The Great Philosopher Who Became Catholic

ic ^ | June 29, 2009 | Deal Hudson

[NYer]

Eight years ago today, a famous American philosopher died who had lived as a Catholic the last year of his life. Not so long ago, his name -- Mortimer J. Adler -- was synonymous with the "great books" approach to education he had pioneered with Robert Hutchins at the University of Chicago in the 1940s and 1950s. His edition of The Great Books of the Western World is still often seen if you survey the bookshelves of the homes and offices you visit.

 

Adler's pedagogy, like his Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy, was rejected by the academy he left in mid-career. He continued to edit, read, and discuss great books at seminars -- like those he taught at the Aspen Institute -- and to write scholarly books. But these were increasingly ignored, so in the late 1970s he took his case to general readers in an excellent memoir, Philosopher at Large: An Intellectual Autobiography, and books like Reforming Education and Aristotle for Everybody. Adler's career began to revive.

 

But it was Bill Moyers's several PBS specials with Adler -- especially his "Six Great Ideas" seminar from the Aspen Institute in 1981 -- that brought Adler back into the public eye. Adler capitalized on the attention with a series of readable books, winning him a new generation of readers. I was one of them. As a young philosophy professor teaching both St. Thomas and the great books, I regarded Adler with awe, knowing that he was a living link to Thomists like Jacques Maritain and Etienne Gilson, who had been his friends.

 

The first time I met Adler I mentioned my fondness for a novelist I was reading, the Australian Nobel Prize winner Patrick White. Adler immediately pulled out a notebook to write down his name and the novels I had mentioned. I was amazed that a philosopher of his stature would care about the opinions of a punky young professor! He encouraged me to stay in touch, and I did.

 

Some years later, Adler asked me to spend three summers with him at the Aspen Institute assisting him in his seminars. Afternoons were often spent smoking cigars and talking philosophy and religion (usually Catholicism). Talking to Mortimer was like talking to nobody else -- his intellectual energy seemed to super-charge my mind, pushing me to think beyond the places where I had stopped before.

 

There was no question too dumb for Mortimer and no assertion so lame that it couldn't be the source of another 30 minutes of conversation. During those summers in Aspen we talked for hours and never noticed the time passing, until someone would finally come to remind us about dinner. (It was Adler, by the way, who told me that cigars never taste better than first thing in the morning.)

 

 

When I met Mortimer he had not yet suffered the heart condition that led him to his late-life conversion in 1986 to Christianity. When I asked him, at our first meeting in Atlanta, why his love for St. Thomas Aquinas had not led him into the Church, he replied, "Faith is a gift, and I have not received it." Rather than ending the conversation, that turned out to be a darned good beginning.

 

He had been attracted to Catholicism for many years, but when he finally received "the gift of faith" he joined a different church. (Rumor has it that his wonderful -- and ardently Episcopal -- wife, Caroline, made sure of that.) Mortimer became a serious, church-attending Christian, albeit of the liberal variety, reading books by Bishop Spong and others. He once took me to a bookstore to buy me the latest title by Spong, but fortunately they were out.

 

The more we talked the more I realized Mortimer really wanted to be a Roman Catholic, but issues like abortion and the resistance of his family and friends were keeping him away. I tried to show him that his own Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics of act-potency led him to understand the necessity of protecting unborn life. But just at that moment, Mortimer would uncharacteristically mutter, "It's all too complicated," and change the subject. But I knew that he knew he was being inconsistent. I didn't have to press him -- because I knew he knew, and it was only a matter of time before he acquiesced.

 

At several of our seminars was the Catholic prelate of San Jose, Bishop Pierre DuMaine. The bishop and I would sometimes tag-team the philosopher on the Catholic Church, and we would all end up laughing about how Mortimer deflected the inevitable conclusion. As it turns out, Bishop DuMaine did not stop the Aspen conversations.

 

After Mortimer finally retired, and Caroline passed away, he moved to the West Coast to spend his final years. We kept in touch by phone, and I called him as soon as I heard from Bishop DuMaine that he had been received into the Catholic Church. To my ears, Mortimer sounded relieved and at peace that he had finally taken that step. The philosopher who had helped bring so many into the Church had himself finally arrived.

