PHARAOH'S .MAGICIANS: THE ETHICS AND EFFICA:CY OF HUMAN FETAiL TISSUE TRANSPLANTS ROBERT BARRY, O.P. Program for the Study of Religion University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana DARREL KESLER Department of Animal Sciences University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana. I N RECENT YEARS increasing attention ha;s been given to v:rurious types of scientific riese,archinvolving the human fetus. In the 1970s, :a tremendous amount of concern was expressed IJ.'egiaroingthe fetus ,a;.s a rSU!bject of In this debate, the announced " research impeiiat:i:ve" was pos,ed against other moral imperativ;es.1 Following much soctiet:JaJldrebarte,protootlive meiaisumeis WeIDe il!dopited1by oompireihensive regiutatiionsin 1975 estaiblishiingprotections foT a number of research sUibjects. These regulrutions protect the fetus from non-beneficiail experimentation. that iworuild pose more than minima;l risk rto the fetus. Current debates in science and ethics now swirl arlOiund a new topic regarding human '.fetal life: the fetus as a sourrce of tissue for triansplaintation into other persons ais run thempy. It is an issue that is rapidly moving torward the same Jevel of" research imperative" as did the earlier debate on the 1 1 1 See Paul Ramsey, The Ethics of Fetal Research (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975): "Today one often hears statements like' Fetal Research must be done,' or 'It would be immoral not to do this research'" (P. xv). The validity of such opinions and utterances entirely depends on a netbenefits ethics, and the validity of that moral universe has been called increasingly into question in recent years. 575 576 ROBERT BARRY, O.P. AND DARREL KESLER as subject. Recently, ,a new level of intensity was added to this deharte rby the imposition of an indefinite moratorium on federal support for research on transplantrution experiments inv;olving human .fetirul tissue and other !humans. 1Thls " :indefinite moratorium " w1as a result of a process that 1began with research p110posaJs considered rby the National In'stituites of Health (NIH) in October 1987. In Marich 1988 a momtorium wa;g plaioed on the r:eseareh, and an 1advisorypanel was summoned to consider the ethical issues involved. This panel presented 1a cveoommendationfor the procedures. However, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Ruman Se1wfoes (HHS), Dr. Louis Sullivan, decided against the research proposal on etmcal grounds. His decision w:as with the 'concU'l'Tenoeof the Assistant Secretary :£m.· Health of HHS, Dr. James Mason, who has for the NIH. Secretary SulliV1an's decision was oommumcarted to the Acting Director of the NIH, Dr. William Raub, in Nov,ember 1989. A :firestorm of criticism erupted from ,rudv;ocatesof this research, including the Council of Judicial and Ethical Affairs of tihe American Medical Association, which 5.n June 1989 called for an end to the:ban. 2 In this article, we wish to question both the science and the ethics of the rproposed fotal tissue transplantation therapy. We !Will 1support the £edeml funding moratorium and surggest new pmtections for the fetuses (whether po,ssibly living or de2" Medical Applications of Fetal Tissue Transplantation", JAMA, Vol. 263, No. 4, January 26, 1990, 'PP· 565-570. There has been a .great deal of public debate, not only in the U.S. but also in Europe over whether human embryo research should be supported with public funds. Many Catholic countries in Europe have prohibited such research, while a number of other nations have allowed it. Dickson, D., "Europe Split on Embyro Research", Science, Vol. 242, November 21, 1988, pp. 1117-1118. The most interesting controversy is in West Germany where there is a strong movement to prohibit it because many there believe such an experimentation requires judgments that there are certain forms of human life that do not deserve to survive. Ibid., p. 1117. Many Germans regard these sorts of judgments as too close to those made by Nazis, and there is strong sentiment to prohibit such research altogether. Ibid. HUMAN FETAL TISSUE TRANSPLANTS 577 oea:sed) of elective a.bortfons. We will also describe new re.for the diseases in which it is seaooh directions in claimed that fetal tissue transplants we imperative. First, there not 1been eno;ugh fong-te:rm the11aperutic Bll!coesses with human fetal tissue transplants to waLVrant federal if.uncling of further l.1esearch. The num1ber of reported sruccesses ha:s 1been ¥ery sma:ll .and their duration quite limited. However, the high media profile anid appeal of this wpproa.ch iha;s meant that ea.ch ip'Vomising experiment has heen highly publicized. The information gi¥en the public .a:bout these experiments ha;s heen chosen very oa11e£u.lly, and other research directions which show greater promise and ·effectiveness are still virtually unknown to anyone outside the research community. Second, we hold that there are other procedUl"esand techniques that will offer at foast as much hope for long-term therapeutic relief foom Parkinson':s disease, dirubetes, and Alzheimer's disease, and possibly other conditions as well as do human fetal tissue transpla:nts. Because these a:ltemative p:votocols and techniques present fewiervrude his sermons ·and treatisies, while a pastoral, homiletic inrberrtioniieciproca:1lypermeates the scholarly .worrks, particularly in regard to .the Meister'1s fascination with rthe Woil1d. Heinrich Deni:fle, 1who disonviered and first commented upon Eckhart's Laitin writings in the 1880s, concluded that the Meister faclmd the clarity of conception and precision of expression characteristic of the great scholastic figmes who preoeded him, partiou1ady Albert the Grea:t 1and 'lihomas Aquinrus.1 B:ut more reoent Eckhart scholars have increasingly •argued that Denifle's oonoern to :ve£ute uncritically inflated characteriz,ations of Eckhart's philosophloa:l genius, notrubly that of Wilhelm Preger, .led him to undel'V'alue and indeed misrepvesen:t •the Meister's ireal goal a;nd bme achievement. Indeed, tto the modern critical eye, aided :by a oontury 1 "Eckhart ein unklarer Denker war, der sich der Consequenzen seiner Lehrer resp. seiner ausdruckweise nicht bewusst war. Gerade bei den schwierigen Lehrpunkten, wo Klarheit und Scharfe der Begriffe und des Ausdrucks mehr als je geboten ist, tritt dies zu Tage. Gerade in den entscheidenden Momenten verlasst ihn die Klarheit .... Eckhart besass aber nicht die geistige Begabung iiber die Scholastik hinauszugeben und doch innerhalb der Granzen der Wahrheit zu bleiben." "Meister Eckharts lateinische Schriften, und die Grundanschauung seiner Lehre," in A.rahiv fii,r Literatur unCl Kirchengeschichte Cles Mittelalters, ed. H. Denifie and Franz Ehrle (Graz: Akademische Druck u. Verlagsanstalt, 1956), vol. 2, pp. 482, 521. 609 610 RICHARD WOODS, O.P. of ]urbher di:s:cioverieis1rund study, " the scholastic Eckhart is an 2 original .and spooulaxbivietil:rintker,1and not only a spirit's itineriary .aJJJd ha:ck to its eternail. Sourioe-4hie Ohristian NoopLatonic schema th.at Eckhart im.heri'bed room St. Albert tb!e Greait rund, 1behind him, Hugh and Richa;rid of St. Victo:r, Thomas Ga1lus, John Sarraoenus, John Soottus Eriugena, Diornysiius the Areop1aigibe,P!l.'odus, and, penultimrutely, Pilotinus !himself. For thls gre:art theoa Meister Eckhart: Die deutschen und lateinischen Werke: H erausgegeben im Auftrage der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft, 11 Vols. to date (Stutt- gart and Berlin: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 1958-). German sermons will be identified hereafter by their number in the Deutsche Werke and, for English translation, by the corresponding page number in the Walshe edition. 9 " Eine Koiner Handscrift mit lateinischen Eckhart-Exzerpten," Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 31 ( 1961) : 204-12. In volume three of his edition, Walshe includes a translation of a fragment of one of Eckhart's sermons discovered by Prof. Kurt Ruh in 1967 and published in the Zeitschrift fii,r deutohes Aitertum 111 ( 1982) : 219-25. See ed. cit., pp. 131-35. 618 ECKHART AND NEOPLATONISM tradition, liecently examined in some detail iby John Macquarrie alllld Andrew Louth, stretches hack evoo £artlier to tbie Oappadocian Fraithe'I"s, Origien, Philo, :and at the source, Pilato.in Smee the 1app1e1amance of Eoklhamt'1s more aoadiemic Laltin wiorrks, op;inion has heen divided as 00 their importance :velative ibo the more familiar German sermons iand tT1eatises for underauthentic tooching. Some recent comstarndmg the menibato'l.1s sti1l 1:Jend to favor the lattier aJ.moot enti'11ely, even wihile acknOW11edgingt:hie impo'11tooceof the forn11er; some favor the Latin. 11 Critical opinion :seems 'bo have turned in the direction of remphrusizingthe importallliceof both .the Latin and the German :works in 01der 1bo unders:tand the whole Eckhartthe teacher and the p:veacheT.12 But to understand to what extent Ed.mart ias ,a tlheologian, philosopher, arrd mystic was in1 1 debted to Obrisltian Nooplatmrism it is raliso n:ecess1acy to see him in the oonteJct of his ,w;orks, his method, and his scholarly and apostolic career. The Scholar and His Temper While Echltart had ra ik!een phi1osorphica1 temperament, he did not rus ,a rule compose racrudemic1weatises. Ratiher, he scatltJeTed inisights amid rpmsuppositiornsthroughout his theo logical W1011kis, rscriptam1.1l commentaries, spiritual 1exbrn.'!tations, and rermons. It is .difficult ;bo :ves!i.st the imprtesrsionthat he was impatieTIJt with rsY'stleimatization ,and !llla:rmw focus. He Wias rer:tainly not munh :given rto :either, nor :wrus he ovel'lly fond of oonsistbency. iBut his mind wias not meTiely restless. lt wa,s, like 1 1 1 10 See John Macquarrie, The Search for Deity, and .Andrew Louth, The Origins of the Ohristian Mystical Tradition from Plato to Denys (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981. Hereafter Origiins). See also .Andrew Louth, Denys the Areopagite (London and Wilton, Conn.: Morehouse-Barlow, 1989). 11 Reiner Schiirmann, for instance, criticizes Vladimir Lossky for neglecting the German works in favor of the Latin, although concentrating himself almost exclusively on the former. Cf. Schiirmann, op. cit., p. 263. 12 Cf. Bernard McGinn, "The God beyond God," Journal of Religion 61 (1981): 5-6. 614 RICHARD WOODS, O.P. 1bhie Apo1s1tle's, ibciHiialll.it :and £ar-irlangiing,generous in iiJbs isoope and rb11eadth, if sometimes scanting the fine de'tail which delighbs 1the trwe inte11edtualist. F:or, :also likie St. Piaul, Eckhart nie¥er !lost sigih:t of the "hig picture," subordinating what he minor points to the hrurmonio1uscompos,ition of the whole. He s1eems to have :been an irrtuiti¥e rbhinker, orupaibleof either uitilizing 10T 1le1aping over logiical argumentation as itihe mood sitmuck him. His creativity was trait which, ooupled with his intuitive 1ruppeal:s,1appaJ'ently sitruck his more inqufirs1ilbo1rs1a1s ti:rnarpproprirute1and even imperrbinent.13 In Germa:n sermons and ,srpirituarl t1.1e1aJtises, exubemnt irhetorica:l figm'es suit1rub1e for' emphasis and e:rlmrta:tion ioould :afao disitort the th!eo1ogicail-phi1osophiicalpoints which Eckhart more clearly 1sta:bed in his Latin writings. A dose comparison instarrces iin which his in.quisitors we:l'le misled (perhaps not unwi1lmgly) :by such mannerisms of ;thie 1emphaiic vernacular" eXipI'ession, whereas the more detailed L1rutin ex:position. removies 1a:ny se1rious doubrt of Eckhart's orthodoxy. 14 Taken out of eontext, various sta:bements f19om borth sermons and trea:tises carr he made to show Eckha:rt seemingly oontriadioting to the diw1e1dticaJcharhimself, a foatu11e sometim:es ,aJCber of his 'thought, a r'eia:l 1lack of clarity, or, 1as n'O'W seems mo'11e likely, the mep:titude of 1the trarrscribers. Considered as a :whole, however, his teachings 1exhibit 1a. remarkable coherence, especiailly if in:terp!I1eted diia1ectioally or acco:rding to what Bie!l'nrurdLonJergan 1orul1ed "a moving viewipoirrrt."15 1 1 1 1 1 1s Cf. Yves Cougar, O.P., "Langage des spirituels et langage des theologiens," in La Mystique Rhenane (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1963), pp. 15-34, Bernard McGinn, "Meister Eckhart's Condemnation Reconsidered," The Thomist 44 (1980): 403, 413 (Hereafter: "Condemnation"), and Schiirmann, op. cit., pp. 29-31, 60-64, 235 n. 4. On Eckhart's use of language, see especially Frank Tobin, op. cit., pp. 158-83. 14 Cf. Richard Woods, Eckhart's Way (Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1986), pp. 210-15, and especially McGinn, " Condemnation," pp. 390-414. 15 Cf. Lonergan, Insight (New York: Philosophical Library, 1970), p. xxiii: " .Any coherent set of statements can be divided into definitions, postulates, and conc;lusions. But it does not follow that between the covers of a ECKHART AND NEOPLATONISM 615 An Interrwpted Journey '.Dhe problem of disentangling viario!ll:s elements in the Meisber'tS tea;cihing i:s ioompounded ihy the bet of in1tJeTttJ.ittoot doctriinal devielorpinent. Eckhart's in hlgheil' 1scbolarship w;as not !the .stnoo:th if lengthy series of aood!emilc ments enjoyed hy :some of his contemporaries·.i 0 It was, rrather, a ooqruently interrupted itinerrury r!Jha;t oovered a tottal period of •somre thirty-three yiears: iol1owinig his im.it]al studies as a Dominican. Tb!e fuist ma;jor in:bermption. iatSted for iat least £our years when Eolcliart. was rolled rbo administraJtive oo.d pa;sto'l'laJ. work in 1294; during rt.his time he fulfilled fue demanding roile1s of prim- 1at Erlurt and vicar provincial of Thuringia. Folloiwing tlri1s .interi.fode, tihe no-Longer youthful friar, ID!O'W forty-two, re•sumed his :studies, was 1ruwardred the covieted degree of Master of Sacred Theology :rut fthe Univiers:ity oif Paris :in 1302, wr:i:d began his ttenrul'le:as regent mrusrter. Some of his most interesting philo1Sophioal work ·begam during this rperiod, stimulated partly 1hy a;ggressivre Flrrancisoan scholars such ais Master Gonsalvn of Spa1i:n, with whom he disputed in 1302 and 1308 and who would, in the following year, ibeoome Minister Gene11rul.11 Aigirui:n, ihorwevier, Eokhrurtt wa;s ioail1ed rupoo. to undertake administra1tive duties. ln 1308, 1rus he concluded his yteiar rus :cegent master, hie wa;s elected :to lewd the Il!ew province of Sax;ony, in single book there must be a single coherent set of statements. For the single book may be written from a moving viewpoint, and then it will contain, not a single set of coherent statements, but a sequence of related sets of coherent statements." On Eckhart's dialectic, see also Macquarrie, op. cit., and Maurice de Gandillac, "La 'Dialectique' de Maitre Eckhart," in La Mystique Rhenane, op. cit., pp. 59-94. 