holistic approach. I will note Dubay's criticism that Aumann's work would likely not be retained "as a ready reference" among his intended audience fortunately turned out to be false.
So, I present below, with my snarky commentary interspersed, the two reviews, first of Fr. Aumann's Spiritual Theology, reviewed by Fr. Dubay, and second of Fr. Dubay's Fire Within, reviewed by Fr. Steven Payne, OCD.
---
[163] SPIRITUAL THEOLOGY. By Jordan Aumann, O.P. Huntington, Ind.: Our Sunday Visitor, 1980. Pp. 456. $18.95.
This volume may be viewed as a case study of one of the central problems facing contemporary theology if it is to regain the position it once held in the mind of the general public: the fragmentation-polarization problem. On the one hand, A. [i.e. Aumann] considers his book to be a "response to numerous requests for a complete and definitive work on Christian spirituality" (11). On the other hand, it is safe to say that many of its intended audience will not retain it as a ready reference. Those who view this work as definitive can point to its being based mainly on the teaching of St. Thomas, St. John of the Cross, and St. Teresa of Avila. It therefore avoids pop theories such as psychologized horizontalism or creation-centered "spirituality." It is orderly and clear. As long as systematic theology remains heavily theoretical and moral theology continues to avoid the totality themes of Scripture, there will remain a need for what we call spiritual theology. The title of this book is well chosen, for it is what it says it is. Part 1 deals with doctrinal foundations: the nature and scope of spiritual theology, the goal of the Christian life, its Christic and Marian character, the "supernatural organism," perfection and mystical experience. Part 2 is concerned with growth in holiness: conversion, purification, sacraments, the virtues, prayer and its development, extraordinary mystical phenomena, and aids to growth such as spiritual reading and direction.
Why, then, is it unlikely that many others will not retain Spiritual Theology as a ready reference? The main problem is not that the volume [164] is only partially new. That much of it is a republication is indicated by the preface itself when it notes that "some sections are taken substantially" from Royo-Aumann's The Theology of Christian Perfection published in 1962. The main difficulty is that while Vatican II does get some attention, contemporary thinkers are quite completely left aside. The renewal of biblical studies in the last thirty years has yielded an immense enrichment to our understanding of the spiritual life. Specialized studies on prayer, community, discernment, virginity, poverty, freedom, and authority would have added a great deal to the Dominican and Carmelite synthesis offered by A. [One wonders if only the religious orders had also been aware of these specialized studies, then perhaps they would not have suffered so much attrition following the council! Sarcasm.] Reluctant though I be to record it, I found no hint in this stout volume that anything significant in spiritual theology has happened since the Council. While some recent contributions are flimsy and fanciful, others are rich, even brilliant. A contemporary synthesis must be tangibly influenced by the fresh insights of men like Balthasar, Congar, Galot, Rahner, Daniélou, Sheets, Legrand, Merton, Van Kaam, and Knight.
Some people will be put off, rightly or wrongly, by minor irritants. A. occasionally uses terms that sound foreign to our times: "the various faculties of the soul.. .exercises of piety.. .philosophically repugnant... the passive purgations.. .the efficient cause.. .the formal cause..." [How minorly irritating indeed.] He sometimes writes of what theologians hold and do not hold when actually his statement is true only in the past tense. For example, noting that St. Thomas responded affirmatively to the question as to whether the gifts of the Holy Spirit are habits or not, A. remarks that "theologians of all schools hold for the same response, with few exceptions" (91). I fear it would be closer to the truth to say that the exceptions today are those who even discuss the question at all. This fact may be lamentable, but it seems to be the case. On the next page we read that "it is commonly taught by theologians that the gifts are the perfection of the infused virtues." This may be true in the past tense, but what is common today is nondiscussion [sic] of the subject.
A. rightly insists that deep prayer, infused contemplation, is meant for all men and women, and he cites Vatican II to this effect. He does not notice, however, the most telling and explicit conciliar texts, texts that are incompatible with the two-way theory of reaching sanctity. This most recent of the councils has made it clear that mystical prayer is a normal development of our grace life, that it is not reserved to an elite, that it is not "extraordinary." [Here Dubay clearly misunderstands Aumann, who, like Garrigou-Lagrange, was staunch in arguing against the two-way theory.]
In the judgment of this reviewer, a definitive work must not only be solid, deep, clear, and orthodox. It must likewise reflect the best in contemporary approaches and insight, for we live in our age, not another. It seems to me that we still await the definitive work in spiritual theology. [This is obviously a contradiction in concepts; a work cannot be simultaneously definitive and contemporary since the latter is always evolving. Such a work can only mention the contemporary trends, but anything truly definitive, by definition, must stand the test of time and above all passing fads by adhering to unchanging principles applicable to all times and circumstances.]
Marist Center, Washington, D.C. THOMAS DUBAY, S.M.
Source: Thomas Dubay, "AUMANN, J., O.P.: Spiritual Theology," Theological Studies 42, no. 1 (Mar. 1981): 163–164.
---
[539] FIRE WITHIN: ST. TERESA OF AVILA, ST. JOHN OF THE CROSS, AND THE GOSPEL—ON PRAYER. By Thomas Dubay, S.M. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989. Pp. vii + 358. $17.95.
With the growing popularity of Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross, this overview of their spiritual doctrine fills an urgent need. Nothing of comparable scope and quality has been available in English since E. W. Trueman Dicken's 1963 classic The Crucible of Love.
Dubay's approach is thematic and practical, intended "for all men and women in every way of life" (4). In an initial programmatic chapter he bases the contemporary relevance of John and Teresa on the universal call to holiness and contemplative prayer stressed by Vatican II, arguing that "the teachings of Teresa and John are nothing more or less than the integral Gospel," a claim he supports throughout by identifying corresponding NT passages for every crucial element in their doctrine. This scriptural component is a welcome feature, though D.'s [i.e. Dubay's] treatment of NT spirituality is developed in relation to Teresa and John rather than on its own terms, so that some themes (e.g., the communal dimensions of holiness) tend to be underrepresented. Still, the biblical citations are handled well, without manipulative "proof-texting."
Chapter 2 offers a brief introduction to the lives, writings, and personalities of the two Carmelite saints, while subsequent chapters provide a synthesis of their teaching on the major phases and elements of the spiritual life; here D. retraces the traditional journey from discursive meditation, through initial contemplation and both active and passive purifications, to transforming union. The final chapters deal with a variety of related topics, including distractions in prayer, discernment, extraordinary experiences, friendships, spiritual direction, wholeness, and freedom.
Since this is a popular rather than academic work, D. avoids technical questions and disputed points in Teresian and Sanjuanist scholarship. He makes virtually no mention of research from the past two decades, preferring (perhaps wisely) to remain in the older interpretive mainstream. [Remaining in the "older interpretive mainstream" is always bad.] Readers will have to look elsewhere for recent discoveries regarding the social, cultural, and economic implications of the Teresian program. [Thankfully. Does anyone really want to see contemporary theologians' analyses on the economic implications of the Teresian program?] Still, it would be hard to find a more lucid general introduction to the basic Teresian and Sanjuanist themes. D. does a masterful job of explaining the essential agreement and occasional differences between John and Teresa, in an engaging style that any sympathetic reader should easily follow.
Apparently some of this material originated in retreat conferences to contemplative religious communities, which may partly explain why D.'s most frequent examples of impediments to spiritual growth include idle [540] gossip and overexposure to TV and other media rather than, say, a lack of active concern for the poor. [Because religious orders in the past 50 years have shown much too much interest in TV and not enough concern for the poor? When was the last time you heard a religious order not emphasizing social justice?] D. likewise sees little value in prayer journals, "creation-centered" spirituality, and, especially, Oriental methods of meditation, which he repeatedly claims offer little more in themselves than "a brief, impersonal insight produced entirely by human technique" (54). [This is consistent with Dubay's views when he was critiquing Aumann.] Not until relatively late does he discuss the far more widespread Catholic temptation (which so preoccupied John of the Cross) toward vain credulity in private revelations, though he does lament, eloquently, that "most people would not even cross the street to witness an unobtrusive act of patience ..., but they will cross an ocean to visit the locale of an alleged apparition" (247)
[While I understand the sentiment of being too attached to private revelation, the comparison is frankly awkward, and Dubay's discussion in this section is somewhat confused; the point of making an act of virtue unobtrusive is precisely to hide it. Further, the reviewer somewhat exaggerates Fr. Dubay's point here, who wrote, "Private divine communications are relatively unimportant." Dubay didn't accuse anyone of vain credulity or say that private revelations are always unimportant. He's placing them in their proper context in relation to personal spiritual growth, namely, people can easily become attached to the revelation, and this attachment to the sensible will hinder their purification on the path to union with God, who is above the sensible. On the other hand, Dubay by his comparison undervalues the sense of the faithful who "cross an ocean to visit the locale" of an apparition. The faithful go for many reasons, often stemming from their faith: the hope of healing for a serious or terminal illness, the desire to grow in devotion, to find some personal renewal, to receive light and graces, etc. Many experience stronger faith after the pilgrimage, and such pilgrimages have a long tradition in Catholic history. Such apparitions are often the sign of God's special intervention, and they almost demand public veneration by the affected community, e.g. Our Lady of Guadalupe. Dubay could have made a better nuanced discussion on apparitions versus extraordinary mystical experiences occurring in an isolated individual's spiritual life that is never meant to become public. But in conclusion, the exaggerated aspects of this discussion actually reflect a trend in theology, developing as early as the 1950s, that held a condescending view of private devotions among the "ignorant" laity in general.]
Curiously, D. criticizes "minimalism" in moral theology, its divorce from systematic and mystical theology, and the "latecomer" theory of two paths (ordinary and extraordinary) to Christian perfection as if these were recent inventions by contemporary theologians of dubious loyalty. Indeed, he often warns against "the pitiable self-assurance of a dissenting mind" (253), stressing obedience to the magisterium and one's superiors as a crucial sign of authentic spirituality, sometimes (though certainly not always) seeming to rank it even before charity in the list of essential virtues (108 f.). One wishes D. were equally adamant against the evils sometimes wrought in the name of religious observance, to which the Gospels and the Carmelite tradition also clearly testify. It is worth remembering, further, that both John and Teresa were sometimes considered "disobedient" by their superiors; while we now recognize the error of such accusations, this should perhaps give us pause before judging too quickly which of our contemporaries are, or are not, truly faithful to the gospel. [Careful, both of you, your biases are showing. Notice how the reviewer must take the time to imply the goodness of the radical and probing work of contemporary theologians vis-à-vis an exaggerated conservative obedience that supposedly closes the mind. After all, points out the reviewer, look at the example of Sts. Teresa and John, two disobedient revolutionaries within whose trailblazing lineage people like Hans Küng and James Martin proudly stand! No, we mustn't ever suggest some contemporary theologians are "of dubious loyalty," Fr. Payne, lest we potentially prompt some slight feelings of personal guilt, perhaps?]
Such observations, however, have more to do with emphasis than substance; this reviewer would have preferred a more balanced admission that not all spiritual dangers today come from the theological left. [Lest we mistakenly think Fr. Dubay was a far-right conspiracy theorist.] Still, D. offers an excellent resource for spiritual reading and group study, highly recommended.
De Sales School of Theology, D.C. STEVEN PAYNE, O.C.D.
Source: Steven Payne, "DUBAY T. Fire Within (S. Payne)," Theological Studies 51, no. 3 (Dec. 1990): 539–540.