 

♦ ♦ ♦

 

Five Books to Read by Mortimer J. Adler:

 

• Aristotle for Everybody -- The best introduction to Aristotle (especially his ethics) that I know.
• Ten Philosophical Mistakes: Basic Errors in Modern Thought—How They Came About, Their Consequences, and How to Avoid Them -- Here is everything you need to know about what is wrong with modern philosophy, written in a way you can understand.
• The Angels and Us -- One of my personal favorites. Adler has fun using St. Thomas's treatise on angels to explain how the human mind works.
• The Philosopher at Large: An Intellectual Autobiography -- An important book to understand the course of American education, in addition to Adler's own life.
• The Difference of Man and the Difference It Makes (with an introduction by yours truly) -- This, I think, is one of Adler's most original contributions to philosophy: an argument for the immateriality of the intellect making human beings different in kind, not degree, from other animals.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Everyone one of your points is an assumption, not evidence.”

No, what you’re posting is the assumption. I posted things such as this:

1) There’s no written evidence for it.

That’s just a fact. Period. No where in the Bible does it say Adam wrote a single word of the Bible. That’s not an assumption.

2) There’s no historical evidence for it.

Ditto. There’s no historical evidence for it either. No monument, no textual evidence, NOTHING.

3) There’s no reliable tradition for it.

If you knew of such evidence you would have already posted it.

4) Moses has always been considered the author according to Jews and Christians.

Irrefutable. It is simply irrefutable that Jews and Christians have always believed Moses - not Adam - was the author of Genesis.

5) Adam as the author is a recent invention.

Isn’t true that that idea is a recent invention?

6) Adam as the author is a recent invention by Christians who are already on the fringes of Christianity.

That’s also true isn’t it? What main body of Christians believes Adam wrote scripture? Name it.

7) Those who believe in it are crackpots in other respects regarding the faith.

Absolutely and irrefutably true.

8) There is no evidence Adam could write.

Again, irrefutable. There is no such evidence at all.

9) The belief is not supported at all in the New Testament.

In the New Testament and in NT times it was understood that Moses was the author.

10) There’s no logic to the theory.

Also irrefutably true.

These aren’t assumption. Nor can you overturn them. They are not perfectly conclusive, but then again nothing is to someone who wants to believe in foolish and novel ideas because they old and true ones don’t tickle their ears anymore.

“There is very interesting research being done in this area which you apparently are not aware of.”

There is no interesting research being done in this area. Crackpots, who could just as easily have worked on batboy articles for the Weekly World News, are inventing assumptions about Adam because they believe it furthers the aims of creationists. Sadly, they are mistaken and foolish. Inventing myths does not rigorously promote truths.

“I would be happy to send you links to that research.”

I’ve already seen the “research”. It’s nonsense.

It’s all based on a ridiculously inflated importance given to ONE VERSE:

“This is the book of the generations of Adam.”

Nowhere in that verse does it say Adam wrote anything yet fools are pretending it does say that:

http://creation.com/should-genesis-be-taken-literally (All based on ONE verse)

http://www.nwcreation.net/genesisauthor.html (All based on ONE verse)

http://www.british-israel.ca/Genesis.htm (note: these are British-Israelite crackpots; and all based on ONE verse)

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/genesis.html (all based on ONE verse)

http://bible-matters.com/who-wrote-genesis/ (All based on ONE verse)

I have seen the “research” and it isn’t research at all. All of the crackpots who adopt this belief are basing it on ONE verse that they clearly do not comprehend correctly. NOTHING in “This is the book of the generations of Adam” suggests Adam wrote anything, ever. Genesis 5:1 no more says that Adam wrote it, than Matthew 1:1 says Jesus wrote that chapter of Matthew.

There is NO RESEARCH. NONE.

[LiteKeeper]

research

What "research" have you seen?

[LiteKeeper]

crackpots in other respects regarding the faith

What would those "other respects" be?

