To Be Picky
Just a for what its worth picky point on the excellent article by Charles Wilber and Laura Grimes on Christianity and economics (March): They say Christian defenders of free-market capitalism embrace a slippery slope argument either completely free markets or central control of a nations economy. As stated, what Wilber and Grimes call a slippery slope argument should really be called a false dichotomy.
Gerald J. Williams
New Providence, New Jersey
Old Heresies Dead?
John T. Noonan Jr., in his article The Catholic Community at Harvard (March), says, The old heresies Gnosticism, Manicheanism, Arianism are dead. But are they truly dead? I am a member of the Rosicrucian Fellowship. Many of the original Rosicrucians were Lutherans, yet they were also very interested in esoteric things like Jewish kabbala and Gnostic systems. Every week I get a copy of The Watchtower, put out by the Jehovahs Witnesses, who may not be Arians exactly but who certainly arent Trinitarians. And dont the Monophysite churches of Egypt and Ethiopia have Gnostic tendencies?
Regarding Philip Devines review of my Rights Talk (March), he may be pleased to know that the review raises serious questions about communitarianism with which I am trying to grapple. For me a communitarian in the sense that a proper conception of the human person includes a social dimension Catholic social thought remains the most fruitful context within which to try to approach the issues of the day.
Prof. Mary Ann Glendon
Harvard Law School
Dont Blame Luther
I was really turned off by some of Charles Coulombes remarks in his review of Jacques Elluls Anarchy and Christianity (March). Coulombes attempt to put Ellul and Martin Luther in the same private judgment bag is almost comical. Luthers private judgment was always tempered by his high regard for Scripture. Maybe Ellul doesnt believe in miracles, Hell, or Satan, but Luther certainly did. There are many Roman Catholics who would disagree with Coulombes blaming Luther for Elluls sometimes strange ideas.
The Rev. Edwin T. Heyne
Ascension Lutheran Church
In his March column, Robert Coles discusses not only AIDS but the moral condemnation of certain people with AIDS by others (particularly one unemployed man), whom Coles dismisses as being afflicted with smugness and malice.
Last term I was assigned to teach a course on Social Problems. Among other books, I assigned William Dannemeyers Shadow in the Land and Donald DeMarcos Biotechnology and the Assault on Parenthood. We had not proceeded very far into the course when a young man stood up, announced himself to be gay, and denounced me for using these terrible works. Actually, I had not yet even reached those books. Several things then happened. First, he was ridiculed, not by me but by many members of the class; then, both the dean and chairman of my department demanded to see the terrible Dannemeyer book, and I began receiving phone calls at 2 or 3 AM from nice gentlemen who suggested that we get together for a very good time. Fortunately, the phone calls stopped after a few weeks, and it turned out that the young man who had denounced me never appeared again in the class. But a few weeks later a bulletin went around indicating a special meeting would be held, which all students in my class had to attend, as I had given out misleading information which could lead to AIDS! I informed the class of this; they voted (I was not present at the vote) not to attend this meeting. The administration then rescheduled the meeting, since I had clearly neglected to inform the class. The second meeting was held on the last day of the term, and again the students decided not to attend. And that is where it stands at the moment.
Perhaps these people are not as harmless as Coles implies them to be.
Prof. Robert Lilienfeld
Dept. of Sociology, City College, City University of New York
New York, New York
Moral & Political Criticisms of Art
I read with interest Ronald Austins article on Jacques Maritains Art and Scholasticism (Jan.-Feb.), and I commend him for his recognition of the value of Maritains work, especially where the relation between artistic beauty and God is concerned. Austins analysis of Maritains distinction between art and morality, however, invites clarification insofar as it implies that Maritain denies the validity of the moral (or political) judgment of art.
As Austin points out, Maritains view of art as amoral is based on Aquinass insight: art does not require that the artisans act be a good act, but that he should make a good work. Far from denying that the making of the work of art has moral implications, Aquinas here acknowledges that the making of a good work of art may be a bad act morally speaking, which is to say that the effect of the work of art may be bad. As the Art and Morality section of Art and Scholasticism makes clear, Maritain follows Aquinas in this regard. Thus, immediately after asserting, The sole end of art is the work itself and its beauty, he adds, for the man working, the work itself comes into the line of morality. In other words, he acknowledges that the artists actions necessarily have moral implications.
In discussing the relation between art and morality (or prudence), Maritain distinguishes between the Artist, whose sole concern is the work to be made, and the Prudent Man, whose sole concern is morality (i.e., the good of the human being). It should be noted that both are abstractions. Maritains Artist is by definition concerned only with the work to be made; his Prudent Man is likewise concerned only with morality whereas in reality the most committed artist (insofar as he or she acts) is necessarily concerned with morality, and the most passionate moralist undoubtedly has some concern for art. This qualification needs to be kept in mind when Maritain makes assertions like the following: The Prudent Man as such, judging all things from the angle of morality and in relation to the good of man, is absolutely ignorant of everything pertaining to art. He can no doubt, as he ought, judge the work of art as it affects morality: he has no right to judge it as a work of art.
Austin is on firm ground when he concludes from such statements that Maritains view of the end of art narrowly construed (i.e., stripped of its moral implications as a human action) disallows the extraneous [i.e., morality] as a basis of aesthetic judgment (emphasis mine). But he risks obscuring Maritains thought when he also concludes that Maritains view effectively defends art from both its patrons and its critics who would burden it with moral lessons (or, perhaps more contemporaneously, political ones) at least insofar as this statement is intended to mean that any judgment of the moral and political implications of art is somehow illegitimate.
To the contrary, Maritain acknowledges that the work of art is the object of a conflict between the virtues of art and the virtues of morality. He also claims that, To form a good judgment on the work both virtues are necessary. I take this to mean that the good literary critic will do justice to both aspects of the work of art. He or she will be alive, for example, to the fact that a poet like Ezra Pound, in writing The Cantos, could make a fine work of art which nonetheless encourages a hateful, and therefore immoral, view of the Jewish people. This sort of awareness on the part of the critic, far from disposing of moral criticism of art, provides a framework in which the moral implications of a work of art can be evaluated together with its aesthetic value.
I recognize that Austin objects specifically to those who impose their moral and political concerns on art, and I agree with him that to burden art with moral or political lessons it cannot bear is irresponsible criticism. But criticism which acknowledges that works of art have moral implications is merely responsible criticism of the kind that Maritains book advocates. When such criticism defends art against its detractors, it does so not by denying the validity of moral or political judgment (thereby implying that those who make such judgment are simply philistines or yahoos), but rather by affirming the need to balance moral and political reservations about art with recognition of arts intrinsic virtues.
Prof. Paul M.L. Vanderham
Dept. of English, The Kings College
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada