“The lamp of the body is the eye.” (Matthew 6:22) This profound biblical imagery serves as a powerful metaphor for theology within the Church. Our understanding of faith, our theology, acts as the “eye” through which we perceive and engage with the divine. As the scripture continues, “It follows that if your eye is sound, your whole body will be filled with light.” (Matthew 6:22). This highlights the fundamental truth that our theological framework shapes us as Christians, dictating what we can see, comprehend, and achieve. Yet, we often remain insufficiently aware of the profound influence theology exerts, how it guides us, and indeed, how it truly leads us.
Historical Roots and Evolving Understandings
Throughout history, and across diverse geographical regions, Christians have consistently engaged in the act of theologising: writing, explaining, reflecting upon, and defending their faith and its orthodoxy. The way they have grasped the divine seed of their belief has always been intrinsically linked to the cultural ‘soil’ in which it grew. While acknowledging the rich diversity across time and space, the core of the faith remains constant. Furthermore, as Catholics, we hold the conviction that our very understanding of faith undergoes a dynamic, organic, and bio-logical development. A prominent exponent of this doctrine was St. John Henry Newman, whose work on the development of doctrine remains highly influential.
As explored in the previous chapter, Western theological practice during the Middle Ages manifested in two distinct forms: a monastic approach and a scholastic one, the latter eventually evolving into the university model we recognise today. The monastic form, however, gradually faded. Even scholastic theology, despite its longevity, experienced periods of decline, resurgence, and further development.
It is remarkably challenging for today’s seminarian to fully grasp the teaching of theology prior to the Second Vatican Council. Instruction was primarily conducted in Latin, and the dominant method was a revived form of Scholastic Theology known as Neo-scholasticism. This revival, and the return to St. Thomas Aquinas as the theological guide, was vigorously promoted by Pope Leo XIII. The methodology was highly abstract, demanding a robust grounding in metaphysics—specifically the philosophies of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas. The theological approach was largely top-down, moving from the most significant intellectually contemplated truths downwards to their ultimate consequences, traversing ‘smaller’ truths along the way.
Slowly but surely, two alternative approaches to theological practice began to emerge. The first, while still Thomistic, sought to contextualise St. Thomas Aquinas within his historical milieu. The aim was to understand precisely what he achieved, to appreciate his genius, and to recognise his openness to the myriad challenges of his era, stemming from Aristotelian philosophy, Arab and Jewish thinkers, and various political, religious, and university pressures. By situating him historically, his doctrine appeared less monolithic, thereby inviting an imitation of his intellectual approach rather than a rigid adherence to his conclusions.
The second alternative theological approach developed as a result of multiple converging factors:
- The rediscovery of the Church Fathers, bringing a renewed appreciation for patristic thought.
- The initially cautious integration of biblical exegesis and other interpretive methodologies.
- The growing acceptance of the ‘scientific method’, originating from outside ecclesiastical circles.
- A significant renewal of liturgical studies, fostering a deeper understanding of worship.
- A critical re-evaluation of various theological topics, leading to fresh perspectives.
These and many other renewals, including those in ecumenism and ecclesiology, unfolded during the decades leading up to Vatican II. They served as vital preparations, offering their rich fruits to the assembled Council Fathers. It almost goes without saying that the world of philosophy simultaneously presented an enormous array of challenging “new” philosophies for study and critique, albeit often from an Aristotelian-Thomistic perspective.
The Transformative Impact of Vatican II
Few today can truly measure the profound impact of an event that occurred at the very outset of the Second Vatican Council: the initial preparatory documents, covering subjects such as the Church (ecclesiology) and the Liturgy, had been dispatched to the bishops. These documents were drafted in the traditional neo-scholastic theological style. What transpired next, spontaneously, powerfully illustrated the effect of the two emerging theological approaches and, more broadly, the shifting cultural landscape of the post-World War II era in the early 1960s. The Council Fathers, almost universally, rejected these preparatory documents. Their rejection was not based on the content itself but on the form, which was deemed inadequate for the times.
To further illustrate this change in mentality, consider that the original manuscripts of St. Thérèse of Lisieux were finally published in 1956. Today, it seems almost absurd that the original form of her writings could have been withheld for so long. Similarly, the personal letters of Mother Teresa to her spiritual director were published recently, a feat that would have been unimaginable before World War II. St. Thérèse’s sisters, still alive at the time, initially resisted but eventually acceded to the publication of the original manuscripts in 1956. This is significant because it highlights a change in mentality: there was a growing desire for the unadulterated truth, the original text, driven by an emergent conviction that rigorous study and the ‘scientific method’ were inherently valuable. This seems utterly self-evident today.
Another illustration of this paradigm shift can be found in Pope John XXIII’s motivation for convening the Council: it was intended as a pastoral council. The aim was to present the perennial teachings of the Church in a more accessible and understandable way. There was a palpable sense that the ‘way’ or the form of presenting the Faith needed to be more attuned to the people of that era.
Consequently, the theological forms that had been quietly developing in the years preceding the Council spontaneously became the dominant approaches. The previous, more abstract method, detached from time and history, was simply abandoned. Strikingly, nobody challenged this new form, nor did anyone question its methods or its embrace of the ‘scientific method’. From that point onwards, Salvation History theology, often associated with the “Nouvelle Théologie”, spontaneously became the official and almost exclusive way of practising theology, with only a few fringes opting for a more historical approach to St. Thomas Aquinas.
In the ensuing years, the pressure on theology from the natural sciences, human sciences, historical-critical exegesis, psychology, and the pervasive ‘scientific method’ had an immense impact. This was largely accepted, as science was largely seen as beyond challenge. Very few, however, delved into a deeper study of these changes and their profound implications for theology.
Strengths and Unaddressed Challenges
On the one hand, the enhanced accuracy introduced by various sciences and the broader approach they brought to theology are fundamentally positive developments. Furthermore, the robust integration of time and history proved to be a crucial factor, grounding faith and the Incarnation in a new and more profound way. God’s entry into our time, history, and developmental process became the most natural and obvious context for theological reflection. These positive shifts are undeniable. Exegesis, for example, gained significantly in its ability to ascertain the human author of biblical books, their historical context, and so forth.
On the other hand, other vital aspects of theology suffered considerably from the ‘scientific’ pressure, often without adequate clarity or discernment. Initially, spiritual theology was particularly impacted by the new sciences, including psychology and psychoanalysis, to the extent that some began to doubt its efficacy, placing greater trust in psychoanalysis for spiritual guidance.
An implicit methodological shift occurred, giving the impression of tracing the temporal development of the theological subject under study. This often involved examining the subject first in the Old Testament, then the New Testament, followed by the Apostolic Fathers, the Church Fathers, and so on, until modern times were reached, with contemporary approaches and reflections naturally carrying significant weight.
The Unquestioned Method and its Limitations
Unless one directly questions the very foundations of theology, as is done in Fundamental Theology, it is rare for the prevailing theological method to be critically examined. It simply does not occur to many to analyse it and assess its suitability for the unique subject of theology, which inherently involves elements distinct from any other human science.
While the initial, renewed scholastic method appeared isolated from its temporal context, overly abstract, and demanding of exceptionally powerful minds, the subsequent method remained isolated within its own unquestioned framework. Crucially, it became excessively focused on scientific and historical objectivity, neglecting sufficient inquiry into the internalised reception and reflection of theological work within the human being. The linear progression of time and history became the sole norm, even though the Lord came not merely to enter our time and history and dwell among us, but to dwell within us!
This is why we contend that the valuable endeavour of Salvation History theology must continue its evolution, aiming towards the inner history, transformation, and salvation of the individual person. Naturally, this leads to questions that fall more directly under the purview of spiritual theology. It is therefore hardly surprising that, on the one hand, the Council Fathers voiced an already long-standing complaint: the divorce between spiritual life and theology. Yet, on the other hand, we have received precious few indications on how to bridge this gap, especially given that spiritual theology—then known as Ascetical-Mystical Theology—suffered a significant setback due to heated debates surrounding contemplation. How can we truly narrow the gap between spiritual life and theology if one of the most fundamental questions of spiritual life, namely contemplation, remains shrouded in ambiguity?
Despite the earnest efforts of Pope Benedict XVI to address this issue, the gap persists, and the student often remains intellectually isolated from their spiritual life. The current weakness of spiritual theology does not help matters. While there is widespread admiration for the spiritual senses of the Scriptures, as lived and exercised by the Church Fathers, we still struggle to find a proper understanding of how to implement this experience today. We require a renewed impetus to truly believe that this is the path forward. Even Lectio Divina itself, and its specific form of contemplation, remains in a somewhat nebulous state, which is unhelpful.
