Reed Layout 2020-2021

and clarifying explicitly that it is absurd to depict Kierkegaard as aCatholic3.The question remains: what is the message that Fabro istrying to convey? I believe that the best way to understand it is bylooking at the context in which Fabro lived. Joshua Furnal hasfollowed this path by focusing on the situation of the CatholicChurch and using it as the key to understanding Fabro’s interest inKierkegaard4. Fabro writes in the context of the Thomistic revival inthe Catholic cultural environment, which started after Pope Leo XII’sencyclical Aeterni Patris5 and which continued with Pope Pius X’scondemnation of Modernism6. The Catholic Church looked back atthe Middle Ages in theology, being suspicious of the new changes incontinental philosophy. This caused the reaction of theResourcement, which supported the idea of being open toModernism7. As Furnal noted, Fabro became close to this movementand Kierkegaard’s philosophy 8.At this point, as Furnal explains, Fabro, who was a Thomist,found in Kierkegaard several similarities with Thomas Aquinas9. Thisbegan with a reinterpretation of Kierkegaard’s relationship with therole of reason 10. On this last point, Fabro challenged thosephilosophers who interpreted Kierkegaard as an irrationalist thinker.Instead, he argued that Kierkegaard depicted reason as separate fromfaith but in a positive relationship with it (similarly to Aquinas) 11.Reason helps in recognising its own limits in front of the paradoxesof religion, and it collaborates with faith by avoiding speculations onwhat is believed 12.31948: 1033-1034201551879619077Furnal 2015: 185-18682015: 19092015: 191-19210Furnal 2015: 192111956: 69-70121956: 69-7049

This information helps us in understanding what messageFabro is conveying. He is not trying to interpret Kierkegaard as aCatholic, but he is instead trying to make Kierkegaard acceptable tothe Catholic Church 13. In order to do so, he has tried to identify inKierkegaard some Catholic sensibilities. Some of them are listed byFurnal, such as Kierkegaard’s Mariology or his Ecclesiology 14.However, Fabro also talks about Kierkegaard’s views on Imitation,from which his views on the saints, celibacy and the monastery arederived, and which bring the Danish philosopher closer to theCatholic Church without making him a Catholic. This concept ofImitation will be explored more in depth in the next section.Nevertheless, Fabro’s attempt to make Kierkegaardacceptable to the Catholic cultural environment does not imply thathe fabricates facts and statements about his philosophy. On thecontrary, in the following sections I will show how Fabro depictsKierkegaard as a disappointed Protestant with some Catholicsensibilities which he uses to correct the degeneration ofProtestantism. I will also highlight how Fabro’s claims are basedupon an overall accurate reading of Kierkegaard’s own works.Fabro’s interpretation: Kierkegaard, Protestantism andCatholicismHaving clarified that Fabro is not re-interpreting Kierkegaardas a potential Catholic, it is now necessary to analyse his positiveinterpretation of the Danish philosopher. Fabro’s idea of Kierkegaardis that of a Protestant, but a “disappointed” one because of the statusof Christianity in Protestantism and in Denmark in particular.Fabro identified in Kierkegaard several criticisms againstProtestantism, among which we can list the influence of Hegelianism15, the excessive secularisation 16, the theological role of the Virgin13Furnal 2015: 1992015: 198-210151959: 852-857161957: 1271410

Mary17 and the abandonment of the concept of the Imitatio Christi(“Imitation of Christ”)18. Although all these issues are fascinating andworth analysing, I will explore only the last two for the sake ofconciseness. That is because Imitation is an issue which has rarelybeen explored and, along with Mariology, is the point on whichKierkegaard appears to be closest to Catholicism.To understand what the idea of “Imitation” is, it is worthstarting from the role it plays in Fabro’s interpretation ofKierkegaard. According to the Italian thinker, Kierkegaard accuseslater Protestantism of having abandoned the idea of Christ as a“prototype”, i.e., an example to follow and imitate. This hascontributed to an extent to the victory of worldliness and, overall,has led Protestantism to focus solely on ‘grace’ as a path to salvation,and to ignore ‘good works’ 19.In Fabro’s view, Kierkegaard’s criticisms are not solelydirected at the condition of later Protestantism. Effectively, theDanish philosopher also ascribes some responsibilities to Luther’sactions and preaching 20. Kierkegaard is particularly harsh in thosepassages cited by Fabro in which Luther is described as ananti-apostle who has defended and created a more ‘human’ and‘worldly’ version of Christianity 21, and who is responsible for theexcessive attention of later Protestantism to the idea of Christ as agift and the rejection of Christ as a prototype. This finds its origins inthe fact that Luther himself focused too much on the first andignored the latter 22.However, Fabro admits that Kierkegaard still agrees withLuther, justifying most of his errors 23. Here Fabro’s argument appearsin line with that of Kim and Rasmussen. In their interpretation,Kierkegaard is acknowledging that Luther has overstressed the ideaof Christ as a gift, but Luther is also contextualised as responding to1719481973191973: 260-261201984211984: 9-10221984: 9231984: 101811

