> i do see what you mean. i blew right by that, thinking about thomas's
> hypothetical reaction to leibniz or spinoza. i guess it would surprise
> me if thomas would be so . . . irrational about it. for him, god is
> both rational and good, so it's not a question of god needing a
> theodicy so much as there being a reason for what god does, whether we
> can understand it or not. of course, our job (um, so to speak) is to
> understand it as best we can and let go of the rest.
>
> but, unless i'm mistaken, and i may well be, thomas would have read
> job in the traditional way: job stayed "patient", never cursed god,
> and was rewarded at the end for remaining faithful. this is a rational
> view of god's activity, and more or less the wisdom tradition's view
> of justice, which is precisely what i would argue job was written to
> undermine.
>
> i can't believe that i would claim to understand thomas better than
> maritain, but i also can't see thomas (or maritain, really) reading
> job the way i do. you're clearly right, however, about maritain's
> point in that passage -- indeed, god not only doesn't need but doesn't
> want a theodicy. i'm alternately intrigued and left cold by maritain.
> i may have to go back to him afresh.
The classical doctrine, taken from Paulus, if memory serves, was that of the _Abyss_, abyss of ignorance. Leibniz filled that abyss with _Harmony_.
His theory was condemned in the 19th century by the Church, which at the time was under the influence of the darkest of reactions: the pupils of Joseph de Maistre ("The world is an altar where creature after creature is sacrificed in rivers of blood, with no mercy and for no reason", etc., etc.)
At the same time Thomas was made the official voice of Catholicism, in spite of his being just as rationalist as Leibniz, albeit in a different tone. Thomas has a theodicy, too, but he assures his readers that it's all just idle, pious speculation.
This is in about the situation that Jacques Maritain must navigate his way through.
cheers AN