It is simply not tenable to leave current university theology, or Salvation History theology, as it stands. Everyone intuitively recognises the problem—the absence of a genuine bridge to the student’s spiritual life. However, due to a lack of appropriate tools, we have yet to find the solution. Our guide within the Church, theology itself, seems unable to show us the way to God. At best, our theological guide helps us understand the foundational tenets of our faith. But beyond that, when Jesus enters our lives, the guidance received remains too superficial. The Lord did not come to impose an external religion or an external commandment! He came to offer us a new Law: the Holy Spirit within us. We desperately need proper indications to bridge the enormous gap between the spiritual life of students and the main areas of theology: Biblical Studies, Dogmatic Theology, Liturgy/Sacraments, Moral Theology, and Pastoral Theology. To narrow this gap, we must be able to answer the following critical questions:
- How can I truly encounter the Living Word of God, the Risen Lord, in and through the Scriptures? What specific practices or exercises facilitate this? How can the Word transform me, foster my growth, and guide me?
- How can I discern, from an interior perspective, the relationship between dogmas and my spiritual life? What is the connection between the Trinity and my spiritual life? What does it truly mean to be “saved by Jesus” on the Cross? What is He actually accomplishing on the Cross? Why were the Church Fathers prepared to die for a single point of the Creed, when I often struggle to see the relevance? How is it that St. Teresa of Avila claims that what is believed in the Creed can, when united with Jesus, be seen (what form of contemplation is this)? What is the experience that mystics have of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Church?
- How can I be transformed by the liturgy of the Mass? How can I participate spiritually in the Mass? When the priest says, “Lift up your hearts,” what precisely are we meant to do? What is the sacramentality of the Proclamation of the Word, and what does it imply? What is its relationship to Lectio Divina? According to St. Teresa of Avila, what is the relationship between Communion and contemplative prayer?
- How does the growth of charity within me enable a new experience? If the new Law is the Holy Spirit within me, how can I be transformed and guided by the Holy Spirit? According to St. Teresa of Avila, what constitutes perfect love? What is the true spiritual meaning of the two great commandments, and how do they become one in us, united in Jesus?
- Pastorally, what is the inherent relationship between the evangeliser and their spiritual life? What is the impact of spiritual growth on the fruitfulness of Ministry and evangelisation?
Only a robust and renewed spiritual theology can adequately address these profound questions and successfully bridge the divide between the spiritual life of the student (or the theologian) and their academic pursuits.
Integral Theology: A New Path Forward
At the School of Mary, we hold a profound conviction that current theology needs to transcend its existing boundaries and deeply penetrate the human being, exploring genuine spiritual growth and discerning the intricate connections between established theological topics and spiritual life. We believe that every major topic and module of theology possesses profound links to the student’s spiritual life. The treasures are undeniably there, but our current ‘method’ often prevents us from thinking beyond conventional frameworks. The weakness of spiritual theology hinders our ability to perceive these connections and their inherent richness. We must unearth these hidden treasures, bring them into plain view, and teach them effectively. This will have a powerful effect on the student, enriching current theology and catechesis (such as the OCIA), and ultimately accelerating the moment when the student truly hears and responds to Jesus’ Call.
To this end, at the School of Mary, we have developed a project designed to:
- Bridge each major theological topic with spiritual life, encompassing areas such as Biblical Studies and Spiritual Life, Dogma and Spiritual Life, Sacraments/Liturgy and Spiritual Life, Moral Theology and Spiritual Life, and Ministry/Evangelisation and Spiritual Life.
- Strengthen the reflection of each topic within Spiritual Theology itself.
This comprehensive project has been named “Integral Theology” (further details can be found on the School of Mary’s website).
This approach liberates the student from intellectual isolation stemming from a purely historical focus, offering a significant strengthening of their spiritual life. For instance, if a student not only learns exegesis, critical historical exegesis, and biblical theology, but also learns how to encounter the Living Word of God through Lectio Divina -and not merely to encounter Him, but also to listen and put His words into practice- they will experience the very words learned in Exegesis and Biblical Theology in a completely new way. This will ignite within them a fervent desire to transmit this Word to others. The long, golden thread connecting (a) Jesus the Word within their heart, (b) their experience of listening to the Word and putting it into practice, (c) the biblical spiritual theology and understanding of the sacred text, (d) the biblical theological approach, and finally (e) exegesis, will remain unbroken. God’s power will flow through it with immense strength. The same principle applies to all other major theological topics.