“Divine Promise and Human Freedom in Contemporary Catholic Thought”
At breakfast in the fall of 1972 Father Keefe explained the history of the doctrine of Illuminism. I am not able to remember which question of mine triggered his mini-discourse—something I had inquired about—but I listened attentively. From that moment I knew how at once creative and orthodox was Keefe’s thought, and I have never changed my mind.
Years later, Father Robert A. Brungs, SJ of ITEST remarked more than once to me that “Father Keefe is the best dogmatician writing in English—and he is unappreciated.” I was already convinced of Keefe’s competence from the informal conversations I had with him in St. Louis. After Keefe’s review of Tad Guzie’s “Jesus and the Eucharist” (1974) as mere warmed-over Calvinism, I knew that Keefe was not only correct but that he had both the courage and the analytic depth to help us through the new “hermeneutic of rupture.” I also became aware that the Eucharistic mystery was Keefe’s “true love.” Later, his original article “Toward a Eucharistic Morality” (1974-1975) made this point elegantly.
Perhaps his best student at Marquette, Joyce A. Little, published a summary of his “Covenental Theology” in the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars Newsletter (June 1992, 3-7, vol. 15, no. 3) called “A ‘Little’ Bit about Father Donald J. Keefe, S.J.” It is the place to begin for a concise introduction to Keefe’s systematic theology. Toward the end on page seven she writes:
“If Keefe’s work does no more than alert a new generation of theologians to the fact that traditional Catholic systematic theology is bankrupt, it will have performed an invaluable service. Happily, there is good reason to suppose that it will do much more than that. Keefe’s own conversions of Augustinianism and Thomism into theological methodologies, which he himself is the first to acknowledge as ‘hypothetical,’ are so cogently presented that there is little doubt, on their own merits alone, that they will earn serious exploration by future Catholic theologians.”
Dr. Little’s own dissertation directed by Keefe, “Toward a Thomistic Methodology” (Toronto, Edwin Mellen Press, 1988) refines and explores some of Keefe’s theological concerns. (Due to poor health, she was not able to contribute to “Divine Promise and Human Freedom in Contemporary Catholic Thought.”)
In the Seventies it was feared that Hans Küng and his allies were taking over the theology of the Catholic Church. The battle-weary Pope Paul VI had been relentlessly attacked for his encyclical “Humanae Vitae” (1968) and then afterward for his pontifical Declaration “Inter Insigniores” (1976). Having few sources of inspiration, I profoundly admired those such as Father Keefe who supported the pope and the pontifical magisterium in those grim days.
Father Keefe was of course not alone, but a search comes up with just a few who were courageous enough to go against the tide of the times. One of them, truly a “Doctor of the Church,” Dietrich von Hildebrand, had resisted National Socialism in Germany a few decades before. He was already a fighter so that from Fordham in New York von Hildebrand was engaged in this new struggle. Another valiant exponent of religious orthodoxy was Father Mark Hegener, OFM, editor of the Franciscan Herald Press. He published works we would otherwise not have seen in English.
Keefe was the chief dogmatician and protector of the sacraments. Von Hildebrand was an ethician and Hegener was a publisher. Others included John R. Sheets, Ralph McInerny, William E. May, Germain Grisez, Paul Quay, William B. Smith, George A. Kelly, Francis Canavan, James Hitchcock, Sara Butler, and James V. Schall.They were voices crying out in the wilderness which Catholic America had become—as Joyce Little wrote, “systematic theology has become bankrupt.” With hardly an exception, I met Father Keefe before I met others who had our ecclesiastical concerns.
Our young people today do not remember these heroes, and this short list is not taxative, but the youth should be taught about them. They should be advised to read “Divine Promise and Human Freedom in Contemporary Catholic Thought,” edited by Kevin A. McMahon (2015). The book is a collection of essays written in honor of Father Keefe on the occasion of his ninetieth birthday and presented to him on his ninety-first. Being introduced to certain “keefian themes” might be a life-changing experience. The contributors to the collection are orthodox, even if they would not agree with Keefe on a variety of points. Father Keefe in the course of his life returned to St. Augustine for theological solutions, whereas others held to St. Thomas more broadly.
What was the context of Father Keefe’s intellectual development? With his final work “Covenantal Theology” easily available, the road to it might not be obvious.
Not long before going to the Gregorian University in Rome for his doctorate, Father Keefe wrote a critique of Thomistic metaphysics. He was encouraged in this work by Gustave Weigel (d. 1964). For his doctoral research he chose the Lutheran theologian Paul Tillich, a somewhat daring subject for that time when “decadent Scholasticism” and “manualist theology” reigned and when the Ressourcement movement was suspect by certain scholars and important curialists in Rome.
The subordinate title of his work on Tillich was “comparison of systems.” He exhausted the resources of Thomism, and turned to examine those of the alternative, Augustinianism. He had spent the summer of 1956 with the first four of the five volumes of Joseph Maréchal’s great work, “Le Point de départ de la métaphysique.” He learned a lot of French from Maréchal and a little later from Henri de Lubac’s banned “Surnaturel”, all of which stood him in good stead when he got to Woodstock and read Jean Daniélou and other French Augustinians.
Ecumenism was much in the air then, and he took classes under a Dutch Jesuit, Jon Witte, a contemporary of Rudolph Bultmann, Oscar Cullmann, Karl Barth and Paul Tillich. Witte was familiar with their work. At the end of the year Father Keefe asked him to direct his dissertation. Witte’s English was without noticeable accent, and his acquaintance with European theology, especially that of the German scholars, was extraordinary. His willingness to undertake the direction of Keefe’s dissertation was a high compliment. Father Keefe doubted it could have been written otherwise.
As for its subject, Tillich was at once an Augustinian, a systematist, and an enigma. His Lutheran faith was put in issue by many Lutherans, and his system, which in sum denied that the redeemer’s name is Jesus, did not precisely encourage its study. Nonetheless, he presented a formidable challenge, which he undertook to meet, albeit with some trepidation. In those days, Jesuits went to Rome for two years; dissertations had to be written within a year. He finished it well in time, but it was turned down. After some struggle and revision, it was accepted and published in 1971 as “Thomism and the Ontological Theology of Paul Tillich: A Comparison of Systems” (Leiden, E.J. Brill).
Critics of Father Keefe may point to a curmudgeonly side. Actually, his personality is a work of art, and his conviction and self-confidence can be misunderstood. I counter critical comments by reminding those who do not know him that curmudgeonliness was a hallmark of Saint Padre Pio of Pietrelcina. It did not impede Padre Pio from either fame or sanctity. Neither Donald Keefe nor Saint Padre Pio can be “reduced down” to a single facet of their personalities. Nor does personality equate with brilliance. Ironically, the popular press never adverted to the fact that Hans Küng is also as curmudgeonly as they come. The present writer can only aspire to become a saintly, scholarly curmudgeon.
Donald J. Keefe was born 14 July 1924 to Donald and Frances Keefe. The family lived on a farm near Hamilton, New York. He graduated from high school in 1940.
In 1943 he joined the V-5 naval aviation cadet program, emerging in 1945 as an ensign with a designation of flight navigator. He entered Colgate University in 1946, then entered Georgetown University Law School in January 1949. He graduated in 1951 and was admitted to the Bar of the District of Columbus on April 27 of that year, then to the Bar of New York State in 1954.
Father Keefe entered the Society of Jesus in 1953 at age 29. He was ordained to the priesthood in 1962. He received a licentiate in sacred theology from Woodstock College in Maryland in 1963, and then two years later obtained the doctorate from the Gregorian University in Rome. He subsequently taught at Canisius College, Saint Louis University, Marquette University and St. Joseph’s Archdiocesan Seminary in Dunwoodie, New York. He retired from teaching in 2003.
Currently Father Keefe lives at Murray-Weigel Hall near Fordham University. He is writing volume four of his “Covenantal Theology: The Eucharistic Order of History” whose earlier volumes appeared in 1991 and 1996. Volumes 3 and 4 may be found.
At the age of 91 Father Keefe spends three to five hours each day working on volume 4. Father Keefe’s control of the sources is incredible. His footnotes stand as separate meditations.
German Cardinal Gerhard Müller, prefect emeritus of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, warned of a grave danger that could lead to the “collective suicide” of humanity.
“Christianity promotes a civilization of life and challenges the culture of anthropological nihilism, which would have to end in the collective suicide of humanity. Atheism is nihilism. Its fruit is death,” the cardinal said in a presentation given in Spanish by his secretary Sept. 30 at the 14th World Congress of Families, which took place Sept. 30–Oct. 2 in Mexico.