16 .A good example might be Cardinal William Peter of Godin, born the same year as Eckhart and like him, a member of the Dominican order. See William Hinnebusch, The History of the Dominican Order (New York: Alba House, 1973), 2: 62-63, 309. 17 Gonsalvo died in 1313. For a brief biography and references, see .Alain de Libera, op. cit., p. 468. Cf. also New temrul one oorunreted the rbhriee most WOOiilld-geireration FrillJ:'ISPiieaiohers. Borf:Jh differences ais: well 1a:s similarities among them •are significant, however. Albeit rand Eckihart were Germam, riesrp1ectivielyfrvom Bavaria 1and Thuriingi a. Tihomas wais horn 1at Ro·ocaseccia in South Ceniir:al Ita.ly, rt:hen part of the Kfilgdom of Sicily. As a Dominican s.tU!dent, Thomas was nonethe1lessclosely 1a;s1sociatJedwith Albert alt Oologne and evien be£orie that wt Paris. Eckhart, too, .spent many yieara: in both places ,rug hotbh situdent and professor. All three irncerpted•at the of Paris. There Edma.nt had rulso reoeirved his bacoo1aooealbe. A:ll tJlwee the :so-ioalled chair of theology for extems, A1beirt 1be:ing th!e fIDst German to do so, Thomas rtb.e first Italian. AU thiiee espoused the newly introduced .a;nd 100ntro:vie!l."sia1 Arisrbot'efon philosophy, although viarying in 1theirmtierprreta:tion .and erliern.ttof depeillldence. Simifa.rly, eia:ah variou'9ly .inoorpor:ated elements reintirioduced 1mto W'esbern sp:iriturul theology with the 1aprpearance of new trian:s1lrutionsof thie Pseudo-Areopagite and the Liber de Ca.usi,s.22 All wierie renowned for their philosophy, theoJogy and p:veaching, ;rulthough it is Albert who is: ·besrt rememhel"ed for the first and Thomas: for the second, while Eckhart was considered the greatest preacher of his day. 1 1 1 The Master of Cologne MbeEt of Lruuingen's influence on Eckhart ca:Imot, of course, ibe measured in terms of whatJevier living contact may ha.ve existed heitW'eenibhem, :and rbhiis is. all the more true m the cruse 22 Cf. Simon Tugwell, O.P., ed. and trans., Albert and Thomas: Selected Writings (New York: Paulist Press, 1988), pp. 10, 258. 620 RICHARD WOODS, O.P. 0£ the ttwio older Dominican!S, however, A1beirt evidently e:xiercised the greater intellectual influence, as seen espieciiaillyin the prooniinent Diony:sirun. Slbrand in hi:s and Eckhai:t's teach.mg; in 1both oases this is £a:r mme extooisivie in depth ood rsoope rbhrun in rthaJt of Aquinas. 23 Eckhart ,would haJVe met the old 1bishop on oOltilingto Cologne in 1280, when he began his studies rat the ihoUJse of studies ibuilt, as W!as the Dominicarn chmch, hy Albert himself thirty yea:rs reiarr1ier. But Albert :tlh!e Great only ,a .few months of Thomas. 1 1giving Eokhiaut 1at mosrt a very ibrief opportunity to heiar ithe oM dodtor speak rand rpiO!slSiilhlyIto joUn. him mooilloquy 1Wiiltih the other students. Howrevier, Eckhart rwou1d haivre rboon rtaught by some of Albert'rs students, who h:ad formed with their great master ,a " siclmol" o[ thought and myisticail rspririltuailitywhich rwouJd hruve in:flruenoethroughout the Rhineland. 24 This important tradition rw1as almost r00mpletely eclipsed, however, !by the more lbrilliant ,sohool of Alberit's OlbheT' great student, 'I'homa.s Aqumars.25 of Aquinas which is open to a greater Neoplatonic 23 For an interpretation influence, see W. Hankey, God in Himself: Aquinas' Dootrine of God as lJimpounded in the Summa theologiae (Oxford University Press, 1987). 24 On Albert's revival of Neoplatonism and its influence on Eckhart, see Tugwell, ed. cit., pp. 10-11, 55-92; Alain de Libera, op. cit., pp. 25-58; Gundolph Gieraths, Life in Abundanoe, Spirituality Today 38 Supplement (Autumn, 1986): 3-5; Bernard McGinn, "Meister Eckhart: .An Introduction," An Introduotion to the Medievai Mystics of Europe, ed. by Paul E. Szarmach (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1984), p. 244 (hereafter: "Introduction") ; and Francis Catania, "Albert the Great," Enoyolopedia of Philosophy, 1: 66. 25 On Albert and the "Cologne School," see de Libera, op. cit., pp. 10-13, 31-41. On Eckhart and Albert, see B. Geyer, "Albertus Magnus und Meister Eckhart," Festschrift Josef Quint anWssUche seines 65 Geburtstages uberreioht (Bonn: 1964), pp. 253-54. On Eckhart's part in the Neoplatonic revival inaugurated by Albert the Great and his disciples, see de Libera, pp. 29-58, McGinn, "Introduction," p. 214, Hinnebusch, op. cit., 2: 156, and James M. Clark, Meister Flokhart: An Introduction to the Study of His Works with an Anthology of His Sermons (London: Nelson 1 1957), pp. 71, 97-8. ECKHART AND NEOPLATONISM 69H The Sun of Naples Next to A1bert, Thomas Aquinas eX!ercised the gflea.test intel1ectual influence on Eckhrurt. The Angelic Doctor himself died two or rthree years before his younger conteimpomry en1llered the Order. But Eckib:art wras 1almosit cenbainly ,a student in rt.he faculty otf 1arts at Paris in 1277, when seveml of Thomas's rpoorpo1SitioiThs1wer1e condemn!ed with those of Sigier of Brrubant, and iSho!I'ltly thereafter, when according to legend Albert gathered the hrearilien in 1tlbie nudium generale 'to eulogize his late ·student 1and icommend his doctrine in the strongest terms to the sa£elreepmg of the o!I'lder.26 Despite his Di.onysi1a1n 1and Augustinian enthusiasms, thel'le can 1be no doubt 1aibout fundamental foyalty ito the thought and teaching iof 11homrus, evien. :apart from the adherence :bo 'I\homas' s basic tenets which had 1beten. enjoined upon members of the 01ider ,at tihe Chapters of Moilltpellierrand P:aris in 1278 lan!d 1279. 27 Thrns, Eckhiarl's oooasiot:lllal depar1 1 26 The story was related during canonization proceedings in Naples in 1319 by Bartholomew of Capua, who had heard it from Hugo of Lucca. For a full account, see James A. Weisheipl, O.P., Thomas d!Aquino and Albert His Teacher, Gilson Lecture No. 2 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1980), pp. 19-20. Cf. Kenelm Foster, The Life of St. Thomas Aquinas: Biographioai Documents (London: LongIQ.ans, 1959), pp. 112-13 and Sr. M. Albert, O.P., Albert the Great (Oxford: Blackfriars, 1948), p. 79. Tugwell supplies a critical corrective and plausible explanation of the story, ed. cit., pp. 26-27. 21 The general chapter of 1309 and that at Metz in 1313 similarly legislated that Dominicans must conform to Thomas's doctrine. See Hinnebusch, op. cit., 2: 156f., Jeanne Ancelet-Hustache, Master IJlokhart and the Rhineland, Mystics (New York and London: Harper and Row/Longmans, 1957), pp. 36f., and Benedict Ashley, O.P., "Three Strands in the Thought of Eckhart, the Scholastic Theologian," The Thomist 42 (1978): 227 n.3. M. D. Knowles writes, "In 1880 Denifl.e discovered at Erfurt a string of Latin works which, when examined and analysed, showed Eckhart as holding and using all the metaphysical framework that Aquinas had created out of Aristotelian materials, and using exactly the same authorities as the schoolmen-Augustine, William of Auvergne, Bonaventure and Aquinas. There is still room for debate as to whether Eckhart was a mystic using scholastic terminology or a theologian adopting a Neoplatonist outlook, but of his radical traditionalism and orthodoxy there is no longer any doubt." " Denifl.e and Erhrle," History 54 ( 1969) : 4. 622 RICHARD WOODS, O.P. tures from ,Thomas 1are especially signi:l:ican1t.In his 11elianceon ithe PJ,atonic Christian traditiion, E1ckhart :wa.s in some vespects actually doseT tio Bon:avienture and Duns Soort:us than to the all-important e:x!ception of promoting :the irrbelilect1and knowledge ovierr the will 1and 1o·Vie in 1the spiritual hierarchy of human powers aa:rd a.cits. Even heve, Eck:ha11t on rarrlmd them equally or eV!en rrevie11sed himself (or, II'laJtihier,his vliewp1oin1t), gma:nstmg1superiorilty ibo ,the 1W!iH 1a:nd lovie, evie:n 1as haid Thomas Aquin:a1s in a Limited friame of referenC'e: 1 1 Nothing brings you closer to God or makes God so much your own as the sweet bond of love. A man who has found this way need seek no other. HE: who hangs on this hook is caught so fast that foot and hand, mouth, eyes and heart, and all that is man's,. belongs only to God. 28 Elsiewlmrte, he sai.d, "The of hless1edness in both, 29 knowledge and 101vie."· Agiain, "God 1and I are one. Through knowledge I tal;;;e God in:to· mys 1elf, th110u1gh loV!e I enter into God." so U1timrutely however, in a splendid example of Eckhart' s dialectical synthesiis: of opposing viewpoints., he preached trhait "Some 'tieache'l"shold thait th1e spir1it finds :iits beatitude in lovie. Some mruk!e him find it in 1beholding God. But I say he 31 Rather, "I dores not find it in 1ovie, or in gnosis or in :say tha:t 1aibove these underst1anding 1and theire i1s mericy: the'.11e God works mercy in the highesrt 'aind purest acts 'th:a1t God is capaible of." 32 2s.Sermon No. 4 (Walshe trans., I: 47. This sermon is also found in Josef Quint, ed. and trans., Meister JJJokehart: Deutsche Predigten und Traktate (Miinchen: Carl I{anser, 1955), No. 59. 29 DW 70. Sermon No. 41 (Walshe trans., l: 287). aonw 6. Sermon No. 65 (Walshe trans., 2: 136.) Cf. also Counsels on Discernment, Colledge-McGinn, ed., cit., pp. 256-57. a1nw 39 . .Sermon 59 (Walshe trans., 2: 100). a2 DW 7. Sermon 72 (Walshe trans., 2: 189) . On Eckhart and Aquinas, cf. Ashley, art. cit., p. 232. On significant differences between the two Dominicans, see Colledge-McGinn, ed. cit., pp. 27, 32 .and 36, and McGinn, "Condemnation," p. 405, nn. 76-77. For Aquinas on relative priority of will: Summa theologiae I, Q. 82 a. 3. On charity and union with God, see II-II, Q. 24 a. 4; Q. 45, a. 4; Q. 172 a. 4; Q. 184 a. I ad 2; III, Q. 89, a. 6. 623 ECKHART AND NEOPLATONISM It is likewise norteworthy tha:t whil e Eckhart expli!citly " oo·rrects. " Aquinrus on a number of points, he rarely-if eve:rdisagrees witih either Augus:tinie Oil" the AreopagitJe. In the light of 1such dif£ffi'!ences,rthe truist and 11espect with which Eckhart WialS ilfilliformly rega;rded in the order hy his oonfreres, his provincials, even the Master 1and his vicars, :i1lrustmtesthe latitude 1witih which the injrunctioru to suppoll'rtThomas were applied. Ironically, propositions taken f:mm the works of !borbh Thomas 1and Eckhart, arud vie:ry n:eady Albert, were oondemned-srure[y withollllt.came in the ease of Thomas aill:d vie:ry Iilrely 1so in that of Eckhart. Thoma1S, however, was exonerated; E1ckha'.rt wta:s nort.33 Motreorver, hO!tih Thomas ood Albert were eanonized, the former in 1323, his mrusiter in 1931. Borth were declared doctors of the Church. Eckihart, whose integrity and holiness of '1i£e .were never impugned, even 1by Dominican .aintiagonist Hermann of Summo, w:as consigned to olblivion, lbwt one that could not hold him fast. 1 1 1 1 ms' Eckhart and Christian Neoplatonism in the Middle Ages lit ·is clear that Eckhrurt' s teaching drew heav.ily upon the spiritwaJ and doigma:tic resources of the Ohristian myisrtical tmdition :from irts origins in third centrury Alexmdria until well 1 into the M:iididi1e Ages. In Eckha:rt's iextoot writiDJgs there ,are feiw dtationis ·from Plato 1and virtually no diriect l'ledierenoosto On the absolute priority of intellect as highest of faculties, see I, Q. 82 a. 3 and II-II, Q. 83, a. 3 ad 1. On eternal happiness as an act of the speculative in· tellect (i.e., the beatific vision), see I-II, Q. 3 aa. 3-5, 8. Eckhart seems ultimately to have gone beyond the moderate intellectualism of Aquinas with regard to the nature of human beatitude and also the nature of God as sub· sisting intelligence. See also Woods, op. cit., pp. 48-55. 113 ".Etienne Bourret, bishop of Paris, revoked the sentence of excommuni· cation and condemnation attached to the Paris condemnation of 1277 from those propositions ' insofar as they touch or seem to touch the doctrine of the aforesaid Blessed Thomas.' This public declaration of Thomas' orthodoxy was issued on 14 February 1325, almost forty-eight years after the original condemnation." James A. Weisheipl, O.P., Friar Thoma,s d'Aquino (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Co., 1974), p. 349. He continues, "In England, the archbishop of Canterbury did not even bother to revoke Kilwardby's condemnation that was confirmed by John Pecham." RICHARD WOODS, O.P. either Philo or Ploitin:u:s1. Yet the Christi.an P1atooism (i.e., Noorplrutornism) developed hy the Alexandrian theologians 1and Augustine 1eX!erci1S1ed an influence over his thought that can be 1trurthfolly ,cihJa,mcterizedais formaltive. ks. norbed 1rubovie, he wais especiaiHy and profoundly infl:uenood, as were his Dominican contemporaries :and most siprntual iwriter:s of the period, by the manifestly Neorpilaltonic doctrine of 1tbie anonymous filth-cootury Syrian wr:iter who rstyJed himself "Dionysius the Areopagite." 84 A1s M. D. Knowles oibsrervied, whether Eckha1.1t's myistical rbempeT"ament fold him to adopt (and rudapt) a to Christian fromeiworrk or whether his Neoplatonism under Alberrt the GreiaJt .Jted him 1to ·a myst]cail spwiltu:ality is impossible to· decide. Witiliornt doubt, however, Eckhart eJlllbmcied the Noorp1atonic tmdition. as 1a whole, continuing rthe revival inruugur:alted by k1bert and !his im.medirute fol101wers.,including to some extelITtAquinas himself. 85 The oon1 1 34 See Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, trans. by Cohn Luibheid and Paul Rorem (New York: Paulist Press, 1987), .Andrew Louth Denys the Areopagite (London and Wilton, Conn.: Morehouse-Barlow, 1989), and Louth, Origins, esp. pp. 159-78. Cf. I. P. Sheldon-Williams, "The Greek Christian Platonist Tradition from the Cappadocians to Maximus and Eriugena," The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medievai Philosophy, ed. by .A. H. .Armstrong, (Cambridge University Press, 1970), pp. 425-533; and Henry Chadwick, ed. and intro., Alexand.rian Christianity, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1954), "General Introductions." For a recent synopsis of the Neoplatonic revivals of the Middle .Ages, see Tugwell, ed. cit., pp. 50-57. 35 On Eckhart as a Christian Neoplatonist, see (among other sources) .Ancelet-Hustache, op. cit., pp. 7ff.; .Ashley, art. cit., p. 232; Caputo, art. cit., p. 198; Clark, op. cit., p. 71; Colledge-McGinn, ed. cit., p. 27, 34, 40-44; Gieraths, art cit., pp. 163-65, 314, 322, Hinnebusch, op. cit., 2: 306; Kertz, art. cit., p. 330 n. 10; de Libera, pp. 242-50, 256, 265, 278-79, 290-92; Vladimir Lossky, Theologie negative et oonnaissanoe de Dieu ohez Mattre Eckhart (Paris: Vrin, 1960), pp. 22-26 et passim; Louth, Origins, pp. llOf.; Koch, art. cit., p. 214; Luibheid, ed. cit., p. 30; Bernard McGinn, "Meister Eckhart on God as .Absolute Unity," Neoplatonism and Christian Thought, ed. by Dominic J. O'Meara (.Albany: State University of New York Press, 1982), pp. 137-39 (hereafter: "God as .Absolute Unity"); Kurt Ruh, Meister Eckhart: Theologe, Prediger, M ystiker ( Miinchen: Beck, 1985), pp. 55-58, 87-89; Schiirmann, op. cit., pp. 140-43 and passim, and Frank Tobin, op. cit., p. 62, 210, n. 81. Cf. also Evelyn Underhill, The Mystics of the Church ECKHART AND NEOPLATONISM 625 turning :and pell"Va1sive influence of tha:t tradition w:rurl'lants a as an closer if brief exploration of its origins a:nd aid to understanding .both the goal and !the ,a;ooomp1ishmentof the elusive MeiiSJter ais a Christian Neoplatonist. The Alexandrian Inheritance The contribution of tJhe Alexandrian Church to the spmtual theology of rborth E·aiSrllern and WestJern Chrisitianity hrus often been overlooked in historicrul rucoounts-po,ssibly hooause of the pell"Vla;sive rant:i-Hellenic thrut dominruted late ninreteenthcentury German rand still linrgiers among many Catholic m1d ProteiSbant sipirituralwriters. It is impossible, ho·wevier, rto continue to .ignore or dismiss it in of the deep indebtedness of Albert, Eckhart, 1and otiheT impor1tant medi:ev:aJ .Ml'd renaissance writecr.-sto this ancient t:mdiition, ·a bond which oon:nects the Meister with the earHest stages of Cllirisrtianmysrtical theology 1and spirituality. It is rulso onie whioh provides raa:i eoumenical rbrusis for spmtual ars well 1a,s theofogical dialogue heitweien Easbem and Western OhristiallJS as well as: between Roman Ca:tholics, witih their now 1axg.eJytacit Aristotelian bias, and Anglicians, for whom Blatonism ·rund Neop1atonism still exercise 1a 1poweil'fulaJtJtractJ.ion.36 The Second City The birth of Christian Platonism occurred in :the Egyprtian city of Alexandria and riep11esenitedthe last major conitrihution (London: James Clarke, n.d.), p. 134. Before its appearance in the German Dominican school, Neoplatonic influence was most clearly present in the West in the dominant Augustinian tradition and in the Celtic-Dionysian tradition of John Scottus Eriugena and Richard of St. Victor. Cf. John J. O'Meara, Eriugena (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), John J. O'Meara and Ludwig Bieler, eds., The; Mind of Eriugena (Dublin: Irish University Press, 1973), and G. H. Allard, " The Primacy of Existence in the Thought of Eriugena," in O'Meara, ed. cit., pp. 89-96. 36 This was especially true of Dean William Inge, whose many works contributed significantly to the rediscovery of the English mystical tradition at the turn of the century. RICHARn WOODS, O.P. of Judaism to the in£a:nt church. Philo, who livied from 30 B.C.E. to 45/50 C.E., ,attempted rbo 1bridgie 'the chasm bieitween Jewi1SJh 1be1i.ef and pmcbice on the one side and Greek thought and culture on the oither, 1wguing that faith 'WaJS not in:lierinrto l.1easo111hut, in f;aACt, ,its :£011.mdaJtion.37 A oenrbury later, the Christia:n writer Clement of wrou1d use rtili!e same argumoot to periSUJaJde his (Joi.11bernpo11ruriesto enJber upon a new dialogue of :£aith .and mason. A millenium .afterwa:rds, Eckhart would rpmach and teach out of :the sru:ne traidition. To Philo, atS ito the earliest Christian rthinlrers, philosopihy meant Plato1I1i1Sm,a;s it 'Would urntil the redisoo1vteryoif Aristotle hy 'tihe Araihs in the elevienth 1and twielfilJh centuries. WihHe he Sliok man who needed some 1soup £rom him, I shoru1d tihink it far 1bcit1e:r you 1ert 1tlhe :rrupblll'le for ,Jovie 'a'Il!d would se:rrv;e tl:he needy man in greater lovie." 60 Notr is iit to 1the o[ pm1e speculation !Sought hy Pla- 'tomst and Middle-PLatoi:niistmy,stics, much Jes1s the ecstatic uniOill of the 'later Neop1ato1UiS!bs,tthJaJt Eckhart summons us. Rather, he ibedmns us ,towall1ds the desie:rtt of unknowing dear to the Greek mystical tmdiJtion of A1exandria, who,se pioneer was Philo the Jew a:nd 'Whoise most eloquent ca:ribogl'!apherw:as St. Gregory of Nyssia. 61 AltliObher major divellgenete (lonoorns tlre :role of griaoe. Cleaa:-1 ly, at least insofar as Plotinus was capable of articulating his own experience, conJtempLation of •the One wirus achiev:ed hy means of human effort, the unaided work of the soul. fu au:thientic Christman spmrburulity, while the ,3JcihieV!ementof con'bronplaition ihy self-:direcb.irn1is not only possible but in some degree neeessary, the 1oomp1ettionof rtlre ooul':s jourrm.eyrto God is only 1hy God'is 1gift of grace, when, iha:vingexhatusltedits orwn caip1acirti1es,humalll oonscioru:snes1s,now prus1sive and still, is filled wiith tJhe :inrush (or, in Eckhart's rw:ay, the" upsurge") of fuat Presence. Here too despite ,ailJ. his ooneurrence !With Neopla;tonic thorugJ:rt, Eckhart is solidly one wiith the orthodox Chrisrtioo. itmdition: 60 Ooun8el8 on Discernment, trans. by Hilda Graef, .Ancelet-Hustache, op. cit., p. 79. For discussion, see Woods, op. cit., pp. 144-47. Rudolf Otto noted that Eckhart's concept of love was not that of the emotional love-mystics. "Nor has his agape anything in common with the Platonic or Plotinian eros, but .•. is the pure Christian emotion in its elemental chastity and simplicity without exaggeration or admixture." Op. cit., p. 232. Cf. p. 231. 