the traditional importance of the concept of Christ as a prototype inCatholicism and the Middle Ages 24. In this context, Luther focusedmore on the idea of Christ as a gift, and less as a model to imitate, asa form of counterbalance.In Fabro’s interpretation, Catholicism has in Kierkegaard therole of a corrective for these degenerate aspects of Protestantism, asit has kept in its tradition the importance of Christ as a model toimitate25. In other words, for Kierkegaard, by looking at howCatholicism positively understands the concept of Imitation and bycomparing it with the Protestant rejection of it, we can identifywhere Protestantism has committed some mistakes and we canmanage to solve them.The relevance of the Imitation of Christ in Kierkegaard isdepicted by Fabro as inherently connected to the importance of thecommunication of truth. The two models that Kierkegaard uses toexemplify this concept, Socrates (for the natural truth) and Christ(for the supernatural truth), lived without writing andcommunicated the truth directly through their actions 26. Hence,what has to be done, or at least ought to be tried by men, is to liveand be in the truth by striving to be Christ-like, while also beingconscious of their inability to be Christ.From this conception of Imitation, Kierkegaard derives hisCatholic corrections to Protestantism. An example is when he praisesCatholicism for worshipping the saints and martyrs, who followedthe path of the Imitation of Christ 27, something which Protestantsrejected. There is also the case of the monasteries. Fabro identifies inKierkegaard several critiques against the monastic life of the MiddleAges, as a misunderstanding of how the Imitation of Christ should beproperly performed. However, he also recognises in him a sentimentof regret for the Protestant abolition of the monastery, which stillrepresented an admirable attempt to imitate Christ 28.24Kim and Rasmussen 20161957; 1973261957: 131-133271957: 12728Fabro 1973: 259-2602512

Celibacy is also an interesting case in Fabro’s interpretationof Kierkegaard. The Protestant pastor who lives with his wife andchildren and whose role in society is nothing more than that of anormal person with a job and a family is, in Kierkegaard’s view, thesymbol of the rejection of the Imitatio in favour of worldliness. Thepastor’s life is one of contradiction between the New Testament andhis own actions 29. From here comes, according to Fabro,Kierkegaard’s praise of forced celibacy in the Catholic clergy, and hiscritique of Protestantism for the way in which it is suspicious ofcelibacy and labels it as wrong. Moreover, Catholicism has also themerit of venerating the “virgin”, rather than the common woman asProtestantism does 30.This last point is connected to Fabro’s overview of anotherCatholic sensibility in Kierkegaard: his Mariology. In contrast withKarl Barth as well as with most of the Protestant intellectuals,Kierkegaard praises on several occasions the Virgin Mary31. Shebecomes prominent in his philosophy and is even compared toAbraham as a person who accepted the radical choice imposed byreligious life32.Her acceptance to be the virgin mother of God and, moregenerally, her acceptance of the paradox, the scandal and thesuffering that will derive from it, make her as great as Abraham andeven more, as no angel came to save her child from suffering33.Nevertheless, it is important to be reminded that Fabro is notdepicting Kierkegaard as a Roman Catholic 34. Although Fabro hasshown us that Kierkegaard possessed several Catholic sensibilities, heaccepts that the Danish philosopher remains incompatible withCatholicism in many ways. He is ultimately loyal to the Lutheraninterpretation of Grace and Faith, and he admires and praises Lutherand the Reformation as right and necessary 35.29Fabro 1974Fabro 197431Fabro 1948: 1026-102832Fabro 1948: 1028-102933Fabro 1948: 1029341948: 1033-103435Fabro 1984: 6-73013

Hence, Fabro interprets Kierkegaard’s relationship withCatholicism in terms of a dialectic, in which Kierkegaard does notembrace but uses Catholicism, through his own “Catholicsensibilities”, in order to correct the degeneration of Protestantism.Kierkegaard’s ThoughtAfter having clarified what Fabro’s view is, I will now showwhether we can find evidence for it in Kierkegaard’s works. It seemsevident that the issue of Imitation is a central one in Fabro’s analysis.Nevertheless, it is not immune to criticisms.It is true that there are several passages in which Kierkegaardpraises the concept of the Imitation of Christ, complaining that it hasbeen left out in Protestantism 36 and by Luther, as this quote seems toconfirm: ‘It is “imitation” (to suffer for the doctrine and what belongsto it) which must be emphasized again; in this way the task relatesitself dialectically to the point where Luther eased up’37.However, Daphne Hampson identified in Kierkegaard acoherence with a Lutheran “Nachfolge” rather than the Catholic ideaof the Imitation of Christ38. The difference between the two is quitesubtle and has been widely debated. In order to simplify this issue,we could say that a person who accepts the Catholic “Imitatio” doesnot limit himself to follow as a disciple the words and preaching ofChrist, but strives to become Christ-like instead, i.e., to model hisactions on those of Jesus. This is well exemplified by the attention tothe saints in Catholicism, as they are seen as “holy individuals” likeChrist39.On the contrary, the concept of “Nachfolge” (which might betranslated as “discipleship”) in a Lutheran sense does not imply theidea that one should strive to be Christ-like, but it tries to convey themessage that one should accept through faith the preachings ofChrist and to follow them as a disciple of his thought. As36X3 A 666 n.d., 1850; X3A 750 n.d., 1851X4A 349 n.d., 1851382006: 266-26739Hampson 20061437

Lutheranism tries to give more importance to salvation through“grace” and acceptance from God (irrespective of merits) thanCatholicism does, it also tends to focus less on the idea thatone should act and be like Christ 40.Hampson’s interpretation could be confirmed by the fact that“imitation” and “imitate me” are respectively translated from theDanish "Efterfølgelsen" and “Følge mig efter” 41, which conveys an ideacloser to that of “following” (and hence discipleship) rather than tothat of “imitating”.However, Fabro translated Kierkegaard from Danish intoItalian, and his choices are not lacking some good reasons to supportthem. Notwithstanding the semantic inaccuracy of the translation,the context in which these expressions are used seems to convey aclear reference to the Catholic Imitatio Christi. For example, thefollowing quote appears to convey an idea of imitation: ‘What hesays, therefore, is essentially this: Imitate me [følge mig efter]; hateyourself; forsake all things; crucify the flesh; take up the cross; hatefather and mother, etc.’ 42.This seems to be a case of imitation, given that the actions ofthe disciple are modelled on those of Christ himself. Moreover, evenmore compelling are those quotes in which he explicitly refers toCatholicism: ‘There is more significance in Catholicism simplybecause "imitation" ("Efterfølgelsen") has not been relinquishedcompletely’43.In this last quote, it seems impossible that Kierkegaard mightbe referring to a Lutheran “Nachfolge”, as he is clearly specifying thatthe concept to which he is referring to is present in Catholicism.Moreover, in the following quote he clearly refers to “Efterfølgelsen”as something that existed and was established in Christianity beforeLuther’s reformation and against which Luther reacted.Hence, if it existed before the Lutheran reformation, how can it be a“Lutheran Nachfolge”?40Hampson 20062006: 26642XI1A 199 n.d, 185443X4A 354 n.d., 18514115

‘Luther's situation was quite different in his time. Then"imitation" was in full motion and off course. Now, however,imitation has been completely abolished.’ 44In other words, Fabro’s interpretation seems to be coherentwith Kierkegaard’s works. Compelling evidence that suggests theexistence of Catholic sensibilities in Kierkegaard is also given bythose passages about the Virgin Mary and the Annunciation. In hisJournals and Papers, he depicts her as a woman worthy of honour45,who must be praised for her “Yes'' which represented the acceptanceof the miracle and of the paradox of being the virgin mother of God 46, against all the prejudices she was going to face 47. Fabro is right inciting Fear and Trembling in his analysis. In it, Kierkegaard comparesthe Virgin Mary with Abraham, the Knight of Faith, by focusing onthe suffering which she accepted in her life by her leap of faith48.Nevertheless, in other cases Fabro’s interpretation appears tobe somewhat biased, for example when he talks about Celibacy. As Ioutlined earlier, Fabro stresses Kierkegaard’s critique of the way inwhich Celibacy is treated in Protestantism and of the way in whichthe pastor regards marriage as something which must be done inorder to be a good Christian. Although these criticisms are part ofKierkegaard’s thought, and are confirmed by several quotes in whichhe also praises celibacy, 49 it is also true that his views are far from anendorsement of the Catholic idea of celibacy.On the contrary, Kierkegaard often criticizes Catholicism andthe Middle ages on this point, clarifying that it was wrong to thinkthat ‘it was a sacrilege for a priest to marry’ 50 or ‘to regard [.] theunmarried state, etc. as something which in and for itself couldplease God’51. Kierkegaard might have been a champion of celibacy asFabro describes him, though only as a personal choice. Therefore,44X4A 349 n.d., 1851XI1A 40 n.d., 185446X4A 454 n.d., 185247VIII1A 338 n.d., 1847; X4A 520 n.d., 185248184349VIII1A 369 n.d., 1847)50X1A 440 n.d., 184951X2A 181 n.d., 18491645

that does not make him an opponent of the idea of marriage forpriests. What he is opposing is instead the Protestant degenerationwhich criticizes and ridicules celibacy 52. Fabro does not explicitlydeny the criticisms against the Catholic celibacy, but he simplyignores them, providing an unfair depiction of Kierkegaard’s view.However, notwithstanding this last point, I believe that Fabrois right in finding some Catholic sensibilities in Kierkegaard, as hasbeen established above.The Catholic Corrective in KierkegaardOn the relationship between the Danish philosopher andCatholicism, Fabro’s interpretation appears to be right. The same canbe said of his interpretation of Kierkegaard’s opinion regardingProtestantism as ‘altogether indefensible’ and ‘a mitigation ofChristianity’53. From these criticisms and disappointment, theCatholic corrective which Fabro identified arises. A clear example isprovided in the entry on Catholicism-Protestantism from theJournals and Papers.Here, Kierkegaard depicts both Catholicism andProtestantism as necessary to each other, making Protestantism ‘notqualified to stand alone’ 54. This is shown in the differences betweenthe two in judging their clergy. While Catholicism’s corruption wouldtake the form of “surface sanctity”, in which the Catholic will admitto not be in a position to judge the clergy spiritually but willrecognize its worldliness, Protestantism’s corruption would take theform of “spiritless secularism”, in which the Protestant would see inthe worldliness of the pastor nothing more than religiousness 55.Therefore, through comparison with Catholicism, the Protestantcould be able to recognize the worldliness of the pastor.This is just a general overview of Kierkegaard’s use ofCatholicism as a corrective, but there are several cases in which the52X3A 419 n.d., 1850XI2A 162 n.d., 185454XI2A 305 n.d., 1853-5455XI2A162 n.d., 18545317

correctives are related to more specific issues, such as for monasteriesor celibacy.I believe that it is when discussing these latter specific pointsthat Fabro’s interpretation loses its accuracy. I think that Fabro isinterpreting Kierkegaard as somebody who is using those Catholiccorrectives to “counter-reform” certain specific aspects of theReformation (such as celibacy or the monasteries), while remaining aLutheran overall. It is necessary to clarify that this is not somethingthat Fabro claims explicitly. Nevertheless, by looking at how heframes certain debates, this view tends to emerge. A clear example ofthis is the issue discussed above: celibacy.We have already seen how Fabro omits the parts in whichKierkegaard criticizes the compulsory nature of celibacy for priests inCatholicism. In the same article, Fabro claims the following: ‘He(Kierkegaard) praises [.] Catholicism, which forces celibacy upon itspriests as a guarantee of the authenticity of their mission and thetranscendence and freedom of Christianity’ 56. He later states that thisis the reason why Kierkegaard called for the return of the ReligiousOrders57 and wrote: ‘back to the monastery from which Luther brokeout’58.Firstly, the main sentence quoted is ambiguous, particularlyin its original Italian version. It could either mean that Kierkegaardpraised Catholicism because it has kept the institution of obligatorycelibacy (which, as we have seen earlier, would not be coherent withKierkegaard’s own views); or it could simply mean that he praisesCatholicism, and that Catholicism happens to enforce this rule forthe reasons he has given. I leave it to the reader to decide whichinterpretation sounds more plausible. However, it is worth noticingthat this is one of the few cases in which Fabro makes a claim aboutKierkegaard’s view without directly citing or referencing his originaltexts, suggesting that he might be aware that Kierkegaard has never561974197458XI 1A 134 n.d, 18545718

written anything in support of compulsory celibacy for the clergy andthat t

Reading Nausea Through Either/ Or: An Aesthetic and 78 Ethical Perspective Zachar y Altman, Bard College A Patient Pumpkin Sits at the Window and I 92 Watch the Snow Fall Iya Abdulkarim, St. Olaf College Self Actualisation 93 Thomas Br yant, St. Olaf College Limbo Diptych 95 Natalia Granquist, St. Olaf College And I Feel Okay About That 96