On its website, the congress states it is “a major international and interreligious event that seeks to unite and equip leaders, organizations, and families to affirm, celebrate, and strengthen the family as the natural and fundamental human environment, key to the flourishing of mature individuals and sustainable societies.”
In his lecture, Müller explained that “nihilism, that is, ‘the feeling of the new age’ that ‘God himself is dead,’” as the philosopher Hegel wrote, can lead to the feeling that “there is nothing bad in the human being and everything that pleases him is allowed, if we believe in the kindly divine rationality over and in all that has being in his creation.”
In his discourse titled “Man made in the image and likeness of God: a manifesto against anthropological nihilism,” the cardinal referred to the theses of Nietzsche, “the prophet of post-Christian nihilism” who proclaimed “the death of God”; and to the historian Yuval Noah Harari, who “has become something like the guru of the so-called trans- and post-humanism.”
‘Divine superman’ can become ‘diabolically inhuman’
The prefect emeritus explained that “as a historian, Harari himself should know how quickly the vision of a divine superman can become diabolically inhuman. The 20th century has cruelly demonstrated this. In Western and Eastern Europe. Especially in Germany and Russia.”
“If man ceases to be a creature in the image and likeness of the triune God, he sinks into the depths of anthropological nihilism,” Müller warned.
For example, the cardinal referred to people “who have had their face or other parts of their body ‘lifted’ or ‘updated.’ It’s no longer a Hollywood fashion, but rather that these poor creatures deserving of mercy have fallen — without knowing it — into anthropological nihilism.”
“Anthropological nihilism has as its father the pride of the creature that wants to become like God (Genesis 3:5) and wants to establish the difference between good and evil, true and false for itself,” he said.
Its source of motivation, the German cardinal continued, “is the blind madness of the impious, who exchange the ‘glory of the incorruptible God’ for their self-fabricated ideological images. When man worships the creation instead of the Creator, he loses the glory of the sons and friends of God.”
Hostile to life and marriage
The cardinal warned that anthropological nihilism “is significantly hostile to life,” since it encourages the act of “killing children in the womb as a human right and the utilitarian requirement of the so-called ‘merciful death’ (euthanasia) for ‘depleted’ or ‘no longer utilizable’ human beings.”
“But the rotten fruits of anthropological nihilism are also shown in the questioning of marriage between man and woman, which is seen as a variant among any number of possibilities of the orgiastic enjoyment of sexual satisfaction without the full surrender in love and without transcendending oneself to (form) a third person, namely, the child as the fruit of love and of the womb of its parents,” he continued.
Thus the relationship of marriage to fruitfulness is denied, “with which the Creator has blessed man and woman so that they transmit, preserve, and promote the life created by God.”
Gender ideology
Cardinal Müller then addressed the issue of gender ideology, which makes a false distinction between biological sex and gender as a sociocultural construct.
“Apart from the biologically proven fact that a real sex change isn’t possible, the fiction of freely choosing one’s gender is a denial of God’s will for our person. Every human being exists in (his or her) bodily nature in either male or female expression,” he said.
“Gender ideology, which certainly also falls under the umbrella of anthropological nihilism, deprives both men and women of their own possibilities,” he pointed out.
“A man, by virtue of his spiritual and bodily disposition, has the possibility of becoming a loving husband to his wife and a faithful father to his children. But he cannot be a wife or mother to another person without betraying himself,” the cardinal said.
The prefect emeritus of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said that “no one can reform or modernize the teaching of Christ, ‘because he himself (by his Incarnation) brought with him all the newness and modernness to renew and vivify man,’” as St. Irenaeus of Lyons, who was recently declared a doctor of the church by Pope Francis, said.
Dangerous for the Church
“Anthropological nihilism becomes really dangerous for the Church when even Catholic theologians in key positions no longer assume the fact of the historically unique and insuperable revelation of God in Jesus Christ, but instead make a perverse compromise with post-humanism, just for the Church to ‘survive’ as a social organization in a modern world without God,” the cardinal said.
For this “theology without God,” then, “the creation and the covenant, the Incarnation and sacrifice of Jesus on the cross and his bodily resurrection are only considered existential symbols of mythical quality.”
Cardinal Gerhard Müller | Photo credit: Bohumil Petrik / ACI Press
Father Brian Van Hove's Blog 
