The critique of Leo Strauss by traditionalist Catholic philosopher Frederick D. Wilhelmsen regarding religion—frequently contextualized around Strauss's instrumentalization of civil or "Vergilian" religion—centers on the fundamental tension between reason and revelation
The critique of Leo Strauss by traditionalist Catholic philosopher Frederick D. Wilhelmsen regarding religion—frequently contextualized around Strauss's instrumentalization of civil or "Vergilian" religion—centers on the fundamental tension between reason and revelation. Wilhelmsen’s arguments are primarily developed in his landmark work, Christianity and Political Philosophy (1978). [1, 2]
1. The Accusation of "Latin Averroism"
Wilhelmsen famously characterizes Strauss as a "Latin Averroist". In medieval philosophy, Latin Averroism was associated with the "double-truth" theory—the idea that something could be true in philosophy while its opposite could be true in theology. Wilhelmsen argues that Strauss views reason (philosophy) and revelation (religion) as absolutely irreconcilable and incapable of synthesis. Because Strauss believes a genuine philosopher can never truly submit to a revealed faith, he treats religion and philosophy as two distinct worlds perpetually at war. [1, 2, 3]
2. Religion as a Political Tool (Civil/Vergilian Religion)
Because Strauss denies that reason and revelation can be harmonized, Wilhelmsen argues that the Straussian framework reduces religion to a functional civic myth. In this view, religion is treated similarly to the ancient Roman or "Vergilian" model of piety: [1]
- The Noble Lie: Religion is not valued because it is ontologically or metaphysically true, but because it is politically necessary to ground law, establish public morality, and restrain the masses. [1]
- The Philosophic Elite vs. The Masses: Wilhelmsen critiques Strauss for creating a sharp dichotomy where an esoteric, skeptical elite recognizes religion as a useful political fiction, while the exoteric public is left to believe in it literally for the sake of social stability. [1]
3. The Suppression of Christian Metaphysics
As a devout Thomist, Wilhelmsen strongly objects to Strauss's tendency to bracket or dismiss the historical and intellectual reality of Christian revelation. [1]
- Wilhelmsen argues that Christianity did not merely offer "myths" to keep society orderly; rather, it radically expanded Western metaphysics by introducing entirely new philosophical concepts (such as the distinction between essence and existence, and a deeper understanding of human personhood). [1]
- By filtering religion strictly through a political lens, Strauss and his disciples (like Harry Jaffa) miss the transcendent truth of the incarnational and sacramental reality of faith, reducing a living relationship with God into an engine for political order. [1]
Comments