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“What “research” have you seen?”

Look at the links. Read. Repeat.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“What would those “other respects” be?”

Did you even bother to read my post all the way through? I posted links. You ignored them. Now you’re asking how the believers in this crackpot theory are crackpots? Depends on the crackpot in question. I noted one was a believer in British Israelitism. Crackpot right there.

[dsc]

“Well, “Old” Catholics found it convenient to accuse a lot of people of pretending, because it was a good way of getting hold of their estates.”

All these groundless accusations...Why don’t you study up on the Black Legend.

“The proof is, of course, the expulsion of Jews in 1492.”

Nonsense.

[CTrent1564]

livius:

Good post there. I would like to add to it:

One of the best studies on the subject is by Henry Kamen, Professor of History who has taught at numerous U.S. Universities, including UCLA and the Univ. of Chicago. He is a Jewish-British citizen and I think is currently a research fellow in Spain and his analysis supports the Vatican’s recent publication of the number, and who, were condemned in the Inquistion, which contradicts much of the nonsense that is out there about this subject.

I suggest folks here at a minimum go to amazon.com and examine his work on the Spanish Inquisition. I am continually surprised by the lack of intellectual honesty with some individuals on this board, who are Protestant [although more so towards secular-leftist, neo-pagans, etc.] It seems deconstructionisism, which at its core is a Marxist and relativistic ideology, is rampant, in how many folks approach this subject.

The Spanish Inquisition was established in 1480 in the context of the Spanish Reconquest of their homeland from the Muslim invaders, who had overrun their country in the late 7th century resulting in the longest war in history. The Spanish inquisition was designed to confront Catholic heresy, which was seen as being a threat to the state. Specifically, it was targeting conversos, i.e. persons who had converted from Islam and/or Judaism for political gain. There is a growing consensus among scholars that indeed many of the conversos lived double lives and conspired with the Moslems during the Spanish Catholics war of reconquest. It is true that torture was used and some were put to death by the state, if convicted twice which Catholic Historian Warren Carroll, in his Volume 3 of History of Christianity: The Glory of CHristendom notes can’t be defended. However, he notes that torture and being put to death were not unique to Spain. Most sources today document that some 15,000 persons were found guilty by the Inquisition and about 2,000 were put to death during Isabella’s reign. Many Catholic Saints were in fact charged in the inquisition and cleared, including St. Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Jesuits, and ST. THeresa of Avila.

As Carroll notes (p. 608) in Volume 3 of his work, “The Glory of Christendom”, the Inquisition had no jurisdiction over practicing Moslems or Jews, only over professed Christians who were still living as Jews or Moslems.
Shortly after the Spanish Inquisition was commenced in 1480, the war of reconquest of Spain began again as on December 26, 1481, the Moslems attacked Granada. Isabella responded with and all out military effort which finally ended what was a 759 year struggle!!! to to drive the Moslems out. In addition, shortly after the reconquest, Isabella in March 1492, issued a decree to expel all Jews from Spain. Warren Carroll (p. 681 fn) writes “Much has been made of in recent years of Isabel’s decree in March 1492 expelling all Jews from Castille as showing that she was not always good and just. None but God is always good and just. This was the one definitely unjust act in Isabel’s thirty-three year reign; though some Jewish subjects had been proved to be, or could reasonably be expected to be traitors, and some had been proved by the inquisition to have enticed conversos to betray and blaspheme the Christian Faith, the edict of expulsion covered all without exception, the innocent majority along with guilty minority. Those exiled were not otherwise harshly treated; they were given four months to wind up their affairs and take all they wished with them except precious metal, an their persons were under royal protection throughout that time. Yet, the expulsion was still unjust (See Carrolls Isabel of Spain, pp. 207-210 for more detail).

It is obvious that many modern people look at the Spanish Inquisition only to make polemics and it is obvious that most people, including some on FREP, “have never studied the subject.” I have no bitterness towards Anglicans because after Henry VII made himself head of the Church, hundreds of loyal Catholics went to the chopping block. It is a sad part of history. In fact, it is my opinion that Traditional Anglicans are sort of members of the family, who have been away for a while. Calvin’s Geneva was the first Christian police state and many were put to death there as well, for such things as dancing. Luther called for the killing of German peasants in the “peasent revolt” and thousands died there. Yet, it is the Catholic Church that always gets the coverage. Intrinsically, there is a reason for this and that is “Satan”, and I believe there is such a thing, and Satan ultimately knows the real thing, and it is the Catholic Church, hence all the attacks on it. Still, it has survived 2,000 years and will be here after all on this board are dead and buried.

While modern man looks at heresy as a joke, the folks of the 15th century took it very seriously, as did orthodox Christians in every period beforehand. Now, all Catholic agree today that the Church needs to deal with heretics without using the state to make it a state crime. For the record, this is true in countries that went Protestant in the 16th century and persecuted Catholics.

And one thing I always point out to my agnostic and secular-leftist friends, is that the crimes of the last century brought about by Nazism and Communism were carried out by two men who stated they hated Christianity. Hitler was an apostate Catholic and Stalin was an apostate Orthodox Christian. Between them, there were some 100 million people lost. Perhaps something similar to the Spanish Inquisition, “without the torture” could have been used to stop Hitler and Stalin in that if convicted of heresy, folks would not have followed those two evil men. However, modern man has “made himself God” or some political philosophy and thus it probably would have been a mute point anyway.

Again, I am not justify torture and executions for heresy. Isabella’s Spain and the Church permitted both; they should not have. In this context, perhaps Senator John McCain is correct in that maybe the U.S. should not use torture as a means of self defense. The arguments of Isabella’s Spain, fighting off the Moslem invaders, is remarkably similar to the arguments made by those who justify the United States torturing Moslem POWs today. Now for the record, I am all for defeating the Islamist Jihadist and I personally see the war on terrorism as the continuation of a 1,300 year struggle between the forces of good and forces of evil.

In summary, the Spanish Inquisition should be seen in the context of the 15th century and in the context of Spain’s 759 year conflict to retake their Land from the Moslem invaders. All other attempts, IMO, are nothing more than Marxist Deconstuctionism or anti-Catholic polemics. Further, the Spanish Inquisition was no different from any other courts during its time, and in fact, the criteria for evidence was among the best in the era. Also, non-Catholic never were tried under the inquisition, so this nonsense that all non-Catholics were wound up and tried in the Inquisition is a fairy tale.

Pax et bonum

[RobbyS]

As a student of history, I have often been surprised to learn how little so-called educated men know of history. In addition to the Inquisition, there is the example of the Crusades. Try sometime to ask someone from an “elite” college about Lepanto and how it related to the Crusades. See if they know who Sulieman the Magnificent was. Ask them the name of the greatest power in Europe in the year 1600. My guess is that you could ask Barry Obama about any of these topics and the answer he would give would show a void of information deep enough to sink a battleship in.

[livius]

Yes, I’m familiar with Kamen’s work and it is very good indeed.

I think you have hit on the problem with the Inquisition, which was the fact that it was just too tempting for the State to use it to punish its enemies.

The Inquisition actually functioned by a legal code that was much more advanced than any in civil society at the time. For example, it was forbidden to accept confessions extracted under torture, and torture (other than imprisonment) was not used; however, it was used by the State, and of course ambitious Inquisitors would turn their investigees over to the State to do whatever it wanted with them. One of the flaws of the system was that individual Inquisitors had great power. This was theoretically to keep them honest and free from outside influence, but of course, we all know what absolute power does...

But as you say, the concept of suppressing and eliminating heresy and keeping doctrine and practice pure is vitally important. It is a very good point that the rise of a Hitler or a Stalin, who both set up cults that were rivals to the Church, might have been stopped by active attempts to eliminate these heresies before they got strong enough to be unstoppable.

I think our Pope realizes the importance of doctrinal purity and I hope there is some way the Church can bring back this focus. Doctrine is not just theory, but affects individual human lives and human societies, and this was essentially what the Inquisition (in its best aspects) realized.