On Heresy
For a markedly sane and gentle chiding of some of the recent goings-on here, please see this post. While this is an extension of some of the discussion, I would be the first to say that later error does not abrogate solid early writing (thus my defense of Merton and DeMello). But I particularly like,
In my own limited exposure to modern theologians, I've found I'm far less likely to be convinced of error than to fail, more or less entirely, to understand what I read. This contributes to a suspicion that modern heresy hunting consists in saying, "Don't read Rahner," to people who wouldn't read Rahner for a dollar a minute.
Just because God is simple and salvation is simple, it doesn't follow that theology -- much less the language of theology -- is simple. Maybe that's why there are corporeal and spiritual works of mercy, but no literary or speculative works of mercy.
Quite a salutary course correction. One is compelled to explain that as a former protestant (this one at least) one is constantly concerned that he may be straying off into the fields of heresy and inadvertantly teaching error--perhaps one of the reasons I spend much time being very cautious regarding what I read and recommend. But Mr. Da Fiesole is correct, for the vast majority of us the wells of Schillebeekx and Rahner are perhaps a trifle overdeep, and a good deal too turgid for deep draughts or even shallow sips. We need not concern ourselves with Pope's warning:
A little learning is a dang'rous thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, And drinking largely sobers us again.
As most of us are well content to leave that spring alone. Thank you Mr. da Fiesole.
