Radical Orthodoxy? - A Catholic Enquiry

by Laurence Paul Hemming (Editor)

Radical Orthodoxy? A Catholic Enquiry is essential reading for anyone seeking to understand 'Radical Orthodoxy', or be in critical dialogue with it. John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock and Graham Ward, the three principal exponents of Radical Orthodoxy, each enter into dialogue with theologians from the Catholic tradition - a tradition with whose sources and current researches Radical Orthodoxy claims to have much in common. The Introduction explores the issues and tensions involved in Radical Orthodoxy's dialogue with Catholic theology, and David Burrell offers an important evaluation of Radical Orthodoxy in the context of North America. In the first dialogue John Milbank presents one of the clearest expositions of the Radical Orthodoxy programme to date; Fergus Kerr's reply discusses this programme in the wider context of post-war Catholic debate. Catherine Pickstock explores the work of Aquinas to show how Radical Orthodoxy is appropriating the work of past theological giants, and in reply Laurence Hemming asks what questions remain in that process. Graham Ward, Oliver Davies and Lucy Gardner debate the challenges facing contemporary theology, both from the past and the postmodern present. James Hanvey's provocative conclusion opens the way to future debate. Challenging, yet accessibly written, this book represents an important milestone in the critical reception of Radical Orthodoxy. Shedding new light on contemporary issues and current theological enquiry, this book offers important insights to students of theology and those training for ministry, clergy and informed lay people, and everyone who wants to make sense of one of the most demanding yet important debates currently taking place.

190 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2000

Reviews

[Eric Lee · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a helpful contribution to the discussion about Radical Orthodoxy. As a Catholic, I am in agreement with much (but not all) of the critiques presented here by the Catholic authors. James Hanvey's remarks about RO's misunderstanding of Barth are surely correct (see also the work by Kenneth Oakes). I do think that Conor Cunningham's book _Genealogy of Nihilism_ goes a long way to address some of Hanvey's concerns regarding analogy, however--not to mention Betz and Hart's work (two friends and fellow-travelers, if you will).

Regarding Hemming's essay, contra Pickstock his Aquinas scholarship is correct; however at almost every point his concluding remarks often miss the point. Hemming often engages in what Fr. Luigi Giussani would call a "reduction" of what Milbank and Pickstock are doing. I am in agreement with Hemming's thoughts regarding Milbank's unhelpful "evacuation" of philosophy for the sake of theology. I would argue that Cunningham's approach, both in his _Genealogy_ and his more recent _Darwin's Pious Idea_ reveal a more helpful Catholic approach where he is much more amenable to philosophy as "preparation" (cf. p. 85; and yes, I am biased here as Cunningham was my Doktorvater). For all of Hemming's focus on Aquinas, however, he--as well as so many other critics of RO--misses that Milbank's opening essay in _Radical Orthodoxy_ was not about Aquinas but J. G. Hamann, already an indicator of his own proposal of an "alternative modernity." Lastly, I would add that Hemming misses how analogy functions in Aquinas (see p. 90) as analogy itself functions "analogously", both in philosophy and theology (see Przywara and especially's John R. Betz's helpful interpretation of him both in the edited collection by Joseph White, OP and his introduction to his co-translated [with David Bentley Hart] edition of Przywara's _Analogia Entis_).

I do think that Hemming's initial essay (pp. 3-19) will continue to stand as an open question regarding the Anglican appeals to Catholic tradition. As a Catholic who himself is largely (though not completely) sympathetic with the task/sensibility of RO, I am not the target of this question, however.

In some ways, as Fergus Kerr's essay points out, much of the response to RO can be understood--even now--as the difference between 'concilium' and 'communio' Catholicism.

[Ross Jensen · Rating 2 out of 5]

The Radical Orthodoxy movement still awaits its proper thrashing.

[Andrew · Rating 2 out of 5]

As of late I've been getting into Radical Orthodoxy, so I was looking forward to a good critique of it. Unfortunately, this book did not give me what I was looking for. I thought most the criticisms were rather speculative, and only took on implications of R.O. on a theological, epistemic and ecumenical level. It sort of kept itself to the margins of R.O. and rarely ventured to critique it directly.

[Crystal · Rating 2 out of 5]

The book has essays on Radical Orthodoxy by different people, including John Milbank and Fergus Kerr. I don't like Radical Orthodoxy and maybe that's why I didn't especially like this book - the Catholic essayists seemed to all approve of it.