61 In some respects Eckhart's spirituality even more closely resembles that of Evagrius of Pontus. The resemblance is acute in another respect as well: elements of Evagrius's spiritual doctrine were also pronounced posthumously-and it now seems erroneously-heretical. Cf. Louth, Origins, pp. 100-13. ECKHART AND NEOPLATONISM 637 The grace which the Holy Ghost brings to the soul is received without distinction, provided the soul is collected into the single power that knows God. This .grace springs up in the heart of the Father and flows into the Son, and in the union of both it flows out of the wisdom of the Son and pours into the goodness of the Holy Ghost, and is sent with the Holy Ghost into the soul. And this grace is a face of God and is impressed without co-operation in the soul with the Holy Ghost, and forms the soul like God. This work God performs alone, without co-operation. 62 Conclusion Given the joSltling for dominrunce ramong philosophical sysr!Jems in the Midd1e Ages as well as in more 11eoont tt:imes, it i s difficu1t !to concluding that no phi1osophy can claim prrivilegied ,sibrutus a;s the fmmework best suilbed to rarticu1aite :!Jhe ChriSJtia:nfiaith in 1a rerusonruhle malllller. For rrrudfoaJlydiffering syistems of tthorught have in faict fuootioned in that capacity, ISOllle more, some les1s srutisfaicrtorily 1aicoorrdmgto rthe prairtioo1a:r eX!ige:nciesotf the day. Further, sevieTial of these riv;a;l cl.aimanrts 1 1 tend to reappear disconcertingly as currents of thought shift and charngie. Thus, ne]tlrer PLatonism nor Aristotelianism, Kanrtian:ism nor Mrurxism, oor any oilier way of ithinking can he disqruali:fied :rus ra potential "handmaid (J·f 'theology" so 1ong as iit aidequaltely moots the 1chal1engreof irrterp11etinghuman experi- 1 1mLC1e in its time. Nevertheless, in much of ithe Wesit, ra certain odium theologicum still dings rbo E aiS1bern Christi.run itlmugihrt, induding its Noorpla;tonichexitaige. Yet tilris ancienlt tmclition is deiairly rerp1eibe with wisdom 1and depths of tr:rnth. And it siho:u1d there1 1 diore give us pause when, for ins:tance, R. T. WiaJlis ohseT'VeiS rthait "the dominairut rtIDend of Christian. theology, in horth its Platonic :and Aristotelian forms, hrus always heen Neop1at00Jic." 63 Moreovier, it i:s surely worrth noting rt.that when the grerut mystics of the Church a'btempted ito :Lay oiUJt tibJeir teach- s2nw 81. Sermon 64 (Walshe trans., 2: 125). For discussion see Woods, op. cit., pp. 142-44. 63 Wallis, op. cit., p. 160. 688 RICHARD WOODS, O.P. ing, rbhey chamcteristica1ly gmwita;ted the P:laitornicNeopla1tonic ,ooocrdina;bes on :the phi1osophioal chart. Perhaps tnot !the griea1tes1t,hut hwrdly the Lea.sit aimong ,them wais Meis1ter Eckhart. Ohris1t1ain Platonic 'and Neorplarn!ton:iicm:fluenoe rsurvived its condffillJ1Ja:tionin Amamy's, Gilbert's, rand Eck!hail'1t',steaichings, 1a:ppearmg hoth in its Dinn;yisian, sp:i:rti:tua1 expvession :in The Cloud of Unknowing a1nd in rsimifar wo1'1ks up 1to the masrterful itheology and poe1b'y of St. John of 1the Cross. ]Jt arlso perdured 1m philosophical dlorm in the wr!istingisof Nichofa;s of Cusia, Marsilio Ficino, Pico deHa .l\i[ir1ando1a,Giordano B11uno, tihe Cambridge Platonists, Descartes, Spinoza, Schelling, and Bergson, 1 among other:s. 64 Only recerrtly, howevier, ha1s the immens1e treasmy of 1thi1s ancient Christian tradition once more begun to :find appmcia1tion amoug W 1es1ter111 scholars and spiritual writers. 65 Today, recovering this ovierlooked s1tmnd of Christian thought 1and 1i£e ca:n help to aidvianoe !bhe uudemtanding of Eckhart',s theology :and spiritualiity, a1s well 1as th:ait of Albeirt tihe profound Grea1t all!d his immedia1tie di!scip1es. The and rperv;a:siveemphrusis on the uniJty aJD!d intemgiihilirty of God, the "boiling" metaphoil1s,1the dynamic sbrucbU11e of emanatiion 1and return, and his chariaeterisitic in:terpre1ta:tionsof anafogicail rwttriJhut:ionrand par,ticipation can in :some insitance'S he under:s'tood only in 1the light of ancient A1e:x;anidria. Recirpmca.1ly, as Vlaidimir Lossky perceivied, 1a 1thomugh appropriaition o.f Eckha1rrt's rtiheologiea:lopiem:mss to the Earslt can as1sisrt ill1 ecumeni(Jail diai1ogue.with Orthodox Ohrisrbians, much :as his worb have rfo,s1ler1ed d]a1ogue in J,apan and dsewhere. 66 One vv;a,y or another, for het1ter or wio'l.'se, tha1t Eekha:rit adopted a[!]ld adapted 1a, £undamenta:1ly Neoplwtonic s1tmcture 1 1 64Qf. D. P. Walker, The Ancient Theology, Studies in Ohristian Platonism from the Fifteenth to the Eighteenth Centuries (London: Duckworth, 1972). Cf. ,also Louth, Origins, pp. 179-204 and Macquarrie, op. cit., passim. 65 For an eloquent argument in defense of reappropriating the original philosophical tradition of Christian mystical spirituality and dogma, see .Andrew Louth, Discerning the Mystery (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983). 66 See Woods, op. cit., pp. 200-01. ECKHART AND NEOPLATONISM 639 for his in'terrpreta1tion of 1the theological and srpirTtu1almysticism he rpromorbed cannort be 'Sieil.']ous,ly doubted. Evst quite s1tably, even if '1llolt happily. In any case, we ail"e in to:tal ag.rteemellltwith Geach when he 1sayis 1that ithaJt "If 1a man's ha1bit of sound moml judgme1J11t is virtiiafod anyiwhere, then :it is at risk eVierywhere; but not all dangel"s issue in disa1sit1e'f!s."3 But 1thes1e dis1as!ters arie aV1eTted r.not because of ,any moml str1ength of characil:er th:ait the agent 1truly ihas bUJt heca:us e of a me11e inc1ilJJaitiontues. 'Ilhe former may he very :firm ox srtable. Mo11eover the n:aituil'ally vi11tuous rindividual may giener1a1lyno1t he oornfused or .impeded action by "b.ar:d easies" or nnvelty. Alt times he rmay, 1and lthien me may find his re1sourroes iinoompe1be!I1tO'I.' unoel'l:Ja1in in 1bhreir direetives. Hut the main rpo:inlt of co111iCT'last is thait mo11al virtues 11eflieot 1a 1evel of 1agency wh1oh involves undersitanding 1and self-determin1ation engiaged to t:hat undersltanding, 1a 1leviel tihJait tis 1ruhsen1t foom iinc1ination-grounded action. Na,tu11a1l vri:r1tues1a1rie ll101t to he despised, and 1aclts :thait fLorw 1f110m 1tJhem 1are not w:iithout moml Wiortlh. But, using the fangiuiage of Fr1a:nk£u:rt, mom1l virtues are oha1racter]s,tiosthait refiecrt second order volitions. 5 The aiotis: thait flow fil1om them •are not H11e reis:ult of ways one just hrupens to be. And the undeil',starnding involvred in moml vrntues makes mo'ral misdireotion 1es;s li1"ely. Again, mnswder suoh t.lrings rus mis1applied oomprussfon, or paiti:errce,whioh can involve u1mairness 1and imprudence. P errharpisit .is heoausie rbhe mo:rial V1mtueis rare unified that it is 1so hard to rbe 1good. They invo1vie a complex reperrto:We of judgmenits, d1sposi!tiorrs, and moti¥es. No one of them can he oomp1ete on its own, and wie c1an't oome to have tJhem simply 1hy decis1on. One oan til.'y rbo he move coumgeous bU1t caill't ibring it rubout meriely hy init1emaleommanid. Self-imposrutiion in- m 1 1 1 1 1 5 In " Freedom of the Will and 'The Concept of a Person," H. Frankfurt writes, "Someone has a desire of the second order when he wants simply to have a certain desire or when he wants a certain desire to be his will. In situations of the latter kind, I shall call his second-order desires "secondorder volitions" or " volitions of the second order." Now it is having second-order volitions, and not having second-order desires generally, that I regard as being essential to being a person." Journal of Philosophy 68 ( 1971) : 5-20. The wanton is the individual who is not a person because he lacks secondorder volitions. The difference between natural virtue and moral virtue could be cast in the terms of Frankfurt's analysis. Moral virtue involves the sort of full:fl.edged intentional agency of second-order volition. .Acting wantonly need not involve acting wrongfully. One's natural or first order inclinations may coincide with moral virtue, but they cannot constitute it. 647 UNITY OF THE VICES vo1ves choice hut is not 1sirrnply choioe. The point here is not jusit " whart good is jrustiJCe if you're too much of ia, coward to do the jusit thing? w1ay of pruibti:ng it confuses rtihe is:sue 1a ibit. If y;ou are too much of a t00 wa:rd rthen, whatever 1the quality of y;ourr judgmeiITt aJ:l!d undersfanding, you don't re1ally ihavie the vi11tuie of jus1tiilt called wisdom. Aquinas views their 1.1ela:tionshipas follows: " Faith asISleDJts fbo cliVirine trutih TOil' !irbself; rtihe girllt otf wiiisdom judges thln1gs 1acoo!l1dii.ngrbo d!ivirne rbruths. HeD1oe bhe gifrt of wisdom poses dlruilbh, 1since ' 1a man judges wehl whrut he 1M11oody knows ' (Nioomachean Ethics, I, ." 51 WihtaJt £ruilbh ms to infused 1 1 1 47 I-II, q. 27, a. 3. 48 I, q. 93, a. 4-5. 49 I-II, q. 62, a. 3, c, and ad 3. 50 II-II, q. 97, a. 2, ad 2; see I, q. 64, a. 1. q. 45, a. I, ad 2. 51 II-II, TRANSCENDENT 667 EXPERIENCES wlisdom wihat nous (lthe g1ra:spmg of rue fasrt prcinoiples) is 1bo sophia (1the rtheo11e1bioal1wiisdom tth!ait encompa1sseis bo1tih nous 1rund episteme) in A:rii;s1tot1e'1sEthics. 52 As ,a ,giJ£t of ithe Ho ly Spiir1i1t, rwisdom idi:ffor1s worn rthe philo1Sophmoa1 and the ;t:heofog;ioailh:aJbirt,s 1acqu:iiried hy 1study. T,akiing his oue friom 1 Cor . .2: 15 (" Tihe srp1iirfilbrnal man judges an :things''), Aqliimas 1observes 1tha1t :tihis supie:rnaltu:ral :as1siis1tailliCJe piliays 1a l1o:1e s1lln!i1a;r 1to the na:tural vi11tue of wisdom, which, 13!0COil1ding :to .Acis1tJ01t1e, ClOlllJSiiSIUS in the knowiledgte of ra first ieia:UJse (in :a genus) 1aIT1'd of every;tihing else below it. 53 Ch:ris1tfuan WJisdiom fus 1a:n 13.lpiplJ:'le>Ci>altiv;e(lOllitemp1altJiionof 1tih_e diVJi'll!e des1ign 1as ia whole, for whicth Aqiuinais finds su1ppo!rt in 1 Coil.". .2: 10 ("The Spikiilt 1sea:rchesevery,thing, even 1tihe ,de:ptihs of God"). Jin alJ)!o1tihe!1"pa1s1s1aige,he adds :th!a1trthe gDlt of wisdom is ,a judging pe:clormed hy wia,y of 'inol1ina1tion,"ais when a pel'son who pos1se1ssieis 1the ih!aibi]t of :a vi11tue judges mgiliitly of what should he doi!l!e in oonsornJaneewirtih &rt, because he is 1arlrieiardya'll 1sympalhy 54 Sinoe i1t ihrmgs £oll'rth acts of judgmen1t, wiisdom rewiit[h s1ide1s in the mtelleic1t, hUtt ohamity ms tits caiuse.55 fo:spired by Arisltortle,who w.I'orbe ,thiait "the wiill is in rhhe ,re1a1son,"56 Thoma.is CIOncludeis1thait, siinice "rbhe wi:hl ha.is ra ce:rbaiin 1affinirty1w]bh 11ea1s1Qln," "ehiairity ibeing lin rthe 1wriH is n!Olt tiheil'iefore a st::r:aillgeirIto 1 1 1 1 1 1 l1eruson."5 7 IV. The Awareness of Lovie For Aquina1s,!then, gmaoe :aind fo ve hriing aibowt But oan 1anyit1hii'I1gmoire p!redse be 1s1aiid a:bourt the a;w1a:rieneissof 1tlhis lovie? l!s rtiheii.'e an 1awia1reness:of chatl'!iity a1s a feeling? It all diep:nds on 'wne1ther lov;e may be s1aid to 1he a feeling (passio) . 1 1 52 Niaomaahean l!Jthias, VI, 1140b31-114lb8. q. 45, a. l; see Metaphysics, I, 982a8. 54 I, q. 1, a. 6, ad 3; he refers to Nioomaohean JJJthias, X, ll 76al 7. 55 II-II, q. 45, a. 2. 53 II-II, 56 "Voluntas in ratione est." A more faithful translation of Aristotle's text would be : " the act of will begins in the rational part of the soul." See De anima, III, 9, 432b5. s1 II-II, q. 24, a. 1, ad 2. 668 LOUIS ROY, O.P. In ms view, passiones 1rure affectiones which 1belong to tbhe sensitive 1aippeti:be, hu:t he is nolt dogmrubic 1aibout thielse caitegocies. He wriites :thait feelings 1belong m()ll'e 1bo 1the appeititive tJham. to It.he ruppioohoosivepart ,of rnhe and mor@ Ito '1:ibie ap58 petlite than ,to the inrbeJ:lectuail.1a.ppetiite (ithie 1will) . Applying itheiseorutegoni.esrbo 1the1expeirienceof God, he norbes tlre :facitithal, sIDOO reelii.ngs:beloilJlgto the :soosllitivepa1rit of the SOll.1!1, they are il1!ort oommooswrute wtitJh the diviIDe r11eia1iitiiies.He goes on to ask: iif fut is iimposisiiibleIto be 1touched by rtlhe divine realities in .tihe senistirtiviepart, why rthren does Dionysiius mention f eelings wiitih respeot to God? " '!:he f ooliing of which Dionysius is ispeaking is notmng hutt affootion (aff ectio) fiOT ,tih.e divine ooai!illtiies,,whiicih. has molr'e of the chwaobeT oif 1a feelIDg :than mere appreihenisiion." 59 Such affectio .is the s;ame emoibionalsltrube a.s thrut whicih Thomais elisewiherecrul1s unio affectus, ian 1a:ffecti-\11eunion which includes ran 1altwaobionO!I' movemoot towiwrds God (movetur in ipsum) .60 Aquinrus's 1ooinviictl:iiionthait the11e are· ,feieilii.ngsco!D.'Ilecibedwith God is .confirmed hy other teXJbs. FOil' instance, \he :teoohes ithait on eairrl:h only Moses 'and 1saw God' s; esrsienoe. Alith.oughdirectt, .sucli oogmtion w;as ;aichJievedwith the raStSillSlbanceof rupernrutunwl l:ightt, lumen gloriae. This light hwdly differs :IIDom the one ,graIDJbed tJO ttihe bJ.essed in hea:vien. Whererrus the latibe!l' s·ee God :by f\Vlay o[ a perrmanenrt OO!l"lll, Moises and Paul rsraw God hy wtay of 'a lbr:ansient ieel:ing (passio) .61 '.Dhe e:xibrlruOil'dinairy pri:vil!ege gi1arnlbed.:to Mo1s1es :ruJlJd PiauJ iis not rtomlly fureiign to it:lre knowledge :by OO!D.JillatUTJailirtyth!a1t is given.rto those who wialk iin :failitih. Twio !l.'leasoniscam. he addruood tto support. ttihills oonibenrtion. FliTsrt, 1as we havie seen, !the superniatuTlalll'e:Jirutionisil:riprthait is esitabliished beibween Gord ·and beJiievers rus oif rbhe :s1ame kind ais 1the iberutific vision. Second, il:ihe11e ffis 100 mteresitmg rse:nltence, in 1 1 58 I-II, q. 22, a. 2-3. 59 De verita,te, q. 26, a. 3, ad 18. 60 II-II, q. 27, a. 2. See also II-II, q. 23, a. 2, where, quoting Augustine, he writes that charity is "a mocvement of the soul towards enjoying God for his own sake, motus animi ad fruendum Deo propter ipsum." e1 II-II, q. 175, a. 3, ad 1-2. TRANSCENDENT EXPERIENCES 669 Thomas'1s oommooiba['yon Romanis 8: 16, whiClh iho1tih Gac1.migouLagrange 1and Mamita1in quote: "The Spirit beiams wiitnes!S with 10ur 1Sp:i:r:irt r!Jlwougih 1the effect of 1ovie, which he hirings 1ruboUJt ID_ urs." 62 This 1affoctivie ties1tiimony, which is aiddres1sed noit tio tihe s1oosiiltiiverpia:rlt of our soul lbrnt to our srpiriJt (spiritui nostro) , ieon1imms tJhiaxt we ame indeed so'llls and daughtell'IS of God. But is "e:fliect" 1tihe viimtue of charwty or :a £ee1ing of chamiity? Fbr Thomais Aquiin1a1s, a person can detect .sigllis thrut one hirus ibhe Wribuie iOf eh:uiiity 1a[l]ld rtiheise Clall legitima:tely leDJd to ia rieaisonJrublepro1ba1bi11ty.On rbhe otheT h:md, one can never be 1absolUJtelyce!J:1bruin hecaiuse, in 1o:rdeir 1to judge w'heibher one pos1sies1ses1the haibit, oiJJJe would hiave to know :irbs me1a1suve, tihait for rt:ihe s:wke of which the hahilt ris giivien, namely, rtihe inoomprrehensi:ble God. Aquin!a:s nev;erthdess russumes thaxt chruri:ty hrings 1a1bou1t del1gbit in one'is 1a,ots. Bu:t iSinoe :the same foind of delight oould oome frrom ian :aicquiired ih!arhiit, oflie is nort swic1tly eI11t1itled !to deduce tihalt rit flowis born rtbe su1pern1altm1rulhabrut.63 Mo.sit of the time, ihowevier, he a1Sis:er:ts the fact of a diireot e:xperffienceof God'rs 1o-ve. Fo'l' example, m:run ohjec1tion concerning crieated ich!arilty,he 1s1trurt1s off with a from 1 Coir. 6: 17, "He who is jomed to 1th1e Lord, is one in sp[l'it." Bult if theiie 1Well'le such a thing :a1s creaked chJa:riJty, rut WIOU1d oome ,3JS 1a 1rnedium between God and 1tihe 1souL In hiis reply, he argues tbialt the habiit 1of ohwrilty 1should be cregiarded mol'le as a prin1criple of tihe act of 1ovie (principium amationis) rthan 1a1s a mediiium between the 1lover arnd the lov:ed, "forr rbhe 1acrt of love pais1ses rto God (immediate tmnsit in Deum) as to 1the :1ov:ed, hUJt immedi 1a1tely 1hJJto tihe hahiit of char:ity." Even though, along wirbh 1gmoe, the habit of dhia1rity :is :a medium 1that is requimd rbo make rthe 1bel!iev:erha vie 1a 1siha1re in God's, own 1ilie, the act iof foive ms re1aited Ito God. 64 A suihsieqwenltobjeotion in rbhe s1ame ques1ticon enun1 1 1 epistolam ad Romanos leotura, Marietti, # 645. q. 10, a. 10. 64 De oaritate, l, ad 3. 62 Super 63 De veritate, 670 LOUIS ROY, O.P. 1ai:ruteisitilre rpil'lincip1ethrut " God is mown 1tm1ough!the knowledge of the ih:ighesit Jove." Auguisiti:ne is quoted to tihiiis effocrt: "He lmoWIS rt:he fove w:ith wihiich bie 'loves, more :than the hroither whom he love:.s. So ill!OW ihe can know God more tbhan he knows ib.tis rbrother. Emooa,cte the love of God, and hy love embrace God." The treply notJeis rthiait Arugiursbi.D!e seems to be refor:rin:g rbo "rthie very adt of love." The exp1anrution the following: "Thererore wihien we peroeiive (perciz>i,mus) in om"selves a:n acrt of lovie, we feel (sen,timus) 1a certain ipruriliaiparoionof God hecruwse God Himself is Jove, not :becaiuise He tiis ithe very acrt of love whiich we peirceiive." 65 This direcrt peircepitiiJOn of om a.obs of love, wJ:ricli Aquinas speal\ls ,aJboiutm1seV1ffi'iaJoither ;bexlts,66 may he re:f:leatedupon a.rid :tihu1s 1becoirnethe brrusis for 1an e:xipliaiJt13JWM1enJesiSof :tihe presence of God. This prrtincipleis 1aid down whe:n ithe question is asked, " Gan ithe an!tellootunide:risrtiandthe 1act of tlhe wiill?" In hi1s answer, ,afite!l' dlistbingullis1hiingbe/tween the ltwo kinds of hiuma:n inclinJrutions,i.e. :the 1s1en:siitiveand the initellige:rnt,he remarks thait 1th.e lrutter 1be1ongs to each peir1son 1as rto one linite11igenrtsubject, 1and ihe ·aigirui:n quoites A.riS1tJoit1e,to rthe effiecit thrrut "rthe will is in 1the reason." 67 lt rfioilJoWIS iliart "rbhe 1acit of i,t) ·thiart o:ne wills .and !irua1smuoh :a.is O!ll!e knows (oognoscit) !the lllalture of rtlb.rus :acrt 1rund, 1rus 1a :result, tlili.e naJture of 68 '.Dhis is ;tihe reaii.its prti.TI!ciple,whllich tis 1a hiruoot orr 1a 1son wihy there is no medium ii.n rthe 1awarenesiswe !hlavie of lovmg God. Eviecy iintJellligellltsurbjeci hrus 1a dri.Toot ruWial'enesi.s (percipere) of o!Il!e's,a;C/ts of the 1wiill; in ::riefleation,O[l)e arun unders:tand (intelligere) orr know (cognoscere) the nlaitureof this perceived .aot of the w.i1I. * 65 De caritate, 66 For example * I, ad 7. I, q. 93, a. 7-8. a1 See note 56. as I, q. 87, a. 4; see q. 16, a. 4, ad 1-2. * * * TRANSCENDENT EXPERIENCES 671 In oondu1s:ion,1Jert us fo W1winiwrigiht's1advocacy of the diil'lecitnessof 1the ie.JIJPerienoeof God. Borth AquliTIJa:s and Mm·itiain w10u1d agree witih him to a cemtalin eXJtent, mrtihe sense ibhlrut fo!l' lbhem g'J:'lace reru1ly places ilie he1ieV'eir in 1the rp1t1eselil!oe of God. On itih!e oitheil'haJilJd,;they would 'be empihiruticthrut rt:he immediacy of myisrticiail ti:s :nnt rto 1be oonceiviedof 1a:libeir thie model of sensocy immed:iia:cy,:as arno1their kmd of pe1t1ceprtion ihesti.des ordmacy perception. To clamify ithe maitite:r, I would suggeslt a beitween immediacy 1and unmedi.amdnesis. Jjt 1S1ooms to me 1tl:m.1t ho,tih Aqooas ,arrJJd Mirurilbainmaiil'.llbainIt.halt the experience of God is immedirute hut not UJUmedrnarbed. Their explanatbionis foir the medffirutedneSJsof myistiaal conscioru:sne1S1snevetrJl:lheJ.essdif:liell.". Because ovieiremphia:sizresrtil:ue iio,le of the concept, he t11ies to gmoun:d itlre no1etic chrumater of infused oonrbe:mplrution hy ioompamng it to il:uils conoopibualiSJt amount of ordinacy k:nlowledge. The foetlings of infased love rtJ:m.s become Hooe oonoerprbsrthrougih which realiiity is known. Thti.s comparison wfutih ,a de:£eebive:aieoount of knowledge ohf usc1rutes rtarther :tihian rniumines whiait rthe mysbics sray aibout rtheiT ex:pmwce. For Aqllllinirus,on tihe oonlbraJirY,:the direcrt 1a:Wiareil.leS1sof one'B 1ruots of fovmg God does n101t requi:ve a nre1dirub:ion oonoeived of iaf.ter the modiel of a oolJlleept. Since disibincibiionbetween ;the Vllliil'.iious facuLbies of rtlhe isoul does not entail the rigid £ac.ulty espo1Used by M1runitJaiin,he does not sihairply oontra:st a [IJO!ll-OOUl(leprtruJalaffecitiviee'Xiperienceof God with a ooncepitua.Jist Vliew of £airth. k:nJo,wledge. F1oil' him, tihe same ihiumrun iTIJteilli·genoe 1s:ponrbaneous1lymo·VJes :boitih foom the ise:n:s!i:hle ooa;J,ilti!eisto God rund from the oonisciousenjoyment of God'is Love to a judgmell!t of 1wti:sdioml'legiaJ"dffigevecyrthung ,i:J::u11Jt be1ongs to God. In :the case of knowledge iby CO!llllialtu:valiity,orne's oorrIBdouis acts 1and foelingis of loV!e rure the mediia1toll's that permirt Aquiruas to srpieakof tihe exvemooce of God. Gr1ruce, rtihe !infll'Sedv:irrtues,and 1tihe 1giifts of the Holy Spidt 1rure the oondirtions1of po1ssihi1isty of ithis meclirutedexperience. 69 1 1 1 1 69 Notice .Aquinas's rich precision, which I have tried to encapsulate in this paragraph. Rahner's and Schillebeeckx's notion of "mediated imme· LOUIS ROY, O.P. Aquinias, 1thel'lefoi1.1e, prowdes us wilth ia oo11l'edbive to Miacirtiruin's ·aa:ud :to ep]sibemofogicaJviiews. Moreove:r, \q)ltihiough it does ndt rpurrprnit iUo p!I'IOVle rbhe :faict of