discursive living • gary e. davis • berkeley: beyond “God”: danger of authentic life

March 7, 2026

In “Martin Heidegger and Catholicism: The Unexpected Enemy in the Black Notebooks,” Judith Wolfe writes, in ending her article (now deleted from its footnoted online source at the Catholic newsletter, The Tablet): “Neo-Scholas-
ticism has been in retreat in Catholic theology since the 1950s, not least due to Heidegger’s influence on luminaries such as [Karl] Rahner.”

No. The retreat may well be due to Rahner, but Heidegger didn’t much influence Rahner philosophically—conceptually, yes: existential focus inspired by Heidegger as teacher.

Rahner writes, in the preface to the translation of his main book, Spirit in the World, that Heidegger’s influence was as “my teacher,” while Heidegger’s thinking was post-theological. Rahner sought to existentialize theology, but asserted that Heidegger’s post-theological approach was not very important.

Both Wolfe and Rahner are primarily interested in the viability of theological thinking for increasingly secular modernity.

Preserving theological commitment—academically and practically—was most important. Heidegger brought to theology (through Rahner) an existential conception of Catholic practice. Heidegger modeled a care for teaching which was renewing for theological practice.

People outside of religious professions may not realize that pastoral calling is everything—or should be fundamental. A career in a religion should be a profession of care. Heidegger gave that philosophical orientation. Integral to authentic teaching is care.

That is wholly concealed in Wolfe’s just-so story, salted with a few quotes. In fact, theologians may welcome association of Heidegger with nazism because that undermines Heidegger’s post-theological critique: concealment of True Care. Such care lives in “belonging together” (Identity and Difference), which is dogmatically concealed by the “onto-theo-logical constitution of metaphysics” (I and D again), i.e., the academic (onto)-Catholic (theo)-technoscientistic (logical) cabal of power which acquiesced to (academic), tolerated (Catholic), and promoted (via capitalist backing of the regime) Hitlerism as messianic savior against “Jewish” finance capitalism.

In other words: theology is politics. And German Catholic politics “caused” the Holocaust. That is, a compact of power which caused the Holocaust was capitalistically phony-Catholic and “Catholically” acquiescent in the university.

But the root of this is “Cathlic” theology itself (i.e., politicized inauthenticity of Catholic dogmatism): The culpability of European Catholicism for the Holocaust is indisputable. This reality is founded on the Thomistic commitments to Transcendentalist mysticism, turned into catechism oriented toward the mystified, gatekeeping (Latinist hermeneutical) Magisterium of the Vatican. But an authentic Catholicism is not in dispute (e.g., Pope Leo XIII of Martin’s youth; Pope Leo XIV today).

The threat of authentic life to dogmatic theology is that “God” is not necessary for communal flourishing. (That’s ‘God’ in quote marks: as phony “Christianity” depicts God.)

The vision of communal societies of the vernacular English Bible in early modern England was God within you and us, binding us in love of belonging together.

That isn’t protest-ant (like Luther, then Marx—and anti-modernist extremists with their coarse-grained conceptions). It is inspiration by the Jesus movement which didn’t need royalist gatekeeping on the meaning of ‘God’. Jesus was no Christian.

Meanwhile, a vital aspect of dogmatic theological commitment is to ensure the invalidity of any critique of one’s fidelity to dogmatic theological position, in Wolfe’s instance, apparently, that’s to defend “neo-Scholasticism.” (In Thomas Sheehan’s instance, that’s about Rahner’s existentialism; in Richard Capobianco’s instance, that’s about Christian mysticism.)

Heidegger was dangerous. Wolfe defends against that with a just-so story, which can be easily invalidated. She’s a good theologian, but a bad reader of Heidegger. (I’ve read her Heidegger and Theology.) Her story here (the article referenced above) is self-serving for “systematic theology” (her specialty)

If you want details, relative to her article, I would be willing to oblige. I would begin with her paragraph which begins “In April 1933,…” which quotes incorrectly and out of context from one of Heidegger’s notebooks (Ponderings II, passage #26).

This discussion is part of my project on other scholars’ readings of Heidegger.

Also, a follow-up to this, “Heidegger’s politics: from interpersonal life to new generationality,” is part of my project on Heidegger and